Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-07-23 City Commission Meeting Agenda & Packet MaterialsA.Call to Order - 6:00 PM - Commission Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse B.Pledge of Allegiance and a Moment of Silence C.Changes to the Agenda D.FYI E.Commission Disclosures F.Consent F.1 Accounts Payable Claims Review and Approval (Armstrong) F.2 Formal Cancellation of the March 14, 2023 Regular City Commission Meeting (Maas) F.3 Authorize the City Manager to Sign a Notice of Award to Allied Trenchless for construction of the 2023 CIPP Projects(Gamradt) THE CITY COMMISSION OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, March 7, 2023 This meeting will be held both in-person and also using Webex, an online videoconferencing system. You can join this meeting: Via Webex: 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, channel 190, or attend in-person United States Toll +1-650-479-3208 Access code: 2557 494 5003 If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda please send an email to agenda@bozeman.net prior to 12:00pm on the day of the meeting. Public comments will be accepted in-person during the appropriate agenda items. You may also comment by visiting the Commission's 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 hybrid meeting. As always, the meeting will be streamed through the Commission's video page and available in the City on cable channel 190. 1 F.4 Approve the Final Plat for the Blackwood Groves Phase 2 Major Subdivision and Authorize the Director of Transportation and Engineering to Execute the Same on Behalf of the City of Bozeman and Authorize the Director of Community Development to Execute the Improvements Agreements on Behalf of the City of Bozeman; Application No. 22242 (Quasi- Judicial)(montana) F.5 Authorize the Mayor to Sign the Northwest Crossing Phase 2 Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Findings of Fact and Order(Garber) F.6 Authorize City Manager to Terminate Interlocal Agreement with Gallatin County for the Provision of Victim Services(Sullivan) F.7 Authorize the City Manager to Sign a Professional Services Agreement with Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. for Federal Transportation Grant Writing Services(Ross) F.8 Authorize the City Manager to Sign an Amendment 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Sanderson Stewart to Provide Design Services for the Fowler Connection (Huffine to Oak) Project(Lonsdale) G.Public Comment This is the time to comment on any matter falling within the scope of the Bozeman City Commission. There will also be time in conjunction with each agenda item for public comment relating to that item but you may only speak once. Please note, the City Commission cannot take action on any item which does not appear on the agenda. All persons addressing the City Commission shall speak in a civil and courteous manner and members of the audience shall be respectful of others. Please state your name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record and limit your comments to three minutes. Written comments can be located in the Public Comment Repository. H.Action Items H.1 Public Hearing on Protests for Special Improvement District (SID) No. 778 and Adoption of Resolution 5465 - a Resolution of the Bozeman City Commission to create SID No. 778 for the purpose of undertaking certain local improvements to Bogert Place between South Church Avenue and East Story Street and financing the costs thereof(Gamradt) H.2 Consideration of Approval of the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary Planned Unit Development, Application 19028(Montana) H.3 Consideration of Approval of the Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat, Application 19027(Montana) H.4 Appeal of an Administrative Interpretation Regarding Compliance with Site Lighting Code Sections 38.570.040.G.1, 38.570.040.G.6, 38.570.060.A.3, and 38.570.100 of the Bozeman Municipal Code, Appeal Number 22382(Bentley) I.FYI / Discussion J.Adjournment 2 City Commission meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, Mike Gray, at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301). Commission meetings are televised live on cable channel 190 and streamed live at www.bozeman.net. In order for the City Commission to receive all relevant public comment in time for this City Commission meeting, please submit via www.bozeman.net or by emailing agenda@bozeman.net no later than 12:00 PM on the day of the meeting. Public comment may be made in person at the meeting as well. 3 Memorandum REPORT TO:City Commission FROM:Nadine Waters, Accounts Payable Clerk Nicole Armstrong, Accounts Payable Clerk Levi Stewart, Assistant City Controller Aaron Funk, City Controller Melissa Hodnett, Finance Director SUBJECT:Accounts Payable Claims Review and Approval MEETING DATE:March 7, 2023 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Finance RECOMMENDATION:The City Commission is recommended to make a motion and approve payment of claims as presented. STRATEGIC PLAN:7.5. Funding and Delivery of City Services: Use equitable and sustainable sources of funding for appropriate City services, and deliver them in a lean and efficient manner. BACKGROUND:Montana Code Annotated, Section 7-6-4301 requires the City Commission to review claims prior to payment. Claims presented to the City Commission under this item have been reviewed and validated by the Finance Department. The Department has ensured that all goods and services have been received along with necessary authorizations and supporting documentation. Additionally, the Department confirmed all expenditures were appropriately coded and within the current fiscal year allocated budget. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:The City Commission could decide not to approve these claims or a portion of the claims presented. This alternative is not recommended as it may result in unbudgeted late fees assessed against the City. FISCAL EFFECTS:The total amount of the claims to be paid is presented at the bottom of the Expenditure Approval List posted on the City’s website at https://www.bozeman.net/departments/finance/purchasing. Report compiled on: March 2, 2023 4 Memorandum REPORT TO:City Commission FROM:Mike Maas, City Clerk Jeff Mihelich, City Manager SUBJECT:Formal Cancellation of the March 14, 2023 Regular City Commission Meeting MEETING DATE:March 7, 2023 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Administration RECOMMENDATION:Approve cancelling the regular City Commission meeting on March 14, 2023. STRATEGIC PLAN:1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver information to the community and our partners. BACKGROUND:The Mayor has decided not to meet on March 14, 2023. Per Bozeman Municipal Code Sec. 2.02.070.A.4, the Mayor or majority of the Commission may cancel a regular meeting if not business is scheduled for that meeting. This item formalizes this decision to cancel the meeting. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:As determined by the City Commission. FISCAL EFFECTS:None. Report compiled on: February 28, 2023 5 Memorandum REPORT TO:City Commission FROM:Kellen Gamradt, Engineer Lance Lehigh, Interim City Engineer Nick Ross, Transportation & Engineering Director SUBJECT:Authorize the City Manager to Sign a Notice of Award to Allied Trenchless for construction of the 2023 CIPP Projects MEETING DATE:March 7, 2023 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Agreement - Vendor/Contract RECOMMENDATION:Authorize the City Manager to sign the Notice of Award to Allied Trenchless for construction of the 2023 CIPP Projects for the total schedule 1 base bid in the amount of $611,935.00 STRATEGIC PLAN:2.2 Infrastructure Investments: Strategically invest in infrastructure as a mechanism to encourage economic development. BACKGROUND: Attached is a copy of the bid results for the above mentioned project. The project generally includes: lining a section of 21-inch trunk sewer main beginning near the northeast corner of Walmart’s Property off of North 7th Avenue and ending at a 30-inch trunk sewer main connection in Rouse Avenue near the Lehrkind's Property. A second sewer main along North 19th Avenue between College Street and Lincoln Street will also be lined. The proposed work will improve failing wastewater collection infrastructure and decrease the maintenance demands on City Staff. Bids for the above-referenced project were opened on February 22 nd with 5 bids being submitted. The lowest bid was submitted by Allied Trenchless in the amount of $611,935 for the base bid. The bid tabulations, notice of award document and a recommendation of award to Allied Trenchless from the City's consultant engineer (DOWL) is attached for review. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:Non ALTERNATIVES:Disapprove FISCAL EFFECTS: 6 This project will be paid for with approved funding from the annual wastewater pipe replacement fund for fiscal year FY24 and a grant from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 Attachments: Bid Sheet - 2023 CIPP Projects.pdf DOWL_NOA_Rec_Allied_2023_CIPP.pdf Report compiled on: February 23, 2023 7 NAME & ADDRESS Contractor License # Bid Price National Power Rodding Corp 2500 W Arthington St Chicago, IL 60612 254911 Yes Yes $ 995,466.49 Insituform Technologies 580 Goddard Ave Chesterfield MO 63005 37898 Yes Yes 663,812.00$ Planned Engineered Construction Inc 3400 Centennial Dr Helena, MT 59601 8314 970,000.00$ Allied Trenchless 246 W Manson Hwy Suite 124 Chelan, WA 98816 236684 Yes 611,935.00$ Iron Horse LLC PO Box 1472 Fairview, OR 97024 237259 Yes Yes 917,384.00$ Mike Maas Kellen Gamradt City Clerk Engineer Bid Check:Delivered to Finance:Accepted By:Date: 1 2 3 4 City of Bozeman BID - 2023 CIPP Projects NON- DISCRIMINATION BID BOND Yes Yes Yes DocuSign Envelope ID: 27D5ECF0-01F1-475D-A196-D3ACDE39170B 8 406-586-8834 ■ 800-865-9847 (fax) ■ 2090 Stadium Drive ■ Bozeman, Montana 59715 ■ www.dowl.com February 24, 2023 Mr. Kellen Gamradt City of Bozeman P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771 Subject: 2023 CIPP Projects – Recommendation for Award of Construction Contract 4528.12477.01 Dear Mr. Gamradt: Pursuant to the bid opening for this project on February 22, 2023, we have completed a review of the low bidder to verify the bid is both responsive and responsible. The low bidder is Allied Trenchless from Chelan, Washington. Based on the required bid submittal requirements, Allied Trenchless has submitted the required information with their bid to meet the requirements of a responsive bid. The results of the five bids received are summarized in the following Table 1. Table 1: 2023 CIPP Bid Results Summary Bidder Bid Amount Engineer’s Estimate $689,868.00 Allied Trenchless $611,935.00 Insituform Technologies $663,812.00 Iron Horse LLC $917,384.00 PEC, Inc. $970,000.00 National Power Rodding Corp. $995,466.49 The spread of the bids appears driven by significantly different costs for the bypass pumping and a high mobilization cost for the highest bid. The bypass pumping costs for three of the bidders were similar to estimates completed during design. Thus, the low bidder does not appear to be an outlier in that regard, and the costs appear reasonable. Reference Project/Owner Checks: Upon request, Allied provided a list of reference projects. Summaries of selected projects are provided as follows: City of Bozeman, MT: Allied Trenchless completed the Downtown Stormwater Trunk Rehabilitation Project for the City of Bozeman for lining of 1,300 feet of 27 – 35” storm sewer mains between East Mendenhall and Main Street. Their performance on this project was overall satisfactory despite having problems with the manufacturer-provided pipe liner material in two separate instances, forcing replacement of the material and delays in completion. City of Bellingham, WA: We discussed another reference project from Allied for the community of Bellingham, WA where Allied completed a project with 4,300 feet of custom sized lining in large 30” x 60” conveyance structures. The City’s representative 9 indicated Allied performed well on the associated major cleaning of these conveyance pipes and then lining efforts on this unique project. City of La Grande, OR: We spoke with the City of La Grande, OR where Allied completed 1,500 lineal feet of 24” to 27” sewer and 2,800 lineal feet of 8” sewer lining. This project included complex bypass pumping of the main trunk sewer into the treatment facility. The City indicated the bypass pumping was successful with no major issues, noted the 8-inch was quickly completed, and the quality of all of the completed work was good. Lastly, we received a notice of good standing from the banking reference they provided. Based upon this review, Allied Trenchless meets the requirements as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. We recommend award of the City of Bozeman 2023 CIPP Projects to Allied Trenchless. Please find attached the Notice of Award for execution and let us know if you have any questions. Sincerely, DOWL Kevin R. Johnson, PE, BCEE Project Manager Encl: Notice of Award 10 NOTICE OF AWARD Sec 00440 - 1 DIVISION 1 – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS SECTION 00440 – NOTICE OF AWARD NOTICE OF AWARD Dated: __________________ TO: Allied Trenchless ADDRESS: 246 W Manson Hwy; Ste. 124 PROJECT: Chelan, WA 98816 CONTRACT FOR: City of Bozeman – 2023 CIPP Projects You are notified that your Bid opened on February 22, 2023, for the above Contract has been considered. You are the apparent Successful Bidder and have been awarded a Contract for the: City of Bozeman – 2023 CIPP Projects. The Contract Price of your Contract is: six-hundred eleven thousand, nine-hundred, thirty-five Dollars ($611,935). Four (4) copies of each of the proposed Contract Documents (except Drawings) accompany this Notice of Award. Two (2) sets of the Drawings will be delivered separately or otherwise made available to you immediately. You must comply with the following conditions precedent within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Notice of Award, that is, by _______________. 1. You must deliver to the OWNER Four (4) fully executed counterparts of the Agreement including all the Contract Documents and Drawings. 2. You must deliver with the executed Agreement the Contract Security (Bonds) as specified in the Instruction to Bidders (Article 20), and the General Conditions (paragraph 5.01). 3. List other conditions precedent: You must deliver with the executed Agreement the Certificates of Insurance as specified in the General Conditions (Article 5) and Supplementary Conditions (paragraphs SC-5.04 and SC-5.06). Failure to comply with these conditions within the time specified will entitle OWNER to consider your Bid abandoned, to annul this Notice of Award, and to declare your Bid Security forfeited. Within ten (10) days after you comply with these conditions, OWNER will return to you two fully signed counterpart of the Agreement with the Contract Documents attached. CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA ATTEST: BY: __________________________________ BY: ____________________________ (CITY MANAGER) (CITY CLERK) DATE: _______________________________ 11 Memorandum REPORT TO:City Commission FROM:Susana Montana, Senior Planner Brian Krueger, Development Review Manager Erin George, Deputy Director of Community Development Anna Bentley, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Approve the Final Plat for the Blackwood Groves Phase 2 Major Subdivision and Authorize the Director of Transportation and Engineering to Execute the Same on Behalf of the City of Bozeman and Authorize the Director of Community Development to Execute the Improvements Agreements on Behalf of the City of Bozeman; Application No. 22242 (Quasi-Judicial) MEETING DATE:March 7, 2023 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Community Development - Quasi-Judicial RECOMMENDATION:Having reviewed and considered the staff report, application materials, public comment, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 22242 and move to recommend approval of the Blackwood Groves Phase 2 Final Plat and authorize the Director of Transportation and Engineering to execute the same on behalf of the City of Bozeman and authorize the Director of Community Development to execute the Improvements Agreements on behalf of the City of Bozeman, with contingencies required to complete the application processing. 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 Blackwood Land Fund, LLC, (“Applicant”) submitted a Final Plat application for the 16.7 acre Blackwood Groves Phase 2 Major Subdivision on November 10, 2022 requesting to create 9 lots consisting of 3 multi- household residential lots, 3 park lots and 3 common open space lots within Block 14. This Phase 2 final plat is part of a larger 119.45 acre Blackwood 12 Groves Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat which was approved in May 2021 to create a mixed use neighborhood that includes 127 single-household lots, 14 multi-household lots, 22 townhouse/rowhouse lots, 3 commercial lots, 8 common open space lots, and 16 City Park lots. The Commission approved the Blackwood Groves Subdivision Preliminary Plat Findings of Fact (FOF), Project 20447, on May 25, 2021 and the FOF was signed on June 22, 2021. On February 6, 2023 the Development Review Committee (DRC) found that the Phase 2 Subdivision Final Plat application meets the conditions of approval of the Preliminary Plat and is sufficient for consideration for approval. The final decision for this final plat must be made by within 45 working days of the date the application was deemed adequate for consideration for approval. Therefore, it must be reviewed by the City Commission by April 4, 2023. This Phase 2 Final Plat requires an Improvements Agreement (IA) and Financial Surety to allow concurrent construction of Street Lighting, Park Improvements, Open Space Improvements and Sidewalks on private lots with the development of the subdivision. The IA and Financial Surety guarantees the installation of these improvements within one year of approval of the final plat, pursuant to the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) Sections 38.270.030.B and D. A financial surety in the amount of $1,917,036.32 was received from the Applicant in the form of a Letter of Credit from the Stockman Bank of Montana. Therefore, based on the summary review provided in the attached Commission Memo staff report, the City Transportation and Engineering Department and Department of Community Development have reviewed the application against the conditions of the preliminary plat approval and, as a result, find that the Blackwood Groves Phase 2 Major Subdivision Final Plat application may be approved by the City Commission. The full application can be found here: 22242 Blackwood Groves Phase 2 FP UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None. ALTERNATIVES:None proposed. FISCAL EFFECTS:Fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time but will include increased property tax revenues from new development, along with increased costs to deliver municipal services to the property. Attachments: 22242 staff report to CIty Atty.pdf 13 Report compiled on: February 24, 2023 14 MEMORANDUM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: TIM COOPER, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY MIKE MAAS, CITY CLERK FROM: SUSANA MONTANA, SENIOR PLANNER RE: FINAL PLAT REVIEW FOR THE BLACKWOOD GROVES, PHASE 2 MAJOR SUBDIVISION; PROJECT NO. 22242 DATE: February 7, 2023 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In November 2022, the Blackwood Land Fund, LLC, (“Applicant”) submitted an application for a Blackwood Groves Phase 2 Major Subdivision Final Plat consisting of Lot R1 of Block 14 of the 119.45 acre Blackwood Groves Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat. The Preliminary Plat was approved in May 2021 to create a mixed use neighborhood that includes 127 single-household lots, 14 multi-household lots, 22 townhouse/rowhouse lots, 3 commercial lots, 8 common open space lots, and 16 City Park lots. The Commission approved the Preliminary Plat Findings of Fact (FOF), Project 20447, on May 25, 2021 and the FOF was signed on June 22, 2021 and is attached to this Memo. The Blackwood Groves property is zoned REMU, Residential Emphasis Mixed Use. The Blackwood Groves subdivision property has an approved Master Site Plan for the entire development (Project 20292). The Preliminary Plat subdivision is proposed to be developed in 9 phases. Each phase will have its own final plat recorded and site plan approved prior to any building permit approvals. This Phase 2 final plat would provide single-household dwellings in the northern portion of the lot with its own site plan and would provide apartment-type multi-household dwellings on the southern portion of the lot with its own site plan. The subdivider is the developer of the homes and would complete the development within a one year period. On February 6, 2023 the Development Review Committee (DRC) found that the final plat application meets the conditions of approval of the Preliminary Plat and is sufficient for consideration for approval. The final decision for this final plat must be made by within 45 working days of the date the application was deemed adequate for consideration for approval. Therefore, it must be reviewed by the City Commission by April 4, 2023. The review period begins once the application is deemed complete and adequate for review which was February 6, 2023. This Phase 2 Final Plat requires an Improvements Agreement (IA) and Financial Surety to install public streets and street lighting for this subdivision. A financial surety in the amount of $ 1,917,036.32 was received in the form of a Letter of Credit No. 1690000554 from the Stockman Bank of Montana. Therefore, based on the summary review provided below, the City Transportation and Engineering Department and Department of Community Development have reviewed the application against the conditions of the preliminary plat approval and, as a result, find that the Blackwood Groves Phase 2 Major Subdivision Final Plat application may be approved by the City Commission. 15 Page 2 of 2 The Community Development staff respectfully requests that you prepare City Attorney's Certificates using the attached original Platting Certificates as updated; approve the Final Plat Certificates of Director of Transportation and Engineering and Certificate of Completion "as to form". The final City signatures will be obtained once the City Commission approves the final plats. Note: The Community Development Department and Transportation and Engineering Department have also reviewed the final plat application against the preliminary plat cited code provisions and found compliance with these code requirements. The Transportation and Engineering Department has also reviewed and approved the “closure” of the final plat. Staff has determined that the conditions of approval of the Preliminary Plat have been met for this Phase 2 Final Plat application. Attachment: The full application can be found here: 22242 Blackwood Groves Phase 2 FP C: P-Dox File 16 Memorandum REPORT TO:City Commission FROM:Danielle Garber, Associate Planner Brian Krueger, Development Review Manager Erin George, Deputy Director of Community Development Anna Bentley, Director of Community Development SUBJECT:Authorize the Mayor to Sign the Northwest Crossing Phase 2 Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Findings of Fact and Order MEETING DATE:March 7, 2023 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Community Development - Quasi-Judicial RECOMMENDATION:Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the Northwest Crossing Phase 2 Subdivision Preliminary Plat Findings of Fact and Order. 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 City Commission passed a motion to recommend approval of this major subdivision preliminary plat application subject to conditions of approval and code provisions unanimously (4-0) on February 7, 2023. Based on this decision, staff has attached the Findings of Fact and Order for the Mayor's signature. The Northwest Crossing Subdivision is a major subdivision to subdivide 43.98 acres, currently platted as 5 restricted development lots into 264 developable lots zoned REMU with associated stormwater, open space, and city park lots, with associated easements and right-of-way. Pursuant to Sec. 38.240.150.D of the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC), within 30 working days of the final action to approve, deny, or approve with conditions a subdivision, the city commission must issue written findings of fact as required in MCA 76-3-620 that discuss and weigh the applicable criteria pursuant to 76-3-623 as well as compliance with other laws and regulations applicable to the subdivision. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None ALTERNATIVES:None Suggested FISCAL EFFECTS:Fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time, but will include increased property tax revenue from new development, along with increased costs to deliver municipal services to the property. 17 Attachments: 22129 CC FOF.pdf Report compiled on: February 23, 2023 18 Page 1 of 35 22129 City Commission Findings of Fact and Order for the Northwest Crossing Phase 2 Subdivision Public Meeting/Hearing Dates: Planning Board meeting - Monday, January 23, 2023 at 6:00 pm. City Commission hearing – Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 6:00 pm Project Description: A major preliminary plat subdivision application of 43.98 acres to subdivide five (5) restricted development lots from Phase 1 of Northwest Crossing Subdivision into two hundred and sixty-four (264) developable lots zoned REMU, thirteen (13) stormwater lots, eighteen (18) open space lots, three (3) city park lots, easements, and associated right of way. Project Location: The property is legally described as Restricted Lots 1-5 of Phase 1 of Northwest Crossing Subdivision, Situated in the NE ¼ of Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, Principal Meridian, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. Staff Finding: The application conforms to standards and is sufficient for approval with conditions and code provisions. Recommended Planning Board 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 22129 and move for the Community Development Board in its capacity as the Planning Board to recommend approval of the subdivision with conditions and subject to all applicable code provisions. Recommended City Commission 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 22129 and move to approve the subdivision with conditions and subject to all applicable code provisions. Report Date: February 23, 2023 Staff Contact: Danielle Garber, Associate Planner Griffin Nielsen, Project Engineer Agenda Item Type: Action (Quasi-judicial) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is based on the application materials submitted and public comment received to date. The application materials are available in the City’s Laserfiche archive and may be accessed through the Community Development viewer as well. No public comments have been received as of the writing of this report. Should written public comments be received they will be included in the City’s Laserfiche archive and available to the public. 19 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 2 of 35 Unresolved Issues. There are no unresolved issues with this application. Project Summary The Department of Community Development received a Preliminary Plat Application on April 18, 2022 requesting to subdivide 43.98 acres to create two hundred and sixty four (264) developable lots zoned REMU (Residential Emphasis Mixed Use), thirteen (13) stormwater lots, eighteen (18) open space lots, three (3) city park lots with easements and associated right of way. The subdivision is proposed to be completed in four phases. The first phase at the southeast corner of the site, following by the second to the north and then moving east to west and north to south for phases three and four. A 1.15 acre linear park and playground along Harvest Parkway is proposed with Phase 1, with a 0.06 acre open space connecting the park to Cottonwood Road. This east-west park connector will connect the park following Baxter Ditch on the west side of the proposed development east and west to the Sports Park, and is consistent with the master park plan approved with the master site plan, application no. 19440, and the approved master site plan modification, application no. 22200. A 0.83 acre park central to the development is proposed with phase 2. The platted park from Phase 1 on the east side of Baxter Ditch and on the west side of the proposed subdivision will also be developed with this application in accordance with the master park plan. Phase 1 contains Blocks 9 and a portion of blocks 11 and 8. Land uses for phase 1 are to be small lot single household and townhomes in two attached configurations. Phase 2 is proposed to continue those uses with the addition of courtyard access lots consistent with BMC 38.410.030, and will consist of Block 6, Block 5, and the remainder of blocks 11 and 8. Phase 3 proposes to also continue the small lot single household, courtyard access lots, and two-attached townhomes, with the addition of some larger single household lots, and two large 1-3.5 acre lots in block 2 near the corner of Baxter Lane and the future Cottonwood Road intersection that are currently proposed as townhomes and will be subject to subsequent site plan review. Phase 3 will also contains blocks 1, 3, and 4. Phase 4 is proposed as blocks 7 and 10, and will consist of small lot single household uses. REMU zoning allows for small lot single household and single household lots to range from 2,500 square feet to 4,000 square feet in minimum size, as well as townhouse/rowhouse and two- four household dwellings to be developed with no lot size minimums. Phases 1-4 will extend Rosa Way, Twin Lakes Avenue, and Dayspring Avenue that were platted with phase 1 to the north into phase 2. New east-west roads are currently proposed to be named Dayspring Avenue, Touchstone Lane, and Briarwood Lane. Development of this subdivision is dependent on transportation and infrastructure construction of Cottonwood Rd. north to its intersection with Baxter Lane, as well as improvements to Baxter Lane. 20 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 3 of 35 On January 3, 2023 the Development Review Committee (DRC) found the application sufficient 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 this preliminary plat must be made by February 7, 2023. The Community Development Board acting in their capacity as the Planning Board considered compliance of the application with the growth policy on January 23, 2023 and recommended approval unanimously 6-0. The Board’s discussion focused on the proposed range of proposed lot types and uses and the potential to add density at a smaller scale in proximity to a proposed commercial node. The public hearing date for the City Commission was February 7, 2023. The hearing was held in the City Commission Meeting Room at 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, MT. The City Commission met to consider the application for a preliminary plat subdivision of 43.98 acres to subdivide five (5) restricted development lots from Phase 1 of Northwest Crossing Subdivision into 264 developable lots zoned REMU, thirteen (13) stormwater lots, eighteen (18) open space lots, three (3) city park lots, easements, and associated right of way. Danielle Garber, Associate Planner presented the preliminary plat staff report and application. Following the presentation, questions to staff from the Commissioners were related to whether or not the applicant was proposing commercial and their reasons for not proposing commercial, details on the park design and options for different amenities in linear parks and the options for dog parks, the timing and design of the Cottonwood to Baxter road and intersection, and local streets within the proposed subdivision The Applicant had several representatives at the meeting including, Jason Leep from Williams Homes and Scott Naples, the Land Planner with WHA, as well as Matt Ekstrom the Engineer with Morrison-Maierle. The applicant stated the land planner and the architect are the same firm, and that every home has been planned for the development with 13 different residential products. The representative, Jason Leep, thanked staff for the work on the subdivision and the staff report, and stated that the applicant is in agreement with the staff report. The applicant stated their goal was to provide the most attainable single family housing in Bozeman. The applicant clarified Commissioner questions related to the choice not to include commercial uses, and clarified design intent with parks, back yards, size of homes, and nearby amenities. One instance of public comment was provided at the meeting with comments that support the subdivision, stating the type of smaller homes being created will allow Bozeman’s workforce to attain home ownership and stay in the community. The Commission moved to approve the subdivision with conditions and subject to all applicable code provisions. The motion is located on page 1 of this report. Commissioners voted 21 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 4 of 35 unanimously 4-0 to approve the preliminary plat application. Discussion included support for the proposed subdivision design and smaller lot sizes, courtyard lot design, suggestions for park design including shared vegetable gardens and spaces for dogs, and the inclusion of missing middle housing. Commissioners emphasized the inclusion of commercial spaces within the development and directly to the south, echoing comments provided by the Community Development Board. Links to video of the Planning Board meeting and City Commission hearing are provided below in Section 5. 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. 22 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 5 of 35 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 Unresolved Issues. .............................................................................................................. 2 Project Summary ................................................................................................................. 2 Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 1 – MAP SERIES .......................................................................................................... 6 SECTION 2 – REQUESTED VARIANCES ............................................................................... 11 SECTION 3 – RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL .......................................... 11 SECTION 4 – CODE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................... 12 SECTION 5 – RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS ............................................ 18 SECTION 6 – STAFF ANALYSIS and findings ......................................................................... 19 Applicable Subdivision Review Criteria, Section 38.240.150.B, BMC. .......................... 19 38.220.060 Documentation of compliance with adopted standards ................................. 24 SECTION 7 - FINDINGS OF FACT, ORDER AND APPEAL PROVISIONS ......................... 28 APPENDIX A – PROJECT SITE ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY..................................... 30 APPENDIX B – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................... 34 APPENDIX C – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT ......................................................... 34 APPENDIX D – OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF ................................. 34 FISCAL EFFECTS ....................................................................................................................... 34 ATTACHMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 34 23 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 6 of 35 SECTION 1 – MAP SERIES Exhibit 1 – Zoning 24 Page 7 of 35 Exhibit 2 – Community Plan 2020 Future Land Use 25 Page 8 of 35 Exhibit 3 – Vehicular Circulation Exhibit 4 – Pedestrian Circulation 26 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 9 of 35 Exhibit 5 – Preliminary Plat (see full series in file) Exhibit 6 – Phasing Plan 27 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 10 of 35 Exhibit 7 – Landscaping Plan (see full series in file) 28 Page 11 of 35 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 plat shall 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 & Recorders office has elected to continue the existing medium requirements of 2 mylars with a 1 binding margin on one side for both plats and COSs. The Clerk and Recorder will file the new Conditions of Approval sheet as the last same sized mylar sheet in the plat set 2. The applicant shall submit with the application for Final Plat review and approval, a written narrative stating how each of the conditions of preliminary plat approval and noted code provisions have been satisfactorily addressed. This narrative shall be in sufficient detail to direct the reviewer to the appropriate plat, plan, sheet, note, covenant, etc. in the submittal. 3. Simultaneously with filing of the final plat, in conjunction with required or offered dedications, the subdivider (or owner of the property being subdivided if the owner is not the subdivider) shall transfer ownership to the property owners’ association of any open space proposed to be conveyed to the property owners’ association and all its right, title, and interest in any improvements made to such parkland or open space. For the transfer of real property, the subdivider or owner of the property shall submit with the application for final plat a warranty deed or other instrument acceptable to the City Attorney transferring fee simple ownership to the property owners’ association and associated realty transfer certificate. The subdivider or owner of the property must record the deed or instrument at the time of recording of the final plat. For personal property installed upon open space owned by the property owners’ association, the subdivider shall provide an instrument acceptable to the City Attorney transferring all its rights, title and interest in such improvements including all applicable warranties to such improvements. 29 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 12 of 35 4. The applicant is responsible for updating required documents within the Northwest Crossing Phase 1 design guidelines including parkland and non-residential uses with the phase 2 final plat. These design guidelines are associated with the approved master site plan, application no. 19440, and the approved master site plan modification, application no. 22200. 5. Right-of-way must be dedicated for the portion of the Baxter Lane Public Street and Utility Easement directly adjacent to the subdivision with the final plat. SECTION 4 – CODE REQUIREMENTS 1. Sec. 38.100.080 – Compliance with regulations required. 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. 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. 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. e. Easements must be provided using the City’s standard language for all temporary turnaround used between phases. f. Easements must be provided using the City’s standard language for any temporary stormwater facilities used between phases. g. The required easements for the dewatering system must meet the criteria: i. Be sufficiently sized to allow for the long-term maintenance and operation of the system. A width of 10 feet is required at all locations with additional width dedicated as required. ii. Include language restricting the construction of structures within the easement. iii. Be shown on the final plat. iv. Allow for access from the property owners of the northwest crossing phase 1 subdivision. 3. 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. 30 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 13 of 35 i. The cash-in-lieu of water rights fee for the Block 2 multifamily lots should be deferred to future development. To allow this a note reviewed and approved by City staff must be included in the conditions of approval sheet providing notice to future owner that a future payment of cash-in- lieu of water rights is required upon future development for the specifically lots. 4. Sec. 38.220.060.A.13 – Documentation of compliance with adopted standards. For final plat, the applicant must update the purpose and area summary on the plat for the number of lots by type, and acres by use, to reflect the change to open space of tract 17 along Harvest Parkway from a park parcel to an open space parcel. 5. Sec. 38.220.020.A – Streambed, Streambank, and/or Wetlands Permits. The applicant must contact the Gallatin County Conservation District, Montana Department of Environmental Quality, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the proposed project and any required permits (i.e., 310, 404, Turbidity exemption, etc.). Any required permits must be obtained by the applicant and provided to the Community Development Department prior to construction and final plat approval. 6. Sec. 38.400.010.A.2 – Street, General. a. Baxter Lane is a minor arterial street as identified in the City’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) as such must be fully completed to ensure the convenient and reliable movement of City wide traffic and effective access for emergency services for both the proposed development and the community as a whole. Baxter Lane must be constructed from Cottonwood Road to the western boundary of the subdivision prior to final plat approval for the subdivision. Right-of-way must be dedicated for the portion of the Baxter Lane Public Street and Utility Easement directly adjacent to the subdivision with the final plat. b. Cottonwood Road is a principal arterial street as identified in the City’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) as such must be fully completed to ensure the convenient and reliable movement of City wide traffic and effective access for emergency services for both the proposed development and the community ty as a whole. Cottonwood Road must be constructed from Oak Street to Baxter Lane prior to final plat approval for the subdivision. Right-of-way must be dedicated for the portion of the Cottonwood Road Public Street and Utility Easement directly adjacent to the subdivision with the final plat. 7. Sec. 38.400.070. and BMC 38.270.030.B.3 – Street Lighting. Subdivision lighting SILD information shall be submitted to the Clerk of Commission after Preliminary Plat approval in hard copy and digital form. The final plat application will not be deemed complete until the resolution to create the SILD has been approved by the City Commission. The initial adoption of the special improvement lighting district shall include the entire area of the preliminary plat and including lighting along Baxter Lane and Cottonwood Road. 8. Sec. 38.400.040.A.2 – Street Names. Street names must be reviewed and approved by the County’s geographic information systems and City Engineering Department prior to 31 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 14 of 35 final plat approval. The applicant must submit written approval from both entities with the final plat application. 9. Sec. 38.410.070.A. – Municipal Water, Sanitary Sewer, and Storm Sewer System. a. The City’s Water Facility Plan calls for a 36 main (identified as the West Transmission Main) down Baxter Lane to support growth along City’s western flank and reduce head loss across the City’s existing system. The main must be installed prior to the construction of Baxter Lane and final plat approval for the subdivision. b. The subdivision is reliant upon the extension of the 21 wastewater main along Baxter Lane which will serve in place of the 15 main currently identified in the City’s Wastewater Facility Plan (WWFP). The main must be installed prior to final plat approval for the subdivision and subsequent construction of Baxter Lane and the intersection of Cottonwood Road and Baxter Lane. c. The City’s Wastewater Facility Plan (WWFP) calls for a 15 main (identified as the Aajker Creek Diversion) to service both the subject property as well as future growth to the southwest. The main must be installed to the edge of the development land prior to the final plat approval of the subdivision and a City standard public easement granted for any remaining section of main falling within the future phase of the northwest crossing development including remaining lots. d. All fire hydrants must be located within public ROW or a City water main easement. The hydrant must be a minimum of 9 feet from the edge of the ROW or easement, per DSSP SectionV.D.5 10. Sec. 38.410.070 – Municipal Water, Sanitary Sewer, and Storm Sewer System. a. With the infrastructure submittal, the water report must model the phase development of the subdivision. Additionally, the design engineering must evaluate based on the City’s per capita demand of 170gallons per day per person. b. With the infrastructure submittal, the sewer report must model the phase development of the subdivision and include flows from the areas outside the study area which will naturally be served by the gravity main. The 21 Main must be designed to accept flow from the Laurel Glen lift station per Condition of Approval no. 28 of the Northwest Crossing Master Site Plan, Application No. 19440. c. Due to the high groundwater and increased rate of corrosion within the clay soils all water mains must have additional cathodic protection. A minimum of V-bio polywrap or approved equal is required by the City. 11. Sec. 38.410.120 – Mail Delivery. Mailbox unit locations must be approved by the USPS prior to final plat approval. 12. Sec. 38.240.530 – Certificate of Water Related Improvements. A well, including equipment and associated permitting, used for public irrigation must be transferred to the City or POA as applicable. A certificate of water related improvements is required per Section 38.240.530. Any financially guaranteed water related improvements agreements must include a warranty of workmanship. 32 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 15 of 35 13. Sec. 38.410.060 – Agricultural Water User Easements. a. BMC 38.410.060.D.4 - Stormwater from the development may not be discharged to an agricultural water user facility without written approval from the owner of the facility and corresponding stormwater conveyance easement(s). Any required stormwater conveyance easements shall be provided prior to final plan approval. b. BMC.38.410.060.D.6. - A notice must be recorded with the final plat stating that the agricultural water user facility easement are subject to the requirements of Section 70-17-112, MCA restricting interference with canal or ditch easements and that irrigation works are subject to Section 85-7-2211 and 85-7-2212, MCA regarding duties and liability. The notice must include language to assure the duties are binding upon all successors in interest and remain in effect until such time that the agricultural water user facility is abandoned in accordance with the requirements of Montana Law or alternative requirements are agreed to in writing by all applicable parties. The easements must be prepared as documents separate from a final plat but may be referenced on a final plat. 14. Sec. 38.270.070. and Sec. 38.400.010.A.2 – Payment for Extension of Capital Facilities. a. Cottonwood Road, from Oak Street to Baxter Lane, and the intersection of Cottonwood and Baxter are currently identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP No. SIF138) and scheduled for construction in FY2023. The developments full local share must be provided in the form of a cash-in-lieu of infrastructure payment made to the City prior to final plat approval. The developments local share amount must be confirmed at the time of final plat using the most current costs for the project. 15. Sec. 38.420.020 – Park area requirements, Sec. 38.420.030 – Cash donation in-lieu of land dedication, and Sec. 38.420.080 – Park Development. a. Include parkland phasing on the F - Phasing Plan that matches the parkland phasing shown on PK100. Parkland included in each phase is required to be installed prior to final plat approval. b. Include cut sheets of all proposed amenities such as playgrounds, benches, trash receptacles, and etc. to be reviewed and approved by Parks. c. Resolution 4784 - CILP has not been approved to meet parkland requirements as outlined in the Park Master Plan. Since there is a deficit in IILP proposed, parkland amenities should be adjusted to meet the required IILP amount. PROST recommends a variety of recreation opportunities within parklands. Since this subdivision already contains several playgrounds, parks recommends replacing a playground with a pickle ball facility to meet the remaining IILP while following PROST guidelines. d. The applicant must update the parkland tracking table to reflect the appraisal value in effect at the time of final plat application. e. The following notes must be added final plat: Snow removal from sidewalks within parks that serve as primary egress from private lots is the responsibility of the property owners’ association 33 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 16 of 35 f. A preconstruction meeting with the Park Division is required prior to any site work. Applicants must provide the most recent park plans with revisions red-lined and request meeting at least 30 days prior to commencement of parkland construction. g. Easements for trails within open space parcels must include agreement to utilize city-wide wayfinding and allow parks staff to install and/or repair wayfinding. 16. Sec. 38.410.100.A.2.f – Watercourse Setback. The boundaries of park development should include the east half of Baxter ditch to consolidate construction of improvements. The applicant must include plans of watercourse plantings to be installed east of Baxter ditch for staff review with final plat. 17. Sec. 38.410.080. - Stormwater Management. Per the approved Master Site Plan (Application No. 19440) condition of approval no. 24. Low Impact Design (LID to mitigate stormwater must be issued within the REMU zoning district. The design engineer must certify that LID infrastructure is being implemented through the development and explain how with the stormwater infrastructure review. The City encourages the design team to consider the Montana Post-Construction Stormwater BMP Design Guidance Manual when designing the stormwater and drainage system. 18. Sec. 38.270.050.A.2 – Acceptance of improvements. During construction, if groundwater is found to be at levels exceeding what is described in the drainage report and limits the functionality of the stormwater infrastructure the City will not accept the stormwater infrastructure. If the stormwater infrastructure requires significant redesign it may be considered a material modification from the preliminary plat and require re- review and approval of the preliminary plat. 19. Sec. 38.410.080. - Grading and Drainage. a. The stormwater system must be designed and situated to allow for reasonable operation and maintenance including the replacement of the system. Placement of the sub-surface storage systems directly abutting the fee simple lots does not allow for the operation and maintenance of the system without impacting the adjacent lots. The applicant must work with the engineering department to ensure adequate measures have been taken prior to final approval to allow for reasonable operation and maintenance. b. The stormwater report and plat indicates certain open space parcels will contain a surface retention pond for stormwater. The landscaping plan must include landscaping compliant with BMC 38.410.080 including a cross section of each facility on each open space lot designated for stormwater retention. c. The applicant must provide a maintenance plan for the dewatering system include the maintenance plan in the property owners’ association documents prior to final plat approval. The plan must include the long term maintenance instructions for the property owners’ association. 20. Sec. 38.600.040 Floodplain Regulations. Abandonment of the eastern lateral of Baxter Ditch increases flow to the western leg of Baxter Ditch. The proposed alterations, as described with the flood hazard analysis, to accommodate the 100-year event on Baxter 34 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 17 of 35 Ditch must be completed prior to the abandonment of the eastern ditch lateral as well as any required mitigation downstream along Baxter Creek and ensure no adverse impact to downstream property owners. The alteration to Baxter Ditch must be reviewed through the City’s infrastructure review process in addition to obtaining all other permits required from outside agencies and the adjacent property owner. Any alterations proposed within the public right-of-way required the approval of the City Engineer. 21. Sec. 38.600.050. - Floodplain Regulations. The flood hazard report finds that floodwater could reach elevations of proposed lots based on existing topography. To mitigate the flood hazard due to existing topography, the report recommends fill be placed to keep the floodwater contained within the confines of the 20 feet of the wetland setback, the elevation of the structure to a minimum of two feet and sidewalk one foot above the identified floodwater surface elevation. The fee simple lots may not be final platted without completion of the mitigation. Sidewalks must be constructed per the recommendation. Finally, the plat must contain a note that the structure should be elevated two feet above identified floodwater surface elevation and provided recommended finished floor elevations for lots adjacent to Baxter Ditch. 22. Sec. 38.410.030.E.1 – Corner Lots and Building Orientation. This conceptual layouts provided in the property owners’ association documents will need to show an example of lots fronting off a greenway open space corridor like the interior of the two-household townhome lots in Block 1. The conceptual layout should show an example of the front door connecting to the greenway sidewalk and a fencing example indicating a front yard fence of 4-feet on all sides. Homes on corner lots must have the same orientation as homes on lots on the interior of the block. 23. Sec. 38.410.030.D – Courtyard Access Lots. Respond to the criteria in this section with final plat, and demonstrate that the required maintenance agreement for all the courtyard accesses in blocks 4 and 5 is satisfied. 24. Sec. 38.270.030.D – Exception for concurrent construction. In certain circumstances, the issuance of a building permit may be allowed prior to completion of the public infrastructure, provided that the criteria listed in this section are met. Provide concurrent construction approval prior to final plat approval as well as appropriate improvements agreement applications for required infrastructure and landscaping. 25. Sec. 38.400.090 – Access. a. A 1 foot No Access strip shall be placed along Baxter Lane frontage of Blocks 1 and 2 of the development. b. A 1 foot No Access strip shall be placed along the Cottonwood Road frontage of Blocks 6, 9, and 13 of the development. c. A 1 foot No Access strip shall be placed along the Touchstone Lane frontage of Blocks 6 and 9 of the development. d. A 1 foot No Access strip shall be placed along the Harvest Parkway frontage of Block 9 of the development. e. A 1 foot No Access strip shall be placed along the frontages of Rosa Way and Twin Lakes Avenue for 150 ft. starting from their intersections from Baxter Lane. 35 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 18 of 35 26. Sec. 38.410.130 and Sec. 38.420.080.A.2 – Water Adequacy and Park Development. All irrigation wells located within the boundaries of the development shall include Montana DNRC certificates which shall be provided to the City with the final plat submittal. Ownership of any well and associated water right within common open space owned by the property owners’ association shall be transferred to the property owners’ association in conjunction with the final plat. Ownership of any well, irrigation infrastructure and associated water right providing irrigation to public lands shall be transferred to the City in conjunction with the final plat. The developer must provide easements necessary to allow for the reasonable operation and maintenance of this infrastructure. All wells shall include a meter or other device to determine consumption. 27. Sec. 38.270.090 – Development or Maintenance of Common Areas and Facilities by Developer or Property Owners’ Association. a. The applicant must provide a maintenance plan for the dewatering system including the maintenance plan in the property owners’ association documents prior to final plat approval. The plan must include the long-term maintenance instructions for the Properties Owners’ Association. b. The applicant must note on the plat that maintenance of the common parking areas within open space tracts are the responsibility of the Property Owners’ Association and provide a maintenance plan with final plat. 28. Sec. 34.02.030 – Work in Streets. The City is proceeding with the construction of Cottonwood Road between Oak St and Baxter Lane and the roundabout at the intersection of Cottonwood and Baxter Lane. The City will not permit cuts or disturbance of the Cottonwood Road and the roundabout once complete. If the gravity sewer is not installed prior to or with the project wastewater service may not be available from the west resulting in the development becoming reliant on downstream service from truck mains within the Aajker creek basin. Private lift stations will not be permitted. 29. Sec. 38.350.060 – Fences. Fences located in the rear or side setback of properties adjoining any city linear park must have a maximum height of four feet on all sides. The applicant must add a note to the plate or state this in the covenants with final plat submittal. SECTION 5 – RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS The Development Review Committee (DRC) determined the application was sufficient for continued review and recommended approval with conditions on January 3, 2023. The Planning Board meeting was held Monday, January 23, 2023 at 6:00 pm. The Community Development Board acting in their capacity as the Planning Board considered compliance of the application with the growth policy on January 23, 2023 and recommended approval unanimously 6-0. The Board’s discussion focused on the proposed range of proposed lot types and uses and the potential to add density at a smaller scale in proximity to a proposed commercial node. No public comment was received at the meeting regarding the proposed subdivision. 36 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 19 of 35 Link to a video of the Community Development Board meeting can be found here: https://bozeman.granicus.com/player/clip/1945?meta_id=45721 The City Commission meeting was held Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 6:00 pm. Commissioners voted unanimously 4-0 to approve the preliminary plat application. Discussion included support for the proposed subdivision design and smaller lot sizes, courtyard lot design, suggestions for park design including shared vegetable gardens and spaces for dogs, and the inclusion of missing middle housing. Commissioners emphasized the inclusion of commercial spaces within the development and directly to the south, echoing comments provided by the Community Development Board. One instance of public comment was provided at the meeting with comments that support the subdivision, stating the type of smaller homes being created will allow Bozeman’s workforce to attain home ownership and stay in the community. Link to a video of the City Commission meeting can be found here: https://bozeman.granicus.com/player/clip/1956?meta_id=46808 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 38.240.150.B, BMC. In considering applications for subdivision approval under this title, the advisory boards and City Commission shall consider the following: 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 37 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 20 of 35 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 public meeting 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 subdivider requested review of this subdivision under the terms of 76-3-623 MCA as authorized in 38.240.100. Subdivisions reviewed under the terms of 76-3-623 may not include variances or other instances of lack of compliance to standards and procedures. The Department of Community Development received a preliminary plat application on April 18, 2022. 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 June 22, 2022. A revised application was received on August 30, 2022. The DRC determined the application was still not adequate for continued review on October 4, 2022. A revised application was received on October 26, 2022. The DRC determined the application was adequate for continued review January 3, 2023 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 Thursday, January 5, 2023 for postings on Sundays, January 8, 2023 and January 15, 2023. The applicant posted public notice on the subject property on January 6, 2023. 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 January 6, 2023. No public comment had been received on this application as of the writing of this report. On January 18, 2023 this major subdivision staff report was completed and forwarded with a recommendation of conditional approval for consideration to the Planning Board. The Planning Board considered the application on January 23, 2023 and recommended approval with a 6-0 vote. On January 26, this staff report was updated and forwarded for review by the City Commission. 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 38 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 21 of 35 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. Water/sewer – The subdivision will not significantly burden city water and sewer infrastructure with the recommended conditions of approval and code provisions. The required design report has been provided. Formal plans and specifications will be prepared and reviewed after action on the preliminary plat. Code provision 10.a and 10.b directs the applicant to appropriate municipal water and sewer modeling requirements to ensure capacity is provided with the development. Easements - The final plat must provide and depict all necessary utilities and required utility easements. Code provision 2 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 will be located within dedicated street right of ways. Additional required easements include temporary road turnarounds between each phases’ road development, this will ensure public safety over the course of the full build out. Easements must also be provided for any temporary stormwater facilities used between phases. All easements must be provided using the City’s standard language. Ten foot front yard utility easements are depicted on the preliminary plat and are proposed to be granted with the final plat in accordance with standards. Parks – The applicant is proposing to develop four different park areas. Two parks are located along the north side of Harvest Parkway, Labeled Park B and Park C on sheet PK100. Park B is proposed to be developed with a small playground, landscaping, and recreation pathways. Park C is designed to connect recreation pathways and usable space to the park along Baxter Ditch, platted with Phase 1, and the Bozeman Sports Park located east of Cottonwood Rd. with enhanced road crossings. Park A also is proposed to be designed with a playground, a picnic structure, a multi-purpose lawn, and assorted sitting areas. This park is to be located central to the development northeast of the corner of Twin Lakes Ave. and Touchstone Dr. Touchstone will also connect Cottonwood Rd. to the interior of the entire Northwest Crossing development and will eventually cross Baxter Ditch to future phases. The other park areas to be developed are located in the previously platted park areas to the east of the Baxter Ditch watercourse. Park P2 East is proposed to be developed with Phase 2, and Park P1 East is proposed to be developed with Phase 4. P2 east is currently proposed to contain playground equipment, landscaping, and recreation pathways to the east and north. P2 East will connect with P1 east which is to be developed as a linear park that follows the watercourse setback allowing bike and pedestrian movements north and south. The applicant is required to enhance the Baxter Ditch watercourse with required watercourse setback plantings as specified in the code provisions above. There are code provisions related to park area requirements, cash donation and infrastructure donation in lieu of land dedication, and park development. These are listed in code provision 15. Within this provision three are related to park design requiring a corrected phasing plan to be 39 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 22 of 35 included within supplemental document F, and requirements for details related to specific park amenities such as playgrounds, benches, and trash receptacles. The applicant is also required to replace one of the several playgrounds proposed with the subdivision to a pickle ball facility to meet PROST (Park, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan) guidelines. These corrections will ensure that the park is developed according to adopted park standards and needed amenities are provided to the public. There is one code provision related to the parkland tracking table to ensure that the correct appraisal value is reflected at the time of final plat application. 15.e requires a note on the plat that the property owners’ association is responsible for snow removal where lots will front on the park in blocks 10 and 11 and primary egress from private lots will be within the park. This provision ensures maintenance of lot frontage sidewalks does not become a burden to the Parks Department. 15.f requires a preconstruction meeting with the Parks Division prior to commencement of parkland construction. This provision will help the applicant to follow the correct construction process with the City. Lastly, 15.g requires that easements for trails located within open space parcels must include the city-wide wayfinding signage and allow Parks staff to install and/or repair wayfinding signs. This provision will help connect the proposed trails to city wide park infrastructure with consistent signage and directions for users. The proposal meets the required park dedication and improvement standards with conditions and code provisions. The Parks Department reviewed the parkland proposal for consistency with the master park plan for Northwest Crossing Subdivision within the approved master site plan, application no. 19440, and the approved master site plan modification, application no. 22200. Stormwater - The subdivision will construct storm water control facilities to conform to municipal code, REMU zoning, and design standards. Per the approved master site plan, application no. 19440, and REMU zoning, Low Impact Design (LID) is required within the development. Code provision 17 requires the design engineer to certify that LID infrastructure is being implemented through the development and explain how in the stormwater infrastructure review packet. The City encourages the design team to consider the Montana Post-Construction Stormwater BMP Design Guidance Manual when designing the stormwater and drainage system. Code provision 19.a requires the placement of sub-surface storage systems to allow for reasonable operation and maintenance of the system without impacting the adjacent privately owned lots. A maintenance plan must be provided per 19.c to facilitate long term maintenance of stormwater systems. 19.b requires appropriate landscaping be provided where surface stormwater retention ponds are proposed to ensure compliance with Sec. 38.410.080. Agricultural water user facility – The portion of Baxter Ditch that flows intermittently along the north end of this proposed subdivision east of Baxter Ditch, underneath Baxter Lane and North to adjacent parcels is to be removed and filled with this subdivision. No Farmers Canal shares are conveyed via the open ditch, and no known private water rights are conveyed. This was confirmed by the Farmers Canal Company. As a part of the Baxter Lane widening the existing portion of Baxter ditch that flows west to Baxter Creek along Baxter Lane will be altered to ensure that the channel can convey the additional flow and mitigate any additional flood hazard. 40 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 23 of 35 BMC 38.360.280 requires written notice to the applicable water users or agricultural water users authorized representatives of the proposed development. Outside counsel was hired by the applicant to identify and notify downstream users of the proposed changes to Baxter Ditch with the required Baxter Lane road expansion. Letters or emails were sent to downstream users as required by code. This is confirmed with the attached correspondence within the application (documents and drawings labeled 8 in the application materials) and via a letter provided to the applicant from Abigail R. Brown Attorney at Law dated October 20, 2022. Code provision 13 states stormwater from the development may not be discharged to an agricultural facility without written permission from the owner of the facility and the provision of corresponding stormwater conveyance easements to protect downstream water users. Additionally, 13.b requires a notice be recorded with the final plat stating that the agricultural water user facility easement is subject to the requirements of Section 10-17-112 MCA restricting interference with canal or ditch easements, and that irrigation works are subject to other duties and liability in Montana Code Annotated. This notice must include language to assure the duties are binding upon all successors in interest and will remain in effect until such time the agricultural water user facility is abandoned. Agricultural water user facility requirements were reviewed by staff for compliance with adopted standards. Concurrent construction – The applicant requested concurrent construction per BMC 38.270.030.D. Code provision 24 requires the applicant to provide concurrent construction approval prior to final plat approval as well as appropriate improvements agreement applications for required infrastructure and landscaping. An approved concurrent construction plan from the DRC will allow the applicant to complete required improvements with an improvements agreement within two years of the date of final plat approval. Police/Fire – The City of Bozeman’s Police and Fire emergency response area includes this subject property. The subdivision does not impact the City’s ability to provide emergency services to the subject property. The necessary address will be provided to enable 911 response to individual homes prior to recording of the final plat. Fire protection standards require installation of fire hydrants at designated spacing to ensure adequate protection. 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 2 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 generally 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 either frontage on public streets constructed to City standards with lot frontage meeting minimum standards shown on the preliminary plat, or access from an approved 41 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 24 of 35 alley and a greenway corridor with public access as allowed by BMC 38.400.090.B.2.c. Portions of blocks 1, 10, 11, and 9 are proposed to front onto landscaped open space or park parcels with sidewalks provided within those parcels, and vehicular access taken from the alley. Code provision 22 requires the applicant provide conceptual layouts in the property owners’ association documents showing an example of lots fronting off a greenway open space corridor. The conceptual layout should show an example of the front door connecting to the greenway sidewalk and a fencing example indicating a front yard fence of 4-feet on all sides. 38.220.060 Documentation of compliance with adopted standards The Development Review Committee (DRC) completed a subdivision pre-application plan review on January 26, 2022 and no variances were requested. No waivers were granted. Staff offers the following summary comments on the documents required with Article 38.220.060, BMC. 38.220.060.A.1 – Surface water This subdivision will not significantly impact surface water. Baxter Ditch, an unnamed tributary of Baxter Creek, runs to the west of the subject property. The entire eastern half of the subject property, east of Baxter Ditch where phase 2 is proposed, has been historically filled, tilled, planted, and irrigated eliminating wetland qualities in those areas. Where intact wetlands and watercourses are present setbacks have been delineated and identified pursuant to BMC 38.410.100. This was done with the master site plan, application no. 19440, and the Northwest Crossing Phase 1 Preliminary Plat, no. 20113. Watercourse setback plantings along the east side of Baxter Ditch are required with code provision 16. Plants and soils along the watercourse have been severely degraded due to agricultural activities, and noxious weeds are widespread. Plantings are required to be installed or financially guaranteed with final plat. A drain tile system existed through the eastern half of the phase 1 and 2 property and has been traditionally used for agricultural ground dewatering. A letter from the Gallatin Conservation District, provided in the application materials states that this drained swell, where the tile has been damaged and repaired, is not a natural watercourse or irrigation facility and does not convey water from other properties. The applicant proposed a redesign to this system with the Phase 1 final plat application. A continuation of that redesign is proposed through this phase 2 application. The dewatering pipe is proposed along Twin Lakes Avenue and Rosa Way and will flow north towards the proposed Baxter ditch re-alignment and discharge into Baxter Creek. This pipe will be located in a separate 10-foot wide easement and must be minimum of 18-inches from all water main crossings. Design of the dewatering pipe was reviewed by engineering and was found to meet standards. The watercourse presents the possibility of flooding, code provisions 20 and 21 are related to this issue. Mitigation of this flood hazard includes recommendation for fill to be added to the site. If fill impacts wetlands or watercourses mitigation is required with local, state, and federal permitting. 42 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 25 of 35 38.220.060.A.2 - Floodplains Flood hazards were evaluated by the Engineering Division against code requirements contained in BMC 38.600. Code provision 21 states: The flood hazard report finds that floodwater could reach elevations in proposed lots based on existing topography. To mitigate the flood hazard due to existing topography, the report recommends fill be placed to keep the floodwater contained within the confines of the 20 feet of the wetland setback, the elevation of the structure to a minimum of two feet and sidewalk one foot above the identified floodwater surface elevation. The fee simple lots may not be final platted with completion of the mitigation. Sidewalks must be constructed per the recommendation. Finally, the plat must contain a note that the structure should be elevated two feet above identified floodwater surface elevation and provided recommended finished floor elevations for lots adjacent to Baxter Ditch. Code provision 20 states: Abandonment of the eastern lateral of Baxter Ditch increases flow to the western leg of Baxter Ditch and the subsequent flood hazard. The proposed alterations, as described with the flood hazard analysis, to accommodate the 100-year event on Baxter Ditch must be completed prior to the abandonment of the eastern ditch lateral as well as any required mitigation downstream along Baxter Creek. The alteration to Baxter Ditch must be reviewed through the City’s infrastructure review process in addition to obtaining all other permits required from outside agencies and the adjacent property owner. Any alterations proposed within the public right-of-way required the approval of the City Engineer. 38.220.060.A.3 - Groundwater A geotechnical site evaluation was completed in 2019 and included eight test pits across the entire Northwest Crossing development. A memo detailing groundwater flow modeling was completed in 2020. The site is in an area of high groundwater which may negatively impact future structures or cause illicit discharges into the sanitary sewer and over burden the surface drainage system. Condition 6 on the plat prohibits use of basements or crawl spaces unless a professional engineer certifies that the structure has been designed in such a way to accommodate seasonal high groundwater. This requirement will protect both future structure owners from future hazards of flooding and lessen burden on the public from illicit discharges. Code provision 18 is related to high groundwater and stormwater infrastructure. 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. There are no known endangered or threatened species on the property. Habitat quality has been substantially impacted by agriculture 43 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 26 of 35 and grazing. A memo prepared by Christine Pearcy, an environmental scientist with Morrison Maierle dated July 2019 was included with the application. Minimal habit exists on the property, except for along the watercourse. The applicant is proposing to enhance the east edge of the watercourse where it is adjacent to phase 2 and appropriate watercourse and wetland setbacks have been provided. 38.220.060.A.7 - Agriculture This subdivision will not impact agriculture. The subject property is designated as residential mixed use according to the City of Bozeman Community Plan. The area is zoned for residential mixed use high density development. The site is historically used for grazing and irrigated crops, but the home and agricultural buildings are all vacant. 38.220.060.A.8 - Agricultural Water User Facilities See discussion above. 38.220.060.A.9 - 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. Also see discussion above. 38.220.060.A.10 - Stormwater Management The subdivision will not significantly impact stormwater infrastructure. See discussion above under primary review criteria. 38.220.060.A.11 - Streets, Roads and Alleys The subdivision will not significantly impact the City’s street infrastructure and will provide adequate improvements to support the development and the existing neighborhoods by completing the street grid in the area with conditions and code provisions. Phases 1-4 will extend Rosa Way, Twin Lakes Avenue, and Dayspring Avenue that were platted with phase 1 to the north into phase 2. New east-west roads are currently proposed to be named Dayspring Avenue, Touchstone Lane, and Briarwood Lane. Blocks 1, 6, 9, 10, and 11 will be developed with alley access lots. A platted north-south open space transportation corridor is proposed through blocks 2, 5, 8, and 11 to facilitate pedestrian movement through the site. The subdivision will primarily be accessed via Rosa Way and Twin Lakes Ave. from Baxter Lane, and Touchstone Drive and Harvest Parkway (existing) from Cottonwood Road. Three north-south routes, Dayspring Ave., Twin Lakes Ave., and Rosa Way will continue the street grid platted with Phase 1 to the north into Phase 2 and are consistent with the master site plan approval already in place. This proposed subdivision will include City standard sidewalks along all street frontages increasing the pedestrian connectivity in the area as whole. A traffic impact study was provided by the applicant for the Phase 2 subdivision and is dated February 23, 2022, with an update letter dated October 18, 2022. The TIS and update letter were reviewed by engineering have been found to meet City standards for peak trip generation and level of service with code provisions. Code provision 6 requires both Baxter Lane and Cottonwood Road to be fully completed to ensure the 44 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 27 of 35 convenient and reliable movement of City wide traffic and effective access for emergency services for both the proposed development and the community as a whole as the proposed subdivision moves through the currently planned phasing. 38.220.060.A.12 – Non-Municipal Utilities The applicant has received confirmation of future service from Northwestern Energy and internet providers. 38.220.060.A.13 - Land Use The application has provided future land use data consistent with the REMU zoning district and the community plan. 26.84 acres is proposed as developable residential lots, 3.24 acres as open space tracts, 2.16 acres as parks, and 11.74 acres as right-of-way. The proposed uses of townhouses, small lot single household, and single household are allowed within the REMU zoning district. 38.220.060.A.14 - Parks and Recreation Facilities The proposed subdivision will provide improvements to existing dedicated parkland, new parkland, and cash or improvements-in-lieu of parkland dedication. The proposal meets the required park dedication and improvement standards with conditions and code provisions. The Parks Department reviewed the parkland proposal for consistency with the master park plan for Northwest Crossing Subdivision within the approved master site plan, application no. 19440, and the approved master site plan modification, application no. 22200. Also see the discussion above. 38.220.060.A.15 - Neighborhood Center Plan To provide a neighborhood focal point, all residential subdivisions that are ten net acres in size or greater, must have a neighborhood center. Developments may be exempted from this requirement if every lot within the development is within one-half mile of an existing neighborhood center. The existing neighborhood center platted with phase 1, is within 0.5 miles of the subdivision, meets the size standards of this section, and is zoned B-2M which will allow for a neighborhood commercial center. 38.220.060.A.16 - Lighting Plan Subdivision or street lighting is required pursuant to BMC 38.570.030. All street lights installed must use LED light heads and must conform to the City’s requirement for cut-off shields as required by the City’s specifications. A Special Improvement Lighting District (SILD) must be created prior to final plat application. Code provision 7 is related to this issue. 38.220.060.A.17 - Miscellaneous The proposed subdivision is not located within 200 feet of any public land access or within a delineated Wildland Urban Interface area. No health or safety hazards on-site or off-site will be created with this development. 45 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 28 of 35 38.220.060.A.19 - Affordable Housing This application does not rely on incentives authorized in 38.380. Therefore, no analysis is required. SECTION 7 - FINDINGS OF FACT, ORDER AND APPEAL PROVISIONS A. PURSUANT to Chapter 38, Article 2, BMC, and other applicable sections of Chapter 38, BMC, public notice was given, opportunity to submit comment was provided to affected parties, and a review of the preliminary plat described in these findings of fact was conducted. B. The purposes of the preliminary plat review were to consider all relevant evidence relating to public health, safety, welfare, and the other purposes of Chapter 38, BMC; to evaluate the proposal against the criteria and standards of Chapter 38 BMC; and to determine whether the plat should be approved, conditionally approved, or denied. C. The matter of the preliminary plat application was considered by the City Commission at a public hearing on February 7, 2023 at which time the Department of Community Development Staff reviewed the project, submitted and summarized the conditions of approval, and summarized the public comment submitted to the City prior to the public hearing. D. The City Commission requested public comment at the public hearing on February 7, 2023 and one member of the public offered testimony on the subdivision. E. It appeared to the City Commission that all parties and the public wishing to examine the proposed preliminary plat and offer comment were given the opportunity to do so. After receiving the recommendation of the relevant advisory bodies established by Section Chapter 38, BMC, and considering all matters of record presented with the application and during the public comment period defined by Chapter 38, BMC, the City Commission has found that the proposed preliminary plat would comply with the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code if certain conditions were imposed. Therefore, being fully advised of all matters having come before her regarding this application, the City Commission makes the following decision. F. The preliminary plat has been found to meet the criteria of Chapter 38, BMC, and is therefore approved, subject to the conditions listed in Section 3 of this report and the correction of any elements not in conformance with the standards of the Chapter including those identified in Section 3 of this report. The evidence contained in the submittal materials, advisory body review, public testimony, and this report, justify the conditions imposed on this development to ensure that the final site plan and subsequent construction complies with all applicable regulations, and all applicable criteria of Chapter 38, BMC. 46 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 29 of 35 G. This City Commission order may be appealed by bringing an action in the Eighteenth District Court of Gallatin County, within 30 days after the adoption of this document by the City Commission, by following the procedures of Section 76-3-625, MCA. The preliminary approval of this multi-phased major subdivision shall be effective for three (3) years from the date of the signed Findings of Fact and Order approval. At the end of this period the City may, at the request of the subdivider, grant an extension to its approval by the Community Development Director for a period of mutually agreed upon time. DATED this ________ day of _____________________, 2023 BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION _________________________________ CYNDY ANDRUS Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ MIKE MAAS City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 47 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 30 of 35 _________________________________ GREG SULLIVAN City Attorney APPENDIX A – PROJECT SITE ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY Zoning Designation and Land Uses: The subject property is zoned REMU, Residential Emphasis Mixed Use. The intent and purpose of the REMU district is to establish areas within Bozeman that are mixed-use in character and to provide options for a variety of housing, employment, retail and neighborhood service opportunities within a new or existing neighborhood. These purposes are accomplished by: 1. Emphasizing residential as the primary use, including single household dwellings, two to four household dwellings, townhouses, and apartments. 2. Providing for a diverse array of neighborhood-scaled commercial and civic uses supporting residential. 3. Emphasizing a vertical and horizontal mix of uses in a compact and walkable neighborhood setting. 4. Promoting neighborhoods that: a. Create self-sustaining neighborhoods that will lay the foundation for healthy lifestyles; b. Support compact, walkable developments that promote balanced transportation options; c. Have residential as the majority use with a range of densities; d. Provide for a diverse array of commercial and civic uses supporting residential; e. Have residential and commercial uses mixed vertically and/or horizontally; f. Locate commercial uses within walking distance; g. Incorporate a wider range of housing types; and h. Encourage developments that exhibit the physical design characteristics of vibrant, urban, and pedestrian-oriented complete streets. 5. Providing standards and guidelines that emphasize a sense of place: a. Support or add to an existing neighborhood context; b. Enhance an existing neighborhood's sense of place and strive to make it more self-sustainable; c. Encourage a new neighborhood commercial center(s) with a unique identity and strong sense of place; d. Develop commercial and mixed-use areas that are safe, comfortable, and attractive to pedestrians; and 48 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 31 of 35 e. Reinforce the principle of streets as public places that encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel, transit, on-street parking and physical elements of complete streets. 6. Providing standards and guidelines that emphasize natural amenities: a. Preserve and integrate the natural amenities into the development; and b. Appropriately balance a hierarchy of both parks and public spaces that are within the neighborhood. 7. Providing standards and guidelines that emphasize the development of centers: a. Group uses of property to create vibrant centers; b. Where appropriate create a center within an existing neighborhood; c. Facilitate proven, market driven projects to ensure both long and short-term financial viability; d. Allow an appropriate blend of complementary mixed land uses including, but not limited to, retail, offices, commercial services, restaurants, bars, hotels, recreation and civic uses, and housing, to create economic and social vitality; e. Foster the master plan development into a mix of feasible, market driven uses; f. Emphasize the need to serve the adjacent, local neighborhood and as well as the greater Bozeman area; and g. Maximize land use efficiency by encouraging shared use parking. 8. Promoting the integration of action: a. Support existing infrastructure that is within and adjacent to REMU zones; b. Encourage thoughtfully developed master planned communities; c. Provide flexibility in the placement and design of new developments and redevelopment to anticipate changes in the marketplace; d. Provide flexibility in phasing to help ensure both long and short term financial viability for the project as a whole; 9. Providing standards and guidelines that promote sustainable design Use of this zone is appropriate for sites at least five acres in size and areas located adjacent to an existing or planned residential area to help sustain commercial uses within walking distance and a wider range of housing types. Adopted Growth Policy Designation: Table 4 of the Bozeman Community Plan 2020 shows the correlation between future land use map designations and implementing zoning districts. (See below for the Table) 49 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 32 of 35 The subject property is designated as Residential Mixed Use. This category promotes neighborhoods substantially dominated by housing, yet integrated with small-scale commercial and civic uses. The housing can include single-attached and small single-detached dwellings, apartments, and live-work units. If buildings include ground floor commercial uses, residences should be located on upper floor. Variation in building mass, height, and other design characteristics should contribute to a complete and interesting streetscape. Secondary supporting uses, such as retail, office, and civic uses, are permitted on the ground floor. All uses should complement existing and planned residential uses. Non-residential uses are expected to be pedestrian oriented and emphasize the human scale with modulation in larger structures. Stand alone, large, non-residential uses are discouraged. Non-residential spaces should provide an interesting pedestrian experience with quality urban design for buildings, sites, and open spaces. This category is appropriate near commercial centers. Larger areas should be well served by multimodal transportation routes. Multi-unit, higher density, urban development is expected. 50 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 33 of 35 Any development within this category should have a well-integrated transportation and open space network that encourages pedestrian activity and provides ready-access within and adjacent development. This proposed subdivision is well-suited to implement the Residential Mixed Use designation by providing lots that will support a variety of housing types including townhouses, small lot single household, single household, and courtyard access single household. The townhouse and small lot single household lots will support construction of “missing middle” housing which is contemplated throughout the Bozeman Community Plan 2020. The proposed subdivision is also located near an existing, and yet undeveloped, commercial area. The added density adjacent to this commercial neighborhood center will add demand for development of the B-2M zoned area to the south. The growth policy encourages development to be walkable, which is defined in the glossary as: Walkable. A walkable area has: • A center, whether it’s a main street or a public space. • People: Enough people for businesses to flourish and for public transit to run frequently. • Parks and public space: Functional and pleasant public places to gather and play. • Pedestrian design: Buildings are close to the street, parking lots are relegated to the back. • Schools and workplaces: Close enough that walking to and from home to these destinations is realistic. • Complete streets: Streets designed for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit. With the complexity of features needed to create a walkable environment, no one site is likely to provide all the needed elements. The additional density will help provide for element two with potential for additional persons in the area. Parks and pedestrian routes are proposed through and around the development. The use of alleys and courtyard access lots will significantly reduce visible parking and help create a vibrant public realm. The REMU district has a minimum building setback of 10-feet and a maximum of 15-feet which will contribute to pedestrian design. LID stormwater is required and will be integrated into small retention ponds and underground stormwater management reducing the need for large basins of unusable area. Gallatin High School is within 0.5 miles of the center of the proposed subdivision, with nearby elementary and middle schools within a mile. The Streamline Brownline has a stop on Oak Street at Gallatin High School which is rough 0.5 miles away from the proposed development. There are also another commercial node at Baxter Meadows about 0.75 miles away near Vaquero and Baxter Lane. The proposed subdivision meets the following Bozeman Community Plan 2020 goals: N-1.1 Promote housing diversity, including missing middle housing 51 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 34 of 35 N-1.10 Increase connectivity between parks and neighborhoods through continued trail and sidewalk development. Prioritize closing gaps within the network. N-3.8 Promote the development of “Missing Middle” housing (townhouses, multi-household) APPENDIX B – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Background and Description A preliminary plat application by the applicant, Morrison Maierle, Inc., 2880 Tech Blvd West, Bozeman, MT 59771, representing applicant Williams Homes, 387 Gallatin Park Drive Suite 102, Bozeman, MT 59715, and the property owner NWX, LLC, 529 E. Main Street, Bozeman, MT 59715. 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 January 5, 2023 for publication in the legal advertisements section of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on Sunday January 8, and Sunday January 15, 2023. The applicant posted public notice on the subject property on January 6, 2023. 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 January 6, 2023. No public comment has been received as of the writing of this report. APPENDIX D – OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF Owner: NWX, LLC, 529 E. Main Street, Bozeman, MT 59715. Applicant: Williams Homes, 387 Gallatin Park Drive Suite 102, Bozeman, MT 59715 Representative: Morrison Maierle, Inc., 2880 Tech Blvd West, Bozeman, MT 59771 Report By: Danielle Garber, Associate Planner FISCAL EFFECTS No unusual fiscal effects have been identified. ATTACHMENTS The full application and file of record can be viewed digitally at https://www.bozeman.net/departments/community-development/planning/project-information- portal, select the “Project Documents Folder” link and navigate to application #22129, as well as digitally at the Community Development Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715. 52 22129 Findings of Fact for Northwest Crossing (NWX) Phase 2 Subdivision Page 35 of 35 Application materials – Available through the Laserfiche archive, the full file is linked below. https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=261887&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN 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=22-129 53 Memorandum REPORT TO:City Commission FROM:Greg Sullivan, City Attorney SUBJECT:Authorize City Manager to Terminate Interlocal Agreement with Gallatin County for the Provision of Victim Services MEETING DATE:March 7, 2023 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Agreement - Legal RECOMMENDATION:Approve. STRATEGIC PLAN:3.1 Public Safety: Support high quality public safety programs, emergency preparedness, facilities, and leadership. BACKGROUND: Should the Commission approve this item, it will authorize the City Manager to inform Gallatin County the City of Bozeman will terminate the current interlocal agreement with Gallatin County for the provision of victim services effective July 1, 2023. The City is statutorily mandated to provide services to victims of certain crimes. 46-24-104, MCA. The City currently provides these services through an interlocal agreement with Gallatin County. The current agreement is attached. Terminating the interlocal agreement will provide the City the opportunity to develop its own program. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:The City Attorney's Office will work with the Gallatin County Attorney's Office on the transition of current cases. No other unresolved issues exist at this time. ALTERNATIVES:As identified by the City Commission. FISCAL EFFECTS:The City currently receives revenue to fund the provision of services to victims from municipal court charges pursuant to 46-18-236, MCA. For fiscal years 2020 through 2022 the City averaged revenue of $62,824.67. For the current fiscal year, (FY23), we estimate revenue will be upwards of $60,000. In addition, the City currently has a reserve fund for the provision of these services of $448,130. First year staffing and operational expenses could be upwards of $115,000.00. The sources of funds for the City’s victim services 54 program will come, initially, from the annual court charges and if necessary from the reserve. Additionally, after development and staffing of the program, the City will seek supplemental grant funding. At some point, the City may need to contribute general fund support for these mandatory services. Attachments: Term Interlocal VS 2.24.23.pdf City County IAs for Victim Services.pdf Report compiled on: February 24, 2023 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Memorandum REPORT TO:City Commission FROM:Nicholas Ross, Director of Transportation and Engineering SUBJECT:Authorize the City Manager to Sign a Professional Services Agreement with Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. for Federal Transportation Grant Writing Services MEETING DATE:March 7, 2023 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Agreement - Vendor/Contract RECOMMENDATION:Authorize the City Manager to Sign a Professional Services Agreement with Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. for Federal Transportation Grant Writing Services STRATEGIC PLAN:2.2 Infrastructure Investments: Strategically invest in infrastructure as a mechanism to encourage economic development. BACKGROUND:To better position the City for federal transportation grant opportunities, staff solicited proposals from firms to help with federal grant writing. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. was selected for the work. Staff recommends that commission authorize the City Manager to sign the attached the Professional Services Agreement. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None. ALTERNATIVES:None identified or recommended. FISCAL EFFECTS:Fees for this work total $36,977.91. Funds for this are available and will be paid from the Engineering Operating Budget. Attachments: Professional Services Agreement_Federal Grant Writing.pdf Exhibit A_Scope of Services.pdf Report compiled on: February 23, 2023 62 Professional Services Agreement for Federal Transportation Grant Writing Services Page 1 of 11 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 7th day of March, 2023 (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, a self-governing municipal corporation organized and existing under its Charter and the laws of the State of Montana, 121 North Rouse Street, Bozeman, Montana, with a mailing address of PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771, hereinafter referred to as “City,” and Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., hereinafter referred to as “Contractor.” The City and Contractor may be referred to individually as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.” In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the receipt and sufficiency whereof being hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Purpose: City agrees to enter this Agreement with Contractor to provide Federal Transportation Grant Writing Services for City as described in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A and by this reference made a part hereof. 2. Term/Effective Date: This Agreement is effective upon the Effective Date and will expire with the completion of the work, unless earlier terminated in accordance with this Agreement. 3. Scope of Services: Contractor will perform the work and provide the services in accordance with the requirements of the Scope of Services. For conflicts between this Agreement and the Scope of Services, unless specifically provided otherwise, the Agreement governs. 4. Payment: City agrees to pay Contractor $36,977.91, the amount specified in the Scope of Services. Payment terms are Net 30 Days from date received. Any alteration or deviation from the described services that involves additional costs above the Agreement amount will be performed by Contractor after written request by the City, and will become an additional charge over and above the amount listed in the Scope of Services. The City must agree in writing upon any additional charges. 5. Contractor’s Representations: To induce City to enter into this Agreement, Contractor makes the following representations: a. Contractor has familiarized itself with the nature and extent of this Agreement, the 63 Professional Services Agreement for Federal Transportation Grant Writing Services Page 2 of 11 Scope of Services, and with all local conditions and federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations that in any manner may affect cost, progress or performance of the Scope of Services. b. Contractor represents and warrants to City that it has the experience and ability to perform the services required by this Agreement; that it will perform the services in a professional, competent and timely manner and with diligence and skill; that it has the power to enter into and perform this Agreement and grant the rights granted in it; and that its performance of this Agreement shall not infringe upon or violate the rights of any third party, whether rights of copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity, libel, slander or any other rights of any nature whatsoever, or violate any federal, state and municipal laws. The City will not determine or exercise control as to general procedures or formats necessary to have these services meet this warranty. 6. Independent Contractor Status/Labor Relations: The parties agree that Contractor is an independent contractor for purposes of this Agreement and is not to be considered an employee of the City for any purpose. Contractor is not subject to the terms and provisions of the City’s personnel policies handbook and may not be considered a City employee for workers’ compensation or any other purpose. Contractor is not authorized to represent the City or otherwise bind the City in any dealings between Contractor and any third parties. Contractor shall comply with the applicable requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Act, Title 39, Chapter 71, Montana Code Annotated (MCA), and the Occupational Disease Act of Montana, Title 39, Chapter 71, MCA. Contractor shall maintain workers’ compensation coverage for all members and employees of Contractor’s business, except for those members who are exempted by law. Contractor shall furnish the City with copies showing one of the following: (1) a binder for workers’ compensation coverage by an insurer licensed and authorized to provide workers’ compensation insurance in the State of Montana; or (2) proof of exemption from workers’ compensation granted by law for independent contractors. In the event that, during the term of this Agreement, any labor problems or disputes of any type arise or materialize which in turn cause any services to cease for any period of time, Contractor specifically agrees to take immediate steps, at its own expense and without expectation of reimbursement from City, to alleviate or resolve all such labor problems or disputes. The specific steps Contractor shall take shall be left to the discretion of Contractor; provided, however, that Contractor shall bear all costs of any related legal action. Contractor shall provide immediate relief to the City so as to permit the services to continue at no additional cost to City. Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless from any and all claims, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and liabilities arising out of, resulting from, or occurring in 64 Professional Services Agreement for Federal Transportation Grant Writing Services Page 3 of 11 connection with any labor problems or disputes or any delays or stoppages of work associated with such problems or disputes. 7. Indemnity/Waiver of Claims/Insurance: For the professional services rendered, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless against claims, demands, suits, damages, losses, and expenses, including reasonable defense attorney fees, to the extent caused by the negligence or intentional misconduct of the Contractor or employees. Such obligations shall not be construed to negate, abridge, or reduce other rights or obligations of indemnity that would otherwise exist. The indemnification obligations of this Section must not be construed to negate, abridge, or reduce any common-law or statutory rights of the City as indemnitee(s) which would otherwise exist as to such indemnitee(s). Contractor’s indemnity under this Section shall be without regard to and without any right to contribution from any insurance maintained by City. Should the City be required to bring an action against the Contractor to assert its right to defense or indemnification under this Agreement or under the Contractor’s applicable insurance policies required below, the City shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred in asserting its right to indemnification or defense but only if a court of competent jurisdiction determines the Contractor was obligated to defend the claim(s) or was obligated to indemnify the City for a claim(s) or any portion(s) thereof. In the event of an action filed against the City resulting from the City’s performance under this Agreement, the City may elect to represent itself and incur all costs and expenses of suit. Contractor also waives any and all claims and recourse against the City, including the right of contribution for loss or damage to person or property arising from, growing out of, or in any way connected with or incident to the performance of this Agreement except “responsibility for [City’s] own fraud, for willful injury to the person or property of another, or for violation of law, whether willful or negligent” as per 28-2-702, MCA. These obligations shall survive termination of this Agreement and the services performed hereunder. In addition to and independent from the above, Contractor shall at Contractor’s expense secure insurance coverage through an insurance company or companies duly licensed and authorized to 65 Professional Services Agreement for Federal Transportation Grant Writing Services Page 4 of 11 conduct insurance business in Montana which insures the liabilities and obligations specifically assumed by the Contractor in this Section. The insurance coverage shall not contain any exclusion for liabilities specifically assumed by the Contractor in this Section. The insurance shall cover and apply to all claims, demands, suits, damages, losses, and expenses that may be asserted or claimed against, recovered from, or suffered by the City without limit and without regard to the cause therefore and which is acceptable to the City. Contractor shall furnish to the City an accompanying certificate of insurance and accompanying endorsements in amounts not less than as follows:  Workers’ Compensation – statutory;  Employers’ Liability - $1,000,000 per occurrence; $2,000,000 annual aggregate;  Commercial General Liability - $1,000,000 per occurrence; $2,000,000 annual aggregate;  Automobile Liability - $1,000,000 property damage/bodily injury per accident; and  Professional Liability - $1,000,000 per claim; $2,000,000 annual aggregate. The above amounts shall be exclusive of defense costs. The City shall be endorsed as an additional or named insured on a primary non-contributory basis on the Commercial General, Employer’s Liability, and Automobile Liability policies. The insurance and required endorsements must be in a form suitable to City and shall include no less than a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation or non-renewal. Contractor shall notify City within two (2) business days of Contractor’s receipt of notice that any required insurance coverage will be terminated or Contractor’s decision to terminate any required insurance coverage for any reason. The City must approve all insurance coverage and endorsements prior to the Contractor commencing work. 8. Termination for Contractor’s Fault: a. If Contractor refuses or fails to timely do the work, or any part thereof, or fails to perform any of its obligations under this Agreement, or otherwise breaches any terms or conditions of this Agreement, the City may, by written notice, terminate this Agreement and the Contractor’s right to proceed with all or any part of the work (“Termination Notice Due to Contractor’s Fault”). The City may then take over the work and complete it, either with its own resources or by re-letting the contract to any other third party. 66 Professional Services Agreement for Federal Transportation Grant Writing Services Page 5 of 11 b. In the event of a termination pursuant to this Section 8, Contractor shall be entitled to payment only for those services Contractor actually rendered. c. Any termination provided for by this Section 8 shall be in addition to any other remedies to which the City may be entitled under the law or at equity. d. In the event of termination under this Section 8, Contractor shall, under no circumstances, be entitled to claim or recover consequential, special, punitive, lost business opportunity, lost productivity, field office overhead, general conditions costs, or lost profits damages of any nature arising, or claimed to have arisen, as a result of the termination. 9. Termination for City’s Convenience: a. Should conditions arise which, in the sole opinion and discretion of the City, make it advisable to the City to cease performance under this Agreement, the City may terminate this Agreement by written notice to Contractor (“Notice of Termination for City’s Convenience”). The termination shall be effective in the manner specified in the Notice of Termination for City’s Convenience and shall be without prejudice to any claims that the City may otherwise have against Contractor. b. Upon receipt of the Notice of Termination for City’s Convenience, unless otherwise directed in the Notice, the Contractor shall immediately cease performance under this Agreement and make every reasonable effort to refrain from continuing work, incurring additional expenses or costs under this Agreement and shall immediately cancel all existing orders or contracts upon terms satisfactory to the City. Contractor shall do only such work as may be necessary to preserve, protect, and maintain work already completed or immediately in progress. c. In the event of a termination pursuant to this Section 9, Contractor is entitled to payment only for those services Contractor actually rendered on or before the receipt of the Notice of Termination for City’s Convenience. d. The compensation described in Section 9(c) is the sole compensation due to Contractor for its performance of this Agreement. Contractor shall, under no circumstances, be entitled to claim or recover consequential, special, punitive, lost business opportunity, lost productivity, field office overhead, general conditions costs, or lost profits damages of any nature arising, or claimed to have arisen, as a result of the termination. 67 Professional Services Agreement for Federal Transportation Grant Writing Services Page 6 of 11 10. Limitation on Contractor’s Damages; Time for Asserting Claim: a. In the event of a claim for damages by Contractor under this Agreement, Contractor’s damages shall be limited to contract damages and Contractor hereby expressly waives any right to claim or recover consequential, special, punitive, lost business opportunity, lost productivity, field office overhead, general conditions costs, or lost profits damages of any nature or kind. b. In the event Contractor wants to assert a claim for damages of any kind or nature, Contractor shall provide City with written notice of its claim, the facts and circumstances surrounding and giving rise to the claim, and the total amount of damages sought by the claim, within thirty (30) days of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the claim. In the event Contractor fails to provide such notice, Contractor shall waive all rights to assert such claim. 11. Representatives and Notices: a. City’s Representative: The City’s Representative for the purpose of this Agreement shall be Nicholas Ross, Director of Transportation and Engineering or such other individual as City shall designate in writing. Whenever approval or authorization from or communication or submission to City is required by this Agreement, such communication or submission shall be directed to the City’s Representative and approvals or authorizations shall be issued only by such Representative; provided, however, that in exigent circumstances when City’s Representative is not available, Contractor may direct its communication or submission to other designated City personnel or agents as designated by the City in writing and may receive approvals or authorization from such persons. b. Contractor’s Representative: The Contractor’s Representative for the purpose of this Agreement shall be Ed Toavs, Project Manager or such other individual as Contractor shall designate in writing. Whenever direction to or communication with Contractor is required by this Agreement, such direction or communication shall be directed to Contractor’s Representative; provided, however, that in exigent circumstances when Contractor’s Representative is not available, City may direct its direction or communication to other designated Contractor personnel or agents. c. Notices: All notices required by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be provided to the Representatives named in this Section. Notices shall be deemed given when delivered, if delivered by courier to Party’s address shown above during normal business hours of the recipient; or when sent, if sent by email or fax (with a successful transmission 68 Professional Services Agreement for Federal Transportation Grant Writing Services Page 7 of 11 report) to the email address or fax number provided by the Party’s Representative; or on the fifth business day following mailing, if mailed by ordinary mail to the address shown above, postage prepaid. 12. Permits: Contractor shall provide all notices, comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations, obtain all necessary permits, licenses, including a City of Bozeman business license, and inspections from applicable governmental authorities, and pay all fees and charges in connection therewith. 13 Laws and Regulations: Contractor shall comply fully with all applicable state and federal laws, regulations, and municipal ordinances including, but not limited to, all workers’ compensation laws, all environmental laws including, but not limited to, the generation and disposal of hazardous waste, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the safety rules, codes, and provisions of the Montana Safety Act in Title 50, Chapter 71, MCA, all applicable City, County, and State building and electrical codes, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and all non-discrimination, affirmative action, and utilization of minority and small business statutes and regulations. 14. Nondiscrimination and Equal Pay: The Contractor agrees that all hiring by Contractor of persons performing this Agreement shall be on the basis of merit and qualifications. The Contractor will have a policy to provide equal employment opportunity in accordance with all applicable state and federal anti-discrimination laws, regulations, and contracts. The Contractor will not refuse employment to a person, bar a person from employment, or discriminate against a person in compensation or in a term, condition, or privilege of employment because of race, color, religion, creed, political ideas, sex, age, marital status, national origin, actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, physical or mental disability, except when the reasonable demands of the position require an age, physical or mental disability, marital status or sex distinction. The Contractor shall be subject to and comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Section 140, Title 2, United States Code, and all regulations promulgated thereunder. Contractor represents it is, and for the term of this Agreement will be, in compliance with the requirements of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Section 39-3-104, MCA (the Montana Equal Pay Act). Contractor must report to the City any violations of the Montana Equal Pay Act that Contractor has been found guilty of within 60 days of such finding for violations occurring during the term of this Agreement. Contractor shall require these nondiscrimination terms of its subcontractors providing services under this Agreement. 15. Intoxicants; DOT Drug and Alcohol Regulations/Safety and Training: Contractor 69 Professional Services Agreement for Federal Transportation Grant Writing Services Page 8 of 11 shall not permit or suffer the introduction or use of any intoxicants, including alcohol or illegal drugs, by any employee or agent engaged in services to the City under this Agreement while on City property or in the performance of any activities under this Agreement. Contractor acknowledges it is aware of and shall comply with its responsibilities and obligations under the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations governing anti-drug and alcohol misuse prevention plans and related testing. City shall have the right to request proof of such compliance and Contractor shall be obligated to furnish such proof. The Contractor shall be responsible for instructing and training the Contractor's employees and agents in proper and specified work methods and procedures. The Contractor shall provide continuous inspection and supervision of the work performed. The Contractor is responsible for instructing its employees and agents in safe work practices. 16. Modification and Assignability: This Agreement may not be enlarged, modified or altered except by written agreement signed by both parties hereto. The Contractor may not subcontract or assign Contractor’s rights, including the right to compensation or duties arising hereunder, without the prior written consent of the City. Any subcontractor or assignee will be bound by all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 17. Reports/Accountability/Public Information: Contractor agrees to develop and/or provide documentation as requested by the City demonstrating Contractor’s compliance with the requirements of this Agreement. Contractor shall allow the City, its auditors, and other persons authorized by the City to inspect and copy its books and records for the purpose of verifying that the reimbursement of monies distributed to Contractor pursuant to this Agreement was used in compliance with this Agreement and all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local law. The Contractor shall not issue any statements, releases or information for public dissemination without prior approval of the City. 18. Non-Waiver: A waiver by either party of any default or breach by the other party of any terms or conditions of this Agreement does not limit the other party’s right to enforce such term or conditions or to pursue any available legal or equitable rights in the event of any subsequent default or breach. 19. Attorney’s Fees and Costs: In the event it becomes necessary for either Party to retain an attorney to enforce any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement or to give any notice required herein, then the prevailing Party or the Party giving notice shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs, including fees, salary, and costs of in-house counsel including the City Attorney’s Office staff. 70 Professional Services Agreement for Federal Transportation Grant Writing Services Page 9 of 11 20. Taxes: Contractor is obligated to pay all taxes of any kind or nature and make all appropriate employee withholdings. 21. Dispute Resolution: a. Any claim, controversy, or dispute between the parties, their agents, employees, or representatives shall be resolved first by negotiation between senior-level personnel from each party duly authorized to execute settlement agreements. Upon mutual agreement of the parties, the parties may invite an independent, disinterested mediator to assist in the negotiated settlement discussions. b. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within thirty (30) days from the date the dispute was first raised, then such dispute may only be resolved in a court of competent jurisdiction in compliance with the Applicable Law provisions of this Agreement. 22. Survival: Contractor’s indemnification shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement for the maximum period allowed under applicable law. 23. Headings: The headings used in this Agreement are for convenience only and are not be construed as a part of the Agreement or as a limitation on the scope of the particular paragraphs to which they refer. 24. Severability: If any portion of this Agreement is held to be void or unenforceable, the balance thereof shall continue in effect. 25. Applicable Law: The parties agree that this Agreement is governed in all respects by the laws of the State of Montana. 26. Binding Effect: This Agreement is binding upon and inures to the benefit of the heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns of the parties. 27. No Third-Party Beneficiary: This Agreement is for the exclusive benefit of the parties, does not constitute a third-party beneficiary agreement, and may not be relied upon or enforced by a third party. 28. Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, which together constitute one instrument. 29. Integration: This Agreement and all Exhibits attached hereto constitute the entire 71 Professional Services Agreement for Federal Transportation Grant Writing Services Page 10 of 11 agreement of the parties. Covenants or representations not contained herein or made a part thereof by reference, are not binding upon the parties. There are no understandings between the parties other than as set forth in this Agreement. All communications, either verbal or written, made prior to the date of this Agreement are hereby abrogated and withdrawn unless specifically made a part of this Agreement by reference. 30. Consent to Electronic Signatures: The Parties have consented to execute this Agreement electronically in conformance with the Montana Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, Title 30, Chapter 18, Part 1, MCA. **** END OF AGREEMENT EXCEPT FOR SIGNATURES **** 72 Professional Services Agreement for Federal Transportation Grant Writing Services Page 11 of 11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written or as recorded in an electronic signature. CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC. By________________________________ By__________________________________ Jeff Mihelich, City Manager Print Name: ___________________________ Print Title: ____________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: By_______________________________ Greg Sullivan, Bozeman City Attorney 73 300 Old Tractor Lane Columbia Falls, MT 59912 United States T 406 899 5653 www.jacobs.com Document number. 1 February 20, 2023 Nick Ross, Director of Transportation and Engineering City of Bozeman 121 N Rouse Ave. Bozeman, Montana 59715 Re: Grant Support – Scope and Fee Dear Nick, Jacobs Engineering is pleased to provide the Scope of Services and Level of Effort for Grant Support. This is based on the previous discussion regarding the scope of services which includes a Grant Information Activity and the requested revision of removing Activity 1.1 from our scope and fee. Everything else follows our original submission as outlined on the February 13, 2023 letter. Let me know if you have questions with regards to our Scope of Services and Level of Effort for this effort. Sincerely, Ed Toavs, PE Lena Gandiaga, PE Project Management Manager of Projects Jacobs Engineering Jacobs Engineering 74 300 Old Tractor Lane Columbia Falls, MT 59912 United States T 406 899 5653 City of Bozeman Grant Application Support Services Scope of Work Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Date: February 20, 2023 Jacobs Scope Description The scope of services provides advisory services for Federal Transportation Grant information and project selection. The scope of services also includes grant application support services, benefit cost analysis, and benefit cost narrative once a Federal grant has been selected and a project identified. Below are the activities used to develop the level of effort for this scope of services along with assumptions. Activity 2.1 Project Coordination a. Develop scope of services and level of effort for selected project. i. Include scoping meeting with City of Bozeman (2 staff, 1 hour meeting) b. Participate in formal and informal coordination meetings with City of Bozeman and project stake holders. i. As needed, up to 12 – 1 hour meetings conducted virtually with up to 3 Jacobs staff members to attend. Activity 2.2 Grant Application Support Services a. Coordinate with City of Bozeman during grant writing and assembly. I. Draft the grant application narrative per the selected Grant NOFO guidance for review by City staff. II. Meet and discuss comments received by the City (3 staff, 2 - 1 hour meetings) III. Provide editing and review of the grant application for submission. Activity 3.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis a. Input Data I. Request and assemble input data for BCA model in coordination with the City of Bozeman. II. Develop a BCA model for the select project customized to the inputs applicable to the project. The applicable inputs are based on the selected grant NOFO guidelines including appendices. b. Run Analysis 75 300 Old Tractor Lane Columbia Falls, MT 59912 United States T 406 899 5653 I. Run the BCA model and cross check the outputs against the selected grant NOFO guidelines. c. Quality Control I. An economist will review the BCA outputs and provide an independent quality control review that includes quality control of the outputs and cross check against the NOFO guidelines to ensure all applicable outputs are appropriate and have been utilized. Activity 3.2 Benefit Cost Narrative a. BCA Narrative I. Provide a written BCA narrative that meets the selected grant NOFO requirements. The document will be a standalone document and sections of the document will be included in the grant application. b. BCA Spreadsheet I. Provide a BCA spreadsheet that meets the selected grant NOFO requirements. The document will be a standalone document that includes all calculations and assumptions used for determining the BCA. Key Assumptions a. City of Bozeman will conduct all grant submission and secure any agreements required for the project. b. Jacobs will acquire pertinent data from the City of Bozeman and any other entity required. c. All written communication including requests will be via email. d. All deliverables by Jacobs will be provided electronically via email or file transfer using MS Word Files or MS Excel spreadsheets or an easy to transfer format. Project Schedule The anticipated schedule for all other activities is unknown at this time but expected to occur in 2023. 76 DATE: February 20, 2023 Activity Tasks Total Hours Proj. Mgr.Traffic. Eng.Roadway Eng.Transportation Plan/Economist Task Total - Fee $207.40 $140.63 $152.94 $134.81 2.1 PROJECT COORDINATION 101 A. Scoping Meeting 2 1 1 B. Informal Meeting 12 4 2 2 4 101 101 SUBTOTAL (HOURS)14 5 2 3 4 $2,316.36 2.2 GRANT APPLICATION SUPPORT SERVICES 102 A. Grant writing and assembly support 42 6 36 102 102 SUBTOTAL (HOURS)42 6 0 0 36 $6,097.76 3.1 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS 103 A. Input Data 84 4 32 36 12 B. Run Analysis 64 4 48 12 C. Quality Control 16 4 4 8 103 103 SUBTOTAL (HOURS)164 12 80 40 32 $24,170.85 3.2 BENEFIT-COST NARRATIVE A. BCA Narrative 18 2 8 8 B. BCA Spreadsheet 12 2 2 8 104 104 SUBTOTAL (HOURS)30 4 10 0 16 $4,392.95 SURVEY PH TOTAL HOURS 250 27 92 43 88 Total Fee $5,599.91 $12,937.92 $6,576.37 $11,863.72 $36,977.91 PROJECT: City of Bozeman RAISE Grant Support UPN: Estimate Prepared By: E Toavs Revised 3/1/18 Page 1 of 1 77 Memorandum REPORT TO:City Commission FROM:Taylor Lonsdale, Transportation Engineer Nicholas Ross, Director of Transportation and Engineering SUBJECT:Authorize the City Manager to Sign an Amendment 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Sanderson Stewart to Provide Design Services for the Fowler Connection (Huffine to Oak) Project MEETING DATE:March 7, 2023 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Agreement - Vendor/Contract RECOMMENDATION:Authorize the City Manager to Sign Amendment 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Sanderson Stewart to Provide Design Services for the Fowler Connection (Huffine to Oak) Project STRATEGIC PLAN:2.2 Infrastructure Investments: Strategically invest in infrastructure as a mechanism to encourage economic development. BACKGROUND:The Fowler Avenue Connection project is a major transportation project that will connect Huffine Lane to Oak Street and Davis Lane completing a critical north-south connection in Bozeman’s transportation network and making much needed improvements to several intersections. Sanderson Stewart was awarded the contract for design and construction services for this project. They have completed the pre-design process which included initial survey, environmental assessment, traffic projections, community engagement, and concept design. Amendment 2 is for the design portion of the project and is the bulk of the design work for this major project. This phase will take the project through to bid documents. The scope of work and Community Engagement Plan for this phase are attached. Staff recommends approval of this amendment so that Sanderson Stewart can begin the design work required to progress the project toward right of way acquisition and construction. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None. ALTERNATIVES:None identified or recommended. FISCAL EFFECTS:The total costs of Amendment 2 is $1,483,516.00. Fees for this have been included in the CIP and will be paid from Street Impact Fee Fund Project Numbers SIF076 and SIF114. Attachments: 78 20230307_Fowler Ave Amendment 2.pdf 20230307_Fowler Ave Design Amendment 2_Scope of Work & Fees.pdf 20230307_Fowler Design Phase CEP.pdf Report compiled on: February 23, 2023 79 Second Amendment to Professional Services Agreement for the Fowler Ave Connection Project Page 1 of 2 SECOND AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE Fowler Avenue Connection – Huffine Lane to Oak Street Project dated August 17, 2021 (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into this _____ day of ____________, 2023, by and between the CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, a self-governing municipal corporation organized and existing under its Charter and the laws of the State of Montana, 121 North Rouse Street, Bozeman, Montana, with a mailing address of PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771, hereinafter referred to as “City,” Sanderson Stewart, hereinafter referred to as “Contractor.” In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the receipt and sufficiency whereof being hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree to amend the Agreement as follows: 1. Scope of services, rate schedules, and budget for design services are outlined in Attachment “Exhibit A - Scope of Work.” 2. Agreement still valid. All remaining terms and provisions of the Agreement remain valid. **** END OF AGREEMENT EXCEPT FOR SIGNATURES **** 80 Second Amendment to Professional Services Agreement for the Fowler Ave Connection Project Page 2 of 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument the day and year first above written. CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA SANDERSON STEWART By________________________________ By_____________________________ Jeff Mihelich, City Manager Print Name: Danielle Scharf, P.E. Title: Principal APPROVED AS TO FORM By_______________________________ Greg Sullivan, Bozeman City Attorney 81 Exhibit A – Scope of Work Fowler Avenue Connection – Huffine Lane to Oak Street Design 02/28/23 Sanderson Stewart is pleased to provide this scope of work for the Fowler Avenue Connection project. This project will consist of preliminary and final design services for the Fowler Avenue corridor from Huffine Lane to Oak Street. The overall project design will consist of a two-lane roadway with turn lanes where needed, a separated shared use path on at least one side of the roadway with sidewalk on the other, lane modifications and traffic signal upgrades at the Huffine Lane intersection, a new traffic signal at the Babcock Street intersection, and a new roundabout at the Durston Road intersection. Flexible design criteria will be utilized to provide context sensitive solutions with a goal of preserving as much of the existing tree canopy as possible while also balancing impacts to other natural features and private property. With this goal in mind, it is anticipated that preliminary design alternatives will be based on the following list of design assumptions. Assumptions: Segment 1 – Huffine Lane to Babcock Street · The Huffine Lane intersection will be widened to accommodate northbound dual left-turn lanes and associated improvements. The existing traffic signal will remain in place with modifications needed for the dual left-turn lanes. The widening on the south leg of the intersection will extend south to Technology Boulevard. · Most of the existing pavement width from Huffine Lane to Babcock Street will remain in place with the addition of curb and gutter on the east side of the roadway and widening where needed for turn lanes. On-street parking will also be considered in the evaluation of up to two (2) roadway design alternatives. · Two (2) alternatives will also be considered for the shared use path along this segment, including the extension of the existing path in the park on the east side of Fowler and the possibility of replacing the existing sidewalk on the west side of Fowler with a new shared use path. Both alternatives will be evaluated at the concept design phase. At least one, or possibly both, of these alternatives may be carried forward for the remainder of the 82 design, depending on a variety of factors including impacts to the Section Line Ditch and existing trees. · The Babcock Street intersection will be designed with a new traffic signal and left-turn lanes on all approaches. Segment 2 – Babcock Street to Durston Road · As noted above, the Babcock Street intersection will be designed with a new traffic signal and left-turn lanes on all approaches. · A new two-lane roadway segment will be designed between the Babcock Street intersection and the existing two-lane roadway south of Durston Road. Two (2) roadway alignment alternatives will be considered to minimize impacts on the Section Line Ditch and existing trees while also considering impacts to private property and right of way needs. · Along with these roadway alignment alternatives at the south half of Segment 2, up to two (2) shared use path alternatives on one or both sides of the roadway will also be considered. · It is assumed that the existing roadway on the north half of Segment 2 will essentially remain in place with the existing shared use path on the west side and the existing sidewalk on the east side. However, consideration of a shared use path on the east side will be included. An alternative that would incorporate on-street parking will also be considered in this area. · The Durston Road intersection will be designed with a single-lane roundabout. Slip lanes will be considered where needed, but the goal will be to minimize the footprint of the intersection as much as possible and improve safety, even considering a smaller than standard design vehicle for arterial roadways to minimize impacts to the Section Line Ditch, trees and adjacent properties. The roundabout design will consider best practices for separated bike paths. The consideration of slip lanes will be evaluated to balance operations with safety. Design decisions will be documented. Segment 3 – Durston Road to Oak Street · As noted above, the Durston Road intersection will be designed with a single-lane roundabout. The north leg of the roundabout will incorporate an immediate shift to the east side of the Section Line Ditch. · The roadway segment from Durston Road to Oak Street will remain on the east side of the Section Line Ditch and will consist of one travel lane in each direction, left-turn lanes where needed and shared use paths on both sides of the roadway. · The north end of Segment 3 will terminate at the existing Oak Street roundabout. The slip lanes at the Oak Street roundabout will be evaluated to determine if they are still 83 necessary for the corridor. If it is determined that intersection needs to be re-re-designed, the design and construction plan services will be scoped under a separate amendment. Scope of Work: Phase 1 - Project Initiation This phase of the project will include all project initiation and planning tasks, including scoping, contract preparation, and meetings with the City of Bozeman. All project management tasks, client meetings and coordination for tasks beyond project initiation will be allocated to the remaining project phases. Phase 2 – Concept Design (30%) The concept design phase will include the plan-view layout of all street segments and intersections based on the stated assumptions and alternatives for each corridor segment as listed above. The concept design phase will also include the initial design of the sanitary sewer interceptor line between Durston Road and Oak Street, water main extensions, evaluation of the open channel irrigation ditch to a possible piped system where necessary, and high-level concept design of the storm drain system. The high-level evaluation of the storm drain system will include low impact development options which will require the assistance of the landscape architecture team. The storm drain system concept design will also evaluate high level options for potential improvements to the storm drainage in areas where the existing roadway section will be maintained/utilized. The design team will meet with the Farmer’s Canal company to discuss the proposed design options for the Section Line Ditch to help determine the feasible design options. Traffic signals will be designed in plan view, but landscape and lighting plans will not be included at this stage. Potential right-of-way impacts will be identified for each of the alternatives considered. Concept drawings will be prepared in plan view only. The deliverable for this phase will be plan drawings for each alternative incorporating the base topographic survey and proposed improvements overlaid on an aerial image with the associated updated typical sections by segment. The concept design phase will be an iterative design process with input from the community engagement process and the adjacent large parcel property owners. This phase of the project will include up to four (4) meetings with adjacent property owners and up to four (4) meetings with City staff. This concept design phase will also include coordination with MDT for the improvements to the Huffine intersection. A condensed design decision report will be prepared at the end of this phase to summarize and document design decisions and the reasoning. 84 Phase 3 – Supplemental Topographic Survey A topographic survey of the corridor was conducted as part of the pre-design phase, but topographic survey pick-ups will be completed as needed during the design phase. Additional private and public utility locates, and other key information will also be collected/updated including measure downs of water, sewer, and storm infrastructure. Individual trees will be surveyed as needed after the Concept Design phase is completed. Base drawings will be updated as needed following the completion of the topographic survey pick-ups. Phase 4 – Roadway/Intersection Design Once preferred alternatives for all three segments have been selected through City review and community engagement, the design team will proceed with the more detailed design. Roadway design tasks for this phase of the project will include finalizing the horizontal alignment and setting the vertical alignment for the corridor, preparation of plan/profile sheets, typical sections, and cross-sections, as well as geometric design and grading details for all street and intersection improvements. Preparation of plans and details for signing and striping, multi-use paths, crosswalks, and PROWAG accessibility ramps will also be included. This phase will also include a thorough review of as-built plans for the corridor and nearby improvements. Public and private utilities will be shown for coordination and identification of conflicts. Sanderson Stewart will coordinate with the utility companies as needed to determine the cost, feasibility, and potential construction schedule impacts of any necessary relocations. Phase 5 – Traffic Signal and Corridor Lighting Design This phase of the project will include preparation of electrical plans for the traffic signal modifications at the Huffine Lane intersection and the new traffic signal at the Babcock Street intersection, as well as corridor lighting design. The signal designs will include the proposed signal pole/mast arm layout, conduit, wiring, pull boxes, controller and cabinet, service locations, phasing and timing plans. Modifications to existing coordination plans with adjacent signals on Huffine Lane will be addressed with MDT if needed. The design of the PROWAG accessibility ramps will be coordinated with proposed pedestrian push button locations. Illumination and conduit fill calculations, details, and electrical specifications will be provided. Phase 6 – Stormwater and Section Line Ditch Design This phase of the project will include stormwater calculations, pipe sizing, spread width analysis, stormwater quality and quantity treatment design, and plan development. The stormwater design will be incorporated into the road design plans and all calculations will be summarized in a stormwater report to be submitted with the 60% and 90% design plans. Sanderson Stewart will 85 coordinate with the City Stormwater Management Department as needed and will ensure conformance with the City’s Stormwater Facilities Plan, including consideration to location and sizing of the storm drain system to accommodate future improvements. Generally, the stormwater design concept will include proposing new inlets and a new trunkline to convey runoff to the north. Bioswales in the boulevards, mechanical treatment units and new detention areas will be considered for potential stormwater treatment. Additionally, intermittent stormwater treatment to reduce trunkline size and length will be evaluated. Runoff will be treated and discharged to the Section Line Ditch at its historical discharge rate. For the sections of road that will maintain the existing pavement, the option agreed upon during the concept phase will be carried forward through the design. The design will also mitigate any impacts on existing stormwater infrastructure, such as the existing storage ponds at Fowler Place Subdivision and the apartment complex at West Babcock Street and Fowler Avenue. A preliminary hydraulics report and final drainage report will be delivered at 60% and 90% design, respectively. Additionally, the stormwater design will include the future development of the Fowler Housing Project if there are cost efficiencies by combining the stormwater system with the Fowler Avenue stormwater system. This phase will include further evaluation of the Section Line Ditch and options for leaving it as an open channel vs. piping it or some combination. This phase will also include coordination with the Section Line Ditch company (up to three (3) meetings) and the hydraulics report will include a summary of the irrigation ditch analysis and design. The pipe connection from Bozeman Pond to the irrigation ditch/pipe will be perpetuated. Phase 7 – Water and Sewer Main Design This phase of the project will include design, plan development and permitting tasks associated with new water and sewer main extensions anticipated to include the following: · Approximately 4,600 LF of new water main and associated appurtenances (hydrants, valves, etc.) · Approximately 2,700 LF of new or replacement sewer pipe for the Davis-Fowler Interceptor CIP project from Durston Road to Oak Street · Relocation of existing hydrants, valves and sewer manholes as needed for the new road design This phase will include preparation and submittal of a DEQ checklist and design report for the water and sewer main improvements. 86 Phase 8 – Landscape and Irrigation Design This phase will include the design of street trees, boulevard plantings, roundabout plantings and adjacent landscaping along the three segments of the project. All landscape planting design is proposed to be xeriscape plantings which require minimal watering. Irrigation design for the system shall be drip and will include low flow filtered zones to separate by plant type, tree zones/shrub zones, for low water usage. All irrigation design shall include full water usage calculations and total water usage for the system broken down my month. Landscape and irrigation plans will include full design, layout, and construction details to be fully coordinated with all storm water and utility plans and meet City of Bozeman code requirements. All boulevard street trees shall be planted and laid out per City requirements and meet all sight triangle and health, safety and welfare standards for a safe street design. Phase 9 – Utility Coordination This phase of the project will include the coordination with the utility companies within the corridor. Coordination will also include coordination of the timing of the utility relocates with the construction schedule. Public and private utilities will be shown for coordination and identification of conflicts. Necessary potholes will be identified and completed under a contract amendment if required. Sanderson Stewart will coordinate with the utility companies as needed to determine the cost and potential construction schedule impacts of any necessary relocations. This phase will include robust coordination with NorthWestern Energy in any areas where overhead power exists. Coordination with private utilities is anticipated to consist of up to two (2) meetings with each utility company. Phase 10 – Environmental Permitting The anticipated environmental permitting needs for the project include a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit for the anticipated impacts to be submitted as a Joint Application. Sanderson Stewart will prepare the Joint Application with input from Weston Solutions and will address all review comments received. It is assumed that all three segments of the project can be permitted under one application and that all three segments will be constructed within five years of obtaining the 404 permit; the permit is valid for 5 years. Phase 11 – SWPPP Preparation This phase of the project includes preparation of a draft Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and erosion control plans for review by the City of Bozeman. The draft documents will be submitted with the preliminary PS&E package and City review comments will be addressed. The final SWPPP will be prepared for the Final PS&E package. The documents will then be included in the bid documents and ultimately finalized by the selected contractor for the SWPPP 87 permit application. It is assumed that three separate SWPPPs will be prepared for the project, one for each segment. Phase 12 – Preliminary PS&E Submittal (60%) All the above information will be compiled into a preliminary set of plans, specifications, and opinion of probable cost for review by the City of Bozeman. A design field visit will be conducted with project staff to identify any potential conflicts or site constraints. Plans will include 60% level completion for existing/demolition plans, plan/profile sheets for roadways and utilities, cross- sections, typical sections, intersection grading details, details, signing and striping plans, electrical plans, and landscape plans. At this phase, design and plan production files will be split into the three project phases. It is anticipated that transitions between proposed improvements and the existing corridor will require separated design files. Sanderson Stewart will prepare special provisions and a specifications manual as one document for the entire project, including the templates for bid documents. A draft special provision for traffic control and construction phasing will be included in the special provisions. A preliminary engineer’s opinion of probable cost showing each segment as a different schedule (with contingency allowance) will also be provided with this review submittal. Submittal of plans will be through the Infrastructure Review process in Project Docs. This phase will include up to eight (8) meetings with City staff. This phase will also include up to two (2) meetings with local contractors to review project and identify potential cost savings or constructability issues. The condensed design decision report will be added to and/or modified at the end of this phase to summarize and document design decisions and the reasoning. Phase 13 - Final PS&E Submittal (90%/100%) Sanderson Stewart will address all review comments received from the City of Bozeman and community engagement efforts, provide final coordination between disciplines and with utilities, and prepare final plans, specifications, and an engineer’s opinion of probable cost. It is assumed that the project will be broken out into three bid packages with separate project manuals at the 90% design level. The 90% deliverable will be submitted in electronic format and all 60% level comments will be addressed. The 90% deliverables will also include the submittal to the City Building Department for the electrical improvements. The 100% deliverable will address all 90% level comments and will include electronic (PDF) copies of all submittal documents, as well as up to six (6) hard copies. 88 This phase will include up to four (4) meetings with City staff. It is assumed that R/W negotiations will be finalized prior to 100% plans to ensure that all design revisions can be addressed in the final plans. The condensed design decision report will be added to and/or modified at the end of this phase to summarize and document design decisions and the reasoning. Phase 14 – Community Engagement This phase of the project will continue the community engagement efforts from the pre-design phase of the project. The Community Engagement Plan will act as the scope of work for Phase 14 of this project. Exclusions The following items are specifically excluded from the scope of work for this phase of the project and will be addressed with a contract amendment if needed: · Right-of-way acquisition (provided under current term contract with the City) · Environmental evaluation beyond permitting noted in this scope · Geotechnical evaluation (pavement section determined during pre-design) · Retaining wall design · Construction bidding and construction administration services · Subsurface utility exploration · Construction staking · Traffic control plans · Plan revisions due to R/W negotiations after 100% plans 89 Fowler Avenue - Main to Oak Design 2/28/2023 Labor Category Total Plan Hours Rate Total Plan Bill Amount Phase 001: Project Initiation Task 001: Project Planning Principal 10.00 235.00 $2,350.00 Senior Engineer I 18.00 180.00 $3,240.00 Task 002: Project Scoping Principal 15.00 235.00 $3,525.00 Project Engineer I 5.00 135.00 $675.00 Senior Engineer I 30.00 180.00 $5,400.00 Senior Landscape Architect II 5.00 170.00 $850.00 Total for Project Initiation 83.00 $16,040.00 Phase 002: Conceptual Design Task 001: PM & Coordination Principal 60.00 235.00 $14,100.00 Project Engineer I 10.00 135.00 $1,350.00 Senior Designer II 10.00 135.00 $1,350.00 Senior Engineer I 140.00 180.00 $25,200.00 Staff Engineer II 10.00 128.00 $1,280.00 Task 002: Seg 1: Two Roadway Design Alternatives Staff Engineer II 30.00 128.00 $3,840.00 Task 003: Seg 1: Two Shared Use Path Alternatives Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Task 004: Seg 1: Eval Conflicts with RW, Section Line Ditch Right-of-Way Agent 10.00 168.00 $1,680.00 Senior Engineer I 10.00 180.00 $1,800.00 Staff Engineer II 10.00 128.00 $1,280.00 Task 005: Seg 1: Huffine Ln Intersection & Turn Lanes Senior Engineer I 10.00 180.00 $1,800.00 Staff Engineer II 24.00 128.00 $3,072.00 Task 006: Seg 2: 2 Roadway Design Alternatives Staff Engineer II 30.00 128.00 $3,840.00 Task 007: Seg 2: 3 Shared Use Path Alternatives Staff Engineer II 24.00 128.00 $3,072.00 Task 008: Seg 2: North Half On-Street Parking Alternatives Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Task 009: Seg 2: W. Babcock Intersection & Left Turn Lanes Senior Engineer I 10.00 180.00 $1,800.00 Staff Engineer II 24.00 128.00 $3,072.00 Task 010: Segment 3: Road Layout with Turn Lanes Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Task 011: Segment 3: Durston Roundabout Layout Senior Engineer I 20.00 180.00 $3,600.00 Staff Engineer II 40.00 128.00 $5,120.00 Task 012: Segment 3: Annie Layout Staff Engineer II 10.00 128.00 $1,280.00 Task 013: Stormwater Layout for All Alternatives Landscape Designer II 24.00 108.00 $2,592.00 Senior Engineer I 30.00 180.00 $5,400.00 Senior Landscape Architect II 8.00 170.00 $1,360.00 Staff Engineer I 60.00 115.00 $6,900.00 Task 014: Traffic/Ped Signal Layout for All Alternatives Senior Engineer I 20.00 180.00 $3,600.00 Staff Engineer II 40.00 128.00 $5,120.00 90 Fowler Avenue - Main to Oak Design 2/28/2023 Labor Category Total Plan Hours Rate Total Plan Bill Amount Task 015: Sewer Layout (One for all Alternatives)Project Engineer I 20.00 135.00 $2,700.00 Task 016: Water Layout (One for all Alternatives)Project Engineer I 40.00 135.00 $5,400.00 Task 017: Typical Sections for All Alternatives Staff Engineer II 30.00 128.00 $3,840.00 Task 018: Exhibits for All Alternatives Staff Engineer II 120.00 128.00 $15,360.00 Task 019: 4 Meetings with Adjacent Property Owners Principal 15.00 235.00 $3,525.00 Right-of-Way Agent 15.00 168.00 $2,520.00 Senior Engineer I 30.00 180.00 $5,400.00 Task 020: 4 Meetings with City Staff Principal 8.00 235.00 $1,880.00 Right-of-Way Agent 8.00 168.00 $1,344.00 Senior Engineer I 16.00 180.00 $2,880.00 Task 021: QA/QC Principal 25.00 235.00 $5,875.00 Senior Engineer I 25.00 180.00 $4,500.00 Task 022: MDT Coordination on Huffine Senior Engineer I 20.00 180.00 $3,600.00 Staff Engineer II 12.00 128.00 $1,536.00 Task 023: Design Documentation Senior Engineer 40.00 180.00 $7,200.00 Total for Conceptual Design 1,148.00 $178,748.00 Phase 003: Supplemental Topo Survey Task 001: PM & Coordination Professional Land Surveyor I 8.00 135.00 $1,080.00 Task 002: Topo Survey (Annie & Missing Irrigation Ditch)Staff Surveyor II 40.00 120.00 $4,800.00 Task 003: Utility Survey (Water & Sewer Main)Staff Surveyor II 60.00 120.00 $7,200.00 Task 004: Tree Survey (After Concept Design)Staff Surveyor II 40.00 120.00 $4,800.00 Task 005: Other Misc Survey Pickups Staff Surveyor II 40.00 120.00 $4,800.00 Task 006: Draft Topo & Base Plan Professional Land Surveyor I 30.00 135.00 $4,050.00 Task 007: QA/QC Senior Engineer I 4.00 180.00 $720.00 Senior Professional Land Surveyor II 4.00 178.00 $712.00 Total for Supplemental Topo Survey 226.00 $28,162.00 Phase 004: Roadway/Intersection Design Task 001: PM & Coordination Principal 20.00 235.00 $4,700.00 Senior Designer II 20.00 135.00 $2,700.00 Senior Engineer I 100.00 180.00 $18,000.00 Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Task 003: 60% Finalize Corridor Linework Senior Designer II 40.00 135.00 $5,400.00 Staff Engineer II 40.00 128.00 $5,120.00 91 Fowler Avenue - Main to Oak Design 2/28/2023 Labor Category Total Plan Hours Rate Total Plan Bill Amount Task 004: 60% Finalize Huffline & Fowler Intersect Senior Designer II 10.00 135.00 $1,350.00 Staff Engineer II 10.00 128.00 $1,280.00 Task 005: 60% Finalize W. Babcock Intersection Senior Designer II 5.00 135.00 $675.00 Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Task 006: 60% Finalize Durston Roundabout Intersection Senior Designer II 5.00 135.00 $675.00 Senior Engineer I 10.00 180.00 $1,800.00 Staff Engineer II 5.00 128.00 $640.00 Task 007: 60% Establish Project Phase Tie-Ins Senior Designer II 20.00 135.00 $2,700.00 Senior Engineer I 16.00 180.00 $2,880.00 Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Task 008: 60% Develop Seg 1 Alignment Senior Designer II 8.00 135.00 $1,080.00 Senior Engineer I 4.00 180.00 $720.00 Staff Engineer II 8.00 128.00 $1,024.00 Task 009: 60% Develop Seg 2 Alignment Senior Designer II 8.00 135.00 $1,080.00 Senior Engineer I 4.00 180.00 $720.00 Staff Engineer II 8.00 128.00 $1,024.00 Task 010: 60% Develop Seg 3 Alignment Senior Designer II 8.00 135.00 $1,080.00 Senior Engineer I 4.00 180.00 $720.00 Staff Engineer II 8.00 128.00 $1,024.00 Task 011: 60% Develop Annie Street Alignment Senior Designer II 4.00 135.00 $540.00 Senior Engineer I 2.00 180.00 $360.00 Staff Engineer II 4.00 128.00 $512.00 Task 012: 60% Shared Use Path Senior Designer II 12.00 135.00 $1,620.00 Senior Engineer I 4.00 180.00 $720.00 Staff Engineer II 12.00 128.00 $1,536.00 Task 013: 60% Develop Corridor Templates Senior Designer II 15.00 135.00 $2,025.00 Senior Engineer I 4.00 180.00 $720.00 Staff Engineer II 15.00 128.00 $1,920.00 Task 014: 60% Segment 1 Corridor Senior Designer II 30.00 135.00 $4,050.00 Staff Engineer II 30.00 128.00 $3,840.00 Task 015: 60% Segment 2 Corridor Senior Designer II 30.00 135.00 $4,050.00 Staff Engineer II 30.00 128.00 $3,840.00 Task 016: 60% Segment 3 Corridor Senior Designer II 30.00 135.00 $4,050.00 Staff Engineer II 30.00 128.00 $3,840.00 Task 017: 60% Annie Street Corridor Senior Designer II 10.00 135.00 $1,350.00 Staff Engineer II 10.00 128.00 $1,280.00 92 Fowler Avenue - Main to Oak Design 2/28/2023 Labor Category Total Plan Hours Rate Total Plan Bill Amount Task 018: 60% Shared Use Path by Road Corridor Senior Designer II 15.00 135.00 $2,025.00 Staff Engineer II 15.00 128.00 $1,920.00 Task 019: 60% Prelim Signing & Striping Senior Engineer I 10.00 180.00 $1,800.00 Staff Engineer II 80.00 128.00 $10,240.00 Task 020: 60% Evaluate Fill Slopes Senior Designer II 10.00 135.00 $1,350.00 Staff Engineer II 10.00 128.00 $1,280.00 Task 021: 60% Evaluate Area Needs for Retaining Wall Senior Designer II 10.00 135.00 $1,350.00 Staff Engineer II 10.00 128.00 $1,280.00 Task 022: 60% Evalulate Cover Over Sewer & Utilities Senior Engineer I 10.00 180.00 $1,800.00 Staff Engineer II 10.00 128.00 $1,280.00 Task 023: 60% Prelim. Approach Grading Senior Designer II 90.00 135.00 $12,150.00 Staff Engineer II 90.00 128.00 $11,520.00 Task 024: 60% Prelim. Intersection Grading Senior Designer II 40.00 135.00 $5,400.00 Staff Engineer II 40.00 128.00 $5,120.00 Task 025: 60% Prelim. Roundabout Grading Senior Designer II 40.00 135.00 $5,400.00 Staff Engineer II 40.00 128.00 $5,120.00 Task 027: 60% Prelim. Cross Sections Senior Designer II 15.00 135.00 $2,025.00 Staff Engineer II 15.00 128.00 $1,920.00 Task 028: 90% Minor Profile Adjust As Needed Senior Designer II 20.00 135.00 $2,700.00 Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Task 029: 90% Segment 1 Corridor Adjustments Senior Designer II 20.00 135.00 $2,700.00 Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Task 030: 90% Segment 2 Corridor Adjustments Senior Designer II 20.00 135.00 $2,700.00 Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Task 031: 90% Segment 3 Corridor Adjustments Senior Designer II 20.00 135.00 $2,700.00 Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Task 032: 90% Annie Street Corridor Adjustments Senior Designer II 10.00 135.00 $1,350.00 Staff Engineer II 10.00 128.00 $1,280.00 Task 033: 90% Shared Use Path Adjustments Senior Designer II 10.00 135.00 $1,350.00 Staff Engineer II 10.00 128.00 $1,280.00 Task 034: 90% Final Signing and Striping Staff Engineer II 40.00 128.00 $5,120.00 Task 035: 90% Final Retaining Wall Design Senior Designer II 15.00 135.00 $2,025.00 Staff Engineer II 15.00 128.00 $1,920.00 Task 036: 90% Final Approach Grading Approaches Senior Designer II 50.00 135.00 $6,750.00 93 Fowler Avenue - Main to Oak Design 2/28/2023 Labor Category Total Plan Hours Rate Total Plan Bill Amount Staff Engineer II 50.00 128.00 $6,400.00 Task 038: 90% Final Intersection Grading Senior Designer II 20.00 135.00 $2,700.00 Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Task 039: 90% Final Roundabout Grading Senior Designer II 20.00 135.00 $2,700.00 Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Task 040: 90% Final Cross Section Senior Designer II 20.00 135.00 $2,700.00 Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Total for Roadway/Intersection Design 1,733.00 $237,600.00 Phase 005: Traffic Signal/Corridor Lighting Design Task 001: PM & Coordination Senior Engineer I 30.00 180.00 $5,400.00 Task 002: Client Meetings (4)Senior Engineer I 8.00 180.00 $1,440.00 Task 003: 60% Signal Analysis Senior Engineer I 16.00 180.00 $2,880.00 Staff Engineer II 16.00 128.00 $2,048.00 Task 004: 60% Signal Design Senior Engineer I 24.00 180.00 $4,320.00 Staff Engineer II 12.00 128.00 $1,536.00 Task 005: 60% Signal Timing Plan Senior Engineer I 16.00 180.00 $2,880.00 Staff Engineer II 4.00 128.00 $512.00 Task 006: 60% Pedestrian Design Senior Engineer I 16.00 180.00 $2,880.00 Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Task 007: 60% Lighting Analysis Senior Engineer I 16.00 180.00 $2,880.00 Staff Engineer II 40.00 128.00 $5,120.00 Task 008: 60% Lighting Design Senior Engineer I 20.00 180.00 $3,600.00 Staff Engineer II 32.00 128.00 $4,096.00 Task 009: 90% Adjust Signal & Lighting A&D Senior Engineer I 20.00 180.00 $3,600.00 Staff Engineer II 32.00 128.00 $4,096.00 Task 010: 90% Final Signal Timing Plan Senior Engineer I 8.00 180.00 $1,440.00 Staff Engineer II 4.00 128.00 $512.00 Task 011: 90% Pedestrian Design Senior Engineer I 10.00 180.00 $1,800.00 Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Task 012: 90% Final Electrical Wiring Design Senior Engineer I 10.00 180.00 $1,800.00 Staff Engineer II 30.00 128.00 $3,840.00 Total for Traffic Signal / Corridor Lighting Design 404.00 $61,800.00 Phase 006: Stormwater/Section Line Ditch Design Task 001: PM & Coordination Senior Engineer I 20.00 180.00 $3,600.00 Staff Engineer I 10.00 115.00 $1,150.00 94 Fowler Avenue - Main to Oak Design 2/28/2023 Labor Category Total Plan Hours Rate Total Plan Bill Amount Task 002: Client Meetings (4)Senior Engineer I 8.00 180.00 $1,440.00 Staff Engineer I 8.00 115.00 $920.00 Task 003: 60% Hydrologic Calculations Senior Engineer I 10.00 180.00 $1,800.00 Staff Engineer I 60.00 115.00 $6,900.00 Task 004: 60% Inlet Spacing & Spread Width Analysis Senior Engineer I 8.00 180.00 $1,440.00 Staff Engineer I 30.00 115.00 $3,450.00 Tasks 005: 60% Trunkline Analysis Senior Engineer I 4.00 180.00 $720.00 Staff Engineer I 10.00 115.00 $1,150.00 Task 006: 60% Lateral Pipe Design Senior Engineer I 4.00 180.00 $720.00 Staff Engineer I 20.00 115.00 $2,300.00 Task 007: 60% Trunkline Design Senior Engineer I 8.00 180.00 $1,440.00 Staff Engineer I 20.00 115.00 $2,300.00 Task 008: 60% Water Quantity Design Senior Engineer I 20.00 180.00 $3,600.00 Staff Engineer I 30.00 115.00 $3,450.00 Task 009: 60% Water Quality Design Senior Engineer I 20.00 180.00 $3,600.00 Staff Engineer I 30.00 115.00 $3,450.00 Task 010: 60% Evaluate Utility Conflicts Senior Engineer I 8.00 180.00 $1,440.00 Staff Engineer I 30.00 115.00 $3,450.00 Task 011: 60% Analysis of Replaced Section Line Senior Engineer I 8.00 180.00 $1,440.00 Staff Engineer I 20.00 115.00 $2,300.00 Task 012: 60% Design Section Line Ditch/Pipe Senior Engineer I 8.00 180.00 $1,440.00 Staff Engineer I 20.00 115.00 $2,300.00 Task 013: 60% Bozeman Pond Connection Senior Engineer I 2.00 180.00 $360.00 Staff Engineer I 8.00 115.00 $920.00 Task 014: 60% Coord w/ Section Line Ditch Senior Engineer I 8.00 180.00 $1,440.00 Staff Engineer I 8.00 115.00 $920.00 Task 015: 60% Prelim Hydraulics Report Senior Engineer I 10.00 180.00 $1,800.00 Staff Engineer I 50.00 115.00 $5,750.00 Task 016: 90% Adjust Hydrologic Calculations Senior Engineer I 4.00 180.00 $720.00 Staff Engineer I 20.00 115.00 $2,300.00 Task 017: 90% Adjust Hydraulic Design Senior Engineer I 8.00 180.00 $1,440.00 Staff Engineer I 30.00 115.00 $3,450.00 Task 018: 90% Size Manhole Structures Staff Engineer I 8.00 115.00 $920.00 95 Fowler Avenue - Main to Oak Design 2/28/2023 Labor Category Total Plan Hours Rate Total Plan Bill Amount Task 019: 90% Final Water Quantity Design Senior Engineer I 8.00 180.00 $1,440.00 Staff Engineer I 20.00 115.00 $2,300.00 Task 020: 90% Final Water Quality Design Senior Engineer I 8.00 180.00 $1,440.00 Staff Engineer I 20.00 115.00 $2,300.00 Task 021: 90% Evaluate Utility Conflicts Senior Engineer I 2.00 180.00 $360.00 Staff Engineer I 8.00 115.00 $920.00 Task 022: 90% Adjust Design Section Line Ditch Senior Engineer I 4.00 180.00 $720.00 Staff Engineer I 20.00 115.00 $2,300.00 Task 023: 90% Bozeman Pond Connection Staff Engineer I 4.00 115.00 $460.00 Task 024: 90% Irrigation Size Structures Staff Engineer I 8.00 115.00 $920.00 Task 025: 90% Coord w/ Section Line Ditch Senior Engineer I 4.00 180.00 $720.00 Task 026: 90% Final Hydraulics Report Senior Engineer I 10.00 180.00 $1,800.00 Staff Engineer I 30.00 115.00 $3,450.00 Total for Stormwater/Section Line Ditch Design 716.00 $94,950.00 Phase 007: Water/Sewer Main Design Task 001: PM & Coordination Principal 40.00 235.00 $9,400.00 Project Engineer I 20.00 135.00 $2,700.00 Senior Engineer I 10.00 180.00 $1,800.00 Task 002: 60% Sewer Main Analysis Project Engineer I 20.00 135.00 $2,700.00 Staff Engineer I 20.00 115.00 $2,300.00 Task 003: 60% Sewer Main Design Project Engineer I 20.00 135.00 $2,700.00 Staff Engineer I 20.00 115.00 $2,300.00 Task 004: 60% Water Main Laredo to Ravalli Project Engineer I 20.00 135.00 $2,700.00 Staff Engineer I 20.00 115.00 $2,300.00 Task 005: 60% Water Main W. Babcock to Christopher Project Engineer I 30.00 135.00 $4,050.00 Staff Engineer I 30.00 115.00 $3,450.00 Task 006: 60% Water Main Durston to Oak Project Engineer I 40.00 135.00 $5,400.00 Staff Engineer I 40.00 115.00 $4,600.00 Task 007: 60% Design Sewer Manhole Adjustments Staff Engineer I 30.00 115.00 $3,450.00 Task 008: 60% Relocate Hydrants Project Engineer I 12.00 135.00 $1,620.00 Task 009: 90% Adjust Sewer Main Design from City Project Engineer I 12.00 135.00 $1,620.00 Task 010: 90% Size Manhole Structures Staff Engineer I 6.00 115.00 $690.00 Task 011: 90% Adjust Water Main Design from City Project Engineer I 40.00 135.00 $5,400.00 96 Fowler Avenue - Main to Oak Design 2/28/2023 Labor Category Total Plan Hours Rate Total Plan Bill Amount Staff Engineer I 40.00 115.00 $4,600.00 Task 012: 90% Final Sewer Manhole Adjustments Staff Engineer I 15.00 115.00 $1,725.00 Task 013: 90% Final Relocate Hydrants Project Engineer I 6.00 135.00 $810.00 Task 014: 90% DEQ Report/Checklist/Permit Principal 8.00 235.00 $1,880.00 Project Engineer I 20.00 135.00 $2,700.00 Staff Engineer I 20.00 115.00 $2,300.00 Task 015: Evaluate Utility Conflicts Project Engineer I 12.00 135.00 $1,620.00 Staff Engineer I 12.00 115.00 $1,380.00 Total for Water/Sewer Main Design 563.00 $76,195.00 Phase 008: Landscape & Irrigation Design Task 001: PM & Coordination Landscape Designer II 20.00 108.00 $2,160.00 Senior Engineer I 10.00 180.00 $1,800.00 Senior Landscape Architect II 20.00 170.00 $3,400.00 Task 002: 60% Boulevard Landscape Design Landscape Designer II 80.00 108.00 $8,640.00 Senior Landscape Architect II 10.00 170.00 $1,700.00 Task 003: 60% Median Landscape Design Landscape Designer II 60.00 108.00 $6,480.00 Senior Landscape Architect II 10.00 170.00 $1,700.00 Task 004: 60% Irrigation Design Landscape Designer II 80.00 108.00 $8,640.00 Senior Landscape Architect II 10.00 170.00 $1,700.00 Task 005: 90% Boulevard Landscape Design Landscape Designer II 40.00 108.00 $4,320.00 Senior Landscape Architect II 10.00 170.00 $1,700.00 Task 006: 90% Median Landscape Design Landscape Designer II 30.00 108.00 $3,240.00 Senior Landscape Architect II 10.00 170.00 $1,700.00 Task 007: 90% Irrigation Design Landscape Designer II 60.00 108.00 $6,480.00 Senior Landscape Architect II 10.00 170.00 $1,700.00 Task 008: 60% Roundabout Landscape Design Landscape Designer II 40.00 108.00 $4,320.00 Senior Landscape Architect II 10.00 170.00 $1,700.00 Task 009: 90% Roundabout Landscape Design Landscape Designer II 20.00 108.00 $2,160.00 Senior Landscape Architect II 10.00 170.00 $1,700.00 Task 010: 60% Roundabout Irrigation Design Landscape Designer II 20.00 108.00 $2,160.00 Senior Landscape Architect II 10.00 170.00 $1,700.00 Task 011: 90% Roundabout Irrigation Design Landscape Designer II 10.00 108.00 $1,080.00 Senior Landscape Architect II 4.00 170.00 $680.00 Total for Landscape & Irrigation Design 584.00 $70,860.00 Phase 009: Utility Coordination 97 Fowler Avenue - Main to Oak Design 2/28/2023 Labor Category Total Plan Hours Rate Total Plan Bill Amount Task 001: PM & Coordination Senior Engineer I 40.00 180.00 $7,200.00 Task 002: NWE Coordination Senior Engineer I 30.00 180.00 $5,400.00 Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Task 003: Bozeman Fiber/CenturyLink/Charter Senior Engineer I 10.00 180.00 $1,800.00 Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Task 004: Coordination with COB Public Works Senior Engineer I 10.00 180.00 $1,800.00 Staff Engineer II 8.00 128.00 $1,024.00 Total for Utility Coordination 138.00 $22,344.00 Phase 010: Environmental Permitting Task 001: PM & Coordination Senior Engineer I 10.00 180.00 $1,800.00 Task 002: Joint Application Senior Engineer I 4.00 180.00 $720.00 Staff Engineer I 16.00 115.00 $1,840.00 Task 003: Prepare Exhibits Staff Engineer I 20.00 115.00 $2,300.00 Task 004: Respond to Jurisdiction Comments Senior Engineer I 4.00 180.00 $720.00 Staff Engineer I 12.00 115.00 $1,380.00 Total for Environmental Permitting 66.00 $8,760.00 Phase 011: SWPPP Preparation Task 001: PM & Coordination Senior Engineer I 10.00 180.00 $1,800.00 Task 002: Prepare NOI Staff Engineer I 10.00 115.00 $1,150.00 Task 003: Prepare SWPPP Staff Engineer I 20.00 115.00 $2,300.00 Task 004: Prepare Exhibits Staff Engineer I 20.00 115.00 $2,300.00 Task 005: Respond to City Comments Staff Engineer I 10.00 115.00 $1,150.00 Task 006: Final SWPPP Documents Staff Engineer I 10.00 115.00 $1,150.00 Total for SWPPP Preparation 80.00 $9,850.00 Phase 012: Prelim PS&E Submittal (60%) Task 001: PM & Coordination Principal 30.00 235.00 $7,050.00 Senior Engineer I 160.00 180.00 $28,800.00 Senior Landscape Architect II 20.00 170.00 $3,400.00 Task 002: Cover Sheet & Legend Senior Designer II 10.00 135.00 $1,350.00 Staff Engineer II 10.00 128.00 $1,280.00 Task 003: Existing Topo & Demo Sheets Senior Designer II 40.00 135.00 $5,400.00 Staff Engineer II 40.00 128.00 $5,120.00 Task 004: Overall Project Plan Senior Designer II 30.00 135.00 $4,050.00 Staff Engineer II 30.00 128.00 $3,840.00 98 Fowler Avenue - Main to Oak Design 2/28/2023 Labor Category Total Plan Hours Rate Total Plan Bill Amount Task 005: Road Plan & Profile Sheets Senior Designer II 80.00 135.00 $10,800.00 Staff Engineer II 80.00 128.00 $10,240.00 Task 006: Storm Plan & Profile Sheets Senior Engineer I 20.00 180.00 $3,600.00 Staff Engineer I 100.00 115.00 $11,500.00 Task 007: Section Line Ditch Plan & Profile Sheets Senior Engineer I 10.00 180.00 $1,800.00 Staff Engineer I 80.00 115.00 $9,200.00 Task 008: Water Plan & Profile Sheets Project Engineer I 80.00 135.00 $10,800.00 Staff Engineer I 80.00 115.00 $9,200.00 Task 009: Sewer Plan & Profile Sheets Project Engineer I 20.00 135.00 $2,700.00 Staff Engineer I 20.00 115.00 $2,300.00 Task 010: Shared Use Path Plan & Profile Sheets Senior Designer II 40.00 135.00 $5,400.00 Staff Engineer II 40.00 128.00 $5,120.00 Task 011: Rbt/Int. Grading Detail Sheets Senior Designer II 30.00 135.00 $4,050.00 Staff Engineer II 30.00 128.00 $3,840.00 Task 012: Approach Grading Detail Sheets Senior Designer II 30.00 135.00 $4,050.00 Staff Engineer II 30.00 128.00 $3,840.00 Task 013: Cross Section Sheets Senior Designer II 20.00 135.00 $2,700.00 Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Task 014: Typical Section Details Senior Designer II 30.00 135.00 $4,050.00 Staff Engineer II 30.00 128.00 $3,840.00 Task 015: Misc Road & Utility Details Senior Designer II 20.00 135.00 $2,700.00 Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Task 016: Landscape Plan Sheets Landscape Designer II 60.00 108.00 $6,480.00 Senior Landscape Architect II 10.00 170.00 $1,700.00 Task 017: Irrigation Plan Sheets Landscape Designer II 60.00 108.00 $6,480.00 Senior Landscape Architect II 10.00 170.00 $1,700.00 Task 018: Landscape & Irrigation Misc. Details Landscape Designer II 40.00 108.00 $4,320.00 Senior Landscape Architect II 10.00 170.00 $1,700.00 Task 019: Signing & Striping Plan Sheets Staff Engineer II 50.00 128.00 $6,400.00 Task 020: Misc. Signing & Striping Details Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Task 021: Street Sign Details Senior Engineer I 8.00 180.00 $1,440.00 Task 022: Lighting Plan Sheets Senior Engineer I 20.00 180.00 $3,600.00 Staff Engineer II 40.00 128.00 $5,120.00 99 Fowler Avenue - Main to Oak Design 2/28/2023 Labor Category Total Plan Hours Rate Total Plan Bill Amount Task 023: Signal Plan Sheets Senior Engineer I 20.00 180.00 $3,600.00 Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Task 024: Wiring Diagram Plan Sheets Senior Engineer I 20.00 180.00 $3,600.00 Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Task 025: Electrical Detail Sheets Senior Engineer I 10.00 180.00 $1,800.00 Staff Engineer II 10.00 128.00 $1,280.00 Task 026: Standard Forms Senior Engineer I 20.00 180.00 $3,600.00 Task 027: Special Provisions Principal 20.00 235.00 $4,700.00 Senior Engineer I 30.00 180.00 $5,400.00 Task 028: Explanation of Bid Items Principal 4.00 235.00 $940.00 Senior Engineer I 24.00 180.00 $4,320.00 Task 029: Electrical Special Provisions Senior Engineer I 12.00 180.00 $2,160.00 Task 030: Preliminary Estimate Senior Engineer I 10.00 180.00 $1,800.00 Staff Engineer I 20.00 115.00 $2,300.00 Staff Engineer II 40.00 128.00 $5,120.00 Task 031: Preliminary Earthwork Calculations Principal 10.00 235.00 $2,350.00 Staff Engineer II 30.00 128.00 $3,840.00 Task 033: Client Meetings Principal 16.00 235.00 $3,760.00 Senior Engineer I 32.00 180.00 $5,760.00 Task 034: Package and Submit Senior Engineer I 4.00 180.00 $720.00 Staff Engineer I 8.00 115.00 $920.00 Staff Engineer II 8.00 128.00 $1,024.00 Task 035: All 60% Design & Plan Prep QA/QC Principal 40.00 235.00 $9,400.00 Senior Engineer I 80.00 180.00 $14,400.00 Senior Landscape Architect II 20.00 170.00 $3,400.00 Task 036: Review Meetings with Local Contractors Principal 4.00 235.00 $940.00 Senior Engineer I 8.00 180.00 $1,440.00 Task 037: Design Documentation Senior Engineer I 30.00 180.00 $5,400.00 Total for Prelim PS&E Submittal (60%)2,178.00 $317,734.00 Phase 013: Final PS&E Submittal (90%-100%) Task 001: PM & Coordination Principal 40.00 235.00 $9,400.00 Senior Engineer I 90.00 180.00 $16,200.00 Senior Landscape Architect II 20.00 170.00 $3,400.00 Task 002: Client Consultation & Meetings Principal 8.00 235.00 $1,880.00 Senior Engineer I 16.00 180.00 $2,880.00 100 Fowler Avenue - Main to Oak Design 2/28/2023 Labor Category Total Plan Hours Rate Total Plan Bill Amount Task 003: Cover Sheet & Legend & Sheet Prep Senior Designer II 6.00 135.00 $810.00 Staff Engineer II 6.00 128.00 $768.00 Task 004: Existing Topo & Demo Sheets Senior Designer II 15.00 135.00 $2,025.00 Staff Engineer II 15.00 128.00 $1,920.00 Task 005: Overall Project Plan Senior Designer II 24.00 135.00 $3,240.00 Staff Engineer II 24.00 128.00 $3,072.00 Task 006: Road Plan & Profile Sheets Senior Designer II 60.00 135.00 $8,100.00 Staff Engineer II 60.00 128.00 $7,680.00 Task 007: Storm Plan & Profile Sheets Senior Engineer I 20.00 180.00 $3,600.00 Staff Engineer I 60.00 115.00 $6,900.00 Task 008: Section Line Ditch Plan & Profile Sheets Senior Engineer I 10.00 180.00 $1,800.00 Staff Engineer I 30.00 115.00 $3,450.00 Task 009: Water Plan & Profile Sheets Project Engineer I 40.00 135.00 $5,400.00 Staff Engineer I 40.00 115.00 $4,600.00 Task 010: Sewer Plan & Profile Sheets Project Engineer I 20.00 135.00 $2,700.00 Staff Engineer I 20.00 115.00 $2,300.00 Task 011: Shared Use Path Plan & Profile Sheets Senior Designer II 20.00 135.00 $2,700.00 Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Task 012: Rbt/Int. Grading Detail Sheets Senior Designer II 30.00 135.00 $4,050.00 Staff Engineer II 30.00 128.00 $3,840.00 Task 013: Approach Detailed Grading Sheets Senior Designer II 30.00 135.00 $4,050.00 Staff Engineer II 30.00 128.00 $3,840.00 Task 014: Cross Section Sheets Senior Designer II 15.00 135.00 $2,025.00 Staff Engineer II 15.00 128.00 $1,920.00 Task 015: Typical Section Sheets Senior Designer II 10.00 135.00 $1,350.00 Staff Engineer II 10.00 128.00 $1,280.00 Task 016: Misc. Road and Utility Details Senior Designer II 10.00 135.00 $1,350.00 Staff Engineer II 10.00 128.00 $1,280.00 Task 017: Landscape Plan Sheets Landscape Designer II 30.00 108.00 $3,240.00 Senior Landscape Architect II 4.00 170.00 $680.00 Task 018: Irrigation Plan Sheets Landscape Designer II 30.00 108.00 $3,240.00 Senior Landscape Architect II 4.00 170.00 $680.00 Task 019: Landscape & Irrigation Misc. Details Landscape Designer II 12.00 108.00 $1,296.00 Senior Landscape Architect II 4.00 170.00 $680.00 101 Fowler Avenue - Main to Oak Design 2/28/2023 Labor Category Total Plan Hours Rate Total Plan Bill Amount Task 020: Signing & Striping Plan Sheets Senior Engineer I 4.00 180.00 $720.00 Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Task 021: Misc. Signing & Striping Details Senior Engineer I 4.00 180.00 $720.00 Staff Engineer II 10.00 128.00 $1,280.00 Task 022: Street Sign Details Senior Engineer I 30.00 180.00 $5,400.00 Task 023: Lighting Plan Sheets Senior Engineer I 10.00 180.00 $1,800.00 Staff Engineer II 12.00 128.00 $1,536.00 Task 024: Signal Plan Sheets Senior Engineer I 4.00 180.00 $720.00 Staff Engineer II 12.00 128.00 $1,536.00 Task 025: Wiring Diagram Plan Sheets Senior Engineer I 4.00 180.00 $720.00 Staff Engineer II 12.00 128.00 $1,536.00 Task 026: Electrical Detail Sheets Senior Engineer I 4.00 180.00 $720.00 Staff Engineer II 12.00 128.00 $1,536.00 Task 027: Update Standard Forms Senior Engineer I 20.00 180.00 $3,600.00 Task 028: Special Provisions Principal 5.00 235.00 $1,175.00 Senior Engineer I 20.00 180.00 $3,600.00 Task 029: Explanation of Bid Items Principal 8.00 235.00 $1,880.00 Senior Engineer I 18.00 180.00 $3,240.00 Task 030: Electrical Special Provisions Senior Engineer I 16.00 180.00 $2,880.00 Task 031: Final Estimate Senior Engineer I 20.00 180.00 $3,600.00 Staff Engineer I 20.00 115.00 $2,300.00 Staff Engineer II 20.00 128.00 $2,560.00 Task 034: Comment Response Document Senior Engineer I 16.00 180.00 $2,880.00 Staff Engineer II 4.00 128.00 $512.00 Task 035: Duplicate, Package and Submit Senior Engineer I 8.00 180.00 $1,440.00 Staff Engineer I 8.00 115.00 $920.00 Staff Engineer II 8.00 128.00 $1,024.00 Task 036: All 90% Design and Plan Prep QA/QC Principal 50.00 235.00 $11,750.00 Senior Engineer I 90.00 180.00 $16,200.00 Senior Landscape Architect II 10.00 170.00 $1,700.00 Task 037: 100% Construction Plan Revisions Landscape Designer II 40.00 108.00 $4,320.00 Project Engineer I 20.00 135.00 $2,700.00 Senior Designer II 20.00 135.00 $2,700.00 Senior Engineer I 40.00 180.00 $7,200.00 Staff Engineer I 40.00 115.00 $4,600.00 102 Fowler Avenue - Main to Oak Design 2/28/2023 Labor Category Total Plan Hours Rate Total Plan Bill Amount Staff Engineer II 40.00 128.00 $5,120.00 Task 038: 100% Spec Book Revisions Principal 6.00 235.00 $1,410.00 Senior Engineer I 14.00 180.00 $2,520.00 Task 039: 100% Package and Submit Senior Engineer I 2.00 180.00 $360.00 Staff Engineer I 4.00 115.00 $460.00 Staff Engineer II 4.00 128.00 $512.00 Task 040: 100% Design & Plan Prep QA/QC Principal 30.00 235.00 $7,050.00 Senior Engineer I 40.00 180.00 $7,200.00 Senior Landscape Architect II 10.00 170.00 $1,700.00 Task 041: Client Meetings (4)Principal 8.00 235.00 $1,880.00 Senior Engineer I 16.00 180.00 $2,880.00 Task 042: Design Documentation Senior Engineer I 10.00 180.00 $1,800.00 Total for Final PS&E Submittal (90%-100%)1,761.00 $268,643.00 Phase 014: Community Engagement Task 001: PM & Coordination Marketing Director 10.00 155.00 $1,550.00 Principal 20.00 235.00 $4,700.00 Senior Engineer I 20.00 180.00 $3,600.00 Senior Planner II 20.00 175.00 $3,500.00 Staff Planner I 20.00 100.00 $2,000.00 Task 002: External Constituents Coordination Principal 4.00 235.00 $940.00 Senior Engineer I 12.00 180.00 $2,160.00 Senior Planner II 4.00 175.00 $700.00 Task 003: Internal Constituents Coordination Principal 4.00 235.00 $940.00 Senior Engineer I 8.00 180.00 $1,440.00 Task 004: Phase 1 Kick off: Website/Mailers Graphic Artist 16.00 100.00 $1,600.00 Principal 4.00 235.00 $940.00 Senior Engineer I 4.00 180.00 $720.00 Senior Planner II 4.00 175.00 $700.00 Staff Planner I 30.00 100.00 $3,000.00 103 Fowler Avenue - Main to Oak Design 2/28/2023 Labor Category Total Plan Hours Rate Total Plan Bill Amount Task 005: Phase 2 30%: Website Principal 2.00 235.00 $470.00 Senior Engineer I 2.00 180.00 $360.00 Senior Planner II 2.00 175.00 $350.00 Staff Planner I 8.00 100.00 $800.00 Task 006: Phase 2 30%: Graphics & Open House Graphic Artist 24.00 100.00 $2,400.00 Principal 8.00 235.00 $1,880.00 Senior Engineer I 18.00 180.00 $3,240.00 Senior Planner II 8.00 175.00 $1,400.00 Staff Planner I 20.00 100.00 $2,000.00 Task 007: Phase 2 30%: Present to Commission & TB Principal 8.00 235.00 $1,880.00 Senior Engineer I 16.00 180.00 $2,880.00 Task 008: Phase 3 60%: Website Graphic Artist 16.00 100.00 $1,600.00 Principal 2.00 235.00 $470.00 Senior Engineer I 4.00 180.00 $720.00 Senior Planner II 2.00 175.00 $350.00 Staff Planner I 20.00 100.00 $2,000.00 Task 009: Phase 3 60%: Graphics & Open House Graphic Artist 24.00 100.00 $2,400.00 Principal 8.00 235.00 $1,880.00 Senior Engineer I 18.00 180.00 $3,240.00 Senior Planner II 8.00 175.00 $1,400.00 Staff Planner I 20.00 100.00 $2,000.00 Task 010: Phase 3 60%: Present to Commission & TB Principal 8.00 235.00 $1,880.00 Senior Engineer I 16.00 180.00 $2,880.00 Senior Planner II 8.00 175.00 $1,400.00 Task 011: Phase 4 90%: Website Graphic Artist 16.00 100.00 $1,600.00 Principal 2.00 235.00 $470.00 Senior Engineer I 4.00 180.00 $720.00 Senior Planner II 2.00 175.00 $350.00 Staff Planner I 20.00 100.00 $2,000.00 Task 012: Phase 4 90%: Graphics & Open House Graphic Artist 16.00 100.00 $1,600.00 Principal 8.00 235.00 $1,880.00 Senior Engineer I 16.00 180.00 $2,880.00 Senior Planner II 8.00 175.00 $1,400.00 Staff Planner I 20.00 100.00 $2,000.00 Task 013: Phase 4: 90%: Present to Commission & TB Principal 8.00 235.00 $1,880.00 Senior Engineer I 16.00 180.00 $2,880.00 Senior Planner II 8.00 175.00 $1,400.00 Task 014: All Yard Sign Installation & Maintenance Staff Planner I 24.00 100.00 $2,400.00 Total for Community Engagement 618.00 $91,830.00 Total for Fowler Ave - Main to Oak - Design 10,298.00 $1,483,516.00 104 FOWLER AVENUE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT TITLE: Fowler Ave Connection DESIGN PHASE Project leads · Nick Ross – City of Bozeman Transportation & Engineering Director · Taylor Lonsdale – City of Bozeman Transportation Engineer · Danielle Scharf – Sanderson Stewart Principal in Charge · Chris Naumann—Sanderson Stewart Engagement Lead · Steph Hudock – Sanderson Stewart Project Manager PURPOSE The purpose of engagement in the design phase of this project is to solicit input on designs of the Fowler Avenue corridor throughout the design process. Based on conclusion of the pre‐design phase, Department of Transportation and Engineering staff recommend the Fowler Avenue Connection project advance into preliminary engineering with the following conditions: 1. One travel lane in each direction 2. Turn lanes as needed 3. Traffic signal intersection control at the intersection of Babcock Street 4. Roundabout intersection control at the intersection of Durston Road 5. Shared use path on at least one side of the corridor 6. Utilization of flexible design criteria to provide context sensitive solutions with a goal of preserving existing tree canopy BACKGROUND A critical aspect of the recommendation is design flexibility. The Fowler Avenue corridor traverses different adjacent land use contexts. The staff recommendation sets the high‐level vision and establishes the critical features of the corridor. The combination of these features will accomplish the purpose of enhancing transportation connectivity for all modes. Implementing them with design flexibility will enable a final design that is sensitive to the varying contexts. This means that Fowler Avenue may not carry the same exact typical section for the entire length. Instead, the critical elements will be implemented with flexibility that reacts to the varying contexts of the corridor. This flexible design approach will allow the city to balance the current and future needs for connectivity with resident’s input on impact to adjacent neighborhoods and concerns with loss of trees and habitat. Additionally, this approach accounts for the rising costs of construction with an incremental approach to future needs. 105 Definitions · Minor Arterial Street: A road intended to provide intracommunity continuity and support trips of moderate length. They generally do not penetrate neighborhoods. These roads have some emphasis on land access and may carry local bus routes. · Mobility: the ability to move through or along a corridor · Access: the ability to access adjacent land uses from a corridor KEY CONSTITUENTS Internal Constituents · City Commission · City Manager’s Office · City Departments o Engineering o Community Development o Neighborhoods o Streets o Stormwater o Forestry · Sanderson Stewart (design consultant) · Other organizational partners o Transportation Advisory Board External Constituents · All community members on the Engage Bozeman project page · Farmers Canal Board o Dan Triemstra 406‐581‐8714 danbevt@gmail.com o Bill Fanning (Legal Counsel) (406) 220‐2805 william@fanninglawpllc.com · Transportation Organizations o STREAMLINE ‐ Sunshine Ross sross@thehrdc.org o GVLT ‐ Matt Parsons matt@gvlt.org o WTI ‐ Matt Madsen matthew.madsen@montana.edu o Mobility Advisor ‐ LizAnn Kudrna lizannkudrna@gmail.com o Gallatin Valley Bicycle Club ‐ Drew Tyger drew.tyger@gmail.com o GAP ‐ Marilee Brown saferbozeman@gmail.com · Specific Neighborhood groups or Associations o VUNA Other HOAs o Oak Springs HOA President, Kevin Yager, yagerconstruction@gmail.com 106 o Cottage Park Subdivision, Infinite Properties, Aimee hoa@infinitemontana.com o Harvest Creek Subdivision, Lindsay Freitas lindsay@saddlepeakproperties.com o Fowler Place HOA o T.J. Hinman (president): hinmanracing@live.com o Abby Ward dancesonsnow@yahoo.com o PINE MEADOW/VALLEY MEADOW Property Management, Melissa Horner melissa@hhearthworks.com o DIAMOND ESTATES Property Management, Karin Caroline arrisproperty@gmail.com o West Park HOA, Damion Lynn bozemanwestparkhoa@gmail.com PUBLIC’S ROLE IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS It will be important to articulate the constraints that go into making these decisions during Community Engagement so that the public understands the process. 1. Decisions that have already been made: a. Corridor is going to be built. b. One travel lane in each direction c. Turn lanes as needed d. Traffic signal intersection control at the intersection of Babcock Street e. Roundabout intersection control at the intersection of Durston Road f. Shared use path on at least one side of the corridor 2. Decisions that will need to be made during the design process and by whom: a. Decide on R/W constraints after acquisition discussions · Decision made by City, no public comment contribution b. Decide site/budget design constraints · Decision made by City, with some public comment contribution c. Decide community involvement design constraints · Decision made by City, with public comment contribution d. Decide final layout from concept alternatives based on items above · Decision made by City 107 STEP IN THE DECISION- MAKING PROCESS SPECTRUM LEVEL C.E. STATEMENT (Leave empty if Spectrum Level is INFORM) Combine the Spectrum level, language from the from the Spectrum graphic below with the decision-making stage. CONSTITUENT GROUP (ex. all or targeted) Define problem / opportunity Inform Inform the public regarding the project and the opportunities for input. All Gather information Inform Inform the public regarding the engagement process so far and the pre‐design recommendations All Establish decision criteria Inform Inform the public regarding decision criteria (safety and connectivity for all modes, impacts on adjacent contexts including residential and natural habitat) All Develop alternatives Inform/Involve Inform the public regarding the alternatives being developed Involve key constituents in development of alternatives Staff, ROW owners Evaluate alternatives Consult Consult the public in evaluation of designs at different design milestones All Make decision Inform Inform the public regarding the final designs Staff, Commission OVERALL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT LEVEL: Inform and Consult The levels of community engagement will be to Inform and Involve as established by the 2021 Bozeman Community Engagement Initiative. INFORM: Provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, opportunities, and/or solutions. CONSULT: Obtain public feedback on designs, keep public informed of the design process, listen to and acknowledge concerns and aspirations, and provide feedback on how public input influenced decisions. 108 109 GOAL FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Consult the public on design milestones, obtaining feedback on designs that balance bike, pedestrian, and vehicle safety and connectivity, habitat and tree preservation where possible, and context sensitivity with adjacent neighborhoods and homes. OBJECTIVES · Increase public awareness about tradeoffs in transportation projects and the decision‐making process. · Reach 75% of residents that live within ½ mile of the project corridor (through mailers to all neighbors, project website, meetings, project signs at prominent locations along the corridor, and emails for those that sign up to be on the mailing list) · Reach neighbors and the overall community through a Community Engagement Platform (website) that will provide project information and virtual events · Host up to three public meetings on design milestones PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY Timeline: Phase 1: Design Kick Off Actions/Tools: Website/Noticing · Update pre‐design website and populate with initial concept with decisions that have been made. Describe next phase of project (30%). · Send mailers to ½ mile from project corridor notifying that we are kicking off the design and to use the website for project updates and information. Encouraging community members to register to get notified about project updates and future open houses. · Add signs to project corridor with QR code to website, with same message as mailer. Phase 2: 30% Design—Inform & Consult Actions/Tools: Website/Noticing · Graphics/exhibits of alternatives · Update website with alternatives and design discussions · Maintain signs to project corridor with QR code to website Actions/Tools: Open House for Input on Alternatives · Graphics/exhibits of alternatives · Seek input on alternatives to consider in determination of final preferred alternative for remaining design process 110 Actions/Tools: Present to Commission and Transportation Board · Create presentation and attend one TAB meeting and one CC meeting Phase 3: 60% Design-Inform Only Actions/Tools: Website/Noticing · Graphics/exhibits of current design with discussions of design decisions · Update website · Maintain or replace signs on project corridor with QR code to website Actions/Tools: Informative Open House · Graphics/exhibits of current design and discussion of process of design decisions Actions/Tools: Present to Commission and Transportation Board · Create presentation and attend one TAB meeting and one CC meeting Phase 4: 90% Design—Inform Only Actions/Tools: Website/Noticing · Graphics/exhibits of current design with discussions of design decision · Update website · Maintain or replace signs on project corridor with QR code to website Actions/Tools: Informative Open House · Graphics/exhibits of current design · 90% Design will include a video visualization Actions/Tools: Present to Commission and Transportation Board · Create presentation and attend one TAB meeting and one CC meeting 111 Memorandum REPORT TO:City Commission FROM:Kellen Gamradt, Engineer Lance Lehigh, Interim City Engineer Nick Ross, Transportation & Engineering Director SUBJECT:Public Hearing on Protests for Special Improvement District (SID) No. 778 and Adoption of Resolution 5465 - a Resolution of the Bozeman City Commission to create SID No. 778 for the purpose of undertaking certain local improvements to Bogert Place between South Church Avenue and East Story Street and financing the costs thereof MEETING DATE:March 7, 2023 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Resolution RECOMMENDATION:After incorporating the information and findings in the staff memorandum, oral findings made by the Commission during the public hearing, information and findings contained in the proposed resolution, and after considering public comment and hearing all protests and finding them to be insufficient under law to bar further proceedings, I hereby move to adopt Resolution 5465 creating Special Improvement District No. 778 for the purpose of financing local improvements to Bogert Place between South Church Avenue and East Story Street. STRATEGIC PLAN:2.2 Infrastructure Investments: Strategically invest in infrastructure as a mechanism to encourage economic development. BACKGROUND:At its February 7, 2023 meeting the City Commission adopted Resolution 5464, declaring it to be the intention of the City Commission to create Special Improvement District (SID) No. 778 (the “District”) for the purpose of undertaking certain local improvements to Bogert Place between South Church Avenue and East Story Street and financing the costs thereof. In accordance with Montana Code Annotated (MCA) Title 7-12 Part 41, notice of the passage of this Resolution was published in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on February 12, 2023 and February 19, 2023 and mailed to all property owners to be assessed. This established the "Protest Period" as February 13, 2023 to March 1, 2023 at 5:00 PM. Pursuant to Section 7-12-4113, MCA, no further proceedings may be taken on creation of a Special Improvement District if the Commission finds protest has been made by the owners of property in the district to be assessed for more than 50% of the cost of the proposed work. Within the Protest Period, 1 protest was filed with the City Clerk by the property owners of 1 parcel, 112 representing 7.85% percent of the total costs of the improvements to be assessed against properties in the District, as proposed. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:SID creation is subject to protest by the property owners to be assessed. A Protest/Support Form is included in the Commission Packet. The sufficiency of protest is outlined in 7-12-4113, MCA. Simply stated, if protest is made by property owners to be assessed for more than 50% of the costs of the proposed work, further proceedings are barred for six months. Should this occur, there are a number of other street reconstruction projects in the adopted Capital Improvement Plan to consider. However, at some point in the future, the community at large will not be able to absorb the displaced traffic that will result from the failure to reconstruct local streets that are a critical component of the City’s street network. At that time, the Commission will be asked to provide direction on how to finance local street improvements in the face of local opposition to SIDs. ALTERNATIVES:As suggested by the City Commission FISCAL EFFECTS:Current Budget: The Adopted 2024-2028 Capital Improvement Plan includes $402,000 for the reconstruction of Bogert Place. The current engineering project cost estimate is $499,000. Expenditures will be made in fiscal year 2024 and updated costs will be included in the FY24 City Manager’s Recommended Budget. Project Costs: The total estimated cost of the street and storm drain improvements are $499,000. This estimate is broken out in Exhibit C by item. The City can commit, per its policy, $331,936 to reduce the costs to the SID, leaving $167,064 to be funded by the SID. In addition, the SID will be responsible for an estimated $1,000 in incidental costs related to the creation of the SID for a total of $168,064 . If the Commission adopts Resolution 5465 based on the recommended method of assessment (linear feet lot frontage), then for an average residential lot with 114 ft. of frontage, the total estimated assessment would be $15,732 plus interest on the loan described in the Financing section below. Financing: Costs and expenses of construction of the Improvements will be paid for in part by street maintenance fees and in part by the District proposed in this Resolution. Costs of the Districts portion of the improvements will be financed by an interfund loan from the special improvement district revolving loan fund to the Bogert Place SID. An interfund loan has a number of benefits, including a lower interest rate for the District property owners, and avoidance of the costs and time- consuming work of underwriting a bond sale. The revolving fund will be paid back as property owners make their payments over time, with interest. In accordance with Resolution 4983, special assessments for the District’s share will be payable over a term not exceeding twenty (20) years, in equal semi- annual installments. Because of the relatively low cost of this improvement 113 to be covered by assessments, this loan is planned to be payable over 10 years. Property owners have the right to prepay assessments. If SID 778 is created, a Resolution approving the interfund loan documents will be proposed to the Commission at a future meeting.Financing: Costs and expenses of construction of the Improvements will be paid for in part by street maintenance fees and in part by the District proposed in this Resolution. Costs of the Districts portion of the improvements will be financed by an interfund loan from the special improvement district revolving loan fund to the Bogert Place SID. An interfund loan has a number of benefits, including a lower interest rate for the District property owners, and avoidance of the costs and time-consuming work of underwriting a bond sale. The revolving fund will be paid back as property owners make their payments over time, with interest. In accordance with Resolution 4983, special assessments for the District’s share will be payable over a term not exceeding twenty (20) years, in equal semi-annual installments. Because of the relatively low cost of this improvement to be covered by assessments, this loan is planned to be payable over 10 years. Property owners have the right to prepay assessments. If SID 778 is created, a Resolution approving the interfund loan documents will be proposed to the Commission at a future meeting. Attachments: RES 5465.docx Report compiled on: February 16, 2023 114 Resolution 5250 – Creation of SID 762 Page 2 of 3 RESOLUTION 5465 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, RELATING TO SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 778; CREATING THE DISTRICT FOR THE PURPOSE OF UNDERTAKING CERTAIN LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS IN AND ABOUT BOGERT PLACE BETWEEN SOUTH CHURCH AVENUE AND EAST STORY STREET, FINANCING THE COSTS THEREOF AND INCIDENTAL THERETO THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF MUNICIPAL WARRANTS. WHEREAS,on the 7TH day of February, 2023, the City Commission (the "Commission") of the City of Bozeman, Montana (the "City") adopted Commission Resolution No. 5464 (the "Resolution of Intention"), stating its intent to create Special Improvement District No. 778 (the "District") to finance the costs of various improvements within the District as described therein (the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS,as set forth in the Resolution of Intention, the Commission committed other revenue sources from street maintenance fees to the costs of the project; and WHEREAS,on February 12th and February 19th, 2023, the City Clerk did publish a Notice of Passage of the Resolution of Intent to Create SID No. 778 in accordance with Sect. 7- 12-4106, MCA, and mailed said notice to each person, firm, or corporation or the agent of the person, firm or corporation having real property within the proposed District; and WHEREAS, the Bozeman City Commission conducted a public hearing on protests submitted to the creation of the District onMarch 7, 2023and did pass on all such protests having found the written protests not sufficient to bar the Commission from proceeding with creation of the District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, to wit: Section 1 Passage of Resolution of Intention.This Commission, on February 7, 2023, adopted the 115 Resolution 5250 – Creation of SID 762 Page 2 of 3 Resolution of Intention, pursuant to which this Commission declared its intention to create the District, under Montana Code Annotated, Title 7, Chapter 12, Parts 41 and 42, as amended, for the purpose of financing costs of certain local improvements within the District described generally therein (the "Improvements"), and paying costs incidental thereto, including costs associated with the creation and administration of the District,and the funding of a Loan from the City's Special Improvement District Revolving Fund (the "Loan"). Section 2 Notice of Passage of the Resolution of Intent and Public Hearing on Protests. Notice of passage of the Resolution of Intention was duly published and mailed in all respects in accordance with law, and on March 7, 2023, this Commission conducted a public hearing on written protests submitted by property owners against the creation of the District and the making of the Improvements. The public hearing occurred on the date of 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 of the Resolution of Intention (the ''Protest Period"). Section 3 Protests. Within the Protest Period, 1protest wasfiled with the City Clerk by the property owners of one parcel, representing 7.85 percent of the total costs of the Improvements to be assessed against properties in the District, as proposed. Section 4 Creation of the District; Insufficiency of Protests. The Commission determines the District is hereby created on the terms and conditions set forth herein and otherwise in accordance with the Resolution of Intention, as modified hereby. The protests against the creation of the District or the making of the Improvements filed during the Protest Period are hereby found to be insufficient. The findings and determinations made in the Resolution of Intention, including, without limitation, those relating to benefits conferred, costs associated with the borrowing of funds from the City's special improvement district revolving fund, and for the creationand administration of the District,are hereby ratified and confirmed. Section 5 Reimbursement Expenditures. 5.01. Declaration of Intent. The City reasonably expects to reimburse the expenditures made for costs of the Improvements out of the proceeds of the Loan from the City's special improvement district revolving loan fund in an estimated maximum aggregate principal amount of $167,064 after the date of payment of all or a portion of the costs of the Improvements. All reimbursed expenditures shall be capital expenditures, a cost of issuance of the Loan, or other expenditures eligible for reimbursement. The Commission intends to assess the District to reimburse the special improvement district revolving loan fund in an amount equal to the principal of the loan of $167,064 to the District plus interest at approximately 3.5% annually, which is the current Short Term Investment Pool rate minus .5%. Over a 10-year term of the Loan from the revolving fund to the District, interest earnings of up to $34,000 are estimated to be paid 116 Resolution 5250 – Creation of SID 762 Page 2 of 3 from the District property owners and deposited to the special improvement district revolving fund. In addition to reimbursing the revolving fund on interest the revolving fund would otherwise earn, these interest earnings are intended to satisfyany revolving fund contribution from the district that may be required under 7-12-4222(l)(b),MCA. 5.02. Budgetary Matters. As of the date hereof, there are no City funds reserved, allocated on a long-term basis or otherwise set aside (or reasonably expected to be reserved, allocated on a long-term basis or otherwise set aside) to provide permanent financing for the expenditures related to the Improvements, other than pursuant to the Loan from the City's special improvement district revolving loan fund. The statement of intent contained in this resolution, therefore, is determined to be consistent with the City's budgetary and financial circumstances as they exist or are reasonably foreseeable on the date hereof. 5.03. Reimbursement Allocations. The City's financial officer shall be responsible for making the "reimbursement allocations" described in the Resolution of Intention being generally the transfer of the appropriate amount of proceeds of the Loan to reimburse the source of temporary financing used by the City to make prior payment of the costs of the Improvements. Each allocation shall be evidenced by an entry on the official books and records of the City maintained for the Loan or the Improvements and shall specifically identify the actual original expenditure being reimbursed. 117 Resolution 5250 – Creation of SID 762 Page 3 of 3 PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, at a regular session thereof held on the 7th day of March, 2023. __________________________________ Cynthia L. Andrus Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Mike Maas City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ GREG SULLIVAN City Attorney PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, at a regular session thereof held on the 7th day of March 2023. ___________________________________ CYNTHIA L. ANDRUS Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ MIKE MAAS City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________________ GREG SULLIVAN City Attorney 118 Version April 2020 CERTIFICATE AS TO RESOLUTION AND ADOPTING VOTE I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting recording officer of the City of Bozeman, Montana (the “City”) hereby certify that the attached resolution is a true copy of Resolution No. 5465, entitled: “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, RELATING TO SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 778 FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS TO BOGERT PLACE; CREATING THE DISTRICT FOR THE PURPOSE OF UNDERTAKING CERTAIN LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS AND FINANCING THE COSTS THEREOF AND INCIDENTAL THERETO THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF MUNICIPAL WARRANTS” (the “Resolution”), on file in the original records of the City in my legal custody; that the Resolution was duly adopted by the City Commission of the City at a meeting on March 7, 2023, 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: ______________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________; voted against the same: __________________________________________________________; abstained from voting thereon: ____________________________________________________; or were absent: ________________________________________________________________. WITNESS my hand officially this _____ day of March, 2023. _______________________________________ City Clerk 119 Memorandum REPORT TO:City Commission FROM:Susana Montana, Senior Planner Brian Krueger, Development Review Manager Erin George, Deputy Director of Community Development Anna Bentley, Director of Community Development SUBJECT:Consideration of Approval of the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary Planned Unit Development, Application 19028 MEETING DATE:March 7, 2023 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Community Development - Quasi-Judicial RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation of approval of the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD submittal, with staff-recommended conditions of approval and code provisions as well as the Community Development Board’s recommendation to deny approval of the Applicant’s requested Deviation No. 10 to allow 100 percent surface parking along the street frontage of lots designated as a Landscape Block Frontage within the Site. The conditions of approval include the staff and Board recommendations. Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, Community Development Board/Design Review Board recommendations, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 19028 and move to approve the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary Planned Unit Development application as a Legacy Preliminary PUD, subject to the staff-recommended conditions and 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 PUD submittal on August 29, 2019 with revisions on January 2020, November 2021, April 2022, July 14, 2022 and August 24, 2022 for the 31-acre vacant property located at the northwest corner of Huffine Lane and Ferguson Avenue. The PUD application seeks 26 deviations/relaxations/waivers to permitted land uses, building heights, signage, block frontage standards, parking and street standards in the UMU, Urban Mixed Use-zoned Site. 120 For a link to the full application go to: 22242 Blackwood Groves Phase 2 Final Plat UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Staff supports 23 of the 26 the requested deviations/relaxations/waivers, with mitigating conditions of approval, but does not support the requested deviation allowing a trash enclosure without full screening to be located along the Huffine Lane property line, a Gateway Block Frontage. The Community Development Board voted unanimously on December 5, 2022 to recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD with the staff recommended conditions and Unified Development Code (UDC) code provisions with the exception that lots fronting streets with a Landscape Block Frontage designation shall be limited to a maximum 50% of the street frontage with surface parking, thus denying Deviation No. 10. Deviation No. 5 requests 6 parking garage lots to be located within a surface parking lot without legal and physical access to a public street or alley; this is prohibited by State Statute. Please also see the attached document entitled Ferguson Farms II Follow Up Memo. ALTERNATIVES: As identified in the staff report. FISCAL EFFECTS: Fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time, but will include increased property tax revenues from new development, along with increased costs to deliver municipal services to the property. Impact fees will be collected at the time of issuance of building permits for individual developments along with City sewer and water connection fees. Attachments: 19028 FF II P PUD CC staff rpt.pdf Attachment 1 Applicant Narrative.pdf Attachment 1-A Relaxations & Justifications.pdf Attachment 2 Design Manual draft 07 14 22.pdf Attachment 3 Relaxation Graphic.pdf Attachment 4 Landscape Plan.pdf Attachment 5 Neighborhood Center Plan.pdf Attachment 6 Conceptual Land Use Distribution.pdf Attachment 7 Dec 5 CDB mtg summary.pdf Ferguson Farm II Follow Up Memo 2023.2.28.pdf Report compiled on: February 27, 2023 121 19028; Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD City Commission Staff Report Page 1 of 73 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) Date: City Commission Public Hearing, Tuesday, March 7, 2023, City Commission Room, Bozeman City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue Bozeman, MT 59715 Project Description: A Preliminary Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) application, as a “Legacy planned unit development” application, for a proposed commercial development to grant 26 deviations and waivers to zoning and engineering regulations in the following general groupings [Table 1 lists each requested Deviation]: (1) Specific additional commercial uses as-of-right; (2) to exempt the development from Urban Mixed Use (UMU) district requirements for specific mixes of use; (3) to increase building heights; (4) to waive minimum and maximum parking requirements; 5) to amend bicycle parking requirements; (6) to change current Block Frontage designations and designate new ones for new internal streets; (7) to reduce setback requirements for the new Block Frontage designations; (8) to reduce parking lot landscape screening requirements; (9) to reduce trash enclosure screening requirements; (10) to amend Article 4 Streets engineering standards to allow back-in angled street parking and alternate street design and construction materials; and (11) to request the Director of Transportation and Engineering Department to allow alternate water, sanitary sewer and stormwater design and location standards and to allow concurrent construction of streets and on- and off-site public improvements. It is noted here that one of the requested deviations, Number 22, is to allow signs on all facades of a building. This is not needed as a deviation because Section 38.560.060 of the Bozeman Unified Development Code (UDC) allows such placement of signage in the UMU District. However, Table 38.560.060.1 and Section 38.560.080.A requires a comprehensive sign plan for multi-tenant Sites (see Condition of Approval No. 10). It is noted that Deviation request No. 5 seeks to allow six individual lots within the Site to not have legal and physical access to a public or publicly-accessible street per UDC 38.400.090.B.2. However, State Statute requires this legal access to each lot within a subdivision and, therefore, this standard cannot be waived or approved (see Code Provision No. 11). The P-PUD is accompanied by a separate Preliminary Plat application to subdivide the 31- acre parcel into 72 lots to accommodate the new development. Project Location: 4250 Fallon Street, located at the northwest corner of Ferguson Avenue and Huffine Lane. The 31-acre parcel is bordered by Huffine Lane, Ferguson Avenue, Fallon Street and Resort Street and is legally described as Lot 5 of Minor Subdivision 295, proposed to be replatted as Ferguson Farms II Subdivision located in the SW ¼ of S10, T2 S, R5 E of the P.M.M., Gallatin County, Montana. 122 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 2 of 73 Development Review Committee (DRC) Recommendation: The application is deemed adequate for further review. Staff has no objections to 23 of the 26 requested deviations from the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) Unified Development Code (UDC) standards and regulations and finds that, with recommended conditions and code provisions, 24 of the deviations and waivers would conform to other relevant UDC standards and would be sufficient for approval. The 3 requested deviations that cannot be approved, even with mitigation or conditions of approval are:  Deviation No. 5 which seeks to create 6 parking garage lots without legal and physical access to a public street or alley [this is not permitted by State Statute];  Deviation No. 18 which seeks to allow a trash enclosure on Block 4 to not be screened from view from Huffine Lane on its two sides [this does not provide a superior outcome]; and  Deviation No. 10 which would allow 100% surface parking along street frontages [this does not provide a superior outcome/streetscape].  Please note that Condition of Approval No. 6 reflects staff’s recommendation to not support Deviation No. 18. It states: “The Applicant shall ensure that all trash enclosures within the PUD Site are properly screened to City standards per 38.520.070. [This condition is offered because staff does not support the trash enclosure screening Deviation No. 18].” Community Development Board (CDB) Recommendation, acting as the Design Review Board (DRB): On December 5, 2022, the DRB met to review, discuss and make recommendations on the proposed Ferguson Farms II Preliminary Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) and Preliminary Plat applications. The Board first reviewed the P-PUD application after a staff presentation and Applicant presentation. There was no public comment. The Board Members discussed the proposed deviations from Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC)/Uniform Development Code (UDC) standards in relation to  for vehicle and bicycle parking; it is hard to park in the Ferguson Farms I development to the west; need to incorporate structured parking and drop condo parking; surface lots kill the feel they are trying to accomplish, support decked parking approach  more and better landscaping choices needed,  the skybridge amenity too small for its function, the relocation of the irrigation ditch for the skybridge needs more and better landscaping of the ditch area under the skybridge  the lack of design of proposed 8 story buildings to review, 123 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 3 of 73  the location of the tall buildings in relation to smaller existing neighboring buildings, need taller buildings in the center not the edges  the lack of housing for this mixed use district; work in a residential component; supports permanent residential component in the development  100% surface parking on the most pedestrian-oriented corridors; street frontage treatments, pedestrian-oriented streetscape where there is 100% surface parking; do not agree with staff report on 100% surface parking; parking takes away walkability; provide parking other ways with decks or parking above- ground with street frontage still engaged for the pedestrian; walkability relies on the ability to get to the site which will be mostly cars, time to start stacking parking  Agrees with staff report regarding deviation # 18 (trash enclosures to be fully screened) After discussion, the Board made a Motion to support the staff report motion except for the recommendation to approve deviation # 10; to wit: CDB 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 19028 and move to recommend approval of the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary Planned Unit Development application to the City Commission with the exception of Deviation No. 10, subject to staff-recommended conditions and all applicable code provisions and further subject to the determination on Article 4 standards modifications by the Director of Transportation and Engineering.” The Board Members voted unanimously, 8 to 0, to approve the amended Motion. Board Members in attendance: Henry Happel, Jerry Pape, Nicole Olmstead, Jennifer Madgic, Chris Egnatz, Allison Bryan, Brady Ernst and Padden Guy Murphy. See Attachment 7 for a summary of the CDB comments on this application. City Commission Suggested Motion on the Preliminary Planned Unit Development application: “Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, Community Development Board/Design Review Board recommendations, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 19028 and move to approve the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary Planned Unit Development application as a Legacy Preliminary PUD, subject to the staff- recommended conditions and all applicable code provisions.” Report Date: February 27, 2023 Staff Contact: Susana Montana, Senior Planner, Development Review Division 124 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 4 of 73 Executive Summary On August 29, 2019, Boardwalk Properties, Inc. and Combs Capital, LC, the property owners and Applicants, submitted a Preliminary Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) application and a Preliminary Plat Subdivision (PP) application for the development of a 31-acre undeveloped parcel in the City’s Urban Mixed Use (UMU) zoning district on the west side of the City. Revisions to this application were made in January 2020, November 2021, April 2022, July 14, 2022 and August 24, 2022. This report evaluates the August 24, 2022 P-PUD revision. The Preliminary Plat application is the subject of a separate evaluation and staff report; Project No. 19027. The Preliminary Plat (PP) cannot be approved unless and until the PUD is approved because the PP does not meet UMU zoning standards as well as other Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) Unified Development Code (UDC) zoning and engineering standards which the PUD seeks to amend or waive. It is noted that this application, originally submitted in 2019, now qualifies under the current UDC provisions for a “Legacy planned unit development”, pursuant to Section 38.440.010.A because the application was deemed “adequate for further review” on August 24, 2022, prior to the City’s October 2022 replacement of UDC PUD standards with new Planned Development Zone (PDZ) District. The new PDZ regulations established new procedures for review of older PUDs and PUD applications, now deemed “legacy” PUDs. This application is being reviewed and evaluated by the previous PUD review criteria as well as by relevant process and review criteria for “legacy” PUDs. Should this Preliminary PUD be approved by the City Commission, it would be deemed a Legacy Preliminary PUD and a Legacy Final PUD would follow the procedures and standards of UDC 38.440.020, Legacy Final Plan Review and Approval. Individual lot development proposals, such as a site plan, would be measured by the approved Legacy Final PUD and relevant UMU District and UDC standards in effect at the time of such an application. Any amendment to an approved Legacy Final PUD must meet the standards for “minor amendments” pursuant to UDC 38.440.030. Changes greater than minor amendments must be processed as a new Planned Development Zone (PDZ) application subject to UDC 38.430 standards. The Applicant proposes a wholly commercial development within the UMU district, per UDC 38.310.050. The Applicant seeks to develop this land as an extension of his similar Ferguson Farms I commercial development lying immediately to the west of this Site and which is zoned B-2, Community Business District. The PUD Site was annexed to the City in 2000 by the Applicant and it was initially-zoned Business Park (B-P) District. In March 2006, the Applicant submitted a zoning text amendment application to create a new zoning district called Urban Mixed Use District (UMU). This application set forth the standards and regulations for the UMU District. In August 2007, by Ordinance No. 1681, the Urban Mixed Use District (UMU) was established. In April 2008, at the request of the Applicant, the 31-acre subject property 125 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 5 of 73 was rezoned from B-P, Business Park District to the new UMU District by Ordinance No. 1745. This 31-acre Site is the only UMU-zoned land in the City. This PUD development proposes a mix of commercial uses including hotels, offices, retail, restaurants, medical facilities, sale of alcohol for consumption on-site, and both surface and structured parking as principal permitted uses. Although a mix of land uses is required in the UMU District, residential use is not a required component of this mix of uses and, although allowed by the UMU and this PUD, is not one of the land uses proposed within this development. The Applicant is seeking approval of this Preliminary Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) application because this proposal for development of the Site does not conform to 23 of the standards and requirements of the UDC for the Urban Mixed Use (UMU) zoning designation of the Site and other UDC standards. The 26 requested deviations/waivers/relaxations from the UDC that are sought by this PUD are loosely grouped as follows and are listed in Table 1 of Section 2 of this report and in the Applicant’s Narrative found in Attachment 1: (1) Allowing various commercial uses as principal uses which are either a special use or are not otherwise permitted in the UMU district per use Tables 38.310.040.A through E; (2) Exemption from Section 38.310.050 UMU zone supplemental use requirements for: (a) Subsection A requiring a mix of uses within each site plan; (b) Subsection C-- the 70% maximum gross square footage limitation for a single use, such as office, for the entire Site; (c) Subsection D-- the requirement that a minimum of 70% of the ground level block frontages must be occupied by non-residential uses with a depth of at least 20 feet and, also, parking garages must include ground floor “liner” uses for at least 40% of the façade that faces a street or greenway; (3) Exemption from the 20% minimum ground floor commercial space requirements of 38.330.010.E.2 for mixed use buildings within the UMU District; (4) Allow building height increases over the 60’ maximum for the UMU district per Table 38.320.050 to a maximum height of 90’ and 6 stories throughout the Site; (5) Exemption from the minimum and maximum number of parking requirements of 38.330.010.F for the UMU district and from the vehicle parking requirements of Tables 38.540.050-1 through 3; (6) Exemption from the 38.540.050.A.4.b requirement that bicycle racks must be located within 100 feet from the building it serves; (7) Allowing angled back-in on-street parking spaces, modifications to the street design and materials standards, modifications to water, sanitary sewer and stormwater facility location standards, and exemption from the requirement that all lots must have legal and physical access to a public street [most of these requests are under the purview of the City’s Director of Transportation and Engineering Department, per 38.200.010.D. State Statute does not allow an individual lot to not have legal and physical access to a public street.]; (8) Allowing alternate Block Frontage designations per 38.510.030.L; 126 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 6 of 73 (9) Allowing surface parking along 100% of a Landscape Block Frontage street frontage per 38.510.030.C; (10) Reduce the required landscaped buffer between surface parking and the street from 10’ to 6’ for Block 3; (11) Waive the requirement for landscaping separating a building façade and a walkway per 38.520.040.D.3; (12) Front setback waivers per 38.510.030.C allowing buildings to be built to the front property lines); (13) Parking screening waiver per 38.510.030.C for the 1.7-acre Block 3 parking lot; and (14) Deviation from 38.520.070.C.2 to allow reduced trash enclosure screening on Lot 4, Block 4 from 3 sides to 1 side. Attachment 1 to this report is the Applicant’s list of specific relaxations sought, along with justifications for the UDC deviations/relaxations and his description as to how each relaxation meets the criteria for a PUD per the previous PUD criteria of Sections 38.430.030.A.4.c and 38.430.090. Attachment 2 is the Applicant’s PUD Design Manual. Attachments 3 through 6 provide supporting maps. Preliminary PUD as a Conditional Use Per the previous UDC Section 38.430.020.C, any PUD is deemed a Conditional Use (CU) within the zoning district in which the PUD lies. If this Legacy PUD application is granted approval, the conditions of approval for the PUD would be recorded with the County Clerk and Recorder and a subdivision preliminary plat must be approved to create the 9 blocks and 72 lots accommodating the PUD. Of the 72 lots, the new subdivision would create 49 buildable lots, 14 open space lots and 9 lots for parking garage use. The Preliminary Plat application includes a request for concurrent construction of on- and off-site water, sanitary sewer and street improvements and, if granted, the Applicant would submit an Improvements Agreement and Financial Surety for completion of those improvements. Any proposed development on any lot within the Legacy Final PUD would require a separate and specific site plan application for review and approval. However, the adopted Final Legacy PUD would represent a Master Site Plan for the phased development of the Site. A PUD is a discretionary approval and the review authority must find that the overall development is superior to that offered by the basic existing zoning standards as required in UDC 38.20.030.A.4. The intent of a PUD is to promote maximum flexibility and innovation in development proposals within the City. The Applicants can request relaxations from the code in exchange for a higher quality of design. The obligation to show a superior outcome is the responsibility of the Applicant. The Applicant asserts that the overall outcome of this PUD proposal is superior to what would be obtained from the application of the underlying UMU district. 127 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 7 of 73 The Development Review Committee (DRC) has reviewed the application and its several revisions. Based on its evaluation of the application against the UDC criteria, the DRC found the August 2022 revised application to be adequate for continued review. The DRC supports the granting of concurrent construction for this project with the satisfaction of all code requirements related to concurrent construction with the final planned unit development application which would be reviewed under the standards of UDC 38.440.020 for a Legacy PUD. The Site currently has no vehicular access from its surrounding streets. The Site is undeveloped with the exception of a portion of the Maynard Border Ditch agricultural irrigation ditch which flows through the western portion of the Site in a north-south orientation. The vegetation bordering the ditch consists of mature cottonwood, willow and wild rose species. This watercourse would be relocated 30- to 50-feet to the west as part of this development with new plantings bordering the ditch and a pedestrian “skybridge” built overhead (see Attachment 5). Public Comment The first public notice and comment period was September 9th to October 18, 2022. The Site was posted and mail notice sent on September 9th and a legal notice in the newspaper was published on September 11th and 18th. No public comment was received during this public notice period. However, the Applicant had not adequately updated the mailing list for adjacent properties and some properties had changed hands since the original submittal. Therefore, a second public notice period was established from November 4, 2022 to December 20, 2022 with a second posting of the property and a proper mailing. As of the date of this report, February 27, 2023, no public comment has been received. Unresolved Issues There are four unresolved issues with this P-PUD application: 1. In order to qualify for a PUD, the Applicant must demonstrate that the relaxation standard proposed provides a superior quality and character for the development than the UDC standard. Deviation No. 18 would relax UDC Section 38.520.070.C.3 (Screening of ground related services) to minimize the screening of a trash enclosure on Block 4, Lot 4. The Applicant would screen with vegetation only one side, rather all three sides. This trash enclosure on Lot 4 of Block 4 would be placed against the Huffine Lane lot line and would be highly visible from this Gateway Block Frontage. Staff opines that in this 31- acre PUD Site, sufficient land is available to provide a UDC-complying screen wall or vegetative screen of all three sides of this trash enclosure visible from Huffine Lane (see Figure 14). Therefore, staff recommends Condition of Approval No. 6 which requires the Applicant to meet the UDC standard for screening trash enclosures throughout the Site. 128 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 8 of 73 2. As noted above on page 2, the Community Development Board, acting as the City’s Design Review Board, reviewed this application on December 5, 2022 and provided comments to staff and the Applicant on the proposal, including (i) suggestions to the Applicant to provide more substantial landscaping of the proposed “skybridge” design element to make it more functional as an amenity and as a north-south pedestrian corridor; (ii) suggestions to include permanent housing within the development; and (iii) suggestions to provide structured parking above the ground level of lots within the Site rather than surface lots. The Board also supports the staff-recommended conditions of approval including Condition No. 6 which would deny the trash enclosure Deviation No. 18 for Block 4, Lot 4 along the Huffine Lane Gateway Block Frontage. The Board voted unanimously, 8 to 0, to recommend approval of the PUD application with the staff-recommended conditions of approval and required UDC code provisions with the exception that the Board does not support the granting of Deviation No. 10 which would allow 100% surface parking for lots fronting on Landscape Block Frontage designated streets. The Community Development Board recommends denial of this deviation from the Landscape Block Frontage requirement that no more than 50% of a lot’s street frontage shall be devoted to surface parking. The Board discussion notes that such a vast amount of surface parking is an inefficient use of land and suggested that parking above the ground floor would be a more efficient use of the Site and individual lots within the Site. The Board also expressed a concern that surface parking along the street frontage of the proposed 72 lots on this 31-acre Site reduces the “walkability” of the Site and reduces the overall visual and land use coherence of the development for its users. The Board Members commented that this deviation does not appear to provide a superior result than the UDC standard requiring a 10-foot wide landscaped buffer between surface parking on individual lots and the limitation that surface parking areas may not exceed 50% of the lot’s street frontage for streets designated a Landscape Block Frontage. Therefore, this deviation was found by the Board to not meet the criteria for granting the deviation per UDC 38.430.030.A.4.c, nor does it appear to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the City’s residents, workers and visitors or of the Site’s workers and visitors. A summary of the Board’s comments is presented as Attachment 7. Should the Commission agree with the Board’s recommendation to deny Deviation No. 10, the maximum 50% surface parking for lots fronting on Landscape Block Frontage- designated streets would apply. Required compliance with the maximum parking lot frontage would likely have a material impact on the design and amount of provided parking on the PUD Site unless multi-level parking garages are provided. The Board’s recommendation to deny Deviation No. 10 appears as staff-recommended Condition of 129 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 9 of 73 Approval No. 13. Therefore, the suggested Motion on page 2 of this report includes that Board recommendation for denial of Deviation 10. 3. It is noted that both the UDC Section 38.400.090.B and State Statute does not allow lots to be created that do not have legal and physical access via one of the following options: B. Drive access from improved public street, approved private street or alley required. 1. For purposes of this Code, "improved" public street, approved private street, or alley means and includes: a. Any street or alley within the city constructed to a standard which meets or exceeds standards established by this chapter, the city design standards and specifications policy, and the city modifications to state public works standard specifications; b. Constructed public streets which may not meet current city standards but which are constructed to a standard that has historically provided an adequate level of service to adjacent properties, which level of service would not be degraded as a result of a pending development proposal. 2. Unless otherwise allowed by this chapter, all lots must be provided with legal and physical access via one of the following options: a. Twenty-five feet of frontage on a public or approved private street; b. Twenty-five feet of frontage on a public or approved private street and an improved alley; or c. Twenty-five feet of frontage on an improved alley and a greenway corridor or trail corridor with public access. This option may require additional improvements to the alley to accommodate emergency access, snow removal and storage, and the provision of utilities. The alley may also require signage for the provision of emergency services. Therefore, this Deviation No. 5 request may not be granted and Condition of Approval No. 4 requires code-complying legal access to be provided to those lots along with a land use restriction limiting the use of these lots to parking use. Furthermore, the Preliminary Plat that accompanies this P-PUD must provide code-complying access to each lot which may take a form different than the alternatives in subsection B.2. This appears as Condition of Approval No. 4 and as Required Code Provision No. 11, Lot Access. 4. The proposed P-PUD is accompanied by a Preliminary Plat subdivision which divides the 31-acre parcel into 72 lots. This P-PUD is not clear as to what deviations/waivers/exceptions are applicable to which individual lots or to a combination of lots as a development site plan. Condition of Approval No. 14 would require the Final PUD application to provide illustrations and other clarifying statements or images to indicate which deviations are to apply to which lots. 130 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 10 of 73 Alternatives 1. Approve the application with the staff and CDB recommendations and with staff recommended conditions and report findings; 2. Approve the application with modifications to the recommended conditions and modifications to the report findings; 3. Deny the application based on findings of non-compliance with the applicable criteria contained within the staff report; or 4. Open and continue the review on the application with the concurrence of the Applicant, with specific direction to staff or the Applicant to supply additional information or to address specific items. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 4 Unresolved Issues ............................................................................................................... 7 Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 10 SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES .................................................................................................. 11 SECTION 2 - REQUESTED DEVIATIONS/RELAXATIONS/WAIVERS ........................ 15 SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL .................................... 18 SECTION 4 REQUIRED CODE PROVISIONS ..................................................................... 21 SECTION 5 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ........................................................... 22 APPENDIX A –PROJECT SITE ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY................................ 71 APPENDIX B – OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF ........................... 71 APPENDIX C –PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INTENT ........................................... 71 ATTACHMENT LIST............................................................................................................ 73 131 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 11 of 73 SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES Figure 1: Location Map Figure 2: Zoning Map 132 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 12 of 73 Figure 3: Ferguson Farms II PUD Master Plan Figure 4: Conceptual Land Use Map 133 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 13 of 73 Figure 5: Circulation Network Pedestrian Pathways Bicycle Pathways Shared Pathways 134 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 14 of 73 Figure 6: Open Space Network 135 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 15 of 73 Figure 7: Proposed 72-lot Preliminary Plat SECTION 2 - REQUESTED DEVIATIONS/RELAXATIONS/WAIVERS Deviations to the zoning code may be granted with a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The criteria for granting PUD deviations/relaxations/waivers are included in UDC Section 38.430.090.E. Staff has reviewed the criteria and finds that they are met for 23 of the 26 requested deviations with the recommended conditions of approval and the adoption of the staff analysis and findings below for justification. Deviation numbers 10 (surface parking on 100% of street frontage) and 18 (trash enclosure screening) do not meet established criteria for approval and are addressed in staff-recommended conditions of approval numbers 13 and 6, respectively. Also, Deviation 5, lot access, is not a deviation that can be granted due to overriding State Statutes; this is addressed in Condition of Approval No. 4 and Code Provision No. 11. 136 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 16 of 73 Table 1. 137 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 17 of 73 138 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 18 of 73 SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Please note that these conditions are in addition to any required code provisions identified in this report. 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. Owners of lots facing a public street, including Block 3, Lot 3, and seeking to locate parking spaces facing the street must mitigate potential safety hazards associated with vehicle headlight glare to passing motorists by providing a minimum 6-foot wide landscape buffer between the parking spaces and the street-facing lot property line which shall be planted with densely-spaced evergreen shrubs which are a minimum 5-feet tall at planting. 3. The existing Class I shared use trail abutting the Site along the Ferguson Avenue frontage shall be widened from 8 feet to 10 feet by the Applicant and the Applicant shall install 8 feet wide Class I trails along the Fallon Street and Resort Drive frontages, concurrent with any first phase construction of this PUD Site. 139 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 19 of 73 4. Prior to approval of the Final PUD and approval of the associated Final Plat for this PUD Site, the Applicant shall record proper legal lot access and a land use deed restriction for the following 8 lots to provide adequate legal and physical access to public or publicly-accessible streets or alleys: Lot 1A, Block 7; Lot 1A, Block 3; Lot 1B, Block 8; Lots 1B and 1C, Block 3; Lots 1B and 1C of Block 7; and Lot 4 of Block 6. The deed restriction for Lot 1A, Block 7 and Lot 1A, Block 3 shall limit the use of the land to surface parking to assure physical access to the interior garage lots to address State law requirements for access. 5. To mitigate the heat island effect of the large expanse of pavement, to provide enhanced visual cues to parking areas for customers, workers and visitors, and to increase the comfort and relief from heat for those parking lot users, the Applicant shall ensure that the landscape plan provides a visually-prominent, deciduous tree- lined pedestrian corridor throughout the Site linking all parking lots to the Valley Commons Drive commercial corridor and to the Skybridge commercial corridor. An example of this design, which may differ from the concept landscape plan provided with this P-PUD submittal, is a plan that places small trees on the north sides of parking lots and places large shade trees along the south and west sides of parking lots and along a pedestrian walkway through the middle of the parking lot that connects to a network of similarly shaded pedestrian walkways. The design of this landscape plan should be coordinated with the City Forester to ensure the best environment for both pedestrians and for the health of the trees over time and shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 6. The Applicant shall ensure that all trash enclosures within the PUD Site are properly screened to City standards per 38.520.070. [This condition is offered because staff does not support the trash enclosure screening Deviation No. 18]. 7. Pursuant to Section 38.550.050.M, Planned Unit Development Open Space, the landscape plan provided with the Final PUD application shall show what trees and shrubs are meeting this requirement and where they are to be located. 8. Public access easements must be provided for as shown on the P-PUD plans for all publicly accessible open space areas prior to Final PUD approval. 9. No property may be removed from the Final PUD covenants without written approval of the City of Bozeman. 10. Per UDC 38.560.060 and 080, a Comprehensive Sign Plan must be submitted with the Final PUD application and must be approved by the Director of Community Development with the Final PUD application submittal. 11. The City of Bozeman has relied upon the overall design and design standards submitted with this PUD application and shown as Attachment 2: Ferguson Farm II Draft Design Manual. This Design Manual shall be updated and submitted with the 140 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 20 of 73 Final PUD application and, if approved, may not be altered without consent of the City. 12. The Final PUD plan and Subdivision Final Plat must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to the approval of any subsequent site plan. 13. Lots that front on streets that are designated a Landscape Block Frontage must meet the parking location standards of UDC Table 38.510.030.C. Surface parking areas may not exceed 50% of the individual or development site street frontage. 14. The proposed P-PUD is accompanied by a Preliminary Plat subdivision which divides the 31-acre parcel into 72 lots. The Final PUD application shall provide sufficient illustrations and other clarifying statements or images to indicate which granted deviations would apply to which individual lots. 15. The Final PUD landscape plan submittal shall show the locations of covered and uncovered bicycle parking within the street and/or streetscape. 16. In order to qualify for a performance point towards this PUD, per UDC 38.430.090.E.2.a (7), the details of the sheltered bus stop shall be provided with the Final PUD application. The Applicant shall submit with the Final PUD application the following materials regarding this facility: (i) a site plan for the shelter showing its location and design which has been approved by the transit provider (Streamline); (ii) an encroachment permit for the location of the facility if it is to be located within a public right-of-way; and (iii) an ownership and maintenance agreement between the owner of the facility, the owner of the land upon which it rests, and the transit provider. The facility must be completed concurrent with any first phase development of the PUD Site. 17. Former PUD Section 38.430.090.E.2.a (7) outlines “performance points” needed to qualify for a PUD designation. On Table 2 of this report, the Applicant identifies streetscape improvements, wayfinding signs and a sheltered bus stop that are to qualify as this PUD’s “performance points”. The locations and designs for these improvements have not been provided with this Preliminary PUD. To qualify for the points, the Applicant shall provide details for these amenities and assets with the Final PUD application. The details of those performance point elements shall be approved by the Director prior to approval of the Final PUD. 141 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 21 of 73 SECTION 4 REQUIRED CODE PROVISIONS 1. BMC 38.220.050. A final approved weed control plan must be submitted prior to Final PUD plan approval. 2. BMC 220.080. Irrigation water. Clarify proposed water demand for irrigation system. The Applicant shall clarify the nature of the existing well and water right to support the new demand. Provide letter from DNRC confirming water right or intent to issue right to support the project prior to approval of the planned unit development final plan. 3. BMC 38.220.300 and 310. The property owners’ association documents pertaining to the maintenance of common areas, the back-in street parking and shared parking areas must include the requirements of Section 38.220.300 and 320. The proposed documents must be finalized and recorded with the Final PUD plan and its accompanying subdivision Final Plat. 4. BMC 38.230.020.A and C. a subsequent site plan application is required to be reviewed and approved for all phases of this development prior to building permit issuance. 5. BMC 38.270.030. For concurrent construction provide a full response to the required items in BMC 38.270. Provide response to PUD concurrent construction and finalize all of the required code elements prior to the approval of the planned unit development final plan, approval of concurrent construction and prior to building permit issuance. 6. BMC 38.430.040.A.3, Final plan review and approval. The final plan must be in compliance with the approved preliminary plan and/or development guidelines. Upon approval or conditional approval of a preliminary plan and the completion of any conditions imposed in connection with that approval, an application for final plan approval may be submitted. For approval to be granted, the final plan must comply with the approved preliminary plan. This means that all conditions imposed by the City Commission as part of its approval of the preliminary plan have been met; the final plan does not change the general use or character of the development; the final plan does not increase the amount of improved gross leasable non-residential floor space by more than five percent, does not increase the number of residential dwelling units by more than five percent and does not exceed the amount of any density bonus approved with the preliminary plan; the final plan does not decrease the open space and/or affordable housing provided; the final plan does not contain changes that do not conform to the requirements of this chapter, excluding properly granted deviations, the applicable objectives and criteria of section 38.430.100, or other objectives or criteria of this chapter; the final plan must not contain any changes which would allow increased deviation/relaxation of the requirements of this chapter; and the final plat, if applicable, does not create any additional lots which were not reviewed as part of the preliminary plan submittal. Final plan approval. The final plan may be approved if it conforms to the approved preliminary plan in the manner described above. Prior to final plan approval, the review authority may 142 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 22 of 73 request a recommendation from the DRB, DRC, ADR staff, or other entity regarding any part of a proposed final plan. 7. BMC 38.550.050.I. Irrigation plans are required to be submitted with the Final PUD open space landscape plan with the subsequent site plan application. 8. BMC 38.550.060.A.1. The Final PUD open space landscape plan must meet the requirements of 23 performance points and be finalized and completed with the subsequent site plan application. 9. BMC 38.400.050.A1. The accompanying subdivision property owner’s association must maintain the proposed on street angled parking allowed on internal streets, including snow plowing and maintenance of the parking surfaces. The property owners’ association documents must include language to this effect and be reviewed and approved prior to final PUD approval. 10. BMC 38.430.070.A a. All public infrastructure, both on and offsite, must be installed with the first phase of development. 11. BMC 38.400.090.B, Lot Access. All lots within the Site must meet the lot access standards of the UDC and of relevant State Statutes for legal and physical access to a public or publicly-accessible street or alley. This shall be demonstrated as part of the Final PUD application. SECTION 5 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Analysis and resulting recommendations are based on the entirety of the application materials, municipal codes, standards, plans, public comment, Community Development Board recommendations, and all other materials available during the review period. Collectively this information is the record of the review. The analysis in this report is a summary of the completed review. Applicable Plan Review Criteria, Section 38.230.100, BMC. The Applicant is again advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, do not in any way create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or State law. In considering applications for plan approval under this title, the advisory boards and City Commission shall consider the following: 1. Conformance to and consistency with the City’s adopted growth policy; The PUD Site is designated “Community Commercial Mixed Use” in the Bozeman Community Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Per this Plan, this category is intended to “promote commercial areas necessary for economic health and vibrancy. This includes professional and personal services, retail, education, health 143 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 23 of 73 services, offices, public administration, and tourism establishments. Density is expected to be higher than it is currently in most commercial areas in Bozeman and should include multi-story buildings. Residences on upper floors, in appropriate circumstances, are encouraged. The urban character expected in this designation includes urban streetscapes, plazas, outdoor seating, public art, and hardscaped open space and park amenities. High density residential areas are expected in close proximity.” Staff Evaluation: The proposed PUD development is a wholly commercial development which allows a mix of commercial uses consistent with this Community Commercial Mixed Use designation. The current proposal has no residential component although the underlying UMU District zoning allows a variety of housing types. The Applicant intends this Site to be an extension of his Ferguson Farms I development located immediately west of this Site. Within the development’s “core” along the extension of Valley Commons Drive are storefronts along the ground floors of multi-level buildings. There are plazas interspersed along this commercial street with seating and landscaping. Neighborhood Context. Medium-density residential neighborhoods (duplex and triplex homes) are found north of the Site. A manufactured home park is located south of the Site, across Huffine Lane. One- to three-story commercial buildings are located immediately north, east and west of the Site. Per the Plan, “Developments in this land use area should be located on one or two quadrants of intersections of the arterial and/or collector streets and integrated with transit and non- automotive routes. Due to past development patterns, there are also areas along major streets where this category is organized as a corridor rather than a center. Although a broad range of uses may be appropriate in both types of locations, the size and scale is to be smaller within the local service areas. Building and site designs made to support easy reuse of the building and site over time is important. Mixed use areas should be developed in an integrated, pedestrian friendly manner and should not be overly dominated by any single use. Higher intensity uses are encouraged in the core of the area or adjacent to significant streets and intersections. Building height or other methods of transition may be required for compatibility with adjacent development.” Staff Evaluation: This is a wholly commercial development and the requested PUD deviation numbers 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15 would enable buildings to be built to the lot lines, rather than setback 10’ with landscaping separating the building from the sidewalk. These deviations would produce an urban rather than suburban streetscape. PUD deviation No. 4 would allow an increase of building height from 60’ to 90’ throughout the Site. 144 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 24 of 73 Deviation Number 10 would allow surface parking lots to encompass 100% of the lot’s street frontage and Deviation 12 would reduce the landscape buffer between the street and parking lots from 10’ to 6’. These two deviations would produce a Site that is distinctly suburban in design and character. Parking lots facing the street could produce nighttime headlight glare to passing motorists which would pose a safety hazard. Headlight glare could also disturb residents living in housing along Fallon Street to the north of the Site. Condition of Approval No. 2 would address this safety concern by mitigating headlight glare with dense plantings of evergreen species within the required landscape buffer zone between the parking lot and the street lot lines. This Condition states: “Owners of lots facing a public street, including Block 3, Lot 3, and seeking to locate parking spaces facing the street must mitigate potential safety hazards associated with vehicle headlight glare to passing motorists by providing a minimum 6-foot wide landscape buffer between the parking spaces and the street-facing lot property line which shall be planted with densely- spaced evergreen shrubs which are a minimum 5-feet tall at planting.” However, if the Commission chooses not to grant the reduced landscape buffer of Deviation No. 12 (from 10’ to 6’), this Condition should remain as mitigation for headlight glare to residents and motorists traveling abutting streets. The Bozeman Community Plan states: “Smaller neighborhood scale areas are intended to provide local service to an area of approximately one half-mile to one mile radius as well as passersby. These smaller centers support and help give identity to neighborhoods by providing a visible and distinct focal point as well as employment and services. Densities of nearby homes needed to support this scale are an average of 14 to 22 dwellings per net acre.” Staff Evaluation: The residential neighborhood surrounding the Site is expected to support neighborhood-serving businesses within the PUD development. Businesses within the Site are expected to offer employment opportunities to area and City residents. The up to 90’feet tall 6-story tall buildings within the Site would provide a visible and distinct focal point in the area. Relevant Bozeman Community Plan Policies: Theme 2 - A City of Unique Neighborhoods Goal N-1: Support well-planned, walkable neighborhoods N-1.5 Encourage neighborhood focal point development with functions, activities, and facilities that can be sustained over time. Maintain standards for placement of community focal points and services within new development. N-1.7 Review and where appropriate, revise block and lot design standards, including orientation for solar power generation throughout city neighborhoods. 145 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 25 of 73 N-1.8 Install, replace, and maintain missing or damaged sidewalks, trails, and shared use paths. N-1.9 Ensure multimodal connections between adjacent developments. N-1.10 Increase connectivity between parks and neighborhoods through continued trail and sidewalk development. Prioritize closing gaps within the network. N-2.3 Investigate and encourage development of commerce concurrent with, or soon after, residential development. Actions, staff, and budgetary resources relating to neighborhood commercial development should be given a high priority. Goal N-4: Continue to encourage Bozeman’s sense of place. N-4.2 Incorporate features, in both public and private projects, to provide organization, structure, and landmarks as Bozeman grows. Applicant’s statement: “Ferguson Farm II is envisioned as a well-planned and walkable commercial neighborhood. From the skybridge and the Maynard Border Ditch to the food court pod [Public Open Space Lot 2] to the off leash dog area [Public Open Space Lot 8], the site has been designed to have numerous neighborhood focal points and activity areas. Multimodal connections are shown within and through the site. Lots have been designed to be oriented to the prevailing solar path. The project will contribute to the sense of the place in this area of the community.” Staff Evaluation: This Goal, Support well-planned, walkable neighborhoods, is positively addressed by the Applicant’s provision of a reduced width Class I trail along the Fallon Street and Resort Drive frontages of the Site. The City Engineer has granted an 8-foot wide shared use trail along those street frontages, provided the Applicant increases the width of the existing shared use trails along the Huffine Lane and Ferguson Avenue frontages from 8-feet to 10-feet per Condition of Approval No. 3. These trails must be provided concurrent with any first phase construction of the PUD Site. This trail system would connect the Site to adjacent neighborhood destinations. However, the abundance of surface parking lots fronting the Site along its north, east and west frontages would not present the Site or development therein as particularly “walkable”; rather, it would be perceived as auto- dominated. Condition No. 2 would partially mitigate this auto-dominance streetscape by requiring the planting of densely-spaced evergreen shrubs which are a minimum of 5 feet at planting, along the minimum 6-feet landscape screening of the parking lot(s). One of the ways in which this application qualifies as a PUD is by the provision of “performance points” pursuant to the former PUD criteria 38.430.090.E.2.a (7). This application proposes to provide “one on-site covered bus stop” as noted in Table 2 found on page 65. In order to qualify for this one “performance point”, details of the location, design and permits for this sheltered transit stop must be provided with the Final PUD application as noted in Condition of Approval No. 16. The provision of this sheltered bus stop would 146 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 26 of 73 facilitate the walkability of the Site and would support commuting to and from the Site by workers and visitors. Theme 3 - A City Bolstered by Downtown and Complimentary Districts Goal DCD-1: Support urban development within the City. DCD-1.5 Identify underutilized sites, vacant, and undeveloped sites for possible development or redevelopment, including evaluating possible development incentives. DCD-1.12 Prioritize the acquisition and/or preservation of open space that supports community values, addresses gaps in functionality and needs, and does not impede development of the community. Goal DCD-2: Encourage growth throughout the City, while enhancing the pattern of community development oriented on centers of employment and activity. Support an increase in development intensity within developed areas. DCD-2.4 Evaluate revisions to maximum building height limits in all zoning districts to account for contemporary building methods and building code changes. DCD-2.5 Identify and zone appropriate locations for neighborhood-scale commercial development. Goal DCD-3: Ensure multimodal connectivity within the City. DCD-3.1 Expand multimodal accessibility between districts and throughout the City as a means of promoting personal and environmental health, as well as reducing automobile dependency. DCD-3.2 Identify missing links in the multimodal system, prioritize those most beneficial to complete, and pursue funding for completion of those links. DCD-3.3 Identify major existing and future destinations for biking and walking to aid in prioritization of route planning and completion. DCD-3.4 Support implementation of the Bozeman Transportation Master Plan strategies. DCD-3.5 Encourage increased development intensity in commercial centers and near major employers. DCD-3.6 Evaluate parking requirements and methods of providing parking as part of the overall transportation system for and between districts. Applicant’s statement: “The project is an infill project located within the current City limits. The PUD and the associated relaxations address the regulatory challenges that are likely as a result of this project, such as required parking and allowable building height. The project includes significant open space to compliment the project’s commercial design. The site is envisioned as a center for 147 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 27 of 73 employment and activity, and a variety of transit options are proposed to connect this site to the existing transit system including bus and trail connections. Parking requirements for the project are proposed in a similar fashion to that allowed in the Midtown Urban Renewal District.” Staff Evaluation: The UDC has a specific definition of “infill” development, as adopted by Ordinance 2111 addressing zoning “departures” for additional housing. That definition is: “Infill. The development or redevelopment of vacant, abandoned, or underutilized properties within or wholly surrounded by the City, and where water, sewer, streets, and fire protection have already been developed and are provided. Infill is development proposed or located within land that has been subdivided for at least 35 years.” Although this PUD Site is undeveloped and is surrounded by development, it does not qualify as “infill” per this definition as it has not been subdivided for 35 years. This PUD is accompanied by an application to divide the 31 acre Lot 5 of Minor Subdivision No. 295 into a 9 block, 72 lot subdivision to accommodate this development. However, development of this Site as proposed in this PUD application would address the policies of the above Theme 3 as a commercial center complementary to the Bozeman Downtown District. Theme 4 - A City Influenced by our Natural Environment, Parks, and Open Lands Goal EPO-2: Work to ensure that development is responsive to natural features. EPO-2.1 Where appropriate, activate connections to waterways by creating locations, adjacent trails, and amenities encouraging people to access them. Applicant’s statement: “The Ferguson Farm II project has been designed to protect the integrity of the Maynard Border ditch that flows through the western side of the site. Trails have been proposed adjacent to the ditch, as shown on the proposed Landscaping plans.” Staff Evaluation: The agricultural irrigation ditch that transects the Site is not a natural waterway. It would be relocated as part of this PUD application and designed to be a north- south pathway at grade and above-grade. The Community Development Board (CDB) expressed concern that the width and landscaping proposed for this “skybridge” feature of the Site would need to be more robust to provide an effective pedestrian pathway and amenity. They expressed concern that the ground level landscaping, next to the ditch, would remain in shadow. Please see Attachment 7 for a summary of CDB comments on the skybridge. Staff finds that the skybridge, with enhanced landscaping and seating amenities as suggested by Board Members, would positively address the Theme 4 goal. 148 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 28 of 73 Theme 5 - A City That Prioritizes Accessibility and Mobility Choices Goal M-1: Ensure multimodal accessibility. M-1.4 Develop safe, connected, and complementary transportation networks for pedestrians, bicyclists, and users of other personal mobility devices ( e-bikes, electric scooters, powered wheelchairs, etc.). M-1.5 Identify locations for key mobility hubs (e.g. rideshare drop off/ pick up areas, bike/scooter share, transit service, bike, and pedestrian connections). M-1.9 Prioritize and construct key bicycle infrastructure, to include wayfinding signage, connections, and enhancements with emphasis on completing network connectivity. M-1.11 Prioritize and construct key sidewalk connections and enhancements. M-1.12 Eliminate parking minimum requirements in commercial districts and affordable housing areas and reduce parking minimums elsewhere, acknowledging that demand for parking will still result in new supply being built. Goal M-2: Ensure multimodal safety. M-2.5 Develop safe crossings along priority and high utilization pedestrian and biking corridors. Applicant’s statement: “The project provides multimodal access to and through the site. The site is adjacent to the existing Streamline Purple line, and future route modifications are likely to include direct service within this project site. Key pedestrian and multimodal connections are proposed, with covered bike parking shown adjacent to key site amenities. Wayfinding signage is also shown for this site to assist with navigation and safe site connections across the large site area. Parking is proposed in a similar manner as within the Midtown Urban Renewal District. Please see the Relaxations for additional details on this proposal.” Staff Evaluation: Table 2 identifies streetscape improvements, wayfinding signs and a sheltered bus stop that are to qualify as this PUD’s “performance points”. The locations and designs for these improvements have not been provided with this Preliminary PUD. To qualify for the points, the Applicant must provide details for these amenities and assets with the Final PUD application per Condition of Approval No. 17. Those performance point amenities are expected to positively address Theme 5 goals. Theme 6 - A City Powered By Its Creative, Innovative, and Entrepreneurial Economy Goal EE-1: Promote the continued development of Bozeman as an innovative and thriving economic center. 149 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 29 of 73 EE-1.1 Support the goals and objectives outlined in the Bozeman Economic Development Strategy. Goal EE-2: Survey and revise land use planning and regulations to promote and support economic diversification efforts. Applicant’s statement: “The project will create approximately 850,000 square feet of commercial space, contributing to Bozeman’s continued goal of being an economic center. The relaxations to the land use regulations are essential to meeting this goal.” Applicant’s statement: “As has been described within the application documents and plans, the proposed Ferguson Farm II project supports multiple components of the City’s Strategic Plan as described above.” “All [private] open spaces and all common portions of the PUD will be owned and maintained by the Ownership Organization. Please see the draft governing documents for additional details. Approximately 1,713 employees possible at this site, likely employed working on multiple shifts. The precise number of employees will be determined with subsequent Site Plan submittals.” Staff Evaluation: The above-cited policies of the Bozeman Community Plan and Strategic Plan are relevant to this PUD and, as expressed by the Applicant’s narrative, are positively addressed by this proposal. 2. Conformance to this chapter, including the cessation of any current violations There are no known documented violations of the UDC for this property. The Site is zoned Urban Mixed Use (UMU) which is an implementing zoning district for the Community Commercial Mixed Use Future Land Use designation. According to the Bozeman Municipal Code/ Unified Development Code: “Urban mixed-use zoning district (UMU) The intent and purposes of the UMU urban mixed-use district are to establish areas within the city that are mixed-use in character, and to set forth certain minimum standards for development within those areas which encourage vertical mixed-use development with high density. The purpose in having an urban mixed-use district is to provide options for a variety of employment, retail and community service opportunities within the community, with incorporated opportunity for some residential uses, while providing predictability in uses and standards to landowners and residents. There is a rebuttable presumption that the uses set forth for each district will be compatible both within the individual districts and with adjoining zoning districts when the standards of this chapter are met and any applicable conditions of approval have been satisfied. Additional requirements for development apply within overlay districts. 1. It is the further the intent of this district to: 150 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 30 of 73 a. Allow complementary land uses which encourage mixed uses on individual floors including, but not limited to, retail, offices, commercial services, restaurants, bars, hotels, recreation and civic uses, and housing, to create economic and social vitality and to encourage the linking of trips; b. Foster the development of vertically oriented mixed uses, in contrast to single use development distributed along high vehicle capacity roadways; c. Encourage development that exhibits the physical design characteristics of vibrant, urban, pedestrian-oriented, storefront-style shopping streets with pedestrian amenities; d. Provide roadway and pedestrian connections to residential areas; e. Provide appropriate locations and design standards for automobile and truck- dependent uses; f. Create central urban gathering places such as community squares or plazas; g. Allow for urban oriented recreational activities consistent with the standards and intent of the district; and h. To encourage and support the use of sustainable building practices. 2. To accomplish the intent of the district, the UMU district should ideally be located at the intersections of major traffic corridors; that is, at the intersections of two arterials, or, less frequently, an arterial and a collector street. The major intersections should have or be planned to have a stop light or other active traffic control. While placement at major intersections is a necessary precondition, not all major intersections should have the UMU district adjacent to them. Additionally, placement of this district should be adjacent or near to dense residential development to enhance walking and bicycle use.” [These UDU zone objectives and criteria for development are expected to be met by the current concept plan for this PUD and the accompanying Ferguson Farm II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat application.] Sec. Sec. 38.310.050. Supplemental use provisions for the urban mixed-use zoning district. “Mixed uses required and limited: A. Development must include a mix of uses. [Deviations 2 and 3 waives this requirement.] B. Uses must be grouped as commercial, industrial, office, institutional, and residential. A combination of at least two different groups of uses must be provided within each site plan. [Deviations 2 and 3 waives this requirement.] C. No use group must exceed 70 percent of the total gross building floor area in the entire site development. Multiple buildings may be shown on a single site plan as allowed in division 38.230 of this chapter. For the purposes of calculating the percentage of a use within the site development the gross square foot floor area of building for each use must be utilized. Single use buildings are allowed provided the entire site meets the required use mix standard. [Deviations 2 and 3 waives this requirement.] D. At least 70 percent of the ground level block frontages (see division 38.510) must be occupied by non-residential uses. To meet this requirement, the depth of non-residential floor area must be at least 20 feet deep. Ground level lobbies for residential uses on 151 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 31 of 73 upper floors may qualify as a non-residential use for the purpose of this standard provided such lobby occupies no more than 50 feet of the block frontage. Structured parking is classified as a non-residential use. Structured parking at the ground level must include liner buildings of usable proportions along at least 40 percent of the building façades facing a street or greenway.” [Deviations 2 and 3 waives this requirement.] 38.330.010. UMU district—Special standards. A. A UMU district is anticipated to generally be not less than 20 acres in area. The city may approve a lesser area of not less than ten acres upon finding that a smaller area will still provide for adequate transition between adjacent districts, provide a reasonable community setting for the intensity of the district, and that a smaller area will not constitute spot zoning. B. The district must be surrounded by perimeter streets unless precluded by topography. C. Block frontages and building orientation. See division 38.510 for applicable standards for all development types [Deviation 9 through 15 waive these standards]. D. Site planning and design element standards. See division 38.520 for applicable standards for all development types [Deviation 16 would exempt development from having 3’ wide landscaping between the building and sidewalk, per 38.520.040.D.3. Deviation 17 would waive the requirement to provide 12’ wide sidewalks with trees and landscaping along buildings 100’ or more in length, per 38.520.040.D.4]. E. Building standards. 1. Building design. See division 38.520 for applicable standards for all development types. 2. Floor-to-floor heights and floor area of ground-floor space. a. All commercial floor space provided on the ground floor of a mixed-use building must have a minimum floor-to-ceiling height of 13 feet. [Changed to 15 feet floor to floor height] b. All commercial floor space provided on the ground floor of a mixed-use building must contain the following minimum floor area: (1) At least 800 square feet or 25 percent of the lot area (whichever is greater) on lots with street frontage of less than 50 feet; or (2) At least 20 percent of the lot area on lots with street frontage of 50 feet or more. [Deviations 2 and 3 would exempt development from these mixed use standards.] 3. Street-level openings on parking structures must be limited to those necessary for retail store entrances, vehicle entrance and exit lanes, and pedestrian entrances to stairs and elevator lobbies. Parking structures adjacent to streets must have architectural detailing such as, but not limited to, standard size masonry units such as brick, divided openings to give the appearance of windows, and other techniques to provide an interesting and human-scaled appearance on the story adjacent to the sidewalk. [This standard would remain.] F. Special parking standards 152 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 32 of 73 1. Maximum surface parking. a. In order to achieve the intent of the district and achieve efficiency in the use of land, surface parking provided for the sole use of an individual development must not exceed 100 percent of the minimum parking requirement for the subject land use based upon the requirements of division 38.540 of this chapter. The UMU district may utilize the parking reductions authorized in section 38.540.050.2.c.1. All qualifying reductions must be included in determining the 100 percent requirement. b. Exemptions to section 38.330.010.G.1.a, to allow unstructured surface parking up to 100 percent of the minimum parking requirement exclusive of reductions may be approved through the development review process for developments that provide shared parking to other development, valet parking spaces, parking for off-site users for which an hourly or other regular rent is paid, or similarly managed parking facilities. 2. Structured parking incentive. A floor area bonus of one square foot may be granted for each square foot of area of parking provided within a building. Additional height of building is allowed to accommodate this additional building area per Table 38.320.050. 3. Bicycle parking. Covered bicycle parking must be provided. The covered spaces must be at least one-half of the total minimum bicycle parking. The minimum number of covered spaces must be the greater of either ten bicycle parking spaces or five percent of motor vehicle parking provided on-site. Applicant’s statement: Please note that UDC 38.430.070, Phasing of PUDs, requires details of the proposed development within the PUD as a concept master plan. The following descriptions should be deemed illustrative of potential future development within the PUD Site and are not deemed a “fixed” development plan. The development of individual lots and the phasing of blocks within the PUD are expected to be proposed by individual lot owners, over time, once the public infrastructure and private streets are built. The Applicant states that all surface parking lots would be built by him and would be available in common to all lot owners, their tenants, workers and visitors. A property owners’ association would maintain all common areas such as surface parking, private streets and alleys, open space and stormwater management facilities. The square footage of land uses and the parking spaces noted below are illustrative of potential development of the Site. Applicant’s statement: “In the 9 Blocks within the PUD Site (and subdivision), the following building square footages are anticipated by the Applicant to be built: 135,464 sf - Retail, Restaurant, Commercial, Bar 246,081 sf - Office 368,072 sf - Hotel 95,200 sf - Medical 27,235 - Structured Parking 22,125 sf - Garage Condo Units 153 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 33 of 73 Approximately 1,713 employees are anticipated by the Applicant to be possible at this site, likely employed working on multiple shifts. Parking required for this development would be approximately 1555 spaces, (after reductions for adjacency to transit routes, adjacency to Storefront Block Frontages, and joint use reductions of 30% as specified in the TIS). Total parking provided for this project is 883 total spaces, and includes on street parking and the proposed garages (one space per garage). The required bike parking would be 155 - 226 spaces. The project is proposing to provide 304 bike parking spaces across the site (112 x 2- bike racks (uncovered); 40 x 2-bike racks (covered)). The covered bike parking exceeds the required UMU standards. Please note, the parking calculations for this project do not consider the full range of uses that are possible at this site. For example, assuming one-third of projected office space as shown on the 3-D map (land use map Attachment 7) becomes hotel units and/or one-half of retail is developed as restaurant space, the project could be required under the existing UDC to provide 2,264 required spaces. It is therefore difficult for the Applicant to discern the precise parking that would be required under the UDC for this project at this initial stage. Block by block analysis of initial assumptions for parking can be provided upon request.” “Related to site parking and circulation, please also note that with this submittal the Applicant is requesting an exception to the prohibition to backing into the alley by non-residential development (UDC Sec. 38.540.020.D). Function of the alley will not be impeded with the City’s grant to this request.” Staff Evaluation: Deviation 19 exempts the development from minimum and maximum parking requirements. If granted, the maximum parking standards of subsection F.1.a would also be waived. The provisions of F.1.b would not apply to this development as all surface parking would be shared by all development within the Site. Parking spaces in garages may be individually sold or condominiumized and, therefore, not shared. The provisions of F.2 would not apply as there is no maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the UMU zone and the maximum building height, with or without structured parking, would be 90’ if granted by the PUD. Based on the estimated building square footage noted above by the Applicant, the 1,555 parking spaces to be provided within the Site would represent about 88% of the required parking for this development per the Applicant’s proposed mix of commercial land uses. This PUD, proscribing no minimum or maximum parking requirement, would allow the developers of the 49 buildable lots to determine and provide for their own demand for parking. The covered bicycle parking provision of F.3 is not waived by Deviation 20 which seeks relaxation from the requirement that required bicycle parking must be located within 100’ of the building it serves. If Deviation 20 is granted, there would be no maximum spacing or distance for covered bicycle racks from the building they are to serve. However, Condition of Approval No. 15 requires the location of bike racks to be shown on the Final PUD landscape plan submittal. 154 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 34 of 73 In the interest of facilitating development of this long-vacant former farmland site, per the Community Plan Growth Policies of Theme 3, DCD 1 through 3.6, staff has no objections to minimum and maximum parking requirement deviations and waivers. Staff anticipates that, to be a workable, efficient and successful development, the developers of lots within the PUD Site will provide adequate parking to serve their development. If, over time, there is too much surface parking, new development could fill that space. If there is insufficient on-site parking, surface lots could be developed with multi-level garages that would be “wrapped” with commercial or residential uses at the ground floor streetfront. G. Lighting. All building entrances, pathways, and other pedestrian areas must be lit with pedestrian-scale lighting (e.g., wall mounted, sidewalk lamps, bollards, landscaping lighting, etc.). Alternative lighting meeting the intent of the design guidelines and other criteria of this chapter may be approved through site development review. Staff Evaluation: There is no PUD exemption from this standard. H. Public spaces. The UMU district is urban in nature. Public parks and recreational areas are likewise expected to be urban in nature. This will include elements such as plazas or other hardscapes, landscaping with planters, furniture, developed recreation facilities such as basketball and tennis courts or indoor recreation facilities, and will be more concentrated in size and development than anticipated in a less urban setting. The requirements of this section give direction in the development of park plans and the application of the standards of division 38.420 of this chapter. The parkland dedication requirements of division 38.420 of this chapter may be satisfied by a cumulative contribution of land and the value of on-site improvements to create spaces with the characteristics and functions described in this section. Development within the UMU district may also utilize any of the options of sections 38.420.030 and 38.420.100 to satisfy the requirements of section 38.420.020.A. The requirements of this section must prevail if these standards conflict with the application of the standards of article 4 of this chapter. 1. Public spaces must be designed to facilitate at least three of the following types of activities to encourage consistent human presence and activity. 2. Public spaces must be designed to: a. Facilitate social interaction between and within groups; b. Provide safe, pleasant, clean and convenient sitting spaces adaptable to changing weather conditions; c. Be attractive to multiple age groups; d. Provide for multiple types of activities without conflicting; e. Support organized activities; f. Be visually distinctive and interesting; g. Interconnect with other public and private spaces; and h. Prioritize use by persons. Staff Evaluation: There is no proposed PUD deviation from these standards. Since there is no residential component to this development, these standards would apply to the commercial open space requirements of 38.520.060.C. 155 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 35 of 73 Although the Applicant requested the 2006 creation of the UMU zone and in 2008 he requested that this Site be rezoned from its initial B-P (Business Park) District designation to the UMU district designation, he now seeks to waive many of the UMU District Special Standards of 38.330.010 as noted above. Therefore, the Applicant seeks waivers, exemptions, deviations and relaxations to the UMU standards as well as other UDC provisions via this P-PUD. The 26 requested relaxations to the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC)/Unified Development Code (UDC) standards are listed in Table 1 above as well as in Attachment 1 which also has the Applicant’s rationale for each requested deviation. The Applicant states that the PUD would allow all land uses that are permitted in the UMU District to be principal uses on any of the 49 buildable lots in the Ferguson Farms II subdivision. The Applicant describes the concept plans for each block in Attachment 1. This PUD evaluation does not analyze those lot-specific development proposals as they are deemed “concept plans” at this stage of the PUD review process. This evaluation of the P- PUD and its block-by-block concept plans does not approve or “vest” any specific development for those lots. Any development proposal for any lot within the PUD and subdivision must go through a separate site plan application and review. This PUD qualifies as a Phased PUD pursuant to 38.430.070 and the block and lot details proposed in this PUD qualify as a Master Site Plan for this Site. When the Final PUD and subdivision Final Plat have been approved and the Final Plat is recorded, the development proposals for individual lots may submit a site plan application that is consistent with the adopted PUD Master Site Plan for that lot. Site plan applications of individual lots would be reviewed by staff and brought before the Community Development Board, as the Design Review Board (DRB), only if the proposed development reaches the DRB review thresholds of 38.230.040, such as a parking lot with more than 90 spaces or a 4-story or taller building. 38.430.010. Intent of a Planned Unit Development Relaxations to the City’s zoning standards may be sought with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application. A PUD approval is a discretionary approval and the review authority (City Commission) must find that the overall development is: (1) superior to that offered by the underlying zoning district as well as basic existing zoning standards per 38.430.030.A.c; (2) consistent with the intent and purpose of the UDC 38.430 PUD chapter; (3) consistent with the adopted goals of the City’s Growth Policies and with any relevant adopted design objectives plan per UDC 38.20.030.A.4.c; and (4) promotes the public health, safety and general welfare per UDC 38.100.040.B. The intent of a PUD is to promote maximum flexibility and innovation in development proposals within the City. The Applicant can request deviations/relaxations from the code in exchange for a higher quality design of his development. The obligation to show a superior 156 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 36 of 73 outcome is the responsibility of the Applicant. In Attachment 1 the Applicant describes how, in his view, the overall outcome of the proposal would be superior to what would be obtained from the application of the underlying UMU district and basic zoning standards. The criteria for granting a PUD are found in UDC 38.430.090 and the staff evaluation of the Applicant’s application is shown below. Generally, this PUD proposal would allow:  nearly 900,000 gross square feet of commercial space;  building heights of up to 90 feet;  no minimum or maximum parking or loading standards—each lot owner or developer may determine what amount of parking s/he needs to meet her/his demand;  internal circulation with alternate street widths,  street design and construction standards and public streets maintained by the subdivision property owner association;  alternate municipal water, sanitary sewer and storm water systems and locations;  public and private open space facilities;  signage on all sides of a building;  PUD-specific design standards as shown in Attachment 1; and  20 PUD-specific Performance Points needed to qualify for the PUD submittal. It is noted that the street design alternatives proposed by Deviation Numbers 6, 23, 24, 25 and 26 are not “zoning” standards that can be addressed by a PUD but, rather, are under the purview of the City’s Director of Transportation and Engineering, per 38.200.010.D, and must be evaluated and approved separately by the Director. Staff Evaluation: It is staff’s opinion that not all of the 26 requested relaxations qualify for PUD consideration because they do not meet the “superior quality” standard of UDC 38.430.030.A.4.c which states: “The review authority must make a determination that the deviation will produce an environment, landscape quality and character superior to that produced by the existing standards of this chapter, and which will be consistent with the intent and purpose of this division 38.430, with the adopted goals of the city growth policy and with any relevant adopted design objectives plan. Upon deciding in favor of the deviation request, the review authority may grant deviations, above or below minimum or maximum standards respectively as established in this chapter, including the complete exemption from a particular standard. If the review authority does not determine that the proposed modified standards will create an environment, landscape quality and character superior to that produced by the existing standards of this chapter, and which will be consistent with the intent and purpose of this division 38.430 and with any relevant design objectives plan, then no deviation will be granted.” 157 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 37 of 73 The relevant question posed by staff in evaluating each of the 26 proposed relaxations is “would the relaxation produce a superior development than the BMC standard would, and would it positively address or advance Community Plan/Growth policies and protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community?” Most of the Applicant’s requested deviations to the UDC would meet the PUD review criteria. In the staff evaluation of each deviation request, some could meet the criteria if specific mitigation conditions are met by the Applicant; those mitigating conditions are noted above in the Conditions of Approval section of this report. Deviation No. 18 cannot meet the PUD criteria of a superior product even with a mitigating condition of approval as it seeks to reduce the screening of a highly visible trash enclosure on one lot to only one side. This enclosure is to be located on Block 4, Lot 4 which lies within the Gateway Block Frontage of Huffine Lane viewscape. Condition of Approval No. 6 addresses the trash enclosure impacts by denying the deviation request to screen the trash enclosure abutting the Huffine Lane property line on only its south side, facing Huffine Lane. Staff, through Condition No. 6, requires the enclosure, and all other trash enclosures within the Site, to be screened on all three visible sides. As noted earlier, the Community Development Board recommends denial of Deviation No. 10 which allows surface parking lots to front on 100% of streets designated as Landscape Block Frontages. To address the Board’s recommendation, Condition of Approval No. 13 requires lots within the PUD Site to meet the maximum 50% street frontage devoted to surface parking areas. Staff recommends approval of 23 of the 26 the proposed deviations and recommends approval of the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD with the conditions of approval noted above and standard code provisions applicable to the PUD process in effect at the time this application was deemed “adequate” for further review and public notice (September 2, 2022). The other deviation requests are deemed either (1) approved because they could be deemed to demonstrate a superior result or product; or (2) they can be approved with mitigation as a condition of approval so that each would result in a superior development than the UDC standard would produce. The 3 requested deviations that cannot be approved, even with mitigation or conditions of approval are:  Deviation No. 5 which seeks to create 6 parking garage lots without legal and physical access to a public street or alley [this is not permitted by State Statute];  Deviation No. 18 which seeks to allow a trash enclosure on Block 4 to not be screened from view from Huffine Lane on its two sides [this does not provide a superior outcome]; and  Deviation No. 10 which would allow 100% surface parking along street frontages [this does not provide a superior outcome/streetscape]. 158 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 38 of 73 In addition to the recommended Conditions of Approval, UDC code provisions are provided related to final planned unit development plan approval and subsequent site plan approval. 38.230.100. Plan Review Criteria continued: 3. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations Deviation 1 would allow sale of alcohol for consumption on-premises as a principal use. If granted, Applicants for this use would still be required to meet State Liquor License laws and regulations. 4. Conformance with special review criteria for applicable permit type as specified in article 2 Most proposed uses would be principal uses per Deviation 1. However, owners or developers of each lot would be required to submit a site plan that is consistent with the PUD master site plan. 5. Conformance with the zoning provisions of article 3, including permitted uses, form and intensity standards and requirements, applicable supplemental use criteria, general land use standards and requirements, and wireless facilities if applicable Deviation 1 would waive most of the supplemental use standards and requirements of the UMU zoning resulting in stripping the UMU zone of most of its requirements for a mix of land uses. 6. Conformance with the community design provisions of article 4, including transportation facilities and access, community design and element provisions, and park and recreational requirements Deviations 8, 17 and 23 through 26 would amend the City’s standards for street widths, on- street parking design, street section design and construction materials, shared-use pathway widths, and design and locations of water, sanitary sewer and stormwater facilities. These deviation requests would be decided by the Director of Transportation and Engineering. As noted below under Criterion 7, the current Storefront Block Frontage designations for the bordering streets would be substituted for the “Other” Block Frontage designations and the 159 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 39 of 73 new interior Landscape BF landscaped setback standards would be reduced from 10’ to 6’ in width. 7. Conformance with the project design provisions of article 5, including: (a) compatibility with, and sensitivity to, the immediate environment of the site and adjacent neighborhoods and other approved development relative to architectural design, building mass, neighborhood identity, landscaping, historical character, orientation of buildings on the site and visual integration; Figure 8: Current Block Frontage (BF) Designations. Red line indicates Storefront BF; orange indicates Gateway BF; green line indicates Landscape BF and purple indicates Mixed BF designations. 160 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 40 of 73 The Applicant seeks to replace the current Block Frontage designations for Ferguson, Fallon and Resort streets from Storefront Block Frontage (BF) to “Other” BF. The “Other” BF designation allows parking lots to be built along street frontages with just a 10’ wide landscaped buffer whereas the Storefront BF requires parking to be placed to the side or rear of structures and parking lots are limited to 60 feet of the street frontage with a minimum 6’ landscape buffer between the parking areas and the street. Both the Storefront and Other Storefront BF Landscape BF Other BF—including Ferguson, Fallon and Resort streets Gateway BF Figure 9: Proposed Block Frontage Designations for the Ferguson Farms II PUD 161 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 41 of 73 BF have similar transparency standards—60% of the ground floor façade between 30” and 10’ above the sidewalk. The interior north-south streets would be designated Landscape BF. The Landscape BF designation requires parking to be provided to the side, rear, below or above the street frontage and it limits surface parking to no more than 50% of the street frontage. If parking garages are provided, 38.510.030.M would require “lining” the street-facing façade with commercial floor space with a minimum depth of 20 feet. The Applicant’s requested Deviation 10 would allow surface parking on 100% of the street frontage of individual development sites facing a Landscape Block Frontage. The Community Development Board, acting as the City’s Design Review Board per 38.230.040, voted unanimously on December 5, 2022 to recommend denial of this Deviation. They commented at their meeting that such surface parking would be unsightly to all who visit the Site and would provide an unappealing and perhaps unsafe pedestrian experience and streetscape along that frontage. It would not induce “walkability” for this neighborhood. It does not appear to provide a “superior” development than the UDC Landscape BF standard would. Therefore the Board recommends denial of this Deviation No. 10. The interior east-west streets would be designated Storefront BF. The east-west Valley Commons Drive within the Site would be the core commercial street and would likely have 4- to 6-story tall buildings built to the property line on the north side of the street with no landscape buffer between the building and the sidewalk if Deviation 16 (Pathway Design) is granted. If Deviation 12 is granted, the landscape screening of parking areas would be reduced from 10’ to 6’ in width (please see Condition of Approval No. 2 for mitigation of headlight glare for this Deviation). Criterion 7(b) design and arrangement of the elements of the plan so that activities are integrated with the organizational scheme of the community, neighborhood, and The surface parking lots bordering the frontage streets of Fallon, Ferguson and Resort do not foster an integrated development with the surrounding neighborhoods. The buildings proposed along the Huffine Lane major arterial roadway would be built to the lot line but 162 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 42 of 73 would border a 30’ public access easement lying between the road and the Site’s southern lots. other approved development and produce an efficient, functionally organized and cohesive development; The development proposed for this PUD would be similar to the development of the Ferguson Farms I lying to the west, although with taller, up to 90’, buildings. 7(c) Design and arrangement of the plan in harmony with the existing natural topography, natural water bodies and water courses, existing vegetation, and to contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of the site configuration; The 31-acre PUD Site is part of a larger Ferguson Farm property purchased by the Applicant years ago. This property was in agricultural use in years past and is relatively flat with one irrigation ditch traversing the western portion of the Site in a north-south orientation. The irrigation ditch would be relocated with the permission of the ditch owner and would be re-landscaped with a “skybridge” walkway above it ( see Attachment 5). 7(d) Landscaping, including the enhancement of buildings, the appearance of vehicular use, open space and pedestrian areas, and the preservation or replacement of natural vegetation; This criterion is not positively addressed, as landscaping would be eliminated against buildings along the Storefront Block Frontages of Valley Commons Drive and would be reduced from 10’ wide to 6’ wide along the internal Landscape Block Frontage roads per Deviations 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. Foundation plantings separating the building from pedestrian pathways would be waived by Deviation 16. The existing trees and shrubs along the Maynard Border Ditch alignment would be replaced with decorative landscaping. Although, this landscaping criterion is not positively addressed by those requested Deviations, overall, on balance, the PUD positively addresses other review criteria as noted previously and below. 38.230.100. Plan Review Criteria continued 7(e) Open space; Applicant’s Discussion: “Ferguson Farm II contains fourteen (14) open space lots. The fourteen qualifying open space areas account for approximately 4.69 acres (204,432 square feet) of open space. A portion of this open space area (.62 acres or 27,031 square feet) is provided to meet the commercial open space standards for the entirety of the site, while 4.07 acres (177,400 square feet) is provided and has been applied towards the calculation for required PUD performance points. The open space areas will support trails, plazas, an event area, the skybridge, covered bicycle parking, a food truck court, dog walk areas, and picnic areas (see the Landscape plans L10 - L13 for additional design details for each of these open 163 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 43 of 73 space areas). The open space applied to the PUD points does not include the pathways between buildings. All open space areas, with the exception of the skybridge itself (which has not been counted toward the meeting the required performance point minimums) will be constructed with infrastructure. The skybridge will be built as the adjacent buildings are constructed. The total area of qualifying onsite open space is 204,432 square feet. Deducting the required commercial open space area leaves 177,400 square feet of open space available to account for PUD performance points. Of this total, 140,669 square feet is proposed to have public access, while 36,731 is non-public (Open Space Lots 4, 6, and 7). The total site area is 1,351,559 square feet. Public open space counting toward the required PUD open space is 10.41% of total site area, which equates to 13.01 performance points. Non-public open space area accounts for 2.72% of total site area. Therefore, 15.73 rounded to 15 performance points are accrued for the provision of onsite open space as described in this section. The location of each open space area was planned to integrate seamlessly into the development and to encourage greater use of the onsite outdoor spaces. Throughout the site additional a variety of open spaces have been planned offering wide range of users options to utilize these amenitized spaces. From dog walk areas to the ~1 mile PUD perimeter trail, the open space is meant to be available to more than just the site’s human occupants. The perimeter areas area is also ideal for multimodal transit to and through this site. Taken as a whole, the proposed open space more than meets the needs of employees and visitors to this site. The primary focal point of the PUD is the open space, trail corridor, and skybridge proposed along the Maynard Border Ditch (See Appendix A.8 & Appendix I). The skybridge area will include a tiered system, with a 12-foot-wide trail on the ground and a 10- to 12-foot wide skybridge above. This tiered system will allow pedestrians safe dry passage north and south during winter snow or rainy weather when walking below the skybridge. The skybridge will be accessed via stairs in Open Space Lots 4, 5, and 6, with an elevator in Open Space Lot 5. At 18 feet tall from the ground to the bottom of the decking, the trail will extend over Field Street, Valley Commons, and the alleys. Once on top of the bridge, pedestrians will have a view of the surrounding area and mountains. The lots abutting the skyline bridge trail corridor can offer patio seating adjacent to the surface trail. A half-acre open space lot is planned at the intersection of the skyline bridge trail corridor and Valley Commons Drive. This park like setting will be the perfect venue for events on the lawn in the summer and ice skating in the winter. Another unique open space amenity will be the picnic area planned near the geographic center of the subdivision. Open Space Lot 2 lies at the intersection of Brookfield Avenue and Valley Commons Drive, and is to be developed as a food truck court with space for picnic tables. A paved surface is provided with adjacent roll top curb to allow for easy access of food trucks to this open space area. Staff Evaluation: The proposed open space areas appear to meet the Site’s commercial development requirements. However, in order to qualify for Performance Points, 164 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 44 of 73 Condition No. 17 requires details of these elements with the Final PUD application submittal. 38.230.100. Plan Review Criteria continued 7(f) Lighting; There are no proposed changes to the City’s lighting standards. 7(g) Signage. Deviation 22 would allow business signs on all sides of a building. This is already allowed by UDC Section 38.560. Condition of Approval No. 10, requires the Applicant to submit a Comprehensive Sign Plan with the Final PUD application in order to clarify the UDC sign standards to be applied within the PUD Site and to specify which of those are to be amended. 38.230.100. Plan Review Criteria continued 8. Conformance with environmental and open space objectives set forth in articles 4—6, including: (a) The enhancement of the natural environment; There is no “natural environment” remaining on the Site as it has previously been in agricultural use and for years has been fallow with just an irrigation ditch flowing through the Site. (b) Watercourse and wetland protections and associated wildlife habitats; and Although deemed an “aquatic resource” and “water body” in various sections of the UDC, agricultural irrigation ditches in 38.700.210 are not defined as a watercourse requiring setbacks, although they do require easements for sufficient maintenance or 165 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 45 of 73 inspections, per 38.410.060.D. The subdivision covenants would establish these commitments. 8(c) if the development is adjacent to an existing or approved public park or public open space area, have provisions been made in the plan to avoid interfering with public access to and use of that area; The closest park is a half-acre Valley Commons Park located approximately 800 feet east of the Site along Fallon Street. The Class I trails required by Condition of Approval No. 3 would facilitate public access to the nearby park. 38.230.100. 9. Conformance with the natural resource protection provisions of article 4 and article 6 There are no “natural resources” located on the Site or proposed for new development. 10. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties As of the date of this staff report, February 27, 2023, no public comment has been received. 11. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation or other means of addressing requirement of this title, whether the lots are either: a. Configured so that the sale of individual lots will not alter the approved configuration or use of the property or cause the development to become nonconforming; or b. The subject of reciprocal and perpetual easements or other agreements to which the City is a party so that the sale of individual lots will not cause one or more elements of the development to become nonconforming; and There are six lots that do not meet Article 4, Section 38.400.090, Access requirements to have legal and physical access to a public or publicly-accessible street or alley. Those lots are to be restricted to parking use by the Applicant in a recorded deed restriction, must provide legal and physical access on the subdivision plat map, and must be 166 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 46 of 73 similarly limited in the Property Owners’ Association Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R) document and per Condition of Approval No. 4. Figure 10: Lots restricted to parking structure use 167 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 47 of 73 38.230.100. 12. Phasing of development Figure 11: Phasing Plan There are 7 phases of development over a 10 to 20-year period, depending upon market demand for the commercial spaces. The Applicant is requesting Concurrent Construction of all on-site and off-site street improvements and public infrastructure needed to accommodate this development. In this way, the lots would be “ready” for development when they are sold. The PUD, as the master site plan, would guide development over each phase of development. Although the application provides detailed drawings of each Block, the Applicant is advised that Community Development is deeming the phases and block drawings as “concept plans” on the scale of a master site plan; no development of a lot is 168 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 48 of 73 “vested” or deemed approved. A subsequent site plan application will be required for each lot to be developed. Conditional Use Permit Review Criteria, Section 38.230.110. E. In addition to the review criteria of section 38.230.100, the review authority shall, in approving a P-PUD as a conditional use permit, determine favorably as follows: 1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and topography to accommodate such use, and all yards, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading and landscaping are adequate to properly relate such use with the land and uses in the vicinity; The 31-acre Site is large enough to accommodate a development that meets the UMU standards. However, by his choice, the Applicant is ‘filling up” the Site with development and parking such that he states he is not able to meet landscape setbacks, landscape buffers or trash enclosure screening requirements. The purpose of this PUD application is to seek deviations from UDC requirements to allow greater building heights, greater or lesser parking, less landscaping and a greater mix of land uses as principal uses within the development that would produce a superior environment in function and character. Likewise, the purpose of the PUD legislation is to offer greater flexibility to develop properties while exempting them from certain City standards. Although the PUD Site is heavily designed and programmed and requires deviations and relaxations of UDU and other UDC standards, the 31-acres is generally an adequate size to accommodate this development and, therefore, satisfies this criterion. It is noted that the P-PUD, as a master plan, provides a concept of development of the Site. Lesser development of each lot would be allowed as each site plan is submitted for review and approval. 2. That the proposed use will have no material adverse effect upon the abutting property. Persons objecting to the recommendations of review bodies carry the burden of proof; The land uses proposed in the PUD relaxations are not expected to be out of character with commercial land uses in the area. The structures, at 87’ or 90’ in height, would be taller than buildings in the area. Although highly visible, there is no zoning protection of an existing “viewscape” by an adjacent property versus a new viewscape with taller buildings blocking distant vistas. The viewscape of distant mountains does not come with purchase of a property unless, prior to development, the “air space” is purchased by the interested neighboring property owner. The PUD’s Deviation 4, allowing buildings up to 90’ in height throughout the PUD Site, is not expected to have a “material adverse effect” on abutting properties, most of which are zoned commercial (B-2) or mixed-use (R-O) residential and commercial. The development opportunities of those properties would be unchanged. 169 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 49 of 73 Section 38.230.110 3. That any additional conditions stated in the approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to: a. Regulation of use; b. Special yards, spaces and buffers; c. Special fences, solid fences and walls; d. Surfacing of parking areas; e. Requiring street, service road or alley dedications and improvements or appropriate bonds; f. Regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress; g. Regulation of signs; h. Requiring maintenance of the grounds; i. Regulation of noise, vibrations and odors; j. Regulation of hours for certain activities; k. Time period within which the proposed use shall be developed; l. Duration of use; m. Requiring the dedication of access rights; and n. Other such conditions as will make possible the development of the city in an orderly and efficient manner. Conditions of Approval 1 through 17 are deemed necessary to (1) protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community; (2) to clarify provisions of the PUD deviations to assist in enforcement measures; (3) to mitigate potential safety impacts or concerns associated with approved or granted deviations; and (4) ensure that the PUD meets the criterion to provide a superior product or outcome over that which would occur under the applicable UDC standard.. As a reminder, the three requested deviations that staff and the CDB do not support are:  Deviation No. 5 which seeks to create 6 parking garage lots without legal and physical access to a public street or alley [this is not permitted by State Statute];  Deviation No. 18 which seeks to allow a trash enclosure on Block 4 to not be screened from view from Huffine Lane on its two sides [this does not provide a superior outcome]; and  Deviation No. 10 which would allow 100% surface parking along street frontages [this does not provide a superior outcome/streetscape]. 170 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 50 of 73 Section 38.230.110 F. In addition to all other conditions, the following general requirements apply to every conditional use permit granted: 1. The right to a use and occupancy permit shall be contingent upon the fulfillment of all general and special conditions imposed by the conditional use permit procedure; and 2. All of the conditions shall constitute restrictions running with the land use, apply and be adhered to by the owner of the land, successors or assigns, are binding upon the owner of the land, his successors or assigns, must be consented to in writing, and must be recorded as such with the county clerk and recorder's office by the property owner prior to the issuance of any building permits, final plan approval or commencement of the conditional use. The necessary recording of documents will be addressed as part of the final PUD plan process. Conditions 3, 7, 8, and 9 are related to this issue. Planned Unit Development Review Criteria, Section 38.430.090.E. The application presents the Applicant’s response to these criteria. 2. In addition to the criteria for all site plan and conditional use reviews, the following criteria will be used in evaluating all planned unit development applications. a. All development. All land uses within a proposed planned unit development must comply with the applicable objectives and criteria of the mandatory "all development" group. (1) Does the development comply with all city design standards, requirements and specifications for the following services: water supply, trails/walks/bike ways, sanitary supply, irrigation companies, fire protection, electricity, flood hazard areas, natural gas, telephone, storm drainage, cable television, and streets? The following PUD designs do not comply with City design standards for pedestrian trails and walkways and, therefore, the Applicant requests these deviations and waivers.  Deviation 11 allows buildings to be built to the lot lines along the Landscape Block Frontage (BF) areas which eliminates the 10’ landscaped buffer between the street right-of-way (ROW) and the building façade;  Deviation 12 allows for a waiver from the minimum 10’ landscape buffer between the street and the Block 3 parking lot; 171 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 51 of 73  Deviation 13 allows for a waiver from placing a landscaped private porch, patio space and/or pedestrian-oriented space between the street and the building;  Deviation 14 waives the 25’ landscaped setback from the property line along the Gateway Block Frontage and allows buildings to be built to the property lines;  Deviation 15 allows buildings to be built to the edge of trails, easements and property lines rather than be setback 20’;  Deviation 16 waives the requirement for “foundation plantings” (3’ landscaping against the building façade) where sidewalks or pedestrian pathways border a building; and  Deviation 17 waives the requirement that sidewalks must be a minimum of 12’ wide along buildings of 100’ feet in length or more and that abut parking lots Deviation 26 does not comply with City design standards for water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems. The Applicant seeks alternate water, sewer and storm water facility locations. This deviation would be evaluated by the Director of Transportation and Engineering. The PUD would waive landscaped setbacks from property lines for all buildings and, particularly, for the 64’ tall and 90’ tall buildings. The concept site plans and concept landscape plans show sidewalks and trees within the sidewalk. Figure 12: Block 7 Valley Commons Drive streetscape Building footprint 172 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 52 of 73 Applicant’s Justification Deviation 9. The Applicant is requesting to reclassify the external Storefront streets to the block frontage standard “Other” using the Community Design Framework Master Plan UDC 38.510.030.L. “The Applicant is requesting a relaxation to invoke the Community Design Framework Master Plan to reclassify the external streets (Resort Drive, Fallon Street and Ferguson Avenue) block frontage from Storefront to Other. These streets were originally designed prior to the formulation of any design intent for this project. Since that time our design intent has changed to draw people into the center of the district and to create a walkable district within our site. The current Storefront Block Frontage standards require the opposite of our design philosophy in that they want buildings fronting the external streets and parking lots interior to the site. When looking at the site as a whole it become very difficult to create a walkable district along the perimeter streets due to the sheer length of frontage. When you focus development on this site inward it allows for buildings to be closer together and thus creating a more walkable mixed use area. As a result of this the parking lots are required to be located on the outside of the site which isn't currently allowed on the storefront block frontage. We believe that reclassifying these block frontages as “Other” will allow for a more walkable, human scaled design.“ “Reclassifying the Block Frontage to “Other” allows for the parking lots to be adjacent to the street when they are adequately screened. This reclassification would allow us to realize our design vision of creating a mixed-use district. The parking lots that border the external streets would be designed to incorporate adequate screening as required in the “Other” block frontage standards.” “Finally, this proposed change meets the criteria for change outlined in 38.510.030.L. The site has been configured with the pedestrians in mind. The main principal is to pull people into the center of the site toward Valley Center Drive. Valley Center will act as the Main street for this project. Another reason why we choose this center main street approach is the large nature of the site. With the Storefront Block frontage on the exterior of the site it makes a really unwalkable environment because of the long distances one would have to travel to get from business to business. Additionally these road are major throughfares through town and don’t offer a pleasant pedestrian experience. Additionally, the design regulations and the community plan look to show that our project will be more successful and a better community asset if these block frontages are reclassified. The design regulations require a specific level of detail and finish to make this buildings nice on all sides. The regulations also require that that the buildings meet the setbacks and block frontage standards for each lot.” Staff Evaluation: The UDC Block Frontage Section 38.510.030.L, Community Design Framework Master Plan, allows the Applicant to request a change to the existing Storefront Block Frontage designation for the streets bordering the Site—Fallon Street, Ferguson Drive, Huffine Lane and Resort Drive. The Applicant submits this P-PUD as the Community Design Framework Master Plan for the Site to change the Storefront Block Frontage (BF) designations for those bordering streets to a Mixed Block Frontage designation. The main 173 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 53 of 73 new east-west internal street, Valley Commons Drive, would be designated a Storefront BF. All other internal streets would be designated as Landscape BF (see Figure 9). Staff finds that this P-PUD meets the design standards and criteria for a Community Design Framework Master Plan which supports the change in BF designations for this Site. Therefore, the request is not a deviation but is a request for approval of the change in BF designations per the master plan. Staff supports this request. Deviation 10. Code Reference Table 38.510.030.C - Landscaped Block Frontage Standards: Allow surface parking up to 100% of the street frontage. “Justification: The Applicant is requesting a relaxation to waiver the requirements for the location of parking to allow for parking lots to front 100% adjacent to the street. We believe that with proposed landscaping around each of the parking lots the visual impact of them will be greatly reduced. We believe the intent of limiting the parking to a percentage of the frontage is to control the visual impact of the parking. We believe that the added landscaping will effectively mitigate that concern.” Staff Evaluation: The Community Development Board recommends denial of this deviation from the Landscape Block Frontage requirement that no more than 50% of a lot’s street frontage shall be devoted to surface parking. The Board discussion notes that such a vast amount of surface parking is an inefficient use of land and parking above the ground floor is a more efficient use of the Site and lots within the Site. The Board also expressed a concern that surface parking along the street frontage of the proposed 72 lots on this 31-acre Site reduces the “walkability” of the Site and reduces the overall coherence of the development for its users. The Board Members commented that this deviation does not appear to provide a superior result than the UDC standard requiring a 10-foot wide landscaped buffer between surface parking on the lot and the street and surface parking may not exceed 50% of the lot’s street frontage if the street is designated a Landscape Block Frontage. Therefore, it does not meet the criteria for granting the deviation per UDC 38.430.030.A.4.c nor does it promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the City’s residents, workers and visitors or of the Site’s workers and visitors. It is noted that proposed Deviation No. 19 would exempt individual development site’s, consisting of one or more lots, from a minimum or maximum parking requirement. The Applicant has stated that parking would be shared in common with all tenants of all developments within the PUD Site with the exception of lots that are developed as structured garages. Under Deviation 19, some lots or development sites would be allowed to be built without any on-site parking. Deviation 11. Code Reference Table 38.510.030.C - Landscaped Block Frontage Standards: Allow buildings to be placed to the edge of the property lines. 174 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 54 of 73 “Justification: The Applicant is requesting to be exempt from the Landscaping block frontage building placement standards. The lot lines have been strategically drawn to show a possible building footprint to give a perspective buyer a better understanding of what can be built on this lot. All lots have been drawn to incorporate a 10’ landscaping buffer from the front of the building to the back of the sidewalk. Additionally, this shifts the maintenance responsibility from the Property Owner to the HOA. This will ensure that all landscaping will be maintained and have a cohesive feel. All lots will still have a landscape buffer between the back of the sidewalk and the front of the building.” Deviation 12. Code Reference Table 38.510.030.C - Landscaped Block Frontage Standards: Allow for a reduction in the minimum 10’ landscape buffer between the street and off- street parking areas for block 3 (Hotel & Parking lot). “Justification: the Applicant is requesting a 4’ reduction in the required 10’ landscape buffer to screen parking lots. This location is bound on both sides by road ways that line with other access points or are fixed by access distance standards. This finite space makes it challenging to balance the need to screen the parking and also provide parking. We believe that this 4’ reduction will allow both goals to be achieved. We can still adequately screen the parking lot in the 6’ landscaping strip and also not lose any parking. Additionally, in several locations where we need this reduction, the addition of personal garages in the middle will also help break up the visual scale of the parking lot. These garages will, visually, cut the parking lot in half and will create a denser environment. We believe that this area will feel dense with the provided landscaping and the garages and will force driver to slow down. This result will create a safer pedestrian and driver experience. If this relaxation cannot be supported we would request that this be added as a condition of approval as it will require significant redesign work that will causes us to miss the tight adequacy window. Deviation 13. Code Reference Table 38.510.030.C - Landscaped Block Frontage Standards: The area between the street and building must be landscaped, have a private porch or patio space, and/or pedestrian oriented space. “Justification: The Applicant is requesting a relaxation to exempt block 7 from requiring landscaping between the Valley Commons Drive and the building on the east and west side. Block 7 is envisioned as a one of the commercial hubs within the district. The intention for this area is to have a dense urban feel. The Applicant is committed to providing trees and benches in the 10’ sidewalk to help with visual interest at the pedestrian and motorist scale. We imagine these two sections (along Ravalli and Brookfield) will have a similar feel to say the downtown Co-Op building along South Black Avenue. The street will be activated with the street trees, benches and bike racks and the buildings will likely have great architectural detailing and glazing. We believe that these street trees and streetscape improvements will further the identity of our project, truly making this a district. All other landscape block frontages will have a 10’ landscaped buffer between the lot line and the back of the sidewalk. This is built into the plan because of the way the lot lines are drawn. The intention for 175 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 55 of 73 drawing the lot lines that way allows for all the maintenance and upkeep to be controlled by the HOA. This will allow for the district to have a very cohesive feel. While the HOA will maintain these landscaping buffers, the landscaping will be installed when each individual lot owners goes through the site planning process.” Deviation 14. Code Reference Table 38.510.030.E - Gateway Frontage: Allow buildings to be built to the property lines. “Justification: The Applicant is requesting to be exempt from the gateway block frontage building placement standards. The lot lines have been strategically drawn to show a possible building footprint to give a perspective buyer a better understanding of what can be built on this lot. Exempting these buildings from the building placement standards shifts all of the landscaping and open space maintenance onto the HOA, which intern ensures that it is kept in a nice condition. The Gateway standards require a minimum building setback of 25’. All of our proposed buildings are currently separated from Huffine Lane by an open space tract of land that is 47’ wide. This 47’ strip of open space is almost double the required building placement standard.” Deviation 15. Code Reference Table 38.510.030.I - Block Frontages - Trail/Park Frontages: Be allowed to place buildings to the edge of the trail, easements and property lines. “Justification: The Applicant is seeking an exemption to the required setback from a trail, easement or property line. The Applicant team is seeking to place buildings up to the edge of the trail easement and property line. The lot lines have been strategically drawn to show a possible building footprint to give a perspective buyer a better understanding of what can be built on this lot. Additionally allowing buildings to be built to the property line will help with the creation of a unique district similarly to what is seen around the country near rivers. A successful example of this occurs, in Reno, Nevada (Reno River Walk) where several businesses front along the Truckee river creating this unique walkable district. In that district pedestrians are able to walk along the river for miles where they are able to interact with nature in certain locations and also frequent businesses. We believe that allowing building to be placed at the edge of the easement will allow for a creative and innovate approach to commercial development. It will prioritize the pedestrian over the car and will create a much safer and vibrant district.” Deviation 16. Code Reference 38.520.040.D.3 - Pathway Design: Eliminate pathway separation standard. “Justification: The Applicant is requesting a relaxation to place buildings up to the edge of sidewalks thereby eliminating the pathway separation standard of the UDC. We believe that the intent of that standard is to enhance the overall character of the walkway. We believe that this overall dense nature of this district will create character for these walkways. In looking around town at the other dense commercial districts this standard does little to create character. The character of the pathways is defined by the architecture and the street furniture placed along the road. We believe that the architecture and dense nature of the commercial district will create enough character for the pathways. Furthermore the 3’ of landscaping will likely be a waste of space when trying to create a dense environment. Additionally, 176 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 56 of 73 it would be challenging to get enough light for landscaping to survive on pathways along the north side of the buildings. If this relaxation cannot be supported we would request that this be added as a condition of approval as it will require signification redesign work that will causes us to miss the tight adequacy window.” Deviation 17. Code Reference 38.520.040.D.4 - Pathway Design: Provide sidewalks of less than 12-feet in width. “Justification: The Applicant is requesting a relaxation to modify the sidewalk width for multi-tenant commercial buildings larger than 100’ abutting a parking lot. This request is specifically tied to block 7 and 8. The current pathways are drawn at 10’ which matches and the current Ferguson Farm I. The way these lot are drawn, it is possible that a potential buy would purchase all of the lots in this block and building a single large building, which could result in a building being over 100’ long. For these 2 blocks the 10’ pathway is envisioned to be the rear of the building. The main entrance would have a 18’ wide sidewalk. We believe the intent of this standard is to apply to larger strip mall style developments, where several buildings are located on the same site only connected by parking lots and drive isles. In the case of block 7 and 8 each lot would have a primary entrance facing Valley Commons Drive. We believe that 10’ is more than ample width for a secondary entrance abutting a parking lot. Finally, just to reiterate, it is the intention to match the pathway width already constructed at Ferguson Farm I.” Staff Evaluation: Except for those standards proposed for deviation or waivers, and those subject to staff-recommended conditions of approval to mitigate potential adverse impacts to the City or vicinity, the application conforms to remaining applicable UDC PUD criteria and standards. Section 38.430.090.E (2) Does the project preserve or replace existing natural vegetation? Staff Evaluation: Partially. The project requires relocation of the agricultural irrigation ditch that transects the Site in a north-south orientation. Existing trees, shrubs and grasses along the water’s edge would be removed. The new location of the ditch would be landscaped per the concept landscape plan. The Class I trails along Ferguson and Huffine frontages of the Site would be enlarged from 8’ to 10’ rather than the Class I trail standard of 12’ width. However, the grasses that border those paved trails, and their replacement “native species” grasses, are not deemed “natural vegetation”. The PUD concept landscape plan shows landscaping, including trees, along pedestrian corridors and within the substantial number of surface parking lots. The concept landscape plan shows landscaping along street corridors, common parking lots and open space areas. 177 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 57 of 73 (3) Are the elements of the site plan (e.g., buildings, circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) designed and arranged to produce an efficient, functionally organized and cohesive planned unit development? Staff Evaluation: Perhaps. The Applicant proposes a 7-phased PUD development and asks that all phases be approved simultaneously with the PUD pursuant to UDC 38.430.070. To request this phased approval, the Applicant has provided detailed “concept plans” for each Block and Lot within the PUD Site. The Applicant is seeking waivers from setbacks, landscaping and, even, trash enclosure screening in order to “fit” the development within the 31-acre Site. Nonetheless, the August 24, 2022 revised PUD phasing plan proposal appears cohesive and has a variety of coordinating elements ranging from design standards to physical site, circulation, open space and landscape designs. The UDC waivers and deviations affecting the Site’s cohesiveness and organization are noted below along with the Applicant’s justifications for each. Deviation 1: Allow convenience uses, sales of alcohol for on-premise consumption, outdoor sale of goods in common open space areas, and allow food courts within common open space areas as principle uses. These uses are new uses to the UMU District as principal uses and are added to the PUD to support both indoor and outdoor food service and entertainment venues within the Site. Applicant’s Justification: “UDC Table 38.310.040.A requires a Conditional Use Permit for convenience uses, and a Special Use Permit for sales of alcohol for on-premises consumption uses within the Urban Mixed-Use District (UMU). The Applicant is requesting these uses be designated as Principal uses within the PUD boundaries. The overall intention of this project is to create a mixed-use district that draws and retains customers for multiple purposes. The Community Plan indicates a way to bolster districts around town to encourage more mixed use developments. We believe that adding these uses by right will help further this goal of creating. Furthermore this project is within the Community Commercial Mixed Use Future Land Use Category, which stresses that, “Mixed use area should be developed in an integrated, pedestrian friendly manner and should not be overly dominated by any single use.” These additional uses are fundamental to the creation of this district. When you look at similar thriving districts (Cannery District, Downtown, North East Neighborhood, and Ferguson Farm) the majority of them all share similar uses. Furthermore, in terms of compatibility of adjacent uses, none of the proposed additional uses will negatively impact another use. We believe that the inclusion of these uses will in fact help in the creation of a vibrant district.” Deviation 2: The UMU zone requires a mix of uses and a minimum of two different uses within each site plan. The Applicant seeks a waiver from this standard of 38.310.050.B to allow a single use, such as a wholly office or retail building on a specific lot. 178 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 58 of 73 Applicant’s Justification: “The Applicant requests that the entire development be exempt from requirements that two different user groups of uses must be shown within each site plan. We believe the intention of this standard is require a mix of uses across a site. This site is unique in that it is much larger than your typical lot going through the site plan process. The intention for this project to have a wide range of compatible uses across the entire site. Furthermore, it is envisioned that lots will be sold and each individual owner will be required to go through the site planning process for their project. In doing this each owner would be required to demonstrate that there is a mix of uses within each building. We believe the intention for this standard will be met across the whole site over the life of the project. Adding this flexibility to each lot allows for the possibility of a single anchor tenant to come to the site. We believe that as a whole this project will have a variety of uses similar to Ferguson Farm II and it will be vital to the success of the district. That said the added flexibility allows for the creation of this district to happen organically.” Deviation 3: Within the UMU zone, no use group may exceed 70% of the total gross floor area of the Site. “Justification: Similarly, to the relaxation above the Applicant is requesting a relaxation to allow the calculation of use groups percentage be over the total project area and not on an individual site by site basis. Allowing this to happen will allow flexibility in how each lot is developed. By our square footage estimates no single use would be any where close to the 70% threshold but by relaxing this requirement will allow for flexibility in how each site is developed, which ultimately will allow for this mixed use environment to occur naturally.” Deviation 4: Increase the maximum building height from 60’ to 90’ throughout the PUD Site. “Justification: Maximum allowable building height within the Urban Mixed-Use District is 60’ for buildings that do not provide structured parking, or 85’ for those when structured parking is present and provided per UDC Section 38.330.040.E.2 (please note, this reference standard does not appear related to this note for height expectations within UMU zones). The Applicant is requesting that the maximum allowed building height for this project be 90’ feet regardless of the presence of structured parking. This increase in allowable height offers opportunities for creative site design, a broader mix of uses and increased density. Additionally, the added height and density will ensure that the more commercial uses in nature will further the design objective of creating a district. By increasing the height and density it will allow for the creation of a more walkable district that can support the residents of this project but also the residents of adjacent neighborhoods. Goal DCD—2.4 of the Community Plan states, “Evaluate revisions to maximum building heights limits in all zoning districts to account for contemporary building methods and building code changes.” in several locations the Community Plan indicates both directly and indirectly that added height (with good transitions) is better for creating walkable, more sustainable districts.” [Note: there are no residents of this “project”] Deviation 5: Allow six lots dedicated to parking structures and located within parking lots to not have legal and physical access to a public street, approved private street or alley (see Figure 21). 179 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 59 of 73 “Justification: The Applicant is proposing to construct a bank of garages in Blocks 3, 6, 7, and 8. These garages will be available (to be purchased) for property owners or building tenants within the development, and each garage is envisioned to be able to provide the possibility to utilize mechanical automobile lifts to allow for additional garage parking. As shown on the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan, Block 3, Lots 1B & 1C; Block 6, Lot 4; Block 7 Lots 1B & 1C; and Block 8, Lot 1B do not meet the access requirements of the UDC. A relaxation to this standard is requested to allow for these lots to be plated without meeting the legal and physical access standards. There is a public access easement across the parking lots allowing the potential owners of those lots to have both legal and physical access to the garages. These lots will be deed restricted as required by the City of Bozeman.” “These lots will only be used for the creation of garages, and therefore traditional access standards are not necessary for these structures. Once these lots and the adjacent lots are developed, these garages will be served by access drives within developed parking lots, which will ensure drive access is provided in some manner to these buildings.” “The creation of these lots and ultimately the construction of these garages will help break up these parking lots and create a more urban environment. The garages themselves will also act as a traffic calming measure in the parking lots due to the height and narrowing effect. The addition of these garages will also promote pedestrian safety because it will force pedestrians to walk to a designated pathway instead of cutting through the parking lot spaces. A similar idea was implemented in the parking lot of the Jacobs Crossing building on Main Street.” Staff Evaluation: As noted above on page 7 of Unresolved Issues, State Statute requires all lots to have legal and physical access to a public or publicly-accessible street or alley. This deviation cannot be granted. Deviation 6: Allow back-in angle parking along all internal streets and alleys. Justification: The Applicant is requesting to utilize back in angled parking for Valley Commons Drive, Brookfield Avenue and along the Alleys. The Traffic Impact Study indicates this type of angled parking will provide additional traffic calming and it further identifies successful examples of back-in angled parking in the right of way. Furthermore, the Applicant has agreed to sign a maintenance agreement and put a note on the plat identifying that the HOA is required to maintain the back in angled parking areas. Finally, all transition curb radii are 25’. [Note: This is not a zoning standard and must be evaluated and addressed by the Transportation and Engineering Department.] Deviation 7: 38.510.020.F, Multiple Frontages. When a lot or building fronts onto multiple block frontages or internal frontage designations, each building must comply with the standards for the block frontage upon which it is located such as building setbacks, entrances facing the street, and windows and other transparencies. This deviation would waive the requirement that the building(s) have an entrance facing each street. “Justification: The Applicant is requesting that buildings not be required to meet the requirements of 180 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 60 of 73 subsection 4 which requires buildings to be placed at the corner of an intersection and present a front and primary façade to both street frontages. There are a few locations where we proposed public open space at the street corners. The design intent with these public open spaces was to create a small gathering space for people to stop sit at. The way the street intersects in these locations create really awkward triangle pieces of land. Rather than expand the overall building footprint we thought this would be a great spot for some placemaking. These inviting landscaped areas will enhance the overall feel of the intersection and will offer some green space in this dense urban environment. We believe that these small placemaking efforts will help in the creation of a unique vibrant district. We believe that this area would function similarly to Sir Optimist Park but on a different scale.” Deviation 8: 38.510.020.F, Multiple frontage lots. Each building on a lot must “address” (have an entrance on and primary façade treatments on) each street frontage. Surface parking adjacent to a street corner is not allowed (see Figure 18). “Justification: The Applicant is requesting an exemption to subsection 7, which would allow for the placement of surface parking adjacent to a street corner. Subsection 7 allows for parking lots to be adjacent to the street corner if there is a combination of block frontages and if the Applicant can demonstrate that they are adequately satisfying the departure criteria. We believe that there will be adequate landscaping surrounding the parking lots reducing the visual impact of the parking lot. The exterior parking lots are planned to be screened via a variety of trees and shrubs. We believe that the visual impact of the parking lot will be fairly minimal given the significant landscaping proposed.” Deviation 18: exempt trash enclosures from the minimum 5 feet landscape screening requirement for all four sides (see Figure 13 below). “Justification: The sides and rear of service enclosures must be screened with landscaping at least five feet wide in locations visible from the street, parking lots and pathways. The refuse areas on Block 4, Lot 4 does not meet the minimum width of landscape screening on all sides. The proposed refuse collection areas have been located where they will be easily accessible for trash pickup; support the surrounding uses; and far enough from buildings to not be noticeable. The trash enclosures will be fully enclosed, covered and will include adjacent landscaping where possible. For Block 4, Lot 4 there will be landscaping on 1 of the 3 sides. We believe that this trash enclosure will be adequately screened from Huffine lane due to the adjacent buildings as well as the landscaping proposed behind the dumpster. This dumpster will also be enclosed in the required enclosure virtually screening the dumpster from all sides. Please see the landscape plans for demonstration of how this dumpster will be adequately screened. We believe that the intent of this standard to minimize the visual impact that dumpsters can have on a site design. We believe that this standard is achieved by creating a home for the dumpsters to live in. If this relaxation cannot be supported we would request that this be added as a condition of approval as that dumpster is not pivotal to the design of this project and can be removed prior to final PUD and Plat.” Staff Evaluation: The rear of the trash enclosure is placed at the lot line of Lot 4, Block 4 and is visible from the Gateway Block Frontage area of Huffine Lane. There is no assurance that 181 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 61 of 73 buildings would be situated to screen this trash enclosure from view from Huffine Lane. Staff does not support this deviation; please see Condition of Approval No. 6. Figure 13: Proposed trash enclosure screening per Deviation No. 18 Section 38.430.090.E (4) Does the design and arrangement of elements of the site plan (e.g., building construction, orientation, and placement; transportation networks; selection and placement of landscape materials; and/or use of renewable energy sources; etc.) contribute to the overall reduction of energy use by the project? Deviation No. 19: Waiver of the minimum and maximum parking requirement of the UMU District’s 38.330.010.F 1 and Table 38.540.050-3 for all uses within the PUD. “Justification: The Applicant is requested a 100% relaxation to the City’s of street parking requirements. The relaxation request would allow the PUD to self-regulate uses based on parking demand and the PUD offers 660 off street parking spaces within the surface parking lots and 175 on street parking spaces for a total of 835 spaces available. While the precise uses for this project are TBD, the total square footage potential shown in the 3-D exhibit is approximately 894,177 sf. This includes: 135,464 sf - Retail, Restaurant, Commercial, Bar 246,081 sf - Office 368,072 sf - Hotel and Hotel Units 95,200 sf - Medical 27,235 - Structured Parking 22,125 sf - Garage Condo Units Parking required for this project would be approximately 1555 spaces, (after reductions for adjacency to transit routes, adjacency to Storefront Block Frontages, and joint use reductions of 30% as specified in the TIS). Additional details on the parking assumptions are included in the overall project narrative. Total trail 182 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 62 of 73 parking provided for this project is 883 total spaces, and includes on street parking and the pro-posed garages (one space per garage). Parking minimums often have dramatic impacts on the way we plan projects and are often not based on any science. We believe that not requiring a parking minimum allow us to provide parking based on what we believe the demand will be. As we know, the demand for current and future parking is shifting throughout Bozeman with services like Uber and Lyft, the expansion of Streamline services, and the vast network of active transportation pathways. Exempting Ferguson Farm II from parking requirement will also further several goals and policies of the community plan including: M-1.12- Eliminate parking minimum requirements in commercial districts and affordable housing areas and reduce parking minimums elsewhere, acknowledging that demand for parking will still result in new supply being built. DCD-3.6 - Evaluate parking requirements and methods of providing parking as part of the overall transportation system for and between districts. Theme 3 - A City is bolstered by downtown and complementary districts. Our city is bolstered by our downtown, midtown, university and other commercial districts and neighborhood centers that are characterized by higher densities and intensities of use. Ferguson Farm II is located within the Cottonwood district and is in a prime location for infill development. Infill development can reduce the demand on the transportation network by creating employment opportunities near residential neighborhoods. Encouraging infill development also improves the efficiency of public services and reduces the outward expansion of the city. Specifically, the efficiency of the use of land within our district will increase with the reduction of the amount of on-site parking spaces. Allowing this relaxation will allow for greater flexibility for Ferguson Farm II and it reflects best practices in the provision of parking by allowing property owners to building only the number of parking spaces needed to meet parking demand.” Deviation 20: Waive the 38.540.050.A.4.b requirement that bicycle parking be located within 100 feet from the building to which they serve. “Justification: The Applicant is requesting a relaxation to exempt this project from the bicycle parking location standards. The Applicant has strategically placed the bike parking throughout the project but rather than have each building provide its own bike parking we are proposing to have it in centrally located locations. Exempting from this requirement will ensure that the HOA maintains keeps in working order these bike parking areas. We envision the bike parking areas to function similarly to how the downtown blue bike parking works in the summer. These logical locations for bike parking help to ensure pedestrian safety and limit the number of bikes on busy pedestrian and vehicle travel ways. Furthermore, several sidewalks have been strategically drawn to accompany a bike rack, bench and tree.” Staff Evaluation: This request for bike rack location does not include an exemption or waiver from the UMU District Section 38.330.010.F.3 requirement that 50% of the bicycle parking provided within the PUD be covered; that requirement remains. The Applicant stated to the Community Development Board at their meeting of December 5th that bicycle parking would 183 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 63 of 73 be placed along the internal streets. Condition of Approval No. 15 would require these locations to be shown on the Final PUD landscape plan application. Deviation 21: Waive the requirement for loading zones within the PUD Site per 38.540.080. “Justification: The Applicant is asking to not provide for loading berths for individual buildings. Should loading berths be necessary to serve the development, the Applicant will propose such berths during future Site Plans. The alleys are designed to be 26’ wide and have back-in angle parking. We believe there is adequate room for a lot or building to take deliveries off the alley and not disrupt the district.” In order to ensure that deliveries to the site will not impact site circulation or traffic, the Applicant will be willing to include in the CCRs that deliveries would only be allowed overnight or during appropriate off hours. Furthermore, the Applicant is willing to restrict parking in those back-in angle spots along the allow to not allow overnight parking, allowing larger trucks a spot to pull off the travel lane and conduct their delivery.” [Note: Since the August 24, 2022 revised PUD application, the Applicant has withdrawn the mitigation described in the strike-through text above.] Deviation 22: Allow signs on all visible sides of the building, not just street frontage facades, allowing wall signs on walls adjacent to streets, interior pedestrian walkways, alleys, parking lots and open space lots. “Justification: The Applicant is requesting a relaxation to allow signage to be visible on all sides of buildings not just the street frontages. One of the main themes in the Community Plan indicates Bozeman is bolstered by its downtown and the supporting districts and signage plays an important role in creating and defining a district. We believe that allowing signage on all sides of buildings will help create this unique vibrant district. Allowing signage on all sides of the buildings can used as enhanced placemaking opportunities. Examples of this can be found in the alleys of downtown Fort Collins, or the River Walk District in Reno. Furthermore, the Bozeman Downtown Plan documented the importance of activating spaces along alleys and one way to achieve this was through signage. We believe this relaxation will allow us to further our vision for this district and truly create a unique district in Bozeman. Due to the unique nature of our project we believe that people will be accessing each building from all sides which makes signage very important. Signage on all sides of the building has potential for better building façade design. With more room to allocate the allowed signage allows for better sign placement without creating visual pollution. Additionally, we are not requesting the allowance to allocate more signage per building so there will potentially be less signage on each side of the building reducing any visual concerns. Signage on all sides of the building will play a huge part in creating this unique place.” Staff Evaluation: Allowing signs to be placed on all sides of a building is already allowed by UDC Section 38.560. In order to clarify signage standards for this PUD Site, a Comprehensive Sign Plan is required per Condition of Approval No. 10 to be submitted with the Final PUD application and shall be approved with the Final PUD.] 184 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 64 of 73 Deviation 23: Allow alternate street and road right-of-way width and construction standards. Deviation 24: Allow alternate street section designs. Deviation 25: Allow 8’ wide Class I shared use path along the Fallon Street and Resort Drive alignments instead of the standard 12’ wide. Deviation 26: Allow alternate water, sewer and stormwater facility locations. [Note: Deviations 23 through 26 must be evaluated and addressed by the Director of Transportation and Engineering prior to Final PUD approval.] Applicant justifications: The Applicant is requesting to vary from the standard ROW widths. “Justification: The Applicant requests the relaxation from standard Right-of-way widths to accommodate the reverse crown street drainage and angled-in parking. The variable right-of-way widths are also designed to accommodate the variable sidewalk widths and street trees along storefront (north side of Valley Commons Drive) block frontages. Additionally, the Applicant is requesting to utilize a reverse crown cross section for all roadways within this project. A reverse crown cross section has been proven to be a good design with examples of Ferguson Farm I and also in Grand Lake Colorado. The intention is to provide positive drainage away from the sidewalk and parking areas. This creates safer and more walkable conditions especially in the spring months. “In summary, the required ROW width is 60 feet for Local Streets. The proposed ROW widths all meet or exceed this requirement with the one exception of Ravelli Street, which has a 51-foot-wide ROW. It should also be noted that the proposed ROW widths have been reviewed and deemed acceptable by the City Engineering Department.” The Applicant is requesting to vary from the standard Street Section design. “Justification: The alternate street sections proposed throughout the subdivision are designed to provide enhance drainage to the center valley gutter and allow water to flow out of the angled back-in parking. The variable sidewalk widths and boulevards are designed to promote the walkability of the development while meeting the City of Bozeman’s requirements for parking screening and block frontages. Additionally, the reverse crown drainage of the road is designed to be similar to the commercial development west of the property – Ferguson Farm. It is intended to provide a more contiguous feel between the development and promote walkability and internal capture rates for traffic within the development.” Application is requesting to vary the shared use path width proposed along Fallon Street and Resort Drive to match existing trails across the street. “Justification: This relaxation has been requested to provide a more contiguous feel with the adjacent developments. The existing shared use paths along Resort and Fallon are currently paved at an 8-foot width. The intent is to provide the shared use paths without creating awkward and unnecessary 185 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 65 of 73 transitions and promote the overall walkability from surrounding developments. Additionally, this 8’ wide path will match what is existing across the street. Finally, we have request that the block frontage on these street be reclassified to “other” through a PUD Relaxation. In the Block Frontage Other, the required sidewalk width is 6’. On November 29th, the Applicant team met with the engineering department to go over their comments in that meeting it was agreed that Resort and Fallon could match the 8’ pathway on the other side of the street and the pathway along Ferguson would be widen to 10’ with the ability to make it wider. If required a 12’ pathway is now required by the engineering department we would request that this be a condition of approval. “ Municipal water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems. Proposing alternate water, sewer, and storm locations. “Justification: The alternate locations of the proposed utilities is required to accommodate the alternative storm sewer locations as a result of the reverse crown street section. Although the layout of the water, sewer, and storm mains is somewhat unconventional, all the design standards are still met and 11 feet of separation between mains is maintained. It should also be noted that the proposed utility configuration has been reviewed and deemed acceptable by the City Engineering Department.” [It is also noted that the design and arrangement of the lots and streets do not address energy use or reduction of energy use by the project. The substantial amount of surface parking would result in a “heat island” effect. The placement of shade trees, as noted in Condition of Approval No. 5, would partially mitigate such heat island impacts to parking lot users. The Street network within the Site would be integrated into the existing and developing surrounding pedestrian and bicycle network which will enable travel for nearby residents without motor vehicles.] Staff Evaluation: The numerous surface parking lots produce a design that does not contribute to the overall reduction of energy use by the project. However, with the recommended Conditions of Approval and UDC code provisions for the Final PUD submittal, particularly Condition No. 5 addressing the heat island effect of the multiple paved parking lots, the proposed design would produce a more comfortable, safer and marginally less energy consumptive project. Section 38.430.090.E (5) Are the elements of the site plan (e.g., buildings, circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) designed and arranged to maximize the privacy by the residents of the project? Staff Evaluation: There are no residential uses proposed for this PUD although they are permitted by the UDU zoning. The PUD does not seek a waiver from the 38.510.030.J Special 186 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 66 of 73 Residential Block Frontage Standards that assure privacy, safety and security for any ground floor dwelling unit that may, in the future, be provided within the PUD Site. (6) Park land. Does the design and arrangement of buildings and open space areas contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of the site configuration, and has the area of park land or open space been provided for each proposed dwelling as required by section 38.420.020? Staff Evaluation: Commercial development is not required to provide parkland. No parkland is proposed with this development. The open space areas shown in Figure 6 appear to be spread out throughout the Site to be enjoyed by visitors, customers and employees of the Site. Section 38.430.090.E (7) Performance. All PUDs must earn at least 20 performance points. With a PUD, Section 38.430.090.E.2.a. (7) requires at least 20 performance points for the subject property. There are 11 options provided in the Unified Development Code (UDC) to meet this requirement. The Preliminary PUD must specify how the performance points are being met. The Applicant provides the following details on how the performance points are met for this P-PUD. 187 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 67 of 73 Section 38.430.090.E (8) Is the development being properly integrated into development and circulation patterns of adjacent and nearby neighborhoods so that this development will not become an isolated "pad" to adjoining development? Staff Evaluation: The application proposes to expand an existing Ferguson Farm I (FF-I) located immediately west of the Site. That commercial development and this proposed PUD development will be heavily automobile dependent. The proposed development focuses commercial development interior to the Site with surface parking lots bordering the Site along public street frontages. This design does not facilitate integration into adjacent neighborhoods nor does it improve connectivity and integration into the community. Table 2 188 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 68 of 73 38.430.090.E.e. Mixed Use. Planned unit developments in mixed-use areas (REMU, UMU, and NEHMU zoning districts) may include commercial, light industrial, residential and mixes of various primary and accessory uses. The particular types or combination of uses are determined based upon its merits, benefits, potential impact upon adjacent land uses and the intensity of development. (1) Is the project substantially consistent with the intent and purpose statements for the underlying zoning district? Staff Evaluation: Yes, The UMU district requires mixed uses but does not require housing to be one of the uses within the mix. The PUD proposes a mix of non-residential uses, primarily office, retail and food service uses similar to that found in Ferguson Farms I (FF-I). (2) Is the project located adjacent or within proximity to an arterial or collector street that provides adequate access to the site? Staff Evaluation: The project lies at the intersections of Huffine Lane and Ferguson Avenue, at Ferguson Avenue and Fallon Street, at Fallon Street and Resort Drive, and at Resort Drive and Huffine Lane. Huffine Lane is a principal arterial, Ferguson Avenue is a collector, and both Fallon and Resort are local streets. The Applicant requests deviations to street designs which would be evaluated by the Director of Transportation and Engineering. Section 38.430.090.E.e (3) Is the project on at least two acres of land? Yes, the Site is 31 acres. (4) Do the uses relate to each other in terms of location within the PUD, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, architectural design, utilization of common open space and facilities, streetscape, etc.? Staff Evaluation: Yes, with the conditions of approval. (5) Does the overall project achieve or exceed the FAR "floor area ratios" envisioned for the underlying district? Staff Evaluation: Yes, the minimum floor area ratio (FAR) for the UMU zone is 0.50 and the 900,000 gross square feet of commercial space on the 31-acre Site results in a FAR of 0.66. (6) Is it compatible with and does it reflect the unique character of the surrounding area? Staff Evaluation: Yes and no. The PUD is intended to reflect the commercial use “character” of Ferguson Farms I (FF-I) located immediately west of the Site. The FF-II proposed 189 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 69 of 73 “expansion” of FF-I would solidify that character. However, Deviation No. 4 would allow building heights of up to 90’ throughout the Site. This scale would not reflect the one-to three-story scale of the neighborhood. (7) Is there direct vehicular and pedestrian access between on-site parking areas and adjacent existing or future off-site parking areas which contain more than ten spaces? Staff Evaluation: Yes, with mitigation. The large expanse of the dark, highly absorptive asphalt paving of the surface parking lots that dominate the Site creates a “heat island” effect for customers and workers walking from their parking spot to their commercial destination. Tree-lined pedestrian pathways through the parking lots would create a safer, more comfortable experience for the pedestrian, providing shelter, beauty, lessening the heat island effect of the surface parking, and providing pedestrians safe separation from vehicle traffic. This tree-lined pathway would also provide a visual cue indicating a safe passage for pedestrians linking all parking lots to commercial and open space areas which would minimize vehicle/pedestrian conflicts and would facilitate access between destinations within the Site. Such an element would address the Bozeman Community Plan goal of Theme 2—A City of Unique Neighborhoods which states: “Our City desires to be diverse, healthy, and inclusive, defined by our vibrant neighborhoods, quality housing, walkability, excellent schools, numerous parks and trails, and thriving areas of commerce.” Goal N-1 states: “Support well-planned, walkable neighborhoods.” This design would also address Focus Area 3—Vibrant & Resilient Neighborhoods; Increasing Resiliency to Climate Hazards objective of the Bozeman Climate Plan which states: “Development can be designed to reduce pavement and incorporate trees and green infrastructure to mitigate potential urban heat island impacts”, “Replacing or shading parking areas can mitigate urban heat island impacts” “Robust greenspaces and urban forests provide cooling benefits and decrease urban heat island effect”. As such, Staff recommends Condition of Approval No. 5 to mitigate this heat island effect and to provide comfort and visual cues leading patrons and workers from their parked vehicle to their destination within the Site. Section 38.430.090.E (8) Does the project encourage infill, or does the project otherwise demonstrate compliance with the land use guidelines of the city growth policy? Staff Evaluation: Yes, this is a 31-acre undeveloped site surrounded by commercial development and some residential condominium apartments. The project demonstrates compliance with the land use guidelines of the City growth policy with 17 recommended 190 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 70 of 73 conditions of approval. In particular, Goal N-2 of the 2020 Community Plan states: “Pursue simultaneous emergence of commercial nodes and residential development through diverse mechanisms in appropriate locations. The PUD Site is a long vacant, formerly agricultural “farm” that the Applicant is now prepared to develop as a commercial node to the adjacent neighborhoods. Staff recognizes that surface parking lots can be converted to garages with apartments or retail and offices “wrapped” around them, making the Site more robust and efficient, and providing a more pedestrian-friendly streetscape. The UMU standards would support such a development and the proposed PUD deviations would not prohibit such redevelopment or “infill” development of the Site in the near or distant future. (9) Does the project provide for outdoor recreational areas (such as urban plazas, courtyards, landscaped areas, open spaces, or urban trails) for the use and enjoyment of those living in, working in or visiting the development? Staff Evaluation: Yes, please see the open space discussion above. (10) Does the project provide for private outdoor areas (e.g., private setbacks, patios and/or balconies, etc.) for use by the residents and employees of the project which are sufficient in size and have adequate light, sun, ventilation, privacy and convenient access to the household or commercial units they are intended to serve? Section 38.430.090.E (11) Does the project provide for outdoor areas for use by persons living and working in the development for active or passive recreational activities? Staff Evaluation: Yes, please see the open space discussion above. (12) Is the overall project designed to enhance the natural environment, conserve energy and provide efficient public services and facilities? Staff Evaluation: Yes, with the recommended conditions of approval and if the Director of Transportation and Engineering approves the Applicant’s Article 4 deviations and waivers. (13) If the project is proposing a residential density bonus as described below, does it include a variety of housing types and urban styles designed to address community-wide issues of affordability and diversity of housing stock? 191 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 71 of 73 Staff Evaluation: No housing is proposed for this PUD development although the deviations do not prevent housing in the future should a PUD Modification application seek some. (14) Residential density bonus. If the project is proposing a residential density bonus (30 percent maximum) above the residential density of the zoning district or building type within which the project is located and which is set forth in division 38.310 of this chapter, does the proposed project exceed the established regulatory design standards (such as for setbacks, off-street parking, open space, etc.) and ensure compatibility with adjacent neighborhood development? The number of dwelling units obtained by the density bonus is determined by dividing the lot area required for the dwelling unit type by one plus the percentage of density bonus sought. The minimum lot area per dwelling obtained by this calculation must be provided within the project. Those dwellings subject to division 38.380 must be excluded from the base density upon which the density bonus is calculated. Staff Evaluation: Not applicable as no housing is proposed for this PUD master site plan. APPENDIX A –PROJECT SITE ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY Zoning Designation and Land Uses: The property is zoned UMU as described in detail above on page 27. Adopted Growth Policy Designation: The property is designated as Community Commercial Mixed Use as described above. APPENDIX B – OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF Owner: Boardwalk Properties, Inc. and Combs Capital LC Applicant: Michael Delaney Representative: Tyler Steinway, Intrinsik Architecture Report By: Susana Montana, Senior Planner APPENDIX C –PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INTENT Sec. 38.430.010. Intent. A. It is the intent of the city through the use of the planned unit development (PUD) concept, to promote maximum flexibility and innovation in the development of land and the design of development projects within the city. Specifically, with regard to the improvement and protection of the public health, safety and general 192 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 72 of 73 welfare, it shall be the intent of this chapter to promote the city's pursuit of the following community objectives: 1. To ensure that future growth and development occurring within the city is in accord with the city's adopted growth policy, its specific elements, and its goals, objectives and policies; 2. To allow opportunities for innovations in land development and redevelopment so that greater opportunities for high quality housing, recreation, shopping and employment may extend to all citizens of the city area; 3. To foster the safe, efficient and economic use of land and transportation and other public facilities; 4. To ensure adequate provision of public services such as water, sewer, electricity, open space and public parks; 5. To avoid inappropriate development of lands and to provide adequate drainage, water quality and reduction of flood damage; 6. To encourage patterns of development which decrease automobile travel and encourage trip consolidation, thereby reducing traffic congestion and degradation of the existing air quality; 7. To promote the use of bicycles and walking as effective modes of transportation; 8. To reduce energy consumption and demand; 9. To minimize adverse environmental impacts of development and to protect special features of the geography; 10. To improve the design, quality and character of new development; 11. To encourage development of vacant properties within developed areas; 12. To protect existing neighborhoods from the harmful encroachment of incompatible developments; 13. To promote logical development patterns of residential, commercial, office and industrial uses that will mutually benefit the developer, the neighborhood and the community as a whole; 14. To promote the efficient use of land resources, full use of urban services, mixed uses, transportation options, and detailed and human-scale design; and 15. To meet the purposes established in section 38.01.040. 193 19028; City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary PUD Page 73 of 73 ATTACHMENT LIST The full application and file of record can be viewed at the Community Development Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715. Attachment 1: Applicant’s Preliminary PUD Application Narrative  Relaxation Requests and Rationales  Performance Points and Justifications Attachment 2: Applicant’s Ferguson Farm II Draft Design Manual Attachment 3: Relaxation Graphic Map Attachment 4: Landscape Plan Attachment 5: Neighborhood Center Plan and Skybridge elevation map Attachment 6: Conceptual Land Use Distribution Map Attachment 7: Community Development Board summary comments Attachment 8: Public Comment [none to date] 194 July 2022 Ferguson Farm II PRELIMINARY PUD APPLICATION 195 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS DOCUMENTS: NARRATIVE Sectfon I: Project Team Sectfon II: Project Summary & Narratfve Sectfon III: PUD-P Checklist Sectfon IV: Response to City Comments Sectfon V: Statement of Planning Objectfves Sectfon VI: Supplemental Plan Requirements Sectfon VII: PUD Performance Point Calculatfons* Sectfon VIII: Relaxatfons & Justfficatfons* * - Included as a separate document labeled accordingly APPENDICES: APPENDICES: Appendix A: PUD-P Exhibits A.1 - Vicinity Map A.2 - Future Land Use Map A.3 -Existfng Zoning Map A.4 - Land Use Ratfos A.5 - Buildable Area Map A.6 - Block Frontage Exhibit A.7 - Green Plan A.8 - 3-D Map Packet A.9 - Site Circulatfon Appendix B: Relaxatfon Graphic Appendix C: Traffic Impact Study Appendix D: Wayfinding Exhibit Appendix E: Draft Design Manual, Covenants, & Bylaws Appendix F: SID Waiver (DRAFT) 196 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 3 Appendix G: Applicatfon (Letter) for Concurrent Constructfon Appendix H: Reference Documents H.1 - Minor Subdivision 295 Plat H.2 - Maynard Ditch Correspondence Appendix I: Skybridge & Vista Exhibit Appendix J: Impact Letters Appendix K: 12-Foot Access Zones Appendix L: Completfon of Improvements Request Appendix M: Flood Hazard Evaluatfon Report Appendix N: Groundwater Monitoring Info and Map Appendix O: Soils Investfgatfon Report Appendix Q: Stormwater Design Report Appendix R: Water & Sewer Design Report Appendix S: Weed Management Plan Appendix T: CILWR Determinatfon Appendix U: Canal Company Authorizatfon Appendix V: MDT Approach - Letter of Intent Appendix W: Surface Water Exhibits Appendix X: Easement Maintenance Agreement Appendix Y: Maynard Ditch Correspondence DRAWINGS: Civil Existfng Conditfons Map Plat Sheet 1 Plat Sheet 2 Plat Sheet 3 Plat Sheet 4 C1.0 Street Cross Sectfons Index C2.0 Street Cross Sectfons 197 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 4 EX1 Overall Site Plan EX2 Sidewalks & Streetscape Plan EX3 Cluster Box Unit Mail Exhibit EX4 Dry Utflity Layout EX5 Easement Adjacent to Street EX6 Easement Adjacent to Parking EX7 Surface Water Exhibit EX8 Circulatfon Exhibit Block Exhibit Landscape LO Overall Plan LD Details L1 Block 1 L2 Block 2 L3 Block 3 L4 Block 4 L5 Block 5 L6 Block 6 L7 Block 7 L8 Block 8 L9 Block 9 L10 Open Space Details L11 Open Space Details L12 Open Space Details L13 Open Space Details Lighting Overall Site Lightfng Plan (Sheet 1) NW Site Area (Sheet 2) 198 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 5 W Site Area (Sheet 3) SW Site Area (Sheet 4) N Site Area (Sheet 5) Central Site Area (Sheet 6) S Site Area (Sheet 7) NE Site Area (Sheet 8) SE Site Area (Site 9) Spec Sheets Assembly Spec Sheets Bollard Lightfng Spec Sheet Light Type R2 Spec Sheet Light Type R2H Spec Sheet Light Type R3 Spec Sheet Light Type R3H Spec Sheet Irrigation IO Overall Plan IE East Well Overall Plan IW West Well Overall Plan ID Details I1 Block 1 I2 Block 2 I3 Block 3 I4 Block 4 I5 Block 5 I6 Block 6 I7 Block 7 I8 Block 8 I9 Block 9 199 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 6 Section I - Project Team OWNERS & APPLICANTS Boardwalk Propertfes, Inc. 101 E. Main Street, Suite D Bozeman, Montana 59715 406.586.3132 (office) 406.586.8692 (fax) 406.539.7374 (cell) delaney@delaneynco.com Combs Capital LC 1095 Cougar Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 CONSULTANT TEAM Engineer & Project Manager: C&H Engineering and Surveying, Inc. (Attn: Drew Kirsch) 1091 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 p: 406.587.1115 Drew.M.Kirsch@imegcorp.com Architect: Bitnar Architects 1807 W. Dickerson Street Bozeman, Montana 59715 p: 406.587.1983 thomas.bitnar@bitnararchitects.com Land Use Planner: Intrinsik Architecture, Inc. 111 N. Tracy Avenue Bozeman, Montana 59715 p: 406.582.8988 tsteinway@intrinsikarchitecture.com Landscape Architect: Cashman Nursery and Landscaping 2055 Springhill Road Bozeman, MT 59718 p: 406.587.3406 Design3@cashmannursery.com Lighting: Northern Rockies Agency 246 Timberline Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 p: 406.587.0513 william@nrarep.com 200 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 7 Section II - Project Summary & Narrative Executive Summary This submittal is for a Preliminary Plat for the constructfon of Ferguson Farm II, a new develop- ment in west Bozeman adjacent to the existfng Ferguson Farm I commercial neighborhood. Narrative The Ferguson Farm II Preliminary Plat consists of approximately 31 acres that are currently zoned Urban Mixed Use (UMU) and designated Community Commercial Mixed-Use in the City’s Future Land Use Map. The relatfvely flat vacant land was historically used for hay and has remained vacant since the farm was purchased. The property itself is a planned extension of the existfng Ferguson Farm I. The property is located on the west side of the City, on the northwest corner of the signalized intersectfon of Huffine Lane and Ferguson Avenue. The project site is bound to the south by Huffine Lane, to the east by Ferguson Avenue, to the west by Resort Drive, and to the north by 201 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 8 Fallon Street. The adjacent local streets were installed with the original platting of Spring Creek Village Minor Subdivision. Huffine Lane is improved to a five lane arterial highway, while Ferguson Avenue is a collector. Resort Drive and Fallon Street are both designated as local streets. Currently, the site is accessed from Fallon Street at the Resort Drive intersectfon and the two curb cuts east of the Maynard Border Ditch. Although curb and gutter has already been installed along Fallon Street and Resort Drive, the sidewalks that will be installed with the subdivision infrastructure will connect to the existfng trails along Ferguson Avenue and Huffine Lane. The Maynard Border Ditch flows through the western portfon of the property. There is an ex- istfng 15-foot ditch easement on the west side of Maynard Border ditch and five (5) feet on the east side. The vegetatfon bordering the ditch is mostly cottonwood, willow, and wild rose. It is the intent of the project developers to relocate the ditch and the associated easements to the east, a request that has been reviewed and approved by the Maynard Border Ditch Associ- atfon (See Appendix U. See also Appendix Y for related informatfon). No floodplains or water- course setbacks are present at this site, however a flood study has been included in this sub- mittal as has been requested by the City of Bozeman (See Appendix M). Buildings and potentfal uses are described below for each of the proposed blocks. Buildings are proposed to be between three-stories (55’) and six-stories (87’). Additfonal informatfon 202 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 9 related to proposed building heights has been included in the 3-D Map (Appendix A.8) and the relaxatfons requested with the Planned Unit Development. Utflitfes and community facilitfes such as gas, electric, telephone, water and sewer were in- stalled on Huffine Lane and Ferguson Avenue with the original platting of the Spring Creek Vil- lage Minor Subdivision. The onsite utflitfes will be accessed from their existfng locatfons within the utflity easements surrounding the property, with water and sewer to be provided to the subdivision in to be constructed water and sewer mains in Fallon Street and Resort Drive. See Civil plans and the Preliminary Plat for additfonal details on the proposed utflitfes necessary to serve this site. The propertfes within a ½ mile radius of the property have been developed with a mix of resi- dentfal and commercial uses. The commercial Ferguson Farm I project lies to the west of this site, while a variety of lower intensity commercial uses lie to the north and east of this project site. Ferguson Farm II is envisioned as an extension of Ferguson Farm I, with this project providing extensions of the Field Street and Valley Commons Drive (local streets). Block frontages proposed for this project are shown in Appendix A.6. Additfonal streets proposed for this project include: • Field Street– connectfng Resort Drive to Ravalli Street (east to west) • Ravalli Street– connectfng Fallon Street to the alley (north to south) • Brookfield Avenue – connectfng Fallon Street to Huffine Lane as the only access onto Huffine Lane (north to south) via a right-in/right-out access as supported by MDT • C-Bar-3 Avenue – interior street only (north to south) Ravalli Street is also an extension of an existfng city street. Valley Commons Drive supports the only east to west connectfon between Resort Drive and Ferguson Avenue. Brookfield Avenue is the primary north to south street. The street supports the only MDOT approved access to the subdivision from Huffine Lane. Brookfield Avenue dead ends at Fallon Street. Field Street is to provide a short east to west connectfon between Resort Drive and Ravalli Street. Ravalli Street is an east to west street from Ferguson Avenue, but extends from Cottonwood Condos to become a north to south connectfon within Ferguson Farm II. C-Bar-3 Avenue will provide a short north to south connectfon to Fallon Street, aligning with the existfng Ridge PUD driveway to the north. C-Bar-3 Avenue and Ravalli Street both terminate in Ferguson Farm II, as the MDOT has restricted access to the state highway. The Brookfield Avenue and Huffine Lane intersectfon has been designed as an 85-foot right of way with a landscaped me- dian. Internal streets are designed as local streets with additfonal right of way to accommodate the angled on-street parking. An exceptfon to street design standards has been requested, through the separate PUD applicatfon, to allow back-in angled parking within throughout the 203 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 10 site. The traffic impact study indicates this type of angled parking will provide additfonal traffic calming. The traffic impact study further identffies successful examples of back-in angled park- ing in the right of way. All internal, local street intersectfons have been designed with traffic circles in lieu of four-way stop to facilitate traffic circulatfon within the subdivision. The traffic circles will encourage traffic calming and reduce traffic speed at these intersectfons. Parking will be provided through a mix of the back-in angled parking and onstreet parking in the alleys. No parking other than the proposed onsite garage parking is to be allocated to any individual owner. Bike parking will be provided both dispersed throughout the site as a com- ponent of the streetscape improvements and in covered centralized locatfons. Bike parking is to be owned and maintained by the HOA. Analysis of parking requirements have been includ- ed below. Open space for this project has been designated to meet both the onsite commercial require- ments and the PUD Performance Points necessary for permitting. Additfonal details are includ- ed in the Site Design sectfon below, and the attached Landscape Plan sectfon of this applica- tfon. Furthermore, please refer to the PUD applicatfon for more detail on the PUD Perfor- mance Points. Site Design The project is proposed to be a solely commercial subdivision, with a variety of commercial uses possible at this site. Taking a block by block overview of the possible development pattern for this site, the project presents a cohesive vision for future constructfon. Please refer to the included Block exhibits within the Civil Plans, the Preliminary Plat, and Appendix A.8 - 3- D Map for reference. Please note the following exhibits are conceptual and may change as in- dividual lot owners submit site plans for specific development proposals. These development proposals may vary from these plans and will demonstrate in their applica- tfon how they meet the spirit and in- tent of the code. Block 1 Block 1 is bounded by Valley Com- mons Drive to the north, Ferguson Avenue to the east, Huffine Lane to the south, and Block 2 to the west. Block 1 has one developable lot that is approximately 81,172 square feet. Block 1 also includes a portfon of 204 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 11 Open Space Lot 1, which contains a portfon of the existfng multf-modal east-to-west trail con- nectfon as well as a portfon of the north-to-south trail connectfon. These open space areas are publicly accessible and are shown as a component of the open space contributfon to meetfng the Planned Unit Development performance point requirements. Block 1 is likely to contain a three to four story medical office type building and parking, alt- hough it is possible a hotel or other commercial building may be placed in this locatfon. The building footprint for such a building is approximately 23,800 square feet. Parking proposed for Block 1 will all be provided through onsite parking that includes approximately 75 regular parking spaces, five (5) ADA spaces, and two (2) ADA van accessible spaces (82 total parking spaces). For a four story medical office building with a 23,800 sq. ft. footprint (80,920 net sq. ft. or 40 doctors and 153 employees), approximately 219 parking spaces and 22 bike parking spaces would be required. Exceptfons to parking have been factored in to this calculatfon for transit availability (10%) and joint use (30%) as discussed in the TIS. Block 2 Block 2 lies adjacent to the west of Block 1, south of Valley Commons Drive, and to the west of Brookfield Avenue. Block 2 contains two developable lots, one proposed parking lot, a portfon of Open Space Lot 1, and a large central open space area that both contribute to the PUD performance points. Lot 1 will be a parking lot. Lot 2 will house a three-story bank and office building with a drive-through that has a building foot- print of 7,500 square feet. The precise us- es for Lot 3 are TBD at this tfme, but it is imagined that a three story commercial building with a 7,735 square foot footprint will be constructed here. The program- ming for the publicly accessible Open Space Lot 2 is described in detail in the Performance Points descriptfon and within the Landscaping Plans, but it is intended to contain a food cart pod like setting with adjacent covered bike parking for 40 bikes, partfally meetfng the UMU requirements for covered bike parking. 205 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 12 Parking for Block 2 is proposed in parking lots (34 regular spaces, 5 ADA spaces, and 1 ADA van accessible space) and back-in angled parking in alleys and ROWs (39 spaces). For buildings with 7,500 sq. ft of retail and 30,470 sq. ft of office/bank, 80 parking spaces and 8 bike parking spaces would be required. Exceptfons to parking have been factored in to this calculatfon for transit availability (10%) and joint use (30%) as dis- cussed in the TIS. Block 3 Block 3 lies southwest of the intersectfon of Brookfield Avenue and Val- ley Commons Drive. Block 3 contains two developable lots, one proposed parking lot, and a portfon of PUD open space (Block 3, Open Space Lot 3). Lots 1A-1C will contain a parking lot and garages that are to be condominiumized to be sold to individual owners. These parking gar- ages have been designed to possibly contain vehicle lifts to allow for an additfonal in-building parking space. Lot 2 is to contain a hotel with approximately 120 rooms. A porte cochere is proposed over the alley the lies between Lots 1 and 2. Lot 3 will likely contain an office or other retail type building, alt- hough the 3-D map specifies a range of uses are possible. The hotel proposed for Lot 2 will be approximately four stories with a building footprint of 27,984 square feet. The precise uses for Lot 3 are TBD at this tfme, but it is imagined that a three story commercial building with a 4,427 square foot footprint will be constructed here. The programming for the publicly accessible Open Space Lot 3 includes the existfng 12’ pedes- trian pathway along Huffine, and is further described in detail in the Performance Points de- scriptfon. Parking for Block 3 is proposed in parking lots (95 regular spaces, 30 compact spaces, 20 gar- age units, 5 ADA spaces, and 1 ADA van accessible space) and back-in angled parking in alleys 206 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 13 and ROWs (30 regular spaces, 1 ADA van accessible space, and 1 ADA space). For buildings with uses as described above, approximately 144 parking spaces and 14 bike parking spaces would be required. Exceptfons to parking have been factored in to this calculatfon for transit availability (10%) and joint use (30%) as discussed in the TIS. Block 4 Block 4 is to the west of Block 3, adjacent to Resort Drive and south of Valley Commons Drive. Block 3 contains as many as sixteen developable lots, one pro- posed parking lot, the bal- ance Open Space Lot 3, and Open Space Lot 4. The pro- posed skybridge’s southern terminus, which includes a stairway, will be in Open Space Lot 3. The skybridge contfnues north through Open Space Lot 4. The sky- bridge is to be accessible from stairways along the norther and southern ends (Open Space Lot 7), an ele- vator (Open Space Lot 5), and from the buildings that will front on either side of the Maynard Border Ditch (See also Appendix I - Skybridge and Vista Exhibit and the correspondence from the Fire Marshal included in Appendix J). Lot 2 will contain a parking lot. The sixteen developable lots will contain a mix of commercial uses, although the precise mix is unknown at this tfme. Units adjacent to the Maynard Border Ditch may be consolidated to create larger developable lots. Buildings on these lots may be built up to six to twelve feet from the lot lines to allow for a pathway between the buildings. Buildings on these lots may also have upper story connectfons to the skybridge that is pro- posed north-south within the ditch corridor. They may also cantflever over the proposed path- way between buildings. The precise uses for the sixteen developable lots are TBD at this tfme, but it is imagined that a three story commercial building will be constructed here. The total potentfal building square footage proposed in the 3D plan for these lots is 306,813 sq. ft., with approximately 102,271 207 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 14 sq. ft. of retail, commercial, restaurants, bars, or offices and 204,542 sq. ft. of office or hotel units shown on the plan. The programming for the open space areas includes the existfng 12’ pedestrian pathway along Huffine, the skybridge, and ditch improvements to provide pedestri- an amenitfes. The open space programming is further described in detail in the Performance Points descriptfon. Parking for Block 4 is proposed in parking lots (42 regular spaces and 1 ADA van accessible space) and back-in angled parking in alleys and ROWs (21 regular spaces, and 2 ADA van acces- sible space). For buildings with uses as described above, approximately 379 parking spaces and 38 bike parking spaces would be required. Exceptfons to parking have been factored in to this calculatfon for transit availability (10%) and joint use (30%) as discussed in the TIS. Additfonal- ly, the first 3,000 square feet of non-residentfal space can be deducted from the parking calcu- latfons due to the lots adjacency to a Storefront Block Frontage. Block 5 Block 5 is to the north of Block 4, adjacent to Re- sort Drive (west), Field Street (north), Ravalli Street (east), and Valley Commons Drive (south). Block 3 contains as many as nine developable lots, one proposed parking lot, Open Space Lot 5, and Open Space Lot 6. The proposed skybridge will contfnue through Open Space Lots 5 and 6, with an elevator and stairway proposed in Open Space Lot 5. Lot 2 will contain a park- ing lot. The nine developable lots will contain a mix of commercial uses, although the precise mix is unknown at this tfme. Units that adjacent to the Maynard Border Ditch may be consoli- dated to create larger developable lots. Buildings on these lots may be built up to six to twelve feet from the lot lines to allow for a pathway between the buildings. Buildings on these lots may also have upper story connectfons to the skybridge that is proposed north-south within the ditch corridor. They may also cantflever over the proposed pathway between buildings. 208 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 15 The precise uses for the nine developable lots are TBD at this tfme, but it is imagined that a three story commercial building will be constructed here. The total potentfal building square footage proposed in the 3D plan for these lots is 99,102 sq. ft., with approximately 33,304 sq. ft. of retail, commercial, restaurants, bars, or offices and 66,068 sq. ft. of office or hotels shown on the plan. The programming for the open space areas includes an event space on Open Space Lot 5, the skybridge, and ditch improvements to provide pedestrian amenitfes. The open space programming is further described in detail in the Performance Points descrip- tfon. Parking for Block 5 is proposed in parking lots (23 regular spaces) and back-in angled parking in alleys and ROWs (7 regular spaces, 1 ADA space, and ADA van accessible space). For buildings with uses as described above, approximately 164 parking spaces and 16 bike parking spaces would be required. Exceptfons to parking have been factored in to this calculatfon for transit availability (10%) and joint use (30%) as discussed in the TIS. Additfonally, the first 3,000 square feet of non-residentfal space can be deducted from the parking calculatfons due to the lots adjacency to a Storefront Block Frontage. Block 6 Block 6 is in the north- west corner of the project site. Field Street is to the south of this block, while Resort Drive is to the west, Fallon Street to the north, and Ravalli Street to the east. Block 3 contains two developable lots, two proposed parking lots, and Open Space Lots 7 - 9. Lot 1 will contain a parking lot and garag- es that are to be con- dominiumized to be sold to individual owners. These parking garages have been designed to possibly contain vehi- cle lifts to allow for an additfonal in-building parking space. Lot 2 and 3 are likely to contain a 209 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 16 hotel units (unit count TBD). Structured parking with access taken from the alley or a mix of commercial uses are also possible for the ground floor of these proposed hotel buildings. The hotel proposed for Lots 2 and 3 will be approximately six stories with a building footprint of 12,460 sq. ft. on Lot 2 and 14,775 sq. ft. on Lot 3. The precise uses for ground floor is TBD at this tfme. The programming for the open space lots includes the contfnuatfon of the skybridge to its northern terminus (Lot 7), a dog walk area (Lot 8), and a pedestrian seatfng area (Lot 9). Additfonal detail is provided in the Performance Points descriptfon. Parking for Block 6 is proposed in parking lots on Lots 1 and 4 (34 regular spaces, 30 compact spaces, 20 garage units and 13 garage spaces), and back-in angled parking in alleys and ROWs (4 regular spaces, 1 ADA van accessible space, and 1 ADA space). For buildings with ground floor retail and upper floors as hotel units with an average square footage of 960 sq. ft. ap- proximately 183 parking spaces and 18 bike parking spaces would be required. Exceptfons to parking have been factored in to this calculatfon for transit availability (10%) and joint use (30%) as discussed in the TIS. Block 7 Block 7 lies east of Blocks 5 and 6. Block 7 is bordered by Fallon Street to the north, Brookfield Avenue to the east, Valley Commons Drive to the south, and Ravalli Street to the west. Block 7 contains six developable lots, one proposed park- ing lot, and Open Space Lot 10. Lots 1A-1C will contain a parking lot and garages that are to be condomini- umized to be sold to indi- vidual owners. These parking garages have been designed to possibly contain vehicle lifts to al- low for an additfonal in- building parking space. Lots 2 - 7 will likely con- tain a mix of commercial type building, and the 3-D map specifies the range of possible uses. 210 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 17 The buildings on Lots 2-7 are currently envisioned to be up to four stories, with building foot- prints between 3,450 sq. ft. to 3,570 sq. ft. The programming for the publicly accessible Open Space Lot 3 includes a pedestrian pathway and seatfng amenitfes, and is further described in detail in the Performance Points descriptfon. Buildings may be constructed with 12’ walkways between buildings. Refer to the plat and CCRs for more informatfon on those easements and their applicability. Parking for Block 3 is proposed in parking lots (115 regular spaces, 30 compact spaces, 20 gar- age units, 2 ADA spaces, and 4 ADA van accessible space) and back-in angled parking in alleys and ROWs (13 regular spaces). For buildings with uses as described above and on the 3D plan, approximately 152 parking spaces and 15 bike parking spaces would be required. Exceptfons to parking have been factored in to this calculatfon for transit availability (10%) and joint use (30%) as discussed in the TIS. Additfonally, the first 3,000 square feet of non-residentfal space can be deducted from the parking calculatfons due to the lots adjacency to a Storefront Block Frontage. Block 8 Block 8 lies east of Block7 and north of Block 2. Block 8 is bordered by Fallon Street to the north, C-Bar-3 to the east, Valley Commons Drive to the south, and Brookfield Avenue to the west. Block 7 contains six developable lots, one proposed parking lot, and three open space lots. Lots 1A-1B will contain a parking lot and garages that are to be condominiumized to be sold to individual own- ers. These parking garages have been designed to pos- sibly contain vehicle lifts to allow for an additfonal in-building parking space. Lots 2 - 7 will likely contain a mix of commer- cial type building, and the 3-D map specifies the range of possible uses. 211 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 18 The buildings on Lots 2-7 are currently envisioned to be up to four stories, with building foot- prints between 3,330 sq. ft. to 3,680 sq. ft. The programming for the publicly accessible Open Space Lots 11, 12, and 13 includes a pedestrian pathway and seatfng amenitfes, covered bike parking, and a picnic area, and is further described in detail in the Performance Points descrip- tfon. Buildings may be constructed with 12’ walkways between buildings. Refer to the plat and CCRs for more informatfon on those easements and their applicability. Parking for Block 8 is proposed in parking lots (79 regular spaces, 6 garage units, and 3 ADA van accessible space). For buildings with uses as described above and on the 3D plan, approxi- mately 227 parking spaces and 23 bike parking spaces would be required. Exceptfons to park- ing have been factored in to this calculatfon for transit availability (10%) and joint use (30%) as discussed in the TIS. Additfonally, the first 3,000 square feet of non-residentfal space can be deducted from the parking calculatfons due to the lots adjacency to a Storefront Block Front- age. Block 9 Block 9 lies east of Block 8 and north of Block 1. It is bordered by Fallon Street to the north, South Ferguson Avenue to the east, Val- ley Commons Drive to the south, and C-Bar-3 Avenue to the west. Block 9 contains one proposed parking lot and Open Space Lot 14. Lot 1 will contain a parking lot and. The programming for the publicly accessible Open Space Lot 14 includes the existfng eight (8) foot pedestrian pathway and seatfng amenitfes, and is further described in detail in the Performance Points descriptfon. Parking for Block 9 is proposed to contain 143 regular spaces. Summary To summarize, the following building square footages are proposed: • 135,464 sf - Retail, Restaurant, Commercial, Bar 212 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 19 • 246,081 sf - Office • 368,072 sf - Hotel • 95,200 sf - Medical • 27,235 - Structured Parking • 22,125 sf - Garage Condo Units Parking required for this project would be approximately 1555 spaces, (after reductfons for adjacency to transit routes, adjacency to Storefront Block Frontages, and joint use reductfons of 30% as specified in the TIS). Total parking provided for this project is 883 total spaces, and includes on street parking and the proposed garages (one space per garage). The required bike parking would be 155 - 226 spaces. The project is proposing to provide 304 bike parking spac- es across the site (112 x 2-bike racks (uncovered); 40 x 2-bike racks (covered)). The covered bike parking exceeds the required UMU standards. Please note, the parking calculatfons for this project do not consider the full range of uses that are possible at this site. For example, assuming one-third of projected office space as shown on the 3-D map becomes hotel units and/or one-half of retail is developed as restaurant space, the project could be required under the existfng UDC to provide 2,264 required spaces. It is therefore difficult for the applicant to discern the precise parking that would be required under the UDC for this project at this initfal stage. Block by block analysis of initfal assumptfons for parking can be provided upon request. Related to site parking and circulation, please also note that with this submittal the appli- cant is requesting an exception to the prohibition to backing into the alley by non-residential development (UDC Sec. 38.540.020.D). Function of the alley will not be impeded with the City’s grant to this request. Additional details on this request can be found in the separate PUD application. Section III: PUD-P Checklist Responses to the relevant PUD review criteria are included below or in the noted attachment. Phasing The project is intended to be constructed over several years, however phasing of the PUD is not proposed at this tfme. Constructfon of the infrastructure within the rights-of-way and al- leys, and open space areas will be constructed following approval of the Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Plat. All other components of the subdivision will be built as future site plans are submitted. Financial suretfes or other means of financial guarantees are to be provided as nec- essary to ensure that all future development within the project area is developed according to City of Bozeman expectatfons. Please see the Plat included in the Preliminary Plat applicatfon and associated initfal improvements plan for additfonal details. 213 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 20 Review Criteria 1. The design objectfves and criteria with which a planned unit development proposal must comply are dependent upon the designated growth policy land use classificatfon and zoning district of the site proposed for the planned unit development. Response: The site is designated Community Commercial Mixed Use on the Future Land Use Map and is zoned Urban Mixed-Use District (UMU). The intent and purposes of the UMU urban mixed-use district are to establish areas within the city that are mixed-use in character, and to set forth certain minimum standards for develop- ment within those areas which encourage vertfcal mixed-use development with high density. The purpose in having an urban mixed-use district is to provide optfons for a variety of em- ployment, retail and community service opportunitfes within the community. The project is expected to be compatfble with uses within the development and adjacent to the project, are- as that are a mix of residentfal and commercial in nature, and these consideratfons have been taken into account by the project team for the site design. Moreover, the project is located at the intersectfons of major traffic corridors. Taken as a whole, this criterion has been met. 2. All planned unit developments are reviewed against the objectfves and criteria designated for all development. Each individual planned unit development is then reviewed against the objectfves and criteria established for the land use classificatfon of the site on which the pro- posal is to be located. A planned unit development must satfsfy all the objectfves and criteria of all applicable groups. Response: Understood. Responses to the applicable review criteria have been included in this submittal. 3. In evaluatfng planned unit developments, the city may determine that certain criteria are not applicable or are irrelevant to a partfcular development proposal and therefore do not ap- ply to that proposal unless those criteria are applicable to a deviatfon which is being sought by the applicant. Subsectfon E of this sectfon contains the groups of objectfves and criteria against which planned unit developments are reviewed. Response: Understood. DESIGN OBJECTIVES & REVIEW CRITERIA (All Development) All land uses within a proposed planned unit development must comply with the following ap- plicable objectfves and criteria: 214 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 21 1. Does the development comply with all city design standards, requirements and specifica- tfons for the following services: water supply, trails/walks/bike ways, sanitary supply, irrigatfon companies, fire protectfon, electricity, flood hazard areas, natural gas, telephone, storm drain- age, cable television, and streets? Response: Other than the requested relaxatfons or as otherwise detailed in this applicatfon, the project meets all city standards, requirements, and specificatfons. 2. Does the project preserve or replace existfng natural vegetatfon? Response: The current site is undeveloped and the existfng vegetatfon is a mix of natfve and non-natfve plants as shown in the Existfng Conditfons plan. As the site is constructed, the ex- istfng vegetatfon will be replaced with landscaping for the site and streets that is in accordance with City of Bozeman landscaping requirements. In additfon to providing enhanced site and streetscape landscaping, the project is supported by numerous open areas that will be revege- tated after their constructfon. Please see the Landscape plans for additfonal details on how this project intends to replace the existfng natural vegetatfon for this site. 3. Are the elements of the site plan (e.g., buildings, circulatfon, open space and landscaping, etc.) designed and arranged to produce an efficient, functfonally organized and cohesive planned unit development? Response: The site has been designed to follow a functfonal and cohesive plan as demonstrat- ed in this Preliminary PUD applicatfon. The proposed commercial building lots are arranged around open space amenitfes and streets that are an extension of the existfng road network. Moreover, the site is bounded on all sides by a multfmodal pathway system that provides transit connectfons around and through the site. A variety types of commercial buildings types of differing sizes are envisioned to be constructed on this site. The buildings along the irriga- tfon canal are oriented to take advantage of this natural feature and the trail corridor that runs the length of the ditch, as well as the surrounding mountainscapes. The open space areas proposed for this site include thoughtiul features and landscaping that promote their use. 4. Does the design and arrangement of elements of the site plan (e.g., building constructfon, orientatfon, and placement; transportatfon networks; selectfon and placement of landscape materials; and/or use of renewable energy sources; etc.) contribute to the overall reductfon of energy use by the project? Response: The project is located on a site that lies within the City’s urban boundary and is cur- rently able to utflize existfng services. This infill site lies along existfng transportatfon networks and constructfon of the PUD will further enhance the City’s transit patterns. As has been previ- ously mentfoned, a variety of multfmodal transit connectfons exist through and around the 215 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 22 site boundaries. Buildings along Huffine Lane have been positfoned to take advantage of solar gain. Solar panels are possible features for future building constructfon, and the Design Guide- lines encourage their use. 5. Are the elements of the site plan (e.g., buildings, circulatfon, open space and landscaping, etc.) designed and arranged to maximize the privacy of residents of the project? Response: Privacy of future project tenants has been a paramount consideratfon during the site design process. Suitable landscaping is proposed to ensure building sites are adequately separated from one another. Open space amenitfes of a variety of sizes and types are also used to break up the site area and allow for enhanced privacy. The building sites themselves have been designed and oriented to create private spaces within and adjacent to building are- as. Taken as a whole, these design consideratfon ensure that the privacy of future tenant of the site is protected. 6. Parkland. Does the design and arrangement of buildings and open space areas contribute to the overall aesthetfc quality of the site configuratfon, and has the area of parkland or open space been provided for each proposed dwelling as required by sectfon 38.420.020? Response: No residentfal uses are proposed for this Planned Unit Development, therefore parkland dedicatfon is not required. 7. Performance. All PUDs must earn at least 20 performance points. Points may be earned in any combinatfon of the following. The applicant must select the combinatfon of methods but the city may require documentatfon of performance, modificatfons to the configuratfon of open space, or other assurances that the optfons selected will perform adequately. Response: Performance Points have been earned for this project as demonstrated in Sectfon VII. 8. Is the development being properly integrated into development and circulatfon patterns of adjacent and nearby neighborhoods so that this development will not become an isolated "pad" to adjoining development? Response: The infill project is proposing extensions to Valley Commons Drive, Field Street, and Ravalli Street, all existfng components of the City’s transportatfon network. Additfonally, the project is showing multfmodal trails that connect through and around the site boundaries that well integrated with adjacent components of the trail system. As this project is adjacent to ex- istfng residentfal and commercial neighborhoods, the development team expects that resi- dents of these existfng areas will utflize commercial uses that are developed at this site in the future. This synergy between the surrounding areas and this proposed PUD site ensures that the project will not become an isolated “pad”. 216 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 23 Commercial Development Review Criteria 1. If the project contains any use intended to provide adult amusement or entertainment, does it meet the requirements for adult businesses? Response: No adult amusement or entertainment is proposed for this project. 2. Is the project contfguous to an arterial street, and has adequate but controlled access been provided? Response: The project is contfguous to a principal arterial (Huffine Lane), and the project is proposing adequate but controlled access to Huffine Lane as shown within the TIS (Appendix C). 3. Is the project on at least two acres of land? Response: The project site is 31.03 acres, far in excess of the required two acre minimum. 4. If the project contains two or more significant uses (for instance, retail, office, residentfal, hotel/motel and recreatfon), do the uses relate to each other in terms of locatfon within the PUD, pedestrian and vehicular circulatfon, architectural design, utflizatfon of common open space and facilitfes, etc.? Response: The project is proposing a variety of commercial use types (Restaurants, Bars, Re- tail, Offices, Medical Offices, and Hotel Units), however the precise mix of uses will be deter- mined at the tfme of future site plan submittals. The site has been designed to suit all of these types of uses regardless of the ultfmate mix that is constructed here. From the proposed De- sign Guidelines to the transit network proposed to the common open space arrangement, the future uses possible at this site have been positfoned to relate exceptfonally well with each other and the surrounding neighborhoods. 5. As is discussed above, the project is compatfble with and does it reflect the unique charac- ter of the surrounding area? Response: The Ferguson Farm II neighborhood has been designed to reflect the success of the adjacent Ferguson Farm project as well as be respectiul of the adjacent commercial and resi- dentfal areas adjacent to the site. This project is intended to contribute to the vibrancy and character of the existfng area. Transit and trail connectfons to and through this site further in- tegrate this site with the unique nature of the surrounding area. Future uses present at the site will contribute to regional commercial services in the area. The site design and architec- 217 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 24 ture envisioned will further reinforce the building characteristfcs of the surrounding area. Open space areas too have been designed to remain compatfble with surrounding areas, with open space transitfons proposed that provide seamless connectfons to adjacent open space amenitfes. See Appendix A.1 (Vicinity Map) for additfonal informatfon on the development pattern within one-half mile of this site. 6. Is there direct vehicular and pedestrian access between on-site parking areas and adjacent existfng or future off-site parking areas which contain more than ten spaces? Response: All proposed onsite parking areas and future parking areas are shown to have di- rect vehicular and pedestrian access between these locatfons and future buildings site. Site circulatfon for both vehicles and pedestrians has been designed to compliment the pro- posed parking areas and the building site locatfons. Direct connectfons are shown between buildings, connectfons that allow for travel between future uses at this site. See the Site Circu- latfon Plan (Appendix A.9) for further informatfon. 7. Does the project encourage infill, or does the project otherwise demonstrate compliance with the land use guidelines of the city growth policy? Response: Yes the project is an infill site within the City’s urban services boundary. See below for further discussion of compliance of this project with the City’s Growth Policy. 8. Does the project provide for outdoor recreatfonal areas (such as additfonal landscaped are- as, open spaces, trails or picnic areas) for the use and enjoyment of those living in, working in or visitfng the development? Response: As is shown in the PUD Performance Points sectfon and the Landscape plans, sig- nificant open space areas with a variety of programming features, such as dog runs and picnic areas, have been proposed for the use and enjoyment of those working in or visitfng the de- velopment. Conditional Use Criteria 1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and topography to accommodate such use, and all setbacks, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading and landscaping are adequate to properly relate such use with the land and uses in the vicinity; Response: The site is of adequate size and generally flat topography to accommodate the fu- 218 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 25 ture development proposed at this site. Except as described in the PUD Relaxatfons, the pro- ject will meet applicable UDC standards related to setbacks, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading, and landscaping. The site itself will integrate seamlessly with the land uses and uses in proximity to the Ferguson Farm II project site. 2. That the proposed use will have no material adverse effect upon the abutting property. Per- sons objectfng to the recommendatfons of review bodies carry the burden of proof. Response: The project team has included in this submittal sufficient project details that demonstrate that any potentfal adverse impacts to abutting propertfes (ex. traffic) have been mitfgated. No material adverse impacts have been identffied by the project team that will not be addressed through during future constructfon of the project. 3. That any additfonal conditfons stated in the approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Response: The applicant acknowledges that the project will be expected to satfsfy any re- quired conditfons of approval prior to filing the Final PUD applicatfon. Plan Review Criteria 1. Conformance to and consistency with the city's adopted growth policy. Response: Details on the project’s conformance with the City’s adopted Growth Policy is in- cluded below. 2. Conformance to this chapter, including the cessatfon of any current violatfons. Response: Unless otherwise noted in the requested PUD Relaxatfons, the project conforms to all sectfons of the UDC. There are no current violatfons at this site. 3. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances and regulatfons. Response: The project conforms with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulatfons. Any additfonal permitting required by the local and state laws, such as servicing alcohol on premise will be obtained prior to operatfon of the use. 4. Conformance with special review criteria for applicable permit type as specified in artfcle 2. Response: The project conforms with all special review criteria for applicable permit type as specified in Artfcle 2 and all other relevant criteria as described herein. 219 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 26 5. Conformance with the zoning provisions of artfcle 3, including: a. Permitted uses (division 38.310); b. Form and intensity standards (division 38.320); c. Applicable zone specific or overlay standards (divisions 38.330-340); d. General land use standards and requirements (division 38.350); e. Applicable supplemental use criteria (division 38.360); f. Wireless facilitfes and/or affordable housing provisions (divisions 38.370-380) if applicable; Response: Unless otherwise noted in the requested PUD Relaxatfons, the project conforms to the zoning provisions of Artfcle 3. Please see the overall Site Plan for additfonal verificatfon that the necessary standards have been met except where discussed in the proposed relaxa- tfons. The project is not proposing uses that are not allowed within the UMU zone. The project is meetfng the form and intensity standards of Artfcle 2, which a few exceptfons (ex. building height) as shown in the included Relaxatfons. No affordable housing is required nor proposed for this development. The project also meets the supplemental UMU use criteria. The project is surrounded by pe- rimeter streets. Block frontage, building orientatfon, and the site and buildings are designed as required in the UDC unless otherwise noted in the Relaxatfons requested for this PUD. No mixed commercial-residentfal uses are proposed for this project. All opening for possible park- ing structures will be limited to those necessary to serve the structures and the all such struc- tures will be designed as is required in the UDC. Parking less than the required maximum is proposed, while adequate covered bike parking is also noted in the applicatfon. Pedestrian scale lightfng has been shown throughout the site, with site and intersectfon lightfng beyond the minimum proposed. The open spaces for this site are intended to have a more urban char- acter but are designed to meet the needs of visitors and employees of this site. 6. Conformance with the community design provisions of artfcle 4, including: a. Transportatfon facilitfes and access (division 38.400), notably: (1) The impact of the proposal on the existfng and antfcipated traffic and parking conditfons; (2) Pedestrian and vehicular ingress, egress and circulatfon, including: (a) Design of the pedestrian and vehicular circulatfon systems to assure that pedestrians and vehicles can move safely and easily both within the site and between propertfes and actfvitfes within the neighborhood area; (b) Non-automotfve transportatfon and circulatfon systems design features to enhance con- venience and safety across parking lots and streets, including, but not limited to, paving patterns, grade differences, landscaping and lightfng; (c) Adequate connectfon and integratfon of the pedestrian and vehicular transportatfon sys- tems to the systems in adjacent developments and general community; and (d) Dedicatfon of right-of-way or easements necessary for streets and similar transportatfon facilitfes; 220 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 27 (3) Loading and unloading areas; b. Community design and element provisions (division 38.410), notably: (1) Lot and block standards; (2) Provisions for utflitfes, including efficient public services and facilitfes; (3) Site surface drainage and stormwater control; (4) Grading; c. Park and recreatfonal requirements (division 38.420); Response: Unless otherwise noted in the requested PUD Relaxatfons, the project conforms with the community design provisions for transportatfon facilitfes and community design ele- ments of Artfcle 4. No parkland dedicatfon is required for this project, as the applicant team is proposing a solely commercial neighborhood. Please see the Overall Site Plan and the request- ed Relaxatfons for additfonal details on the project’s conformance with the Artfcle 4 standards. 7. Conformance with the project design provisions of artfcle 5, including: a. Compatfbility with, and sensitfvity to, the immediate environment of the site and the adja- cent neighborhoods and other approved development relatfve to architectural design, building mass, neighborhood identfty, landscaping, historical character, orientatfon of buildings on the site and visual integratfon; b. Design and arrangement of the elements of the plan (e.g., buildings, circulatfon, open space and landscaping, etc.) so that actfvitfes are integrated with the organizatfonal scheme of the community, neighborhood, and other approved development and produce an efficient, func- tfonally organized and cohesive development; c. Design and arrangement of elements of the plan (e.g., buildings circulatfon, open space and landscaping, etc.) in harmony with the existfng natural topography, natural water bodies and water courses, existfng vegetatfon, and to contribute to the overall aesthetfc quality of the site configuratfon; d. Landscaping, including the enhancement of buildings, the appearance of vehicular use, open space and pedestrian areas, and the preservatfon or replacement of natural vegetatfon; e. Open space, including: f. Lightfng; g Signage; Response: The project has been designed in accordance with Artfcle 5 unless otherwise noted in the requested Relaxatfons. The proposed commercial neighborhood will integrate seamless- ly and is compatfble with the surrounding areas (see Vicinity Map for additfonal details). The site and buildings have been designed around a cohesive vision for the site as described in the Design Guidelines for this project. Landscaping meets the required standards as shown in the included Landscaping Plans. Open space areas are to provide for a variety of actfvity areas throughout the site, while also providing natural connectfons between site uses and to adja- cent uses. Lightfng is described in the included lightfng plans. Signage will be proposed with future Site Plans, but is expected to meet Artfcle 5 standards except as discussed in the Relaxa- 221 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 28 tfons. 8. Conformance with environmental and open space objectfves set forth in artfcles 4—6, in- cluding: a. The enhancement of the natural environment (e.g., through low impact development stormwater features or removal of inappropriate fill material); b. Watercourse and wetland protectfons and associated wildlife habitats; and c. If the development is adjacent to an existfng or approved public park or public open space area, have provisions been made in the plan to avoid interfering with public access to and use of that area; Response: The open space objectfves called for in Artfcles 4-6 have been met by this project. Please see the Landscape and Civil Plans for additfonal details. Stormwater features have been designed to incorporate into the overall site design. No watercourse or wetlands are shown on this site. The areas adjacent to the existfng Maynard Border Ditch will be enhanced with new landscaping appropriate for this area. The public open space areas adjacent to this site along South Ferguson Avenue and Huffine Lane have been enhanced and their public access remains as previously constructed. 9. Conformance with the natural resource protectfon provisions of artfcle 4 and artfcle 6. Response: The project will ensure all required natural resources are projected as required by this project. No watercourse areas exist on this site. Water quality for the Maynard Border Ditch has also been protected as described in the Stormwater Design Report. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks have been contacted regarding this project and this agency did not have any comment regarding the proposed project (See Impact Letters). 10. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected partfes. Response: The project has considered comments from Montana’s SHPO and FWP, as well comments provided by the Maynard Border Ditch Associatfon and utflity providers. The design of the site has been influenced by the feedback provided by these affected partfes. Please see the included impact letters (Appendix J) for additfonal informatfon. 11. If the development includes multfple lots that are interdependent for circulatfon or other means of addressing requirements of this chapter, whether the lots are either: a. Configured so that the sale of individual lots will not alter the approved configuratfon or use of the property or cause the development to become nonconforming; or b. The subject of reciprocal and perpetual easements or other agreements to which the city is a party so that the sale of individual lots will not cause one or more elements of the develop- ment to become nonconforming. 222 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 29 Response: The applicant has included draft easement language on the Preliminary Plat. Addi- tfonal documents can be provided as necessary. 12. Phasing of items listed in sectfon 38.230.020.B, including but not limited to buildings and infrastructure. Response: The project is intended to be constructed over several years, however phasing of the PUD is not proposed at this tfme. Constructfon of the infrastructure within the rights-of- way and alleys, and open space areas will be constructed following approval of the Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Plat. All other components of the subdivision will be built as future site plans are submitted. Financial suretfes or other means of financial guarantees are to be pro- vided as necessary to ensure that all future development within the project area is developed according to City of Bozeman expectatfons. Please see the Plat and proposed initfal improve- ments plan for additfonal details. Section IV: Response to City Comments A response to all of the unresolved comment is included in the Pdoxs software for this sub- mittal. Section V: Statement of Planning Objectives (a) Statement of applicable city land use policies and objectives achieved by the proposed plan and how it furthers the implementation of the city growth policy; City land use policies and goals are stfpulated in the Bozeman Community Plan and the Com- mission’s Strategic Plan. This project aligns with both documents as described below. Community Plan Alignment Theme 2 - A City of Unique Neighborhoods • Goal N-1: Support well-planned, walkable neighborhoods • N-1.5 Encourage neighborhood focal point development with functions, activities, and facil- ities that can be sustained over time. Maintain standards for placement of community focal points and services within new development. • N-1.7 Review and where appropriate, revise block and lot design standards, including ori- entation for solar power generation throughout city neighborhoods. • N-1.8 Install, replace, and maintain missing or damaged sidewalks, trails, and shared use paths • N-1.9 Ensure multimodal connections between adjacent developments • N-1.10 Increase connectivity between parks and neighborhoods through continued trail and sidewalk development. Prioritize closing gaps within the network. • N-2.3 Investigate and encourage development of commerce concurrent with, or soon afler, 223 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 30 residential development. Actions, staff, and budgetary resources relating to neighborhood commercial development should be given a high priority • Goal N-4: Continue to encourage Bozeman’s sense of place. • N-4.2 Incorporate features, in both public and private projects, to provide organization, structure, and landmarks as Bozeman grows. • N-4.4 Ensure an adequate supply of oftfeash facilities to meet the demand of Bozeman dog owners. Ferguson Farm II is envisioned as a well-planned and walkable commercial neighborhood. From the skybridge and the Maynard Border Ditch to the food court pod to the off leash dog area, the site has been designed to have numerous neighborhood focal points and actfvity are- as. Multfmodal connectfons are shown within and through the site. Lots have been designed to be oriented to the prevailing solar path. The project will contribute to the sense of the place in this area of the community. Theme 3 - A City Bolstered by Downtown and Complimentary Districts • Goal DCD-1: Support urban development within the City. • DCD-1.2 Remove regulatory barriers to infill. • DCD-1.5 Identify underutilized sites, vacant, and undeveloped sites for possible develop- ment or redevelopment, including evaluating possible development incentives. • DCD-1.12 Prioritize the acquisition and/or preservation of open space that supports com- munity values, addresses gaps in functionality and needs, and does not impede develop- ment of the community • Goal DCD-2: Encourage growth throughout the City, while enhancing the pattern of com- munity development oriented on centers of employment and activity. Support an increase in development intensity within developed areas. • DCD-2.4 Evaluate revisions to maximum building height limits in all zoning districts to ac- count for contemporary building methods and building code changes • DCD-2.5 Identify and zone appropriate locations for neighborhood-scale commercial devel- opment. • Goal DCD-3: Ensure multimodal connectivity within the City. • DCD-3.1 Expand multimodal accessibility between districts and throughout the City as a means of promoting personal and environmental health, as well as reducing automobile dependency. • DCD-3.2 Identify missing links in the multimodal system, prioritize those most beneficial to complete, and pursue funding for completion of those links. • DCD-3.3 Identify major existing and future destinations for biking and walking to aid in pri- oritization of route planning and completion. • DCD-3.4 Support implementation of the Bozeman Transportation Master Plan strategies. • DCD-3.5 Encourage increased development intensity in commercial centers and near major employers. • DCD-3.6 Evaluate parking requirements and methods of providing parking as part of the 224 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 31 overall transportation system for and between districts. The project is an infill project located within the current City limits. The PUD and the associat- ed relaxatfons address the regulatory challenges that are likely as a result of this project, such as required parking and allowable building height. The project includes significant open space to compliment the project’s commercial design. The site is envisioned as a center for employ- ment and actfvity, and a variety of transit optfons are proposed to connect this site to the ex- istfng transit system including bus and trail connectfons. Parking requirements for the project are proposed in a similar fashion to that allowed in the Midtown Urban Renewal District (see Relaxatfons for additfonal details). Theme 4 - A City Influenced by our Natural Environment, Parks, and Open Lands • Goal EPO-2: Work to ensure that development is responsive to natural features. • EPO-2.1 Where appropriate, activate connections to waterways by creating locations, adja- cent trails, and amenities encouraging people to access them. The Ferguson Farm II project has been designed to protect the integrity of the Maynard Border ditch that flows through the western side of the site. Trails have been proposed adjacent to the ditch, as shown on the proposed Landscaping plans. Theme 5 - A City That Prioritizes Accessibility and Mobility Choices • Goal M-1: Ensure multimodal accessibility. • M-1.4 Develop safe, connected, and complementary transportation networks for pedestri- ans, bicyclists, and users of other personal mobility devices ( e-bikes, electric scooters, pow- ered wheelchairs, etc.). • M-1.5 Identify locations for key mobility hubs (e.g. rideshare drop off/ pick up areas, bike/ scooter share, transit service, bike, and pedestrian connections). • M-1.9 Prioritize and construct key bicycle infrastructure, to include wayfinding signage, connections, and enhancements with emphasis on completing network connectivity. • M-1.11 Prioritize and construct key sidewalk connections and enhancements. • M-1.12 Eliminate parking minimum requirements in commercial districts and affordable housing areas and reduce parking minimums elsewhere, acknowledging that demand for parking will still result in new supply being built. • Goal M-2: Ensure multimodal safety. • M-2.5 Develop safe crossings along priority and high utilization pedestrian and biking corri- dors. The project provides multfmodal access to and through the site. The site is adjacent to the ex- istfng Streamline Purple line, and future route modificatfons are likely to include direct service within this project site. Key pedestrian and multfmodal connectfons are proposed, with cov- ered bike parking shown adjacent to key site amenitfes. Wayfinding signage is also shown for this site to assist with navigatfon and safe site connectfons across the large site area. 225 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 32 Parking is proposed in a similar manner as within the Midtown Urban Renewal District. Please see the Relaxatfons for additfonal details on this proposal. Theme 6 - A City Powered By Its Creative, Innovative, and Entrepreneurial Economy • Goal EE-1: Promote the continued development of Bozeman as an innovative and thriving economic center. • EE-1.1 Support the goals and objectives outlined in the Bozeman Economic Development Strategy. • Goal EE-2: Survey and revise land use planning and regulations to promote and support economic diversification efforts. The project will create approximately 850,000 square feet of commercial space, contributfng to Bozeman’s contfnued goal of being an economic center. The relaxatfons to the land use reg- ulatfons are essentfal to meetfng this goal. Strategic Plan Alignment • 2. Innovative Economy • 2.1 Business Growth - Support retention and growth of both the traded and local business sectors while welcoming and encouraging new and existing businesses, in coordination with the Economic Development Plan. • 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. • 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. • 4.4 Vibrant Downtown, Districts & Centers - Promote a healthy, vibrant Downtown, Mid- town, and other commercial districts and neighborhood centers – including higher densities and intensification of use in these key areas. • 6. Sustainable Environment - We cultivate a strong environmental ethic; protect our clean air, water, open spaces and climate; and promote environmentally sustainable businesses and lifestyles. • 6.5 Parks, Trails & Open Space - Support the maintenance and expansion of an intercon- nected system of parks, trails and open spaces. As has been described within the applicatfon documents and plans, the proposed Ferguson Farm II project supports multfple components of the City’s Strategic Plan as described above. (b) Statement of: 226 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 33 (i) Proposed ownership of open space areas; and (ii) Applicant's intentions with regard to future ownership of all or portions of the planned unit development; All open spaces and all common portfons of the PUD will be owned and maintained by the Ownership Organizatfon. Please see the draft governing documents for additfonal details. (c) Estimate of number of employees for business, commercial and industrial uses; Approximately 1,713 employees possible at this site, likely employed working on multfple shifts. The precise number of employees will be determined with subsequent Site Plan sub- mittals. (d) Description of rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant; The applicant team approached the design of this project with several ratfonales in mind to create a cohesive vision for the future development of this site. Privacy of the future users of this site was one such consideratfon, ensuring site users were able to feel comfortable in their utflizatfon of the site buildings and open spaces. Moreover, the project team looked to ensure that the project was developed in alignment with the City’s governing documents, including the Community Plan and Strategic Plan. The applicant team also further worked to ensure that the site was compatfble with adjacent development and created in a context sensitfve man- ner. The narratfve and Design Guidelines contain further detail on the ratfonale behind the de- sign proposed for the Ferguson Farm II project. (e) Where deviations from the requirements of this chapter are proposed, the applicant must submit evidence of successful completion of the applicable community design objec- tives and criteria of section 38.430.090. The applicant must submit written explanation for each of the applicable objectives or criteria as to how the plan does or does not address the objective or criterion. The community development director may require, or the applicant may choose to submit, evidence that is beyond what is required in that section. Any element of the proposal that varies from the criterion must be described; Understood. The Relaxatfons proposed include sufficient justfficatfon for each request. (f) Detailed description of how conflicts between land uses of different character are being avoided or mitigated; and Potentfal conflicts have been analyzed for this project and no unmitfgable conflicts have been identffied. The site has been designed to resolve possible character differences between this proposed project and the existfng development adjacent to this site. The buildings proposed for this site are largely to be placed internal to the site to protect the character the areas adja- 227 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 34 cent to the site. Moreover, this commercial neighborhood is proposed adjacent to existfng commercial areas and Huffine Lane, an arterial roadway. The area to the west of the site is the currently constructed Ferguson Farm I commercial neighborhood, and the land uses within that project are similar to those proposed within Ferguson Farm I. For the land uses to the north and east of the site, the buildings proposed on the Ferguson Farm II site will setback from the site edge with landscaping and open space areas will provide further buffers from onsite buildings and parking. For development that lies south across Huffine Lane, over 200 feet of roadways and transit pathways (open space) will separate the Ferguson Farm II site from the existfng County development. See also Appendix J for additfonal details on the analy- sis of potentfal conflicts with adjacent land has been mitfgated for this project. (g) Statement of design methods to reduce energy consumption, (e.g., home/business utili- ties, transportation fuel, waste recycling); The Design Guidelines (Appendix E) encourage the use of solar energy and low-impact design to reduce onsite energy and resource consumptfon. Additfonal informatfon on the design methods proposed to reduce energy consumptfon for this project can be found in the attached Guidelines. In additfon to the Design Guidelines, the project promotes a variety of multfmodal connectfons to and through this site that will further reduce fuel and energy con- sumptfon. Section VI: Supplemental Plan Requirements The following sectfon includes responses to UDC Sectfon 38.220.120.2.c. (1) Viewsheds. (a) Looking onto and across the site from areas around the site, describe and map the views and vistas from adjacent properties that may be blocked or impaired by development of the site; (b) Describe and map areas of high visibility on the site as seen from adjacent off-site loca- tions; No adverse impacts to viewsheds are antfcipated as a result of the constructfon of this project. Development to the north of the site is of a similar commercial in nature as that proposed here at this site. See response above to Statement of Planning Objectfves (f) and Appendix J for additfonal details on this analysis. (2) Street cross sections if different from city standards. Street cross section schematics must be submitted for each general category of street, including: (a) The proposed width; (b) Treatment of curbs and gutters, or other stormwater control system if other than curb 228 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 35 and gutter is proposed; (c) Sidewalk systems; and (d) Bikeway systems, where alternatives to the design criteria and standards of the city are proposed; Street cross-sectfons have been included in the Civil plan set. Please see that package for addi- tfonal details on the schematfcs for all proposed streets and bikeways for this project site. (3) Physiographic data, including the following: (a) A description of the hydrologic conditions of the site with analysis of water table fluctua- tion and a statement of site suitability for intended construction and proposed landscaping. The description of the hydrologic conditions must include depth to groundwater measure- ments taken May 15 through September 15; (i) An alternative to the actual measurement of water table depth may be offered provided that such alternative includes a detailed soil profile, including a detailed description of the soil which follows The National Cooperative Soil Survey Field Book for describing soils and which provides good and sufficient evidence to establish the presence and depth of a sea- sonal water table, a land form position or location, or other physiographic data which are sufficient to establish the minimum depth to groundwater. Some soils are not easily profiled to establish an off-season high water table, such as those underlain by sand or gravel, those high in organic matter and those with a high lime content. Physical monitoring of these types of soils may be necessary; (b) Locate and identify the ownership of existing wells or well sites within 400 feet of the site; A Geotechnical report has been included as a component of this submittal that provides de- tails relevant to this criteria. (4) Preliminary subdivision plat. If the project involves or requires platting, a preliminary subdivision plat, subject to the requirements of this chapter relative to subdivisions, must be submitted; This applicatfon material is include in the Preliminary Plat submittal materials, which has been submitted concurrently with the PUD applicatfon. Please refer to this packet for informatfon on the proposed subdivision. (5) Traffic impact analysis. Notwithstanding the waiver provisions of section 38.220.080.A.2.i, the city may require that a traffic impact analysis be prepared based upon the proposed development. The analysis must include provisions of the approved develop- ment guidelines, and must address impacts upon surrounding land uses. The city may re- quire the traffic impact analysis to include the information in section 38.220.060.A.12. If a traffic impact analysis has been submitted as part of a concurrent subdivision review, that 229 March 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD NARRATIVE: Ferguson Farm II Pg. 36 analysis must meet this requirement; The TIS has been included as Appendix C. (6) Additional studies and plans. If the development's compliance with the community de- sign objectives and criteria is under question, the review authority may require additional impact studies or other plans as deemed necessary for providing thorough consideration of the proposed planned unit development; As has been demonstrated in this applicatfon and the Preliminary Plat submittal, the develop- ment is proposed to be in substantfal compliance with the community design objectfves and criteria unless otherwise described in the proposed relaxatfons. (7) A proposed draft of a legal instrument containing the creation of a property owner's as- sociation sufficient to meet the requirements of section 38.220.310 must be submitted with the preliminary plan application. The Declaratfon, Bylaws, and Artfcles of Incorporatfon have been included as Appendix E. Section VII: PUD Performance Point Calculations A memo that includes details on the Performance Points has been included as a separate doc- ument. Section VIII: Relaxations & Justifications A memo that includes details on the proposed Relaxatfons & Justfficatfons has been included as a separate document. 230 July 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD: Ferguson Farm II Relaxations & Justifications - Pg. 1 List of Relaxations & Justifications The following relaxations are requested for the Ferguson Farm II (PUD), as shown in Appendix B - Relaxation Exhibit or other document identified below. Relaxations & Justification Description Relaxations of regulatory requirements are allowed for Planned Unit Developments as described in UDC Sec. 38.430.030.A.4. The review authority must find that any requested deviation will contribute to a superior character of development than that required by the existing standards. Moreover, PUD’s are expected to be consistent with the Growth Policy and relevant design objectives. Consistency of this development with the City’s adopted Growth Policy and with the required PUD design objectives in the PUD Narrative. This section and the overall narrative illustrate how this project will exemplify a character superior to the UDC requirements. Justification for the requested deviations included in this application is exhibited through the projects alignment with all facets of the PUD Intent (UDC Sec.38.430.010), as well as those found in the general Intent and Purpose Section of the Code (Sec. 38.100.040). The following narrative section details the code requirements, proposed relaxations, and additional justifications necessary for each request. The calculations included herein are based on preliminary plan applications and thus are subject to minor changes prior to final plan submittal. An exhibit has been included in this application (Appendix B) to illustrate the location of these proposed relaxations. Moreover, the plans and drawings submitted with this application illustrate the final conditions that the proposed modified standards will produce. The Ferguson Farm II neighborhood, a vacant infill site, exemplifies the PUD intent through its site de- sign. It is intended to be a innovative commercial development with safe streets for all. A place for shopping and employment open to everyone. The onsite open space areas have been planned and pro- grammed to meet the PUD Performance Point requirements as well as the needs of site visitors and owners alike. Water quality protection and interaction with the onsite water feature, the Maynard Bor- der Ditch, have been dually incorporated into the vision for this project. Moreover, the transit patterns envisioned to and through this site is one of where site users utilize bikes and nearby bus transit op- tions to travel to and from this area for work and fun. The Ferguson Farm II neighborhood is compatible with the existing surrounding area, and development of a commercial neighborhood such as the one proposed promotes a logical development pattern that supports the plans and goals of the neighborhood and community alike. This commercial neighborhood is planned as a home to numerous employers that can provide job opportunities to a wide range of Bozeman residents in a number of possible commercial industries. Being an extension to the existing Ferguson Farm I neighborhood, it is reasonable to see these possibilities fulfilled as this neighborhood is constructed. This project will contribute to the extension of the existing water, sewer, and street networks, further supporting community development needs. This project will further ensure public access and for the ability of the City to maintain these proposed extensions of city services. As has been described within 231 July 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD: Ferguson Farm II Relaxations & Justifications - Pg. 2 the PUD Performance Point section of this application, the project will provide a variety of options for onsite recreation and for the utilization of onsite open space. Taken as whole, Ferguson Farm II meets the UDC requirements for the application of a Planned Unit Development. We would like to request that any amendments, elimination or changes to any of the relaxations listed below be done so through a condition of approval in order to keep this application moving through the process to gain adequacy. Requested Relaxations 1. Code Reference Table 38.310.040 - Authorized Uses: UDC REFERENCE DESCRIPTION RELAXATION SUMMARY 1 Table 38.310.040 Authorized Uses Allow as principal permitted uses the fol- lowing uses: (1) convenience use; (2) sales of alcohol for on-premise consumption; (3) outdoor sale of goods in common open space areas; and (4) food courts within common open space areas within the PUD. 2 38.310.050.B Supplemental use provi- sions for the urban mixed-use zoning district Exempt development from requirements that two different user groups of uses must be shown within each site plan. 3 38.310.050.C Supplemental use provi- sions for the urban mixed-use zoning district Allow for calculation of use group percent- ages over total site area. 4 Table 38.320.050 Form & Intensity Stand- ards Increases the allowable for maximum building height for buildings within the PUD to six stories and 90’. 5 38.400.090.B.2 Lot Access Allow for placement of the following lots to be developed exclusively for parking garag- es that do not have legal and physical ac- cess to a public street, approved private street or alley: Lots 1B and 1C, Block 3; Lot 4, Block 6; Lots 1B and 1C, Block 7; and Lot 1B of Block 8. 6 38.540.020.D Back-in angle parking The applicant seeks to allow back-in angle parking along all internal streets and alleys. 7 38.510.020.F Multiple frontage situa- tions Provide an entrance to only one street fa- çade for all onsite buildings. 232 July 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD: Ferguson Farm II Relaxations & Justifications - Pg. 3 UDC REFERENCE DESCRIPTION RELAXATION SUMMARY 8 38.510.020.F Multiple frontage situa- tions Allow surface parking areas adjacent to a street corner. 9 Table 38.510.030.B Storefront Block Front- age Standards Invoke the Community design Framework Mater Plan to reclassify the external store- front streets to the block frontage standard “Other” 10 Table 38.510.030.C Landscaped Block Front- age Standards Allow surface parking up to 100% of the street frontage 11 Table 38.510.030.C Landscaped Block Front- age Standards Allow buildings to be placed to the edge of the property lines. 12 Table 38.510.030.C Landscaped Block Front- age Standards: Allow for a reduction in the minimum 10’ landscape buffer between the street and off-street parking areas for block 3. 13 Table 38.510.030.C Landscaped Block Front- age Standards The area between the street and building must be landscaped, have a private porch or patio space, and/or pedestrian oriented space. 14 Table 38.510.030.E Gateway Frontage Allow buildings to be built to the property lines. 15 Table 38.510.030.I Block Frontages - Trail/ Park Frontages Be allowed to place buildings to the edge of the trail, easements and property lines. 16 38.520.040.D.3 Pathway Design Eliminate pathway separation standard. 17 38.520.040.D.4 Pathway Design Provide sidewalks of less than 12-feet in width. 18 38.520.070.C.3 Location & Design of Ser- vice Areas Exempt trash enclosures on Lot 4, Block 4; from the minimum 5-feet landscape screening on all sides. 19 Table 38.540.050-3 Required Parking Modification to the required parking stand- ards. 20 38.540.050.A.4. b. Required Parking Exemption from location of bicycle parking within 100 feet of each served building. 233 July 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD: Ferguson Farm II Relaxations & Justifications - Pg. 4 UDC REFERENCE DESCRIPTION RELAXATION SUMMARY 21 38.540.080 Off-street loading berth requirements Eliminate the need for a loading berths for specific lots within the project area. 22 Table 38.560.060 Non-Residential Sign Standards Allow signs on all visible sides of the build- ing, not just street frontages, allowing wall signs on walls adjacent to streets, interior pedestrian walkways, alleys, parking lots and open space lots. 23 38.400.050 Street and road right-of- way width and construc- tion standards. The applicant is requesting to vary from the standard ROW widths. 24 38.400.050 Alternate street section design. The applicant is requesting to vary from the standard Street Section design. 25 38.400.110.D Transportation path- ways. Eight-foot shared use path proposed along Fallon Street and Resort Drive. 26 38.410.070 Municipal water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems. Proposing alternate water, sewer, and storm locations. 234 July 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD: Ferguson Farm II Relaxations & Justifications - Pg. 5 Allow as principal permitted uses the following uses: (1) convenience use; (2) sales of alcohol for on- premise consumption; (3) outdoor sale of goods in common open space areas; and (4) food courts within common open space areas within the PUD. Justification: UDC Table 38.310.040.A requires a Conditional Use Permit for convenience uses, and a Special Use Permit for sales of alcohol for on-premises consumption uses within the Urban Mixed-Use District (UMU). The applicant is requesting these uses be designated as Principal uses within the PUD boundaries. The overall intention of this project is to create a mixed-use district that draws and retains customers for multiple purposes. The Community Plan indicates a way to bolster districts around town to encour- age more mixed use developments. We believe that adding these uses by right will help further this goal of creating. Furthermore this project is within the Community Commercial Mixed Use Future Land Use Category, which stresses that, “Mixed use area should be developed in an integrated, pedestrian friendly manner and should not be overly dominated by any single use.” These additional uses are fun- damental to the creation of this district. When you look at similar thriving districts (Cannery District, Downtown, North East Neighborhood, and Ferguson Farm) the majority of them all share similar uses. Furthermore, in terms of compatibility of adjacent uses, none of the proposed additional uses will neg- atively impact another use. We believe that the inclusion of these uses will in fact help in the creation of a vibrant district. 2. Code Reference 38.310.050.B - Supplemental use provisions for the urban mixed-use zoning dis- trict: Exempt development from requirements that two different user groups of uses must be shown with- in each site plan. Justification: The applicant requests that the entire development be exempt from requirements that two different user groups of uses must be shown within each site plan. We believe the intention of this standard is require a mix of uses across a site. This site is unique in that it is much larger than your typi- cal lot going through the site plan process. The intention for this project to have a wide range of com- patible uses across the entire site. Furthermore, it is envisioned that lots will be sold and each individu- al owner will be required to go through the site planning process for their project. In doing this each owner would be required to demonstrate that there is a mix of uses within each building. We believe the intention for this standard will be met across the whole site over the life of the project. Adding this flexibility to each lot allows for the possibility of a single anchor tenant to come to the site. We believe that as a whole this project will have a variety of uses similar to Ferguson Farm II and it will be vital to the success of the district . That said the added flexibility allows for the creation of this district to hap- pen organically. 3. Code Reference 38.310.050.C - Supplemental use provisions for the urban mixed-use zoning dis- trict: Allow for calculation of use group percentages over total site area. 235 July 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD: Ferguson Farm II Relaxations & Justifications - Pg. 6 Justification: Similarly, to the relaxation above the applicant is requesting a relaxation to allow the cal- culation of use groups percentage be over the total project area and not on an individual site by site basis. Allowing this to happen will allow flexibility in how each lot is developed. By our square footage estimates no single use would be any where close to the 70% threshold but by relaxing this require- ment till will allow for flexibility in how each site is developed, which ultimately will allow for this mixed use environment to occur naturally. 4. Code Reference Table 38.320.050 - Form & Intensity Standards: Increases the allowable for maximum building height for buildings within the PUD to six stories and 90’. Justification: Maximum allowable building height within the Urban Mixed-Use District is 60’ for build- ings that do not provide structured parking, or 85’ for those when structured parking is present and provided per UDC Section 38.330.040.E.2 (please note, this reference standard does not appear related to this note for height expectations within UMU zones). The applicant is requesting that the maximum allowed building height for this project be 90’ feet regardless of the presence of structured parking. This increase in allowable height offers opportunities for creative site design, a broader mix of uses and increased density. Additionally, the added height and density will ensure that the more commercial uses in nature will further the design objective of creating a district. By increasing the height and densi- ty it will allow for the creation of a more walkable district that can support the residents of this project but also the residents of adjacent neighborhoods. Goal DCD—2.4 of the Community Plan states, “Evaluate revisions to maximum building heights limits in all zoning districts to account for contempo- rary building methods and building code changes.” in several locations the Community Plan indicates both directly and indirectly that added height (with good transitions) is better for creating walkable, more sustainable districts. 5. Code Reference 38.400.090.B.2 - Lot Access: Allow for placement of the following lots to be developed exclusively for parking garages that do not have legal and physical access to a public street, approved private street or alley: Lots 1B and 1C, Block 3; Lot 4, Block 6; Lots 1B and 1C, Block 7; and Lot 1B of Block 8. Justification: The applicant is proposing to construct a bank of garages in Blocks 3, 6, 7, and 8. These garages will be available (to be purchased) for property owners or building tenants within the develop- ment, and each garage is envisioned to be able to provide the possibility to utilize mechanical automo- bile lifts to allow for additional garage parking. As shown on the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Plan, Block 3, Lots 1B & 1C; Block 6, Lot 4; Block 7 Lots 1B & 1C; and Block 8, Lot 1B do not meet the access requirements of the UDC. A relaxation to this standard is requested to allow for these lots to be plated without meeting the legal and physical access standards. There is a public access easement across the parking lots allowing the potential owners of those lots to have both legal and physical ac- cess to the garages. These lots will be deed restricted as required by the City of Bozeman. These lots will only be used for the creation of garages, and therefore traditional access standards are not necessary for these structures. Once these lots and the adjacent lots are developed, these garages 236 July 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD: Ferguson Farm II Relaxations & Justifications - Pg. 7 will be served by access drives within developed parking lots, which will ensure drive access is provided in some manner to these buildings. The creation of these lots and ultimately the construction of these garages will help break up these parking lots and create a more urban environment. The garages themselves will also act as a traffic calming measure in the parking lots due to the height and narrowing effect. The addition of these gar- ages will also promote pedestrian safety because it will force pedestrians to walk to a designated path- way instead of cutting through the parking lot spaces. A similar idea was implemented in the parking lot of the Jacobs Crossing building on Main Street. 6. Code Reference 38.540.020.D - Back-in angle parking: The applicant seeks to allow back-in angle parking along all internal streets and alleys. Justification: The applicant is requesting to utilize back in angled parking for Valley Commons Drive, Brookfield Avenue and along the Alleys. The Traffic Impact Study indicates this type of angled parking will provide additional traffic calming and it further identifies successful examples of back-in angled parking in the right of way. Furthermore, the applicant has agreed to sign a maintenance agreement and put a note on the plat identifying that the HOA is required to maintain the back in angled parking areas. Finally, all transition curb radii are 25’. 7. 38.510.020.F.4- Multiple frontage situations: Applicant seeks to allow Buildings at the corner of multiple Streets must only be places adjacent to one street and have a front and primary façade facing one street frontage. Justification: The applicant is requesting that buildings not be required to meet the requirements of subsection 4 which requires buildings to be places at the corner of an intersection and present a front and primary façade to both street frontages. There are a few locations where we proposed public open space at the street corners. The design intent with these public open spaces was to create a small gath- ering space for people to stop sit at. The way the street intersects in these locations create really awk- ward triangle pieces of land. Rather than expand the overall building footprint we thought this would be a great spot for some placemaking. These inviting landscaped areas will enhance the overall feel of the intersection and will offer some green space in this dense urban environment. We believe that these small placemaking efforts will help in the creation of a unique vibrant district. We believe that this area would function similarly to Sir Optimist Park but on a different scale. 8. Code Reference 38.510.020.F.7 - Multiple frontage situations: Allow surface parking areas adjacent to a street corner. Justification: The applicant is requesting an exemption to subsection 7, which would allow for the placement of surface parking adjacent to a street corner. Subsection 7 allows for parking lots to be ad- jacent to the street corner if there is a combination of block frontages and if the applicant can demon- strate that they are adequately satisfying the departure criteria. We believe that there will be adequate landscaping surrounding the parking lots reducing the visual impact of the parking lot. The exterior parking lots are planned to be screen via a variety of trees and shrubs. We believe that the visual im- 237 July 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD: Ferguson Farm II Relaxations & Justifications - Pg. 8 pact of the parking lot will be fairly minimal give the significant landscaping proposed. 9. Code Reference Table 38.510.030.B - Storefront Block Frontage Standards: The applicant is requesting to reclassify the external Storefront streets to the block frontage stand- ard “Other” using the Community Design Framework Master Plan UDC 38.510.030.L. Justification: The Applicant is requesting a relaxation to invoke the Community Design Framework Master Plan to reclassify the external streets (Resort Drive, Fallon Street and Ferguson Avenue) block frontage from Storefront to Other. These streets were originally designed prior to the formulation of any design intent for this project. Since that time our design intent has changed to draw people into the center of the district and to create a walkable district within our site. The current Storefront Block Frontage standards require the opposite of our design philosophy in that they want buildings fronting the external streets and parking lots interior to the site. When looking at the site as a whole it become very difficult to create a walkable district along the pe- rimeter streets due to the sheer length of frontage. When you focus development on this site inward it allows for buildings to be closer together and thus creating a more walkable mixed use area. As a result of this the parking lot are required to be located on the outside of the site which isn't currently allowed on the storefront block frontage. We believe that reclassifying these block frontages as “Other” will allow for a more walkable, human scaled design. Reclassifying the Block Frontage to “Other” allows for the parking lots to be adjacent to the street when they are adequately screened. This reclassification would allow us to realize our design vision of creating a mixed-use district. The parking lots that border the external streets would be designed to incorporate adequate screening as required in the “Other” block frontage standards. Finally, this proposed change meets the criteria for change outlined in 38.510.030.L. The site has been configured with the pedestrians in mind. The main principal is to pull people into the center of the site toward Valley Center Drive. Valley Center will act as the Main street for this project. Another reason why we choose this center main street approach is the large nurture of the site. With the Storefront Block frontage on the exterior of the site it makes a really unwalkable environment because of the long distances one would have to travel to get from business to business. Additionally these road are major throughfares through town and don’t offer a pleasant pedestrian experience. Additionally, the design regulations and the community plan look to show that our project will be more successful and a better community asset if these block frontages are reclassified. The design regulations require a specific level of detail and finish to make this buildings nice on all sides. The regulations also require that that the buildings meet the setbacks and block frontage standards for each lot. 10. Code Reference Table 38.510.030.C - Landscaped Block Frontage Standards: Allow surface parking up to 100% of the street frontage. Justification: The applicant is requesting a relaxation to waiver the requirements for the location of parking to allow for parking lots to front 100% adjacent to the street. We believe that with the pro- 238 July 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD: Ferguson Farm II Relaxations & Justifications - Pg. 9 posed landscaping around each of the parking lots the visual impact of them will be greatly reduced. We believe the intent of limiting the parking to a percentage of the frontage is to control the visual im- pact of the parking. We believe that the added landscaping will effectively mitigate that concern. 11. Code Reference Table 38.510.030.C - Landscaped Block Frontage Standards: Allow buildings to be placed to the edge of the property lines. Justification: The applicant is requesting to be exempt from the Landscaping block frontage building placement standards. The lot lines have been strategically drawn to show a possible building footprint to give a perspective buyer a better understanding of what can be built on this lot. All lots have been drawn to incorporate a 10’ landscaping buffer from the front of the building to the back of the side- walk. Additionally, this shifts the maintenance responsibility from the Property Owner to the HOA. This will ensure that all landscaping will be maintained and have a cohesive feel. All lots will still have a landscape buffer between the back of the sidewalk and the front of the building. 12. Code Reference Table 38.510.030.C - Landscaped Block Frontage Standards: Allow for a reduction in the minimum 10’ landscape buffer between the street and off-street parking areas for block 3 (Hotel & Parking lot). Justification: the applicant is requesting a 4’ reduction in the required 10’ landscape buffer to screen parking lots. This location is bound on both sides by road ways that line with other access points or are fixed by access distance standards. This finite space makes it challenging to balance the need to screen the parking and also provide parking. We believe that this 4’ reduction will allow both goals to be achieved. We can still adequately screen the parking lot in the 6’ landscaping strip and also not lose any parking. Additionally, in several locations where we need this reduction, the addition of personal garages in the middle will also help break up the visual scale of he parking lot. These garages will, visu- ally, cut the parking lot in half and will create a denser environment. We believe that this area will feel dense with the provided landscaping and the garages and will force driver to slow down. This result will create a safer pedestrian and driver experience. If this relaxation cannot be supported we would request that this be added as a condition of approval as it will require signification redesign work that will causes us to miss the tight adequacy window. 13. Code Reference Table 38.510.030.C - Landscaped Block Frontage Standards: The area between the street and building must be landscaped, have a private porch or patio space, and/or pedestrian oriented space. Justification: The applicant is requesting a relaxation to exempt block 7 from requiring landscaping between the Valley Commons Drive and the building on the east and west side. Block 7 is envisioned as a one of the commercial hubs within the district. The intention for this area is to have a dense urban feel. The applicant is committed to providing trees and benches in the 10’ sidewalk to help with visual interest at the pedestrian and motorist scale. We imagine these two sections (along Ravalli and 239 July 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD: Ferguson Farm II Relaxations & Justifications - Pg. 10 Brookfield) will have a similar feel to say the downtown Co-Op building along South Black Avenue. The street will be activated with the street trees, benches and bike racks and the buildings will likely have great architectural detailing and glazing. We believe that these street trees and streetscape improve- ments will further the identity of our project, truly making this a district. All other landscape block frontages will have a 10’ landscaped buffer between the lot line and the back of the sidewalk. This is built into the plan because of the way the lot lines are drawn. The intention for drawing the lot lines that way allows for all the maintenance and upkeep to be controlled by the HOA. This will allow for the district to have a very cohesive feel. While the HOA will maintain these landscap- ing buffers, the landscaping will be installed when each individual lot owners goes through the site planning process. 14. Code Reference Table 38.510.030.E - Gateway Frontage: Allow buildings to be built to the property lines. Justification: The applicant is requesting to be exempt from the gateway block frontage building place- ment standards. The lot lines have been strategically drawn to show a possible building footprint to give a perspective buyer a better understanding of what can be built on this lot. Exempting these build- ings from the building placement standards shifts all of the landscaping and open space maintenance onto the HOA, which intern ensures that it is kept in a nice condition. The Gateway standards require a minimum building setback of 25’. All of our proposed buildings are currently separated from Huffine Lane by an open space tract of land that is 47’ wide. This 47’ strip of open space is almost double the required building placement standard. 15. Code Reference Table 38.510.030.I - Block Frontages - Trail/Park Frontages: Be allowed to place buildings to the edge of the trail, easements and property lines. Justification: The applicant is seeking an exemption to the required setback from a trail, easement or property line. The applicant team is seeking to place buildings up to the edge of the trail easement and property line. The lot lines have been strategically drawn to show a possible building footprint to give a perspective buyer a better understanding of what can be built on this lot. Additionally allowing build- ings to be built to the property line will help with the creation of a unique district similarly to what is seen around the country near rivers. A successful example of this occurs, in Reno, Nevada (Reno River Walk) where several businesses front along the Truckee river creating this unique walkable district. In that district pedestrians are able to walk along the river for miles where they are able to interact with nature in certain locations and also frequent businesses. We believe that allowing building to be placed at the edge of the easement will allow for a creative and innovate approach to commercial develop- ment. It will prioritize the pedestrian over the car and will create a much safer and vibrant district. 16. Code Reference 38.520.040.D.3 - Pathway Design: Eliminate pathway separation standard. Justification: The applicant is requesting a relaxation to place building up to the edge of sidewalks thereby eliminating the pathway separation standard of the UDC. We believe that the intent of that 240 July 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD: Ferguson Farm II Relaxations & Justifications - Pg. 11 standard is to enhance the overall character of the walkway. We believe that this overall dense nature of this district will create character for these walkways. In looking around town at the other dense commercial districts this standard does little to create character. The character of the pathways is de- fined by the architecture and the street furniture placed along the road. We believe that the architec- ture and dense nature of the commercial district will create enough character for the pathways. Fur- thermore the 3’ of landscaping will likely be a waste of space when trying to create a dense environ- ment. Additionally, it would be challenging to get enough light for landscaping to survive on pathways along the north side of the buildings. If this relaxation cannot be supported we would request that this be added as a condition of approval as it will require signification redesign work that will causes us to miss the tight adequacy window. 17. Code Reference 38.520.040.D.4 - Pathway Design: Provide sidewalks of less than 12-feet in width. Justification: The applicant is requesting a relaxation to modify the sidewalk width for multi-tenant commercial building larger than 100’ abutting a parking lot. This request is specifically tied to block 7 and 8. The current pathways are drawn at 10’ which matches and the current Ferguson Farm I. The way these lot are drawn, it is possible that a potential buy would purchase all of the lots in this block and building a single large building, which could result in a building being over 100’ long. For these 2 blocks the 10’ pathway is envisioned to be the rear of the building. The main entrance would have a 18’ wide sidewalk. We believe the intent of this standard is to apply to larger strip mail style develop- ments, where several buildings are located on the same site only connected by parking lots and drive isles. In the case of block 7 and 8 each lot would have a primary entrance facing Valley Commons Drive. We believe that 10’ is more than ample width for a secondary entrance abutting a parking lot. Finally, just to reiterate, it is the intention to match the pathway width already constructed at Ferguson Farm I. 18. Code Reference 38.520.070.C.2 - Location & Design of Service Areas: Exempt trash enclosures on Lot 4, Block 4 from the minimum 5-feet landscape screening on all sides. Justification: The sides and rear of service enclosures must be screened with landscaping at least five feet wide in locations visible from the street, parking lots and pathways. The refuse areas on Block 4, Lot 4 does not meet the minimum width of landscape screening on all sides. The proposed refuse col- lection areas have been located where they will be easily accessible for trash pickup; support the sur- rounding uses; and far enough from buildings to not be noticeable. The trash enclosures will be fully enclosed, covered and will include adjacent landscaping where possible. For Block 4, Lot 4 there will be landscaping on 1 of the 3 side. We believe that this trash enclosure will be adequately screened from Huffine lane due to the adjacent buildings as well as the landscaping pro- posed behind the dumpster. This dumpster will also be enclosure in the required enclosure virtually screening the dumpster from all sides. Please see the landscape plans for demonstration of how this dumpster will be adequately screened. 241 July 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD: Ferguson Farm II Relaxations & Justifications - Pg. 12 We believe that the intent of this standard to minimize the visual impact that dumpsters can have on a site design. We believe that this standard is achieved by creating a home for the dumpsters to live in. If this relaxation cannot be supported we would request that this be added as a condition of approval as that dumpster is no pivotal to the design of this project and can be removed prior to final PUD and Plat. 19. Code Reference Table 38.540.050-3 - Required Parking: Modification to the required parking standards. Justification: The applicant is requested a 100% relaxation to the City’s of street parking requirements. The relaxation request would allow the PUD to self-regulate uses based on parking demand and would PUD offers 660 of street parking spaces within the surface parking lots and 175 on street parking spac- es for a total of 835 spaces available. While the precise uses for this project are TBD, the total square footage potential shown in the 3-D exhibit is approximately 894,177 sf. This includes: 135,464 sf - Retail, Restaurant, Commercial, Bar 246,081 sf - Office 368,072 sf - Hotel and Hotel Units 95,200 sf - Medical 27,235 - Structured Parking 22,125 sf - Garage Condo Units Parking required for this project would be approximately 1555 spaces, (after reductions for adjacency to transit routes, adjacency to Storefront Block Frontages, and joint use reductions of 30% as specified in the TIS). Additional details on the parking assumptions are included in the overall project narrative. Total parking provided for this project is 883 total spaces, and includes on street parking and the pro- posed garages (one space per garage). Parking minimums often have dramatic impacts on the way we plan projects and are often not based on any science. We believe that not requiring a parking minimum allow us to provide parking based on what we believe the demand will be. As we know the demand for current and future parking is shifting throughout Bozeman with services like Uber and Lyft, the expansion of Streamline services, and the vast network of active transportation pathways. Exempting Ferguson Farm II from parking requirement will also further several goals and policies of the community plan including: M-1.12- Eliminate parking minimum requirements in commercial districts and affordable housing areas and reduce parking minimums elsewhere, acknowledging that demand for parking will still result in new supply being built. DCD-3.6 - Evaluate parking requirements and methods of providing parking as part of the overall transportation system for and between districts. 242 July 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD: Ferguson Farm II Relaxations & Justifications - Pg. 13 Theme 3 - A City is bolstered by downtown and complementary districts. Our city is bolstered by our downtown, midtown, university and other commercial districts and neighborhood centers that are characterized by higher densities and intensities of use. Ferguson Farm II is located within the Cottonwood district and is in a prime location for infill develop- ment. Infill development can reduce the demand on the transportation network by creating employ- ment opportunities near residential neighborhoods. Encouraging infill development also improves the efficiency of public services and reduces the outward expansion of the city. Specifically, the efficiency of the use of land within our district will increase with the reduction of the amount of on-site parking spaces. Allowing this relaxation will allow for greater flexibility for Ferguson Farm II and it reflects best practices in the provision of parking by allowing property owners to building only the number of park- ing spaces needed to meet parking demand. 20. Code Reference 38.540.050.A.4.b - Required Parking: Exemption from location of bicycle parking within 100 feet of each served building. Justification: The applicant is requesting a relaxation to exempt this project from the bicycle parking location standards. The applicant has strategically placed the bike parking throughout the project but rather than have each building provide its own bike parking we are proposing to have it in centrally located locations. Exempting from this requirement will ensure that the HOA maintains keeps in work- ing order these bike parking areas. We envision the bike parking areas to function similarly to how the downtown blue bike parking works in the summer. These logical locations for bike parking help to en- sure pedestrian safety and limit the number of bikes on busy pedestrian and vehicle travel ways. Fur- thermore, several sidewalks have been strategically drawn to accompany a bike rack, bench and tree. 21. Code Reference 38.540.080 - Off-street loading berth requirements: Eliminate the need for a loading berth for specific lots within the project area. Justification: The applicant is asking to not provide for loading berths for individual buildings. Should loading berths be necessary to serve the development, the applicant will propose such berths during future Site Plans. The alleys are designed to be 26’ wide and have back in angle parking. We believe there is adequate room for a lot or building to take deliveries off the alley and not disrupt the district. In order to ensure that deliveries to the site will not impact site circulation or traffic, the applicant will be willing to include in the CCRs that deliveries would only be allowed overnight or during appropriate off hours. Furthermore, the applicant is willing to restrict parking in those back in angle spots along the allow to not allow overnight parking, allowing larger trucks a spot to pull off the travel lane and con- duct their delivery. 22. Code Reference Table 38.560.060 - Non-Residential Sign Standards: Allow signs on all visible sides of the building, not just street frontages, allowing wall signs on walls 243 July 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD: Ferguson Farm II Relaxations & Justifications - Pg. 14 adjacent to streets, interior pedestrian walkways, alleys, parking lots and open space lots. Justification: The applicant is requesting a relaxation to allow signage to be visible on all sides of build- ings not just the street frontages. One of the main themes in the Community Plan indicates Bozeman is bolstered by its downtown and the supporting districts and signage plays an important role in creating and defining a district. We believe that allowing signage on all sides of buildings will help create this unique vibrant district. Allowing signage on all sides of the buildings can used as enhanced placemaking opportunities. Examples of this can be found in the alleys of downtown Fort Collins, or the River Walk District in Reno. Furthermore, the Bozeman Downtown Plan documented the importance of activating spaces along alleys and one way to achieve this was through signage. We believe this relaxation will allow us to further our vision for this district and truly create a unique district in Bozeman. Due to the unique nature of our project we believe that people will be accessing each building from all sides which makes signage very important. Signage on all sides of the building has potential for better building façade design. With more room to allocate the allowed signage allows for better sign place- ment without creating visual pollution. Additionally, we are not requesting the allowance to allocate more signage per building so there will potentially be less signage on each side of the building reducing any visual concerns. Signage on all sides of the building will play a huge part in creating this unique place. 23. Code Reference 38.400.050 - Street and road right-of-way width and construction standards. The applicant is requesting to vary from the standard ROW widths. Justification: The applicant requests the relaxation from standard Right-of-way widths to accommo- date the reverse crown street drainage and angled-in parking. The variable right-of-way widths are also designed to accommodate the variable sidewalk widths and street trees along storefront (north side of Valley Commons Drive) block frontages. Additionally, the applicant is requesting to utilize a reverse crown cross section for all roadways within this project. A reverse crown cross section has been proven to be a good design with examples of Ferguson Farm I and also in Grand Lake Colorado. The intention is to provide positive drainage away from the sidewalk and parking areas. This creates safer and more walkable conditions especially in the spring months. The proposed ROW widths are depicted on page 3 of the preliminary plat drawing and the street sec- tion details are shown on Civil Details Sheet, C2.0. In summary, the required ROW width is 60 feet for Local Streets. The proposed ROW widths all meet or exceed this requirement with the one exception of Ravelli Street, which has a 51-foot-wide ROW. It should also be noted that the proposed ROW widths have been reviewed and deemed acceptable by the City Engineering Department. 24. Code Reference 38.400.050 - Alternate street section design. The applicant is requesting to vary from the standard Street Section design. Justification: The alternate street sections proposed throughout the subdivision are designed to pro- vide enhance drainage to the center valley gutter and allow water to flow out of the angled back-in parking. The variable sidewalk widths and boulevards are designed to promote the walkability of the 244 July 2022 PRELIMINARY PUD: Ferguson Farm II Relaxations & Justifications - Pg. 15 development while meeting the City of Bozeman’s requirements for parking screening and block frontages. Additionally, the reverse crown drainage of the road is designed to be similar to the com- mercial development west of the property – Ferguson Farm. It is intended to provide a more contigu- ous feel between the development and promote walkability and internal capture rates for traffic within the development. 25. Code Reference 38.400.110 - Transportation pathways. Application is requesting to vary the shared use path width proposed along Fallon Street and Resort Drive to match existing trails across the street. Justification: This relaxation has been requested to provide a more contiguous feel with the adjacent developments. The existing shared use paths along Resort and Fallon are currently paved at an 8-foot width. The intent is to provide the shared use paths without creating awkward and unnecessary transi- tions and promote the overall walkability from surrounding developments. Additionally, this 8’ wide path will match what is existing across the street. Finally, we have request that the block frontage on these street be reclassified to “other” through a PUD Relaxation. In the Block Frontage Other, the re- quired sidewalk width is 6’. On November 29th, the applicant team met with the engineering department to go over their com- ments in that meeting it was agreed that Resort and Fallon could match the 8’ pathway on the other side of the street and the pathway along Ferguson would be widen to 10’ with the ability to make it wider. If required a 12’ pathway is now required by the engineering department we would request that this be a condition of approval. 26. Code Reference 38.410.070 - Municipal water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems. Proposing alternate water, sewer, and storm locations. Justification: The alternate locations of the proposed utilities is required to accommodate the alterna- tive storm sewer locations as a result of the reverse crown street section. Although the layout of the water, sewer, and storm mains is somewhat unconventional, all the design standards are still met and 11 feet of separation between mains is maintained. It should also be noted that the proposed utility configuration has been reviewed and deemed acceptable by the City Engineering Department. 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 Relaxation #1 UDC Reference - table 38.310.040 Authorized UsesRelaxation Request - Allow the following uses as Principal Uses (1) convenience use; (2) sales ofalcohol for on-premise consumption; (3) outdoor sale of goods in common open space areas; and (4)food courts within common open space areas within the PUD. Relaxation #2 UDC Reference - 38.310.050.B Supplemental Use Provision for the UMU ZoningDistrictRelaxation Request - Exempt development from requirements that two different user groups of usesmust be shown within each site plan.Relaxation #3 UDC Reference - 38.310.050.C Supplemental Use Provision for the UMU ZoningDistrictRelaxation Request - Allow for calculation of use group percentages over total site area. Relaxation #4 UDC Reference - table 38.320.050 - Form & Intensity StandardsRelaxation Request - Increases the allowable for maximum building height for buildings within thePUD to six stories and 90’.Relaxation #7 UDC Reference - 38.510.020.F-Multiple frontage situations.Relaxation Request -Provide an entrance to only one street façade for all on site buildings. Relaxation #8 UDC Reference - 38.510.020.F - Multiple Frontage Situations Relaxation Request - Allow surface parking areas adjacent to a street corner.Relaxation #16 UDC Reference - 38.520.040.D.3 - Pathway DesignRelaxation Request - Eliminate pathway separation standards.Relaxation #19 UDC Reference - table 38.540.050-3 - Required Parking Relaxation Request - Modification to the required parking standardsRelaxation #21 UDC Reference - 38.540.080 - Off-street loading berth requirements Relaxation Request - Eliminate the need for a loading berths for specific lots within the project area.Relaxation #22 UDC Reference - 38.560.060. - Non Residential Sign Standards Relaxation Request - Allow 250 sq. ft. of signage per lot regardless of length of building frontage and modificationsign placement location requirements.Relaxation #24 UDC Reference - 38.400.050 Alternative Street Section Design Relaxation Request - The applicant is requesting to vary from the standard Street Section design. Relaxation #23 UDC Reference - 38.400.050 street and road ROW width and Construction StandardsRelaxation Request - The applicant is requesting to vary from the standard ROW widths. Relaxation #25 UDC Reference - 38.100.110.D. Transportation Pathways Relaxation Request - To allow an Eight-foot shared use path proposed along Fallon Street and Resort Drive tomatch existing shared use path across the street. Relaxation #26 UDC Reference - 38.410.070. Municipal water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems.Relaxation Request - Proposing alternate water, sewer, and storm locations. Relaxation #6 UDC Reference -38.540.020.D - Back-in Angle Parking Relaxation Request - The applicant seeks to allow back-in angle parking along all internal streets and alleys.Relaxation #11 UDC Reference - 38.510.030.C- Landscape Block Frontage Standards Relaxation Request -Allow buildings to be placed to the edge of the property lines. Relaxation #5 UDC Reference - 38.400.090.B.2- Lot AccessRelaxation Request - Allow for placement of lots that are not meeting access standards.Relaxation #9 UDC Reference - 38.510.030.B- Storefront Block Frontage Standards Relaxation Request - Modification to change the block frontage to other for these external streets Relaxation #10 UDC Reference - 38.510.030.C- Landscape Block Frontage Standards Relaxation Request - Allow surface parking up to 100% of the street frontage Relaxation #13 UDC Reference - 38.510.030.C- Landscape Block Frontage Standards Relaxation Request -The area between the street and building must be landscaped, have a private porch orpatio space, and/or pedestrian oriented space. Relaxation #12 UDC Reference - 38.510.030.C- Landscape Block Frontage Standards Relaxation Request -Allow for a reduction in the minimum 10’ landscape buffer between the street and off-streetparking areas for block 3.Relaxation #17 UDC Reference - 38.520.040.D.4 - Pathway Design Relaxation Request - Provide sidewalks of less than 12-feet in width for buildings longer than 100' and abutting aparking lot.Relaxation #14 UDC Reference - 38.510.030.E- Gateway Block Frontage Standards Relaxation Request - Allow buildings to be built to the property lines. Relaxation #15 UDC Reference - 38.510.030.I - Trail/Park Block Frontage Standards Relaxation Request - Allow buildings to be placed to the edge of the trail, easements and property lines. Relaxation #18 UDC Reference - 38.520.070.C.3 - Location & Design of Service AreasRelaxation Request - Modification to required landscaping for trash service areas in specific site locations.Relaxation #20 UDC Reference - 38.540.050.A.4.b - Required ParkingRelaxation Request - Modification to the bike parking location standards.Relaxations shown in Blackare shown for reference.Relaxations in colorcorrespond to a specificlocation on the site.268 * All landscaped areas will receive water by means of an automatic underground irrigation system.* No tree will be planted within ten feet of any underground utility line.* All trees not planted within a planting bed will be mulched with shredded cedar in a two foot diameter tree ring. Edging and fabricare not needed for this.* All deciduous trees will be staked with two tree stakes per tree, and all evergreen trees will be staked with three stakes per tree* All trees planted within the R.O.W. will require a street tree planting permit from the City of Bozeman.* All planting beds will require 'Typar' weed barrier fabric, or equivalent. Planting beds will be edged with a high quality black vinyledging, and will be mulched with 134" washed landscape rock.* All parking lot islands without shrubs will be sod, while the parking islands with shrubs will be mulched.*Disturbed native areas along ditch will be seeded with a mix of Great Basin Wild Rye, Streambank Wheatgrass, Big Bluestem Grass,Switchgrass, Sedges, Rushes and wet tolerant perennials.*All trees shall be planted with root flare at grade.*All sodded lawn areas shall be locally grown Kentucky blue grass.*All plant material shall meet or exceed nursery stock size and quality specifications as set forth by American Nursery Standards.*A Utility locate shall be done prior to planting and staking trees.Phase 1: Infrastructure & Common Open SpaceQtyMature SizeSize @PlantingPlant Name (Scientific)SymbolDroughtTolerantQuaking Aspen(Populus tremuloides)Golden Willow(Salix alba 'Vitellina')Japanese Tree Lilac(Syringa reticulata)Littleleaf Linden(Tillia cordata)Thornless Honeylocust(Gleditsia triacanthos v. inermis)Brandon Elm(Ulmus 'Brandon')Norway Maple(Acer platanoides)Colorado Spruce(Picea pungens)8-10'1.5" cal1.5" cal1.5" cal1.5" cal1.5" cal1.5" cal1-1.25" cal60-70'50-60'60-70'40-50'35-40'30-40'30-40'30-35'noyesyesyesyesnonoyesPrince of Wales Juniper(Juniperus horizontalis)Kathryn Dykes Potentilla(Potentilla fruiticosa "Kathryn Dykes")Ruby Carousel Barberry(Berberis thunbergii)Cotoneaster(Cotoneaster lucidus)Blue Oat Grass(Heliototrichon sempervirens)Feather Reedgrass(Calamagrostis)Boulders [typ.]Largest boulders are 3' diameterSmallest boulders are 1.5' diametern/an/a12"18-24"12-15"12-15"2-3'noyesyesyes6" x 6'2-3'2-3'3' x 5'6-8'2-3'12819041363323301601391856523552838Salvia (Salvia x sylvestris 'May Night')yesyesyesCatmint(Nepeta racemosa)6" cont.25512"yesTatarian Maple(Acer Tataricum)1.5" calyes20-25'Toba Hawthorn(Crataegus x mordenensis 'Toba')yes1.5" cal2622#5758-10'Red Twig Dogwood(Cornus sericea)no6" cont.6" cont.6" cont.#51175-6'Alpine Currant(Ribies alpinum)yes15-20'VALLEY COMMONS DRIVEVALLEY COMMONS DRIVEVALLEY COMMONS DRIVEVALLEY COMMONS DRIVEC-Bar 3 Avenue RAVALLI STREET BROOKFIELD AVENUE BROOKFIELD AVENUE RAVALLI STREET WELLOpen Space lot 94,295sf = 3 groupsA: 3 Large trees (3)B: 2 Small trees (1)12 Shrubs (2)Open Space lot 1013,520 sf = 9 GroupsA: 9 Large trees (9)B: 4 Small trees (2)30 Shrubs (6)4 Evergreen trees (2)Open Space lot 114,255sf = 3 GroupsA: 3 Large trees (3)B: 2 Evergreen trees (1)12 Shrubs (2)Open Space lot 131,739sf = 3 Groups A: 3 Large trees (3)B: 2 Small trees (1)12 Shrubs (2)A: 9 Large trees (9)B: 4 Small trees (2)24 Shrubs (4)6 Large Evergreens (3)Storm Water ChamberStorm Water ChamberStorm Water Chamber143 Parking SpacesRequired:16 Large Trees2860 SF Internal Landscape areaALLEY RAVALLI STREETFIELD STREETALLEYALLEYALLEY Open Space lot 122853sf = 3 GroupsA: 3 Large trees (3)B: 18 Shrubs (3)FenceFenceCrusher Fines PathCrusher Fines PathCrusher F ines PathDouble Gate EntranceDouble Gate EntranceDouble Gate EntranceDog Waste Station Crusher Fines PathCrusher Fines PathS. FERGUSON AVENUESnow StorageSnow StorageSnow StorageSnow Storage Snow StorageSnow StorageSnow StorageSnow StorageSnow StorageSnow StorageSnow StorageSnow StorageSnow StorageSnow Storage Snow Storage Snow Storage Snow Storage Snow Storage Snow Storage Snow StorageUNMOWED NATIVEUNMOWED NATIVEUNMOWED NATIVEUNMOWED NATIVEUNMOWED NATIVEUNMOWED NATIVE 121 Parking SpacesRequired: 14 Large Trees2420 SF Internal Landscape Area82 Parking SpacesRequired: 10 Large Trees1640 SF Internal Landscape Area640 SF Internal Landscape Area680 SF Internal Landscape AreaS. FERGUSON AVENUE UNMOWED NATIVEUNMOWED NATIVEUNMOWED NATIVEPicn ic Tab les BenchBenchBenchBenchBenchBenchPicn ic Tab le BenchBenchBenchBenchBenchBenchBenchStorm Water ChamberStorm Water ChamberStorm Water ChamberStorm Water ChamberStorm Water ChamberStorm Water ChamberStorm Water ChamberWELLGeneral NotesOWNER INFO:Boardwalk Properties INC.101 E Main St.Bozeman, MT 59715ph | 406-586-3132*Parking Lot screening provided by Planting beds,Junipers, Grasses, and Hedges935/1063 Drought Tolerant: 87%Common Open Space AmenitiesQtyAmenitySymbolBench32Picnic Table6Dog Waste Station3Revised: 3-18-2022 Date 08-27-2019 File Designed for: Signed:Date:LOCASHMAN NURSERY & LANDSCAPING P.O. Box 10242 Bozeman, MT 59719 (406) 587-3406 Landscape PlanScale: 1"=60'NorthOverallFerguson Farm II Owner: Boardwalk Properties, Inc. Bozeman, MT Accolade Elm(Ulmus japonica x wilsoniana 'Morton')269 Ferguson Farm 2 Neighborhood Center Plan Ferguson Farm 2 is a 92 lot subdivision and planned unit development (62 building pads, 19 open space lots and 11 parking lots). The development will be a dynamic, multi-use destination offering a convenient shopping and dining experience in combination with upscale professional offices and hotel stay. The 31 acre development is zoned Urban Mixed Use with a Community Commercial Mixed Use growth policy land use designation. Ferguson Farm 2 is an extension of Ferguson Farm 1 (aka Spring Creek Village Resort). The vision of Ferguson Farm 2 is to reflect small town shopping with maximum flexibility and innovation in design. The goal of the Ferguson Farm 2 development is to create a quality development that benefits the community both aesthetically and economically, as well as:  Provide an appealing environment for work and play.  Develop an attractive pedestrian friendly shopping experience.  Create a trendy destination for food, drink, and stay that is within walking and biking distance of large, residential neighborhoods.  Design a unique trail experience that provides direct access to neighboring businesses.  Create open space features that embrace the outdoor experience. 270 Neighborhood Center Amenities The primary focal point and the neighborhood center for the PUD is the 1.7 acre open space and trail corridor along the Maynard Border Ditch. The corridor is within 600 feet of the geographic center of the subdivision. The trail system in Ferguson Farm 2 will create an integral link between Huffine Lane and the existing trail system through Cottonwood Condos, Valley West and Flanders Mill. The trail system in Ferguson Farm 2 will be a tiered system with a 6’ natural fines wide trail on the ground and a 14’ wide skyline bridge trail above. The skyline bridge trail will be accessed via stairs in Blocks 4, 6 and 7 and an elevator in Block 6. At 18’ tall from the ground to the bottom of the decking and 24 feet overall, the skyline bridge will extend from Huffine Lane to Fallon Street. The bridge trail will span across Field Street, Valley Commons and the alley. Once on top of the bridge, pedestrians will have a view of the surrounding area and some mountain views. The lots abutting the skybridge trail corridor can offer patio seating adjacent to the surface trail. Halfway down the trail, where it intersects with Valley Commons Drive, there will be a half-acre open space lot. This park like setting will be the perfect venue for festivals and concerts on the lawn in the summer and ice skating in the winter. Lots along the trail may have the option to construct an upper level connection between the bridge and their building with Property Owners Association and city review and approval. 271 Lots along the trail corridor are expected to embrace the amenity. This may be accomplished in many ways including, but not limited to: designing a building that fronts the corridor, incorporating additional architectural features, provides appealing landscaping and/or adds patio seating. Skyline Bridge and Trail Corridor Design (NTS) 272 273 Phasing The neighborhood center improvements, including the surface trail, skyline bridge trail, elevator, two sets of stairs, landscaping and irrigation will be installed with phase 3 and 4 of the subdivision. 274 275 Page 1 of 5 February 7, 2023 RE: 19028; The Ferguson Farms II PUD and Preliminary Plat Review by the Bozeman Community Development Board, acting as the Bozeman Design Review Board and Planning Board, on December 5, 2022. Interested Parties: As you are aware, the City’s Community Development Board (CDB) met on December 5, 2022 to discuss the land use and design proposals of the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) and the accompanying Ferguson Farms II Preliminary Plat (PP) pursuant to the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) Section 38.230.040 for the P-PUD and Section 38.240.140.A.2 for the PP. The Board voted unanimously, 8 to 0, to approve the following Motions. For the P-PUD: “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 19028 and move to recommend approval of the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary Planned Unit Development application to the City Commission with the exception that the Board does not support the staff findings for Deviation No. 10 and the Board does not approve the deviation that would allow 100 percent surface parking along street frontages, and further subject to staff-recommended conditions and all applicable code provisions and further subject to the determination on Article 4 standards modifications by the Director of Transportation and Engineering.” Below please find a brief summary of Board Member comments on the proposed P-PUD. After extensive discussion on the P-PUD application, the Board did not have comments on the PP but voted unanimously to recommend approval of the subdivision to the City Commission. Please forward these comments to relevant members of your design team. If you wish to discuss the CDB comments with Department staff, please let your Development Review Coordinator know and she can schedule a TEAM meeting with the appropriate staff. If you intend to incorporate some of the CDB suggestions into the project design, please let me know so we can assist you in submitting amendments for our review through Project Dox. To date, there has been no public comment submitted. We have tentatively scheduled City Commission review of the P-PUD and PP applications for their March 7, 2023 meeting. This will be a public hearing and action items on their agenda. If you choose to revise plans to respond to the CDB comments, we will need copies of the revised plans to review for code compliance and then to include in the staff report to the City Commission. Please submit those as revisions in Project Dox as soon as possible. 276 Page 2 of 5 If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at 406-582-2285 or your Development Review Coordinator Diane Tolhurst at dtolhurst@bozeman.net. We thank you for your time and presentation at the CDB meeting. Sincerely, Susana Montana, Senior Planner Ferguson Farm II December 5, 2022 Meeting CDB Notes Board Members in attendance: HH (Henry Happel); JP (Jerry Pape); NO (Nicole Olmstead); JM (Jennifer Madgic); CE (Chris Egnatz); AB (Allison Bryan); BE (Brady Ernst); PGM (Padden Guy Murphy) CDB?= when taking notes we did not get the name of the Board Member commenter ************************************************************************************* CDB ? to staff: relaxations for landscaping, will the PUD come back to CDB, separated lots for parking, will the skybridge be part of the minimum requirements for final plat or phased?, clarify bike parking is covered or not and how distributed if not within 100 feet. Identify scope of projects where DRB reviews projects. 7:05 pm CDB ? to applicant: JP – concern for integrated structured parking and separate parking garages differentiation and being clear what is being completed. HH – More inward looking project that typical seems to be in application materials, is that fair? Look and feel along Huffine, Fallon? Tyler – no existing drawings or design requirements. CE – How many parking stalls are shown on plan not under buildings? Tyler - 883. No commitment to underbuilding parking at this time. CE – Building heights shown on elevations map, why tallest buildings in NW corner? Tyler – stepping up away from Huffine, lots of iterations in project development, may have structured parking in those buildings. CE – Curious that highest building nearest the shortest adjacent development on N, Where are views along pathway with tall buildings along skybridge. Tyler – breakpoints along street and open spaces. CE – Design review panel process in documents, how to approach implementation? When will embellish in future? Tyler – Form A, Form B, want to provide latitude for design, still looking for cohesive design options. AB – Did consider housing? Tyler – No, lots of housing in vicinity. Rooftops now in area to support commercial. JM – Housing follow up, is lots in vicinity but good opportunity for urban lofts and mixed use, live-work; can change over time? Tyler – zoning would allow but administrative steps required, e.g. park land. CE – Valley West, Bozeman Pond, Valley Unit in vicinity – residents go in cars out on evening, see local options for services and need for connectivity to the north to the existing residents. Tyler – skybridge, shared use paths, roundabouts 277 Page 3 of 5 BE – PUD- Above and beyond required: How beyond the existing UMU code for supplemental use requirements if no residential, how assure mixed uses. Tyler – changing standard to overall 30 acre site % rather than individual lots within development. BE – Requiring site wide must have mixed use – Tyler – yes, 70% cap remains on entire development. BE – Height relaxations – what types of building types and uses justify the extra height without the structured parking. Tyler – internal heights floor to floor be better with extra 5 feet. BE – What six story uses. Tyler – could by any allowed use BE – Bike racks proposed on bike racks or just the two covered sites. Tyler – Integrated with street tree placement along all streets. BE – 100% surface parking and owner stated intent to elevate pedestrian experience. What is most pedestrian oriented street hierarchy? Tyler – Valley Commons Drive is lead with back in parking , round abouts, skybridge separated from street for pedestrians. BE – Valley Commons drive with big parking areas, how does a block long parking lot elevate the pedestrian experience? Tyler – Hard to balance with providing parking on such large site, screening surface parking, connections through lots to break up space. JB – Relaxation 21 loading berth, mentioned wider alley for allowing passing space, accurate? Tyler – alley section 28 feet wide, normal is narrower. JB – Trash dumpsters not in alleyway? Tyler – pointed out consolidated locations. NO – Emphasizing pedestrian experience without created street scape with buildings. How to emphasize walking in alternate locations such as along N-S. Skybridge seems quite a big effort, what commits it to be constructed so people will use it and experience. Tyler – Big thing for project, tourist destination, highline in NYC. NO – What happens if skybridge doesn’t happen and what will still encourage people to go N-S? Mike D – alleyway between buildings which allows for seating and shelter when needed along ditch corridor, bridges E-W over ditch. Alcohol liquor license special deal with state makes easier to have restaurants without having to pay 1MM for license. Spread operations hotel option. NO – Building height relaxation associated with specific lot or entire PUD. Tyler – all lots. BE – Skybridge section diagram, trees shown. Buildings to abut on sidewalks, eliminate existing trees? Mike D – Yes all to be removed, age, hazards, move ditch and replant with other riparianish trees to not conflict with skybridge and builds. Could possibly connect from building 2nd floor to skybridge. BE – landscape plan at ground floor or at skybridge level? How to get light under skybridge for vegetation. Mike D – Works as N-S with sun coming in from south during day. BE – Skybridge concrete paving, any plantings? Mike D – yes, planters, wood flooring sections, benches for sitting and relaxing. Questions end. NO to staff – Parking only lots, what happens if structured parking comes later? Will need to look into that issue, not prepared to answer at this time. CE – What voting on? PUD and relaxations as bundle, plat contingent on PUD ultimate approval Motion: NO – per PUD SR. JP 2nd. NO – hard to see how will work, reliance is on street frontages and if not being implemented then raises important questions, esp. re parking areas. 278 Page 4 of 5 JP – Expect more from PUD process, long development, different characteristic than many with commercial and STR. No doubts on standards, or commercial district, key concern is novelty on skybridge and not fair comparison to examples like Highline and Salesforce which are much more extensive. More designed and engaging sites. JP – Concerned on functions of development, not just appearance. Success in Ferguson Farm to west but consistently very hard to park. Need to consider how to incorporate structured parking and drop condo garages. Need to have places for people to come from outside and park and then promenade or will cause great frustration. JP – Density to center is better, less likely to impact on others. BE – Good layout with roundabouts, agree with SR on #18, Do not agree with SR on 100% surface parking #10, Not seeing how #10 is a better solution with just landscaping screening on surface parking. BE – No downtown in west Bozeman, transition into this along Valley Commons Drive but 100% surface parking takes away walkability. Esp. not one in middle, ways to provide parking other ways with decks or other options and still engage street front. BE – ok with height relaxation, neighborhood feel stops at 5 story, want to be able to yell up to top floor, but is commercial area. BE – Skybridge interesting idea but not enough, seems sterile, needs more engaging and park like structure. Encourage some mixed use and lofts to create engaging district. Supports walkability. AB – Skybridge needs to be rethought, size is too small to achieve intended outcome. AB – Agree with not approving #10 AB – Agree with idea of more height in center rather than on edges. Could be a better development. JM – Like the overall vision and spirit. Support with appropriate landscaping choices. JM – Agree with BE on no 100% parking, surface lots kill the feel they are trying to accomplish. Support decked parking approach. JM – Work in residential component. JM – Agree with Skybridge being rather sterile, has potential to accomplish more with additional work. JM – Supports angled back in parking. Supports no minimum parking required. JM – Agrees with SR re #18. CE – Like the vision, functionally 85% there, biggest issue is parking with mix of walkable and sea of parking. Works in Downtown due to high population proximate but not the same on this site. Not enough yet density here so will need to park. Walkability relies on ability to get to the site which here will be mostly cars. Time to start stacking parking. JB – Not support #10 and 18, will support rest. JP – channels PGMurphy in support of less parking. Need to think of how to innovate with parking structures to provide more than just car storage. HH – Supports direction and creation of new destination as described by applicant. Also agree with other comments re parking #10 will be detrimental. HH – Applaud skybridge, think it can be made better. HH – Support permanent residential in the development. People permanent present will also support look and fee. HH – Ways to express recommendations to City Commission. 1. Listen to presentation, 2. Modify motion, 3. Say JM tell other commissioners. 279 Page 5 of 5 HH – Amending motion – add at end of motion “and also subject to the design review board’s belief that deviation #10 should not be approved, that the design review board believes the project would be approved by multi-story parking one deck above ground parking on site to deal with some of the parking requirements, that some additional residential development should be included, and that the skybridge should be substantially landscaped.” JP – suggest changing to one deck above ground. HH accepted. JM – 2nd. JP – wondering whether the effort in the skybridge would be better spent on the ditch corridor. REI stream side example in Denver. If skybridge isn’t larger than questionable value. BE – Don’t need the entirety of the amendment, JP and CE concur. Vote on amendment – failed. NO – Amending motion – SR motion except for recommendation to approve deviation #10. JB – 2nd CE – Not addressing the entirety of parking question and on-site parking, not addressing on-street correct? Vote on motion by NO – passes 8-0 Preliminary Plat: JP – move per SR with commentary. CE 2nd Vote on motion – passes 8-0. 280 Ferguson Farm II PUD & Preliminary Plat Applications 19-027 & 19-028 Relaxation 10 Justification Outline 28 February 2023 Following the Community Development Board public hearing, the design team has contemplated clarifications to address the CDB comments that the walkability of the area in relation to the parking areas being adjacent to a public street. It was determined that the overall submitted plan is appropriate in its comprehensive composition. When evaluating the Ferguson Farm II project, it is important to analyze that the sum of all the relaxations leads to a better more wholistic/innovative design. This memo aims to outline some key points that may not have been articulated well enough in the public hearing. - Walkability is measured in relation to a pedestrian’s ability to approach and experience moving through and around a site. Factors include safety, distance, perspective convenience and comfort. - Ferguson Farm II aims to enhance the pedestrian experience from a variety of angles and approaches mainly balanced on the hierarchy of the sidewalk and street network as well as building design and placement. - The parking areas at Ferguson Farm II are distributed and relatively small in scale. - Most of the parking areas have significant landscaping buffering areas between the parking space and the sidewalk. This will be adequate for plantings, screening, lights and occasional benches. - The general layout allows for more eyes on the parking areas which inherently improves the overall safety and feel. This also improves a driver’s ability to easily assess conditions, see pedestrians and locate available parking. - Additional east/west and north/south pathways have been added to break up parking areas and improve the circulation pattern and convenience. In conclusion, when looking at the overall program, composition and walkability of Ferguson Farm II, specific efforts have been taken to improve the overall convenience, comfort and safety of the human experience to create a walkable environment to, from and through this unique project. 281 282 Memorandum REPORT TO:City Commission FROM:Susana Montana, Senior Planner Brian Krueger, Development Review Manager Erin George, Deputy Director of Community Development Anna Bentley, Director of Community Development SUBJECT:Consideration of Approval of the Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat, Application 19027 MEETING DATE:March 7, 2023 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Community Development - Quasi-Judicial RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation of approval of the Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat submittal, with staff-recommended conditions of approval and code provisions. Having reviewed and considered the application materials, staff report, public comment, and all the information presented, I move to approve Application 19027, the Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat, with the staff recommended 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 submittal on August 29, 2019 with revisions on January 2020, November 2021, April 2022, July 14, 2022 and August 24, 2022 for the 31-acre vacant property located at the northwest corner of Huffine Lane and Ferguson Avenue. The Preliminary Plat application seeks to divide the property into 9 Blocks and 72 lots consisting of 49 buildable lots, 14 open space lots and 9 parking structure lots on the property zoned Urban Mixed Use (UMU). There is an accompanying Ferguson Farms II Preliminary Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) application that must be approved before this plat can be approved because this plat does not comply with provisions of the UMU zoning. 283 The full application can be reached at the following link:19027 Ferguson Farms II Preliminary Plat application documents UNRESOLVED ISSUES:The associated Ferguson Farms II Preliminary Planned Unit Development must be approved before this subdivision final plat can be approved. ALTERNATIVES:As noted in the staff report. FISCAL EFFECTS: Fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time, but will include increased property tax revenues from new development, along with increased costs to deliver municipal services to the property. Impact fees will be collected at the time of issuance of building permits for individual developments along with City sewer and water connection fees. Attachments: 19027 FF II PP CC staff rpt 02 27 23.pdf 001 Preliminary Plat Page 1.pdf 002 Preliminary Plat Page 2.pdf 003 Preliminary Plat Page 3.pdf 004 Preliminary Plat Page 4.pdf Report compiled on: February 27, 2023 284 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project # 19027 Page 1 of 27 City Commission Staff Report for the Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Application No. 19027 Public Hearing Date: City Commission will meet on March 7, 2023 at 6:00 in City Hall, Commission Chambers. Project Description: Preliminary plat of a major subdivision to create a 9-Block, 72-lot subdivision consisting of 49 buildable lots, 14 open space lots and 9 parking structure lots as well as public and private roads, for this subdivision of 31-acres zoned UMU, Urban Mixed Use with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay. Off-site improvements include a shared-use pathway along the Site’s perimeter, a bus shelter, and roads and water and sanitary sewer facilities to serve the development. Project Legal Description: Lot 5 of Minor Subdivision No. 295 located in the SW ¼ of Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. Project Location: 4250 Fallon Street located at the northwest corner of Ferguson Avenue and Huffine Lane, south of Fallon Street and east of Resort Street. Development Review Committee (DRC) Finding: The August 25, 2022 revised Ferguson Farms II Preliminary Plat Major Subdivision application conforms to standards and is sufficient for approval with conditions and code provisions. Due to a re-starting of the public notice period, the application was deemed adequate for further review on November 4, 2022. Community Development Board (as Planning Board): Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, the Planning Board, on December 5, 2022, unanimously recommended approval of the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary Plat major subdivision to the City Commission with the staff-recommended conditions and subject to all applicable code provisions. City Commission Recommended Motion: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, staff report, public comment, and all the information presented, I move to approve Application 19027, the Ferguson Farms II Preliminary Plat major subdivision with the staff-recommended conditions and subject to all applicable code provisions. Report Date: February 27, 2023 Staff Contact: Susana Montana, Senior Planner Cody Flammond, Project Engineer Agenda Item Type: Action (Quasi-judicial) 285 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project 19027 Page 2 of 27 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Summary This report is based on the July 14, 2022 revised plat maps, the July 14, 2022 Ferguson Farms II Preliminary Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) application and the August 25, 2022 revised application submittal and any public comment received to date. The application materials are available in the City’s Laserfiche archive and may be accessed through the Community Development viewer as well. The property owner/Applicant submitted a major subdivision preliminary plat application to create 72 lots from a 31-acre parcel (“Site”). The Site consist of 49 buildable lots, 14 open space lots, 9 parking structure lots, and public streets and alleys. The final decision for a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat with more than 50 lots must be made within 80 working days of the date it was deemed adequate/sufficient for further review. The Development Review Committee (DRC) deemed the application adequate for continued review on September 2, 2022. However, public notice for this application was required to be completed due to an error in the mailing list of adjacent property owners. The Applicant repeated the mail and posting notice on November 4, 2022 with an updated mailing list. This re-started the date of a complete application. Therefore, pursuant to the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) Section 38.240.130 the City Commission shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the subdivision application by January 23, 2023, unless there is a written extension from the developer, not to exceed one year. The Community Development Board reviewed this application on Monday, December 5, 2022 and made a recommendation to the City Commission noted herein. The City Commission will review this application and make a final determination on Tuesday, March 7, 2023. No public comment has been received to date (February 27, 2023). Unresolved Issues Unresolved issues at this Preliminary Plat stage, such as those related to trails, streets, agricultural water facilities and easements, would be resolved with the Final Plat application which must satisfy the recommended preliminary plat conditions of approval and all relevant Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) provisions. However, this subdivision does not meet the standards of the underlying UMU (Urban Mixed Use) zoning designation and cannot be approved without the separate and first approval of the companion Ferguson Farms II Planned Use Development (PUD) application. This limitation is a condition of approval of this Preliminary Plat and would also be a condition of approval of the Final Plat for this Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision, should the Final PUD not be approved before the Final Plat application is completed. Alternatives 1. Recommend approval of the application to the City Commission with the staff-recommended conditions; 2. Recommend approval of the application to the City Commission with modifications to the staff-recommended conditions; 286 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project 19027 Page 3 of 27 3. Recommend denial of the application to the City Commission based on the Board’s findings of non-compliance with the applicable BMC criteria noted in the staff report; or 4. Recommend that the City Commission continue the public hearing on the application to a later date, with specific direction to staff or the Applicant to supply additional information or to address specific items. This alternative is requested if the Community Development Board wishes to amend or add conditions of approval. Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 2 Project Summary ................................................................................................................. 2 Unresolved Issues ............................................................................................................... 2 Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 3 SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES .......................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 2 – REQUESTED VARIANCES ............................................................................... 10 SECTION 3 – PRELIMINARY PLAT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL .. 10 SECTION 4 - CODE REQUIREMENTS..................................................................................... 13 SECTION 5 - RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE ACTIONS .......................................... 14 SECTION 6 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ................................................................. 14 Applicable Subdivision Review Criteria, BMC Section 38.240.150.B. ........................... 14 APPENDIX A – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT ......................................................... 26 APPENDIX B - OWNER INFORMATION ................................................................................ 27 ATTACHMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 27 287 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project 19027 Page 4 of 27 SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES Figure 1. Location Map Figure 2. Zoning Map; Site is Urban Mixed Use (UMU) 288 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project # 19027 Page 5 of 27 Figure 3: Community Plan Future Land Use Map—Community Commercial Mixed Use Site 289 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project 19027 Page 6 of 27 Figure 4. Proposed PUD Master Plan (Project # 19028) 290 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project 19027 Page 7 of 27 Figure 5: Proposed Land Uses 291 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project 19027 Page 8 of 27 Figure 6: Proposed Preliminary Plat (07 14 22 revision) 292 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project 19027 Page 9 of 27 Figure 7: Phasing Plan 293 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project # 19027 Page 10 of 27 SECTION 2 – REQUESTED VARIANCES The Applicant seeks no subdivision variances because the Applicant is seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that would grant 26 deviations and waivers from Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) land use, design and development standards. The proposed Preliminary Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) must be approved prior to consideration for approval of this Preliminary Plat (PP) subdivision because the PP does not meet the land use and design standards of the UMU district and Bozeman Municipal Code. In addition, the PP requires approval of deviations and exemptions from BMC Article 4 street standards which is under the purview of the Director of Transportation and Engineering who must consider them for approval before the City Commission acts on the P-PUD request. The P- PUD, Project No. 19028, describes and evaluates the requested deviations and exemptions to the BMC. The 26 deviations/relaxations from the BMC that are sought by this PUD, Project No. 19028, are loosely grouped as: (1) Allowing various commercial uses as principal uses which are conditional or are not otherwise permitted in the UMU district per Tables 38.310.040.A through E; (2) exemption from the Section 38.310.050 requirements for (a) a mix of uses within each site plan; (b) the 70% maximum gross square footage limitation for a single use, such as office, for the entire Site; and (c) the requirement that a minimum of 70% of the ground level block frontages must be occupied by a specific ratio of non-residential uses; (3) exemption from the ground floor commercial space requirements of 38.330.010.E.2; (4) building height increases over the 60’ maximum for the UMU district per Table 38.320.050 to 90’ and 6 stories throughout the Site; (5) exemption from minimum and maximum number of parking requirements of 38.330.010.F and 38.540; (6) Tables 38.540.050-1 through 3 and exemption from the requirement that bicycle racks must be located within 100 feet from the building serves per 38.540.050.A.4.b; (7) alternate on-street parking layouts to allow angled back-in parking spaces, exemption from the requirement that all lots must have legal and physical access to a public street [note these are under the purview of the Director of Transportation and Engineering per 38.200.010.D and are not zoning deviations]; (7) alternate Block Frontage designations and setback relaxations per 38510.030.L; (8) landscaping and tree planting exemptions per 38.550; (9) front setback relaxations per 38.510; and (10) parking and trash enclosure screening exemptions per 38.510, 38.520 and 38.550. SECTION 3 – PRELIMINARY PLAT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The following conditions of approval and code provisions are offered to satisfy City and relevant State requirements as well as site-specific mitigation for potential adverse impacts associated with development of the proposed subdivision. The conditions of approval are in addition to any required code provisions identified in this report. The conditions are specific to the preliminary plat application. Staff has considered the impacts as identified in the staff analysis and application materials and these conditions of approval are deemed reasonably related and roughly proportionate to the development of this subdivision. (1) This Preliminary Plat does not meet current UMU zoning and Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) land use, design and development standards. These deficiencies, deviations and waivers are included in the proposed Ferguson Farms II Preliminary Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) application, Project No. 19028. That P-PUD must be approved by the City Commission with the relevant deviations, and a Final PUD must be administratively approved, before the Final Plat for this subdivision may be approved by the City Commission. The Final Plat must also await 294 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project 19027 Page 11 of 27 Director of Transportation and Engineering approval of street and other Article 4 deviations before the Final Plat can be approved by the City Commission. (2) Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the Applicant shall record proper legal lot access easements and a deed restriction for the following 6 lots to provide adequate legal and physical access to public or publicly-accessible streets or alleys: Lot 1B, Block 8; Lots 1B and 1C, Block 3; Lots 1B and 1C of Block 7; and Lot 4 of Block 6. (3) The Applicant must execute and record the applicable Special Improvement District (SID) waivers and a copy of the recorded waiver document shall be submitted to the Director of Transportation and Engineering prior to Final Plat approval. (4) BMC 38.410.130 (A) (1) Water rights -With future site plan applications, the Applicant must contact Griffin Nielsen of the Engineering Department to obtain a determination of cash-in-lieu of water rights (CILWR). CILWR must be paid prior to the approval of the corresponding site plans. (5) BMC 38.410.060.D- If agricultural water user facility easements are required, a notice must also be recorded with a Final Plat or prior to Final PUD plan approval, stating that the easements are subject to the requirements of Section 70-17-112, MCA restricting interference with canal or ditch easements and that irrigation works are subject to Section 85-7-2211 and 85-7-2212, MCA regarding duties and liability. The notice must include language to assure the duties are binding upon all successors in interest and remain in effect until such time that the agricultural water user facility is abandoned in accordance with the requirements of Montana Law or alternative requirements are agreed to in writing by all applicable parties. The easements must be prepared as documents separate from a Final Plat but may be referenced on a Final Plat. (6) 38.410.060.D.3. - Prior to Final Plat approval a professional engineer must certify that the water entering and existing the realigned Maynard Border Ditch is of the same quality and quantity as prior to development. (7) 38.600.170. - All public water and sewer mains must be placed in a casing pipe when crossing the Maynard Border Ditch to a minimum of 10 feet beyond the adjacent top of channel. This distance may need to be increase depending on main depth as determined by the City during the subdivision infrastructure review. (8) 38.600.170. D. - The Final Plat shall depict on the condition of approval sheet the location of the post-developed flood hazard area. (9) BMC 38.270.030 Completion of Improvements - The City acknowledges the receipt of the Applicant’s request for completion of improvements per Subsection B.1.b.2 and concurrent construction per Subsection D. The Applicant is advised that the requirements of Subsection B.1.b.2 must be fulfilled prior to Final Plat approval and the requirements of Subsection D must be fulfilled prior to building permit approval. (10) The Applicant must identify the 100-year flood hazard area on the Final Plat prior to Final Plat approval. (11) Prior to Final Plat approval, the Applicant shall clearly state on the plat who is responsible for the maintenance of the proposed culverts and pedestrian crossing along the Maynard Border Ditch. (12) Prior to Final Plat approval, the Applicant must provide written approval from the Maynard Border Ditch Company for additional runoff discharge to the Maynard Border Ditch. (13) The Applicant must file a maintenance agreement for the back-in angled parking areas with the County Clerk and Recorder in addition to the plat note identifying the maintenance requirements and responsibilities of the back-in angled parking spaces prior to Final Plat approval. (14) The Plat Condition of Approval block on Plat Page 4 shall have a condition that reads: "Due to known high groundwater in the area, no basements are permitted with future development of the site. No crawl spaces are 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 release of a building permit. In addition, sump pumps are not allowed 295 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project 19027 Page 12 of 27 to be connected to the sanitary sewer system. Sump pumps are not allowed to be connected to 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 where it may create a safety hazard for pedestrians and vehicles.” (15) Final Plat Conditions of Approval block on Page 4 shall include the following condition of approval: "The back-in angled parking is to be maintained by the property owners' association, which includes snow removal, pavement maintenance, and all other maintenance functions of the back-in angle parking spaces." (16) The following condition of approval must be included on the Conditions of Approval block on Page 4 of the plat. "Lot access must be constructed to the standard set forth by the City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy, and the City of Bozeman Modifications to the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications per Bozeman Municipal Code requirements." (17) This subdivision provides a sidewalk along the bordering public streets as well as along internal streets. Prior to Final Plat approval, the Applicant must provide an easement for the portion of the proposed eight-feet wide, paved shared use trail that exists outside of the public right-of-way. The Class I shared use trails abutting the subdivision along the Huffine Lane and Ferguson Avenue frontages must be widened from 8 feet to 10 feet and 8 foot wide Class I trails shall be installed along the Fallon Street and Resort Drive frontages concurrent with any first phase construction of this subdivision. (18) The following condition of approval must be added to the Conditions of Approval block on Plat Sheet 4 prior to Final Plat approval: "The Property Owners Association is responsible for repair and replacement of any special surface finishes, including but not limited to stamped concrete, in the public right-of-way including for damage during City maintenance, repair, or replacement of utilities beneath the public right-of-way." (19) The following language must be added to the covenants, conditions, and restrictions document prior to Final Plat approval. "The Property Owners Association is responsible for repair and replacement of any special surface finishes, including but not limited to stamped concrete, in the public right-of-way including for damage during City maintenance, repair, or replacement of utilities beneath the public right-of-way. The City will return the land to a finished grade, but will not be responsible for any repair or replacement of any special surface finishes." (20) Prior to Final Plat approval, a separate left hand turn lane located in the east bound direction of Fallon Street at the intersection of Fallon Street and Ferguson Avenue must be installed. Improvements must satisfy all City of Bozeman design standards. All installed improvements must be formally accepted by the City prior to Final Plat approval. (21) Prior to Final Plat approval, Ferguson Avenue must be reconstructed in order to provide a two-way left turn lane from the intersection of Huffine Lane through Fallon Ave. Improvements must satisfy all City of Bozeman design standards and must include bicycle and pedestrian facilities. All installed improvements must be formally accepted by the City prior to Final Plat approval. (22) The Applicant must install a right hand deceleration turn lane on Huffine Lane at Brookfield Ave, depending on Montana Department Transportation (MDT) approval. Improvements must satisfy all City of Bozeman and MDT design standards. All installed improvements must be formally accepted by the City prior to Final Plat approval. (23) The Applicant must install a right hand deceleration turn lane on Huffine Lane at Resort Drive, depending on Montana Department Transportation (MDT) approval. Improvements must satisfy all City of Bozeman and MDT design standards. All installed improvements must be formally accepted by the City prior to Final Plat approval. (24) The updated flood hazard evaluation must be provided with an infrastructure review and include the post- developed basin exhibit and channel dimensions for the Maynard Border Ditch. (25) Prior to infrastructure approval, a certification from the developer's professional engineer that the water entering and exiting the realigned or relocated agricultural water user facility is the same quality and amount of water that entered or exited the facility, per BMC 38.410.060.D.3., and written approval from the Maynard Border Ditch 296 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project 19027 Page 13 of 27 Company for the relocation of the facility must be provided. If there will be a change to the quality and amount of water that entered or exited the facility including any change to the historic stormwater discharge to the facility the certification must clearly identify the change and subsequently the approval from Maynard Border Ditch Company needs to acknowledge the change, per BMC 38.410.060.4.D. Both the certification and written approval must be provided with the Final Plat application. If approval cannot be obtained and a material modification to the subdivision is needed then the preliminary plat application may be required to be resubmitted for review, per BMC 38.100.070.B. (26) BMC.38.410.060.D.6. a notice must be recorded with the Final Plat stating that the agricultural water user facility easement are subject to the requirements of Section 70-17-112, MCA restricting interference with canal or ditch easements and that irrigation works are subject to Section 85-7-2211 and 85-7-2212, MCA regarding duties and liability. The notice must include language to assure the duties are binding upon all successors in interest and remain in effect until such time that the agricultural water user facility is abandoned in accordance with the requirements of Montana Law or alternative requirements are agreed to in writing by all applicable parties. The easements must be prepared as documents separate from a Final Plat but may be referenced on a Final Plat. (27) The Applicant must provide the necessary additional right-of-way for a separate left turn lane located in the east bound direction of Fallon Street at the intersection of Fallon Street and Ferguson Avenue prior to Final Plat approval. (28) The Applicant must provide a utility exhibit that shows the proposed layout of the subdivision's water, sewer, stormwater, and other relevant utilities that satisfies the City’s engineering design standards and specifications policy (DSSP) prior to Final Plat approval. If additional easement or right-of-way is required to satisfy DSSP requirements with the updated utility layout, the necessary right-of-way or easement must be provided prior to Final Plat approval. (29) The Applicant must add a note to the conditions of approval sheet of the Final Plat which states the following: “All stormwater infrastructure located in the subdivision (Insert Final Subdivision Name) including stormwater infrastructure located within the public right-of-way must be maintained by the property owners' association (Insert Final Property Owners Association Name as recorded in the CC&Rs)”. (30) The subdivisions stormwater maintenance plan must clearly state the following condition: “All stormwater infrastructure located in the subdivision (Insert Final Subdivision Name) including stormwater infrastructure located within the public right-of-way will be maintained by the property owners' association (Insert Final Property Owner's Association Name as recorded in the CC&Rs)." The approved stormwater plan must be incorporated into the property owners’ association documents and a copy of the documents demonstrating the inclusion of the stormwater maintenance plan must be provided prior to Final Plat approval. SECTION 4 - CODE REQUIREMENTS 1. The Final Plat must comply with State statute, Administrative Rules of Montana, the Bozeman Municipal Code and an adopted Ferguson Farms II Planned Unit Development. 2. Any unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as a condition 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. Sections 3 and 4 of this report identify conditions and code corrections necessary to meet all regulatory standards. 3. All easements, existing and proposed, must be accurately depicted and addressed on the Final Plat and in the Final Plat application. Public utilities must be located within dedicated street right of ways. Utility 297 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project 19027 Page 14 of 27 easements need to be provided and granted with the Final Plat in accordance with public and private design standards. SECTION 5 - RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE ACTIONS 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. On September 2, 2022, the Development Review Committee (DRC) determined that the application is adequate for continued review and found that application conforms to standards and is sufficient for approval with conditions and code provisions based on the staff analysis and findings described below in Section 6 of this report. The public hearing date for the Community Development Board was December 5, 2022 at 6:00pm. The hearing was held at City Hall, Commission Hearing Room and via WebEx with a WebEx link provided with the Community Development Board agenda. The public hearing date for the City Commission is March 7, 2023 at 6:00 PM. The hearing will be held at City Hall in the Commission Hearing Room. SECTION 6 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Applicable Subdivision Review Criteria, BMC Section 38.240.150.B. In considering applications for subdivision approval under this title, the Community Development Board, other relevant advisory boards and the City Commission shall consider the following criteria: 1. Compliance with the survey requirements of Part 4 of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act. The preliminary plat has been 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 outlined in Code Provision Number 1, the Final Plat must comply with State statute, Administrative Rules of Montana, and the Bozeman Municipal Code. A conditions of approval sheet must be included with the Final Plat and updated with any additional required notations as required by Preliminary Plat conditions or code provisions. 2. Compliance with the local subdivision regulations provided for in Part 5 of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act and review processes per BMC 38.240.150. a. The Final Plat must comply with the standards identified and referenced in the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC). This subdivision application does not meet specific Urban Mixed Use (UMU) zoning provisions of the BMC and, therefore, cannot be approved unless and until the Applicant’s requested Ferguson Farms II Preliminary Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) application is approved and a Final PUD is approved by the City Commission. Condition of Approval No. 1 requires the Final PUD approval prior to approval of this Preliminary Plat (PP). b. The Final Plat must comply with the standards of the BMC regarding streets, access and other Article 4 standards. As noted in Condition of Approval No. 1, the Director of Transportation and Engineering must grant the requested BMC Article 4 deviations and waivers as part of the P-PUD application before this Final Plat can be approved. Per Condition No. 2, legal access must be provided to all lots within the subdivision prior to approval of the Final Plat. 298 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project 19027 Page 15 of 27 c. The Applicant is advised in Code Provision No. 2 that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as a condition 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. Sections 3 and 4 of this report identify conditions and code provision corrections necessary to meet all municipal regulatory standards. Therefore, it is expected that upon City Commission approval of the requested P-PUD and upon satisfaction of all conditions and code corrections, the subdivision would comply with local subdivision regulations. 3. Compliance with the local subdivision review procedures provided for in Part 6 of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act. The Applicant requested subdivision review under the terms of 76-3-601 to 608 and BMC 38.240.150. The application was initially-received on August 29, 2019 and was deemed inadequate for further review. Revised application materials were received on January 2020, November 2021, April 2022, July 14, 2022 and August 24, 2022. The City deemed the application adequate for review on September 2, 2022. Public hearings are scheduled for October 3, 2022 for the Community Development Board and October 18, 2022 for the City Commission. The hearings before the Community Development Board and City Commission have been properly noticed as required by the BMC. 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 Community Development Board must forward a recommendation via a staff report to the City Commission who will make the final decision on the Applicant’s request. The final decision for a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat with more than 50 lots must be made within 80 working days of the date it was deemed adequate (September 2, 2022). Pursuant to BMC 38.240.130 the City Commission was to approve, conditionally approve or deny the subdivision application by November 20, 2022 unless there is a written extension from the developer, not to exceed one year. The Applicant requested this extension to work out details of the companion PUD application that affects the preliminary plat application. Public notice for this application was given as described in Appendix A beginning on September 9, 2022 and ending on October 18, 2022. As of the February 27, 2023 date of this staff report, no public comment has been received. On September 26, 2022, a staff report for the Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat was completed and forwarded with a recommendation of conditional approval for consideration to the Community Development Board. Compliance with Chapter 38, BMC and other relevant regulations. Community Development staff and the City’s Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the preliminary plat application against all applicable regulations of the BMC. Based on review of the DRC and the Department of Community Development all applicable regulations are met if all conditions of approval and BMC code requirements are satisfied and the P-PUD is approved and its own conditions and code provisions are satisfied. Pertinent code provisions and recommended conditions of approval are included in this report for your consideration in Sections 3 and 4 above. All municipal water and sewer facilities will conform to the regulations outlined by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and the requirements of the City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy and Public Works Standard Specifications, except for modifications approved by the Director of Transportation and Engineering as part of the Applicant’s P-PUD deviation/modification requests. 299 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project 19027 Page 16 of 27 4. Documentation of Compliance with BMC 38.220.060 to identify impacts to surrounding assets. A subdivision pre-application plan review was completed by the Development Review Committee (DRC) on June 9, 2021. The DRC found that more information was needed prior to the application going forward to preliminary plat. Revisions were submitted in January 2020, November 2021, April 2022, July 14, 2022, and August 25, 2022. This Preliminary Plat must address the review criteria of Section 76-3-608 (3)(a) and clearly identify potential impacts of the subdivision on agriculture, agricultural water user facilities, local services, the natural environment, wildlife, wildlife habitat and public health and safety. Those parameters are addressed in the following Section 38.220.060.A. 1 through 19. The Development Review Committee (DRC) completed a subdivision pre-application plan review and no variances were requested. Staff offers the following summary comments on the documents required by BMC 38.220.060. Staff offers the following summary comments on this supplemental information. 1. Surface Water. A portion of the agricultural irrigation ditch Maynard Border Ditch bisects the Site in a north-south orientation and flows in a northerly direction approximately 225 feet east of the western border of the property. This is a non-jurisdictional ditch and does not have any setback or discharge requirements. This open channel irrigation ditch would be relocated approximately 30 to 50-feet to the east and would remain an open channel, would be revegetated, and would be developed as an open space amenity of the development (see Attachment 2). Portions of the ditch would lie within the private open space Lots 4, 6 and 7 and public open space Lots 3, 5 and 8. By definition in Section 38.70.210, irrigation ditches are not deemed a naturally-occurring watercourse subject to the protections and provisions of wetlands. 2. Floodplains. Stormwater – There is an existing stormwater pond in the northwest corner of the Site that would be replaced with underground stormwater detention chambers and would discharge into the existing Maynard Border Ditch. The Ditch is a controlled irrigation conveyance facility and does not have an associated floodplain. All required permits for the ditch crossings would be obtained prior to the start of construction. The subdivision must construct storm water management and water quality facilities conforming to standards of the Bozeman Municipal Code. The maintenance of the stormwater facilities are the responsibility of the Property Owners’ Association (POA) as outlined in Conditions 7, 9, 28 and 29. Inspection of installed facilities prior to Final Plat will verify that standards have been met. Conditions 28 and 29 would ensure mitigation of post-development flood hazard areas and, therefore, no significant negative impacts to the natural environment are anticipated. Based on the project’s flood evaluation study findings, a certain amount of stormwater runoff will be generated by the development within the subdivision and will contribute to water levels in the Maynard Border Ditch which it is believed can be accommodated by the capacity of the culvert and open ditch. Conditions 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 23 and 25 assure that the Maynard Border Ditch is relocated and maintained properly to accommodate this flow. 3. Groundwater. Groundwater is known to be high in this area, at from 4.5 to 6 feet below ground surface. The Applicant provided monitoring wells to establish seasonal minimum and maximum groundwater depths. Groundwater degradation would be minimized through a series of underground infiltration chambers. These chambers would capture runoff from the parking areas and other hardscape features within the subdivision. Stormwater would then infiltrate and recharge the groundwater within the area. Because the site is in a potential area of high groundwater which may negatively impact future structures or cause illicit discharges into the sanitary sewer and over-burden the surface drainage system, Condition No. 13 prohibits crawl spaces or basement without first consulting a professional engineer certified in the State of Montana who would certify 300 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project 19027 Page 17 of 27 that groundwater would not harm these structures. This requirement would protect both future structure owners from future hazards of flooding and lessen burdens on the public from illicit discharges. 4. Geology, Soils and Slopes. The site is relatively flat. The soils present are loamy soils characterized by poor- draining to well-draining soils generally found in irrigated farmland. No streets would exceed 5% slope. 5. Vegetation. The property has been vacant for several years and has not been used agriculturally in the recent past. No critical vegetation species exist on the Site. The native grasses are occasionally mowed during the growing season for weed control. An approved weed management plan has been prepared by the Applicant and approved by the County Weed Management Department. Responsibility for weed management must be provided recorded with the subdivision Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R) document clarifying that the Property Owner Association (POA) is responsible for implementing and enforcing the weed management plan. There are some existing aspen and cottonwood trees in the vicinity of the Maynard Border Ditch. When possible, these trees would be preserved. 6. Wildlife. No animals listed under the “Animal Species of Special Concern”, (Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, 2003) have been observed or are known to occupy the property. Habitat most suitable for wildlife includes the area around the Maynard Border Ditch vegetation that would be removed. The relocated open irrigation ditch would be landscaped. 7. Agriculture. The property, previously in agricultural cultivation, has been fallow for a number of years. Due to development in the area and anticipation of development of the property by the owner, no agricultural practices have been performed on the property for several years. 8. Agricultural Water User Facilities. There is an agricultural irrigation ditch on the property which is proposed to be relocated on the Site with the permission of the ditch owner(s), the Maynard Border Ditch Company. The Maynard Border Ditch agricultural irrigation facility would be relocated on-site and would continue to flow as an open channel through the Site and would function as it has been per Conditions 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 23, 24 and 25. 9. Water and Sewer. Water rights exist for the subject property. Water for domestic use and fire protection will be provided by connections to the City of Bozeman water system. The proposed water mains will connect to existing water mains in Resort Drive, Fallon Street, and Ferguson Avenue. The Applicant proposes to contribute cash-in-lieu of water rights (CILWR) to the City which must be paid prior to approval of specific site plan(s) within the subdivision, per Condition No. 3. Sanitary sewer service will be provided through connection to the City of Bozeman’s existing sanitary sewer collection system. The sewer system will connect to the 8” main in Fallon Street at two locations and the 8” main in Resort Drive at one location. From there, sanitary sewage will be conveyed to and treated at the City of Bozeman’s Water Reclamation Facility. Per the Engineering Report for this subdivision, water and wastewater improvements would be designed to meet City standards and, with the recommended conditions of approval and code provisions, this subdivision would not significantly burden City water or sanitary sewer infrastructure. 10. Stormwater Management. Storm water within the subdivision will be conveyed via surface gutter flow to curb inlets, then underground via storm drain piping to underground stormwater retention and detention chambers in the Open Space parcels. The subdivision will not significantly impact stormwater infrastructure. The stormwater systems would be designed to meet City standards and would be maintained by the property owners association (POA) per Conditions 28 and 29. 301 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project 19027 Page 18 of 27 11. Streets, Roads and Alleys. a. Streets – The proposed Ferguson Farm II PUD Subdivision has legal access onto Huffine Lane, Resort Drive, Ferguson Avenue, and Fallon Street. The proposed roads will match the established (existing) street grid structure and be within dedicated rights-of-way (ROW). Local streets will have the standard 60’ right-of-way except for small portions of Valley Commons Drive and Brookfield Avenue where the right-of-way is 101’ and 85’, respectively. Four way stops will be installed along Resort Drive where Field Street and Valley Commons Drive intersect Resort Drive. 302 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project 19027 Page 19 of 27 Per the recommendation of a geotechnical engineer, the pavement design section for the Ferguson Farm II Subdivision is 3” asphalt surface course over 6” of 1-1/2” minus crushed gravel base course over 18” of 6” minus pit run sub-base course. This section will be checked per the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures when during the construction design development. Road maintenance for all streets will be provided by the Property Owner’s Association after the improvements have been accepted by the City. Erosion and siltation control will be exercised during construction by using the appropriate best management practices as outlined in “Montana Sediment and Erosion Control Manual” (May 1993) prepared by the MDEQ Water Quality Bureau. ATS performed a trip generation analysis to determine the anticipated future traffic volumes from the development using the trip generation rates contained in Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, Tenth Edition). These rates are the national standard and are based on the most current information available to planners. A vehicle “trip” is defined as any trip that either begins or ends at the development site. ATS determined that the critical traffic impacts on the intersections and roadways would occur during the weekday morning and evening peak hours. At full development the Ferguson Farm II development would produce 976 AM peak hour trips, 1,337 PM peak hour trips, and 13,066 daily trips. The 2020 Bozeman Community Plan/Growth Policy and subdivision standards require adequate connectivity of a development to the street grid. Access to the Site would be taken from the following public roads that abut the Site: Huffine Lane, Ferguson Avenue, Fallon Street, Ravalli Street, and Resort Drive. A new extension of Valley Commons Drive would be extended through the Site in an east-west direction. Lot access must meet City standards per Condition numbers 2 and 15 and access must be improved to accommodate development-generated traffic per Conditions 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26 and 27. Condition 3 requires the Applicant to record waivers to applicable Special Improvement Districts is established to serve the project and area including Street improvements to Ferguson Avenue, Huffine Lane, Fallon Street, Ravalli Street, Resort Drive; intersection improvements to Ravalli and Fallon streets, Resort and Fallon streets, Ferguson and Fallon streets, and Ferguson and Huffine streets. b. Parking Conditions – The PUD that enables this subdivision provides several BMC waivers and deviations. These include: (1) no minimum or maximum number of required parking spaces; (2) minimum landscape screening of surface parking lots that border the subdivision; (3) common parking areas for all tenants, workers and visitors to the Site; (4) condominium parking spaces within structured parking garages located within surface parking lots; and (5) “back-in” angled parking spaces along internal streets. The back-in angled parking must be approved by the Director of Transportation and Engineering as noted in Conditions 12 and 14. c. Walkability, Transit and Bikeability. This subdivision provides a sidewalk along the bordering public streets mentioned above as well as along internal streets. The Class I shared use trails abutting the subdivision along the Huffine Lane and Ferguson Avenue frontages must be widened from 8 feet to 10 feet. Eight feet wide Class I trails shall be installed along the Fallon Street and Resort Drive frontages concurrent with any first phase construction of this subdivision per Condition No. 16. A traffic analysis for this subdivision revealed that certain improvements and upgrades are needed to adequately serve the proposed development within this subdivision and to mitigate potential adverse impacts to the traveling public as noted in Conditions 19, 20, 21, 22, 26 and 27. With Conditions 2, 20, 21, 22, 26 and 28, the subdivision would not significantly impact the City’s street infrastructure. 303 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project 19027 Page 20 of 27 12. Utilities. This subdivision would not significantly impact utilities. Standard 10-ft utility easements would be provided across all lots. All public and private utilities are available in the area to serve this subdivision. 13. Land Use. This subdivision proposes 9 block and 66 lots consisting of the following uses: 43 lots for commercial uses, 14 open space lots and 9 lots for structured parking. 14. Parks and Recreation Facilities. Parkland dedication is not required of this wholly commercial development. Should residential use be proposed in the future, as a site plan application of any of the lots, parkland would be required. However, 14 publicly-accessible open space lots spread throughout the subdivision would be provided. 15. Neighborhood Center Plan. Neighborhood centers are required for subdivisions of 10-acres or more per 38.410.020. This subdivision is 31-acres and proposes a neighborhood center within the subdivision located along the Maynard Border Ditch amenity as shown in Attachment B. This neighborhood center would be connected by Open Space Lots 7,9,10 and 11 and would feature a skyline bridge above the Ditch. Benches and other pedestrian facilities would be constructed within the skyline bridge to allow pedestrians to relax and enjoy views of the surrounding viewscapes. 16. Lighting Plan. No lights are proposed around the perimeter of the subdivision except at the road intersections with Huffine Lane, Ferguson Avenue, Fallon Street, and Resort Drive. Internally, there are street lights along the local streets and within the parking lots. The lights are spaced to provide adequate security lighting and provide safe illumination for pedestrians walking after dark. The preliminary lighting plan for streets and alleys therein is in accordance with the requirements of the BMC. Each light spacing and design would meet City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy. 17. Miscellaneous. a. Health and Safety. With the recommended conditions of approval and required code provisions, the subdivision is not expected to adversely impact public health and safety. The intent of the regulations in Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) is to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. The subdivision has been reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC) which has determined that it is in general compliance with the BMC standards, as amended by the proposed Preliminary PUD, and with recommended conditions and code provisions. Conditions deemed necessary to ensure compliance have been noted throughout this staff report. Code provisions Numbers 1 and 2 require full compliance with all applicable State and BMC code requirements. All subdivisions must be reviewed against the criteria listed in 76-3-608.3.b-d, Montana Code Annotated (MCA) and as a result, the Department of Community Development has reviewed this application against the listed criteria and further provides the following summary from Applicant submittal materials and requirements. It is noted that all infrastructure would meet City standards as amended by the approved P-PUD and as approved by the Director of Transportation and Engineering per the P-PUD requests. b. Historical Features. Damon Murdo, Cultural Records Manager of the Montana Historical Society, has not noted any previously designated cultural properties in the area. If any historic items are discovered during construction, the State Historic Preservation Office would be contacted. 18. Affordable Housing. Not applicable. There is no residential use proposed for this subdivision. 304 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project 19027 Page 21 of 27 19. Adopted Growth Policy Consistency. Project Site zoning and Growth Policy implications: The subdivision land (Site) is designated “Community Commercial Mixed Use” in the Bozeman Community Plan Future Land Use Map. This category is intended to “promote commercial areas necessary for economic health and vibrancy. This includes professional and personal services, retail, education, health services, offices, public administration, and tourism establishments. Density is expected to be higher than it is currently in most commercial areas in Bozeman and should include multi-story buildings. Residences on upper floors, in appropriate circumstances, are encouraged. The urban character expected in this designation includes urban streetscapes, plazas, outdoor seating, public art, and hardscaped open space and park amenities. High density residential areas are expected in close proximity. Developments in this land use area should be located on one or two quadrants of intersections of the arterial and/or collector streets and integrated with transit and non-automotive routes. Due to past development patterns, there are also areas along major streets where this category is organized as a 305 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project 19027 Page 22 of 27 corridor rather than a center. Although a broad range of uses may be appropriate in both types of locations, the size and scale is to be smaller within the local service areas. Building and site designs made to support easy reuse of the building and site over time is important. Mixed use areas should be developed in an integrated, pedestrian friendly manner and should not be overly dominated by any single use. Higher intensity uses are encouraged in the core of the area or adjacent to significant streets and intersections. Building height or other methods of transition may be required for compatibility with adjacent development. Smaller neighborhood scale areas are intended to provide local service to an area of approximately one half-mile to one mile radius as well as passersby. These smaller centers support and help give identity to neighborhoods by providing a visible and distinct focal point as well as employment and services. Densities of nearby homes needed to support this scale are an average of 14 to 22 dwellings per net acre.” Staff Comment: The Site is zoned Urban Mixed Use (UMU) which is an implementing zoning district for the Community Commercial Mixed Use Future Land Use designation. The subject property was annexed to the City in 2000 by the Applicant and it was initially-zoned Business Park (B-P) District. In March 2006, the Applicant submitted a zoning text amendment application to create a new zoning district called Urban Mixed Use District (UMU). In August 2007, by Ordinance No. 1681, the Urban Mixed Use District (UMU) was established. In April 2008, at the request of the Applicant, the 31-acre subject property was rezoned from B-P, Business Park District to the new UMU District by Ordinance No. 1745. This is the only UMU-zoned land in the City. According to the Bozeman Municipal Code/ Unified Development Code: “Urban mixed-use zoning district (UMU) The intent and purposes of the UMU urban mixed-use district are to establish areas within the city that are mixed-use in character, and to set forth certain minimum standards for development within those areas which encourage vertical mixed-use development with high density. The purpose in having an urban mixed-use district is to provide options for a variety of employment, retail and community service opportunities within the community, with incorporated opportunity for some residential uses, while providing predictability in uses and standards to landowners and residents. There is a rebuttable presumption that the uses set forth for each district will be compatible both within the individual districts and with adjoining zoning districts when the standards of this chapter are met and any applicable conditions of approval have been satisfied. Additional requirements for development apply within overlay districts. 1. It is the further the intent of this district to: a. Allow complementary land uses which encourage mixed uses on individual floors including, but not limited to, retail, offices, commercial services, restaurants, bars, hotels, recreation and civic uses, and housing, to create economic and social vitality and to encourage the linking of trips; b. Foster the development of vertically oriented mixed uses, in contrast to single use development distributed along high vehicle capacity roadways; c. Encourage development that exhibits the physical design characteristics of vibrant, urban, pedestrian-oriented, storefront-style shopping streets with pedestrian amenities; d. Provide roadway and pedestrian connections to residential areas; e. Provide appropriate locations and design standards for automobile and truck-dependent uses; f. Create central urban gathering places such as community squares or plazas; g. Allow for urban oriented recreational activities consistent with the standards and intent of the district; and 306 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project 19027 Page 23 of 27 h. To encourage and support the use of sustainable building practices. 2. To accomplish the intent of the district, the UMU district should ideally be located at the intersections of major traffic corridors; that is, at the intersections of two arterials, or, less frequently, an arterial and a collector street. The major intersections should have or be planned to have a stop light or other active traffic control. While placement at major intersections is a necessary precondition, not all major intersections should have the UMU district adjacent to them. Additionally, placement of this district should be adjacent or near to dense residential development to enhance walking and bicycle use.” Sec. 38.330.010. UMU district—Special standards. A. A UMU district is anticipated to generally be not less than 20 acres in area. The city may approve a lesser area of not less than ten acres upon finding that a smaller area will still provide for adequate transition between adjacent districts, provide a reasonable community setting for the intensity of the district, and that a smaller area will not constitute spot zoning. B. The district must be surrounded by perimeter streets unless precluded by topography. C. Block frontages and building orientation. See division 38.510 for applicable standards for all development types. D. Site planning and design element standards. See division 38.520 for applicable standards for all development types. E. Building standards. 1. Building design. See division 38.520 for applicable standards for all development types. 2. Floor-to-floor heights and floor area of ground-floor space. a. All commercial floor space provided on the ground floor of a mixed-use building must have a minimum floor-to-ceiling height of 13 feet. [changed to 15 feet floor to floor height] b. All commercial floor space provided on the ground floor of a mixed-use building must contain the following minimum floor area: (1) At least 800 square feet or 25 percent of the lot area (whichever is greater) on lots with street frontage of less than 50 feet; or (2) At least 20 percent of the lot area on lots with street frontage of 50 feet or more. 3. Street-level openings on parking structures must be limited to those necessary for retail store entrances, vehicle entrance and exit lanes, and pedestrian entrances to stairs and elevator lobbies. Parking structures adjacent to streets must have architectural detailing such as, but not limited to, standard size masonry units such as brick, divided openings to give the appearance of windows, and other techniques to provide an interesting and human-scaled appearance on the story adjacent to the sidewalk. F. Special parking standards. 1. Maximum surface parking. a. In order to achieve the intent of the district and achieve efficiency in the use of land, surface parking provided for the sole use of an individual development must not exceed 100 percent of the minimum parking requirement for the subject land use based upon 307 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project 19027 Page 24 of 27 the requirements of division 38.540 of this chapter. The UMU district may utilize the parking reductions authorized in section 38.540.050.2.c.1. All qualifying reductions must be included in determining the 100 percent requirement. b. Exemptions to section 38.330.010.G.1.a, to allow unstructured surface parking up to 100 percent of the minimum parking requirement exclusive of reductions may be approved through the development review process for developments that provide shared parking to other development, valet parking spaces, parking for off-site users for which an hourly or other regular rent is paid, or similarly managed parking facilities. 2. Structured parking incentive. A floor area bonus of one square foot may be granted for each square foot of area of parking provided within a building. Additional height of building is allowed to accommodate this additional building area per Table 38.320.050. 3. Bicycle parking. Covered bicycle parking must be provided. The covered spaces must be at least one-half of the total minimum bicycle parking. The minimum number of covered spaces must be the greater of either ten bicycle parking spaces or five percent of motor vehicle parking provided on-site. G. Lighting. All building entrances, pathways, and other pedestrian areas must be lit with pedestrian- scale lighting (e.g., wall mounted, sidewalk lamps, bollards, landscaping lighting, etc.). Alternative lighting meeting the intent of the design guidelines and other criteria of this chapter may be approved through site development review. H. Public spaces. The UMU district is urban in nature. Public parks and recreational areas are likewise expected to be urban in nature. This will include elements such as plazas or other hardscapes, landscaping with planters, furniture, developed recreation facilities such as basketball and tennis courts or indoor recreation facilities, and will be more concentrated in size and development than anticipated in a less urban setting. The requirements of this section give direction in the development of park plans and the application of the standards of division 38.420 of this chapter. The parkland dedication requirements of division 38.420 of this chapter may be satisfied by a cumulative contribution of land and the value of on-site improvements to create spaces with the characteristics and functions described in this section. Development within the UMU district may also utilize any of the options of sections 38.420.030 and 38.420.100 to satisfy the requirements of section 38.420.020.A. The requirements of this section must prevail if these standards conflict with the application of the standards of article 4 of this chapter. 1. Public spaces must be designed to facilitate at least three of the following types of activities to encourage consistent human presence and activity. 2. Public spaces must be designed to: a. Facilitate social interaction between and within groups; b. Provide safe, pleasant, clean and convenient sitting spaces adaptable to changing weather conditions; c. Be attractive to multiple age groups; d. Provide for multiple types of activities without conflicting; e. Support organized activities; f. Be visually distinctive and interesting; g. Interconnect with other public and private spaces; and 308 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project 19027 Page 25 of 27 h. Prioritize use by persons. Staff Evaluation: The proposed 31-acre subdivision is a wholly commercial development with 72 lots consisting of 49 buildable lots, 14 open space lots, 9 parking lots and roads and alleys. The Community Commercial Mixed Use Community Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation would recommend residential uses within the mix of land uses, however, it is not required. The UMU, Urban Mixed Use zoning designation would also recommend residential uses as part of the mix of land uses, but it is not required. Should an individual developer of a particular lot choose to include residential uses, both the FLUM and the UMU zoning would allow it. The requested Preliminary Planned Unit Development (P-PUD) deviations would not preclude it within this development. Except for the requested deviations in development standards and mix of uses, the P-PUD would be consistent with the Community Commercial Mixed Use land use designation. 5. The provision of legal access and easements to and within the subdivision for the location and installation of any necessary utilities. Condition of Approval No. 2 requires the Applicant to provide legal and physical access to each lot pursuant to UDC and State Statute. Code Provision No. 3 requires all easements, existing and proposed, must be accurately depicted and addressed on the Final Plat and in the Final Plat application. Public utilities must be located within dedicated street right of ways. Utility easements need to be provided and granted with the Final Plat in accordance with public and private design standards. 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. Access to the property is from Ferguson Avenue, Huffine Lane, Fallon Street and Resort Drive which are City-owned and maintained roads. However, within the subdivision, there are 6 lots to be developed exclusively for structured parking that do not have legal and physical access to a public street as required by BMC Section 38.400.090.B.2 and State Statute. These 6 lots are shown below in Figure 8. The Preliminary PUD requests a waiver from this requirement. However, due to State Statutes, legal and physical access to a public or publicly-accessible street or alley or “green corridor” must be provided to each lot. This requirement cannot be waived. Some form of legal access must be provided to each lot per Condition No. 2. Condition of Approval No. 1 requires that the PUD with the appropriate deviations or waivers must be granted by the Director of Transportation and Engineering and approved by the City Commission prior to approval by the City Commission of this subdivision Final Plat. 309 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project 19027 Page 26 of 27 FISCAL EFFECTS No unusual fiscal effects have been identified. No presently budgeted funds are anticipated to be changed by this subdivision. APPENDIX A – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT Notice was provided at least 15 and not more than 45 days prior to the Community Development Board and City Commission public hearings. Pursuant to BMC 38.220.420, notice was provided by posting the site, mailing by certified mail to the Applicant and adjacent property owners and by first class mail to all other owners within 200 feet on September 9, 2022. The site was posted with a notice on September 9, 2022 and a legal advertisement was published in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on September 11 and 18, 2022. Content of the notice contained all elements required by Article 38.220., BMC. Due to an error in the updating of the adjacent property owner mailing list, a second public notice period and mailing was initiated on November 4, 2022, with an updated mailing list. The second public notice period is from November 4, 2022 to December 20, 2022. At the request of the Applicant, the City Commission re- scheduled the hearing on the Preliminary Plat and the PUD to March 7, 2023. No public comment has been received at the time of the writing of this staff report on February 27, 2023. Figure 8: 310 City Commission Staff Report for Ferguson Farms II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat; Project 19027 Page 27 of 27 APPENDIX B - OWNER INFORMATION Owner/Applicant: Boardwalk Properties, Inc, 101 E. Main Street, Suite D, Bozeman, MT 59715; delaney@delaneynco.com Combs Capital LC, 1095 Cougar Drive, Bozeman, MT 59718 Representative: Tyler Steinway, Intrinsik Architecture, 106 East Babcock Avenue, Suite 1A, Bozeman, MT 59715, tsteinway@intrinsikarchitecture.com Report By: Susana Montana, Senior Planner, smontana@bozeman.net Staff Engineer: Cody Flammond, cflammond@bozeman.net ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Applicant’s Application Narration Full Project Description Subdivision Plat Sheets 1 through 4 (separately) The full application and file of record can be viewed digitally at https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/Browse.aspx?startid=203350&cr=1 311 ΔΔR.O.W. (AC)LOTS (AC)OS (AC)TOTAL (AC)7.6817.575.7731.02312 313 ΔΔROAD NAMEROAD NAMEANGLEVALLEY COMMONS DR.C-BAR-3 AVENUE90.0°VALLEY COMMONS DR.BROOKFIELD AVENUE60.0°90.0°FIELD STREETRAVALLI STREET314 315 Memorandum REPORT TO:City Commission FROM:Anna Bentley, Director of Community Development SUBJECT:Appeal of an Administrative Interpretation Regarding Compliance with Site Lighting Code Sections 38.570.040.G.1, 38.570.040.G.6, 38.570.060.A.3, and 38.570.100 of the Bozeman Municipal Code, Appeal Number 22382 MEETING DATE:March 7, 2023 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Community Development - Quasi-Judicial RECOMMENDATION:Uphold the Director's determination that PureWest Christies' site lighting is in compliance with the Bozeman Municipal Code. Having reviewed and considered the staff report, appeal materials, the record of review, public comment, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for appeal number 22382, and uphold the Community Development Director’s decision. 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:This appeal application was submitted by Renee Callahan and David Weston on behalf of themselves and eight other individuals who own property near the PWC building, seeking to overturn the Director of Community Development's determination that PWC's site lighting is in compliance with the BMC. Beginning in October, 2021 city staff have investigated several allegations of non-compliance regarding PWC's site lighting made by the Appellants. The City notified PWC of three violations of code and worked with PWC to remedy the violations. The City notified the Appellants by letters on June 8, 2022 and October 31, 2022 of the results of the investigation, including the violations that had been found and resolved as well as the determination that PWC was not in violation of several other sections of code. Appellants appeal the Director's determination regarding four provisions of code: 38.570.040.G.1, 38.570.040.G.6, 38.570.060.A.3, and 38.570.100. Appellants seek to overturn the Director's decision, require the City to reinspect the roof peak and monument lights when they are turned back on, and request a refund of their appeal application fee if the Commission determines that the appeal should be delayed pending PWC's completion of its promised 316 adjustments. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:PureWest Christies' (PWC) roof peak light and monument light have been turned off for several months. When PWC turns on its roof peak and monument lights, city staff can re-inspect the lights for compliance with the BMC. Any re-inspection will not affect prior determinations of prior compliance, rather a new inspection will constitute a new compliance investigation. ALTERNATIVES:1. Uphold the Director's decision as presented in the October 31, 2022 letter; 2. Amend the Director's decision after making alternative findings and grant appropriate relief; or 3. Overturn the Director's decision. Find that the Director's decision was in error, make alternative findings, and grant the Appellants' requested relief or other relief as determined by the Commission. FISCAL EFFECTS:None. Attachments: 22382 Appeal Staff Report.pdf PWC Notice of Violation.pdf June 8, 2022 ltr to Weston.pdf October 31, 2022 ltr to Weston.pdf ATTACHMENT A.pdf ATTACHMENT B.pdf ATTACHMENT C.pdf ATTACHMENT D.pdf ATTACHMENT E.pdf ATTACHMENT F.pdf ATTACHMENT G.pdf ATTACHMENT H.pdf ATTACHMENT I.pdf ATTACHMENT J.pdf ATTACHMENT K.pdf ATTACHMENT L.pdf Report compiled on: February 24, 2023 317 Staff Report for the Appeal of an Administrative Interpretation Regarding Compliance with Site Lighting Code Sections 38.570.040.G.1 and 38.570.040.G.6, 38.570.060.A.3, and 38.570.100 of the Bozeman Municipal Code, Appeal Application Number 22382 Public Hearing Date(s): The City Commission will hear the appeal on March 7, 2023 at 6:00 pm. Description: An appeal of the Director of Community Development’s (Director) decision issued on October 31, 2022 that PureWest Christies (PWC) site lighting is compliant with the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC). Location: PureWest Christies is located at 708 N. Rouse Ave. Recommendation: Uphold the Director’s determination that PWC’s site lighting is in compliance with the BMC. Recommended Commission Motion: Having reviewed and considered the staff report, appeal materials, the record of review, public comment, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for appeal number 22382, and uphold the Community Development Director’s decision. Report Date: February 27, 2023 Staff Contact: Anna Bentley, Community Development Director Agenda Item Type: Action – Quasi Judicial EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Unresolved Issues PWC’s roof peak light and monument light have been turned off for several months and are currently compliant in part because they are not in use and emit no light. As explained below in this staff report, when PWC turns on its roof peak and monument lights, the City can re-inspect the lights for compliance with the BMC. However, any re-inspection will not affect prior determinations of prior compliance. Any future inspections will constitute a new compliance investigation. Appeal Summary This appeal application was submitted on November 30, 2022 by Renee Callahan and David Weston on behalf of themselves and eight other individuals who own property near the PWC building (Appellants). Although the Appellants’ initial complaint alleged multiple violations 318 Staff Report for Appeal Number 22382 2 of various BMC sections, the appeal focuses on the Director’s decisions regarding PWC’s compliance with four sections of code: 38.570.040.G.1 and G.6, as well as 38.570.060.A.3, and 38.570.100. First, Appellants contend that the Director erred in finding that PWC’s roof peak light does not “create a nuisance by projecting or reflecting objectionable light onto a neighboring use or property,” and is compliant with section 38.570.040.G.1, BMC. Appellants argue the determination should be made in accordance with a “reasonable person” standard. Next, the appeal states that “the Director arbitrarily ignores other ‘site lighting’ requirements set forth in BMC 38.570.040.G, including G.6’s plain and unequivocal requirement that ‘fixtures used to illuminate signs must be [mounted at the top of the sign and] aimed [downward] so as to not project their output beyond the sign’.” Third, although Appellants recognize that the PWC’s roof peak light “is currently and has been off for a couple of months,” they assert that the Director “concludes that the light is currently in compliance based in part on PWC’s promise to work with its ‘architect to determine the best way to redirect the light” and in so doing have “deprived complainants of the ability to independently assess compliance’.” Finally, in a footnote Appellants raise two additional claims for which they seek relief. With respect to the monument light and wall mounted lights, Appellants contend that the Director’s decision “arbitrarily ignores what appears to be a clear violation of BMC 38.570.060.A.3 and 38.570.100’s prohibition on any ‘light output emitted above 90 degrees at any lateral angle around the fixture.’” As with their assertion regarding the roof peak light, Appellants state that they are “unable to independently assess compliance of the Monument Lights because they are currently off pending replacement.” Appellants ask the Commission for the following relief with regard to the roof peak light: either (1) direct that the light be re-assessed, once it is turned on, for compliance with code requirements; or (2) require PWC to turn the roof peak light fixture back on during an on- site investigation and appellate review by the Commission, for purposes of confirming whether it is currently in compliance. With regard to the monument and wall mounted lights, Appellants similarly request their re-evaluation at the same time as the roof peak lights. Application materials can be viewed at the following link: https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=272315&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN Notice and Public Comment Notice of the City Commission hearing on this matter was published in accordance with BMC table 38.220.440. No public comment has been received on this application as of the writing of this report. Alternatives 1. Uphold the Director’s decision as presented in the October 31, 2022 letter; 2. Amend the Director’s decision after making alternative findings and grant appropriate relief; or 319 Staff Report for Appeal Number 22382 3 3. Overturn the Director’s decision. Find that the Director’s decision was in error, make alternative findings, and grant the Appellants’ requested relief or other relief as determined by the Commission. 320 Staff Report for Appeal Number 22382 4 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1 Unresolved Issues ........................................................................................................ 1 Appeal Summary.......................................................................................................... 1 Public Comment........................................................................................................... 2 Alternatives.................................................................................................................. 2 SECTION 1 - PHOTOS ..................................................................................................... 5 SECTION 2 - ANALYSIS OF 38.570.040.G.1 ................................................................... 8 SECTION 3 - ANALYSIS OF 38.570.040.G.6 ..................................................................10 SECTION 4 - ANALYSIS OF 38.570.060.A.3 AND 38.570.100 .......................................12 FISCAL EFFECTS ...........................................................................................................13 ATTACHMENTS ............................................................................................................13 321 Staff Report for Appeal Number 22382 5 SECTION 1 - PHOTOS Photo A: Reference photo of PWC’s various lights and locations. 322 Staff Report for Appeal Number 22382 6 Photo B: PWC Building with holiday lights taken on December 29, 2022 at 8:28 p.m. 323 Staff Report for Appeal Number 22382 7 Photo C: PWC Building taken on December 29, 2022 at 11:09 p.m. 324 Staff Report for Appeal Number 22382 8 SECTION 2 – ANALYSIS OF 38.570.040.G.1 Appellants’ contention - that the Director’s decision regarding BMC section 38.570.040.G.1 is in error because a “reasonable person” standard should be used to determine what constitutes objectionable light, rather than the Director - is misplaced for several reasons. First, the code expressly delegates authority for the enforcement of the unified development code to the Director of Community Development. The City’s development code incorporates technical standards and requirements that are best enforced by someone with professional training and experience. Second, the “reasonable person” standard is applied in certain types of civil cases to determine liability, but the BMC provides criminal penalties for violations, rendering the “reasonable person” standard inappropriate. Third, individuals have other means of redressing their complaints, such as in a private lawsuit to declare a nuisance. The BMC is clear and direct in assigning authority for evaluation of code violations and enforcement of the code to the Director of Community Development. In its entirety, section 38.200.020 of the BMC provides: Sec. 38.200.020. Administration and enforcement; community development director authority. A. The community development director must administer and enforce this chapter unless a specific standard is clearly assigned in section 38.200.010 to another authority. The community development director may be provided with the assistance of such other persons as the community development director may supervise and those assistants will have the responsibilities as directed by the community development director. B. The community development director may in the administration of this chapter consult with other persons having expertise in relevant subject areas as in the community development director's opinion is necessary for the review of the proposed development or administration of the chapter. When an authority other than the community development director is assigned responsibility for a particular standard that authority must coordinate with the community development director in administration of that standard. C. If the community development director or other administrator of standards finds that any of the provisions of this chapter are being violated, they must notify in writing the person responsible for such violations, indicating the nature of the violation and ordering the action necessary to correct it. Such 325 Staff Report for Appeal Number 22382 9 administrator may order discontinuance of illegal use of land, illegal additions, alterations or structural changes; may order discontinuance of any illegal work being done; or may take any other action authorized by this chapter to ensure compliance with or prevent violation of its provisions. Additionally, BMC section 38.200.030 states, “This chapter is enforced by the community development director and authorized representatives. No development approval, subdivision approval, building permit or business or occupational use license may be issued, except in compliance with the provisions of this chapter.” (Emphasis added) The BMC has many technical requirements that necessitate enforcement by a person possessing technical expertise. For example, the use of footcandles as a measurement of light output and the requirement to submit photometric plans as part of the review of certain development applications illustrate the code’s technical requirements. The Department has purchased specialized instruments to measure light output and provided training to staff to use the instrument correctly. An ordinary citizen, or “reasonable person,” would not normally have access to either the equipment or the specialized knowledge to accurately use and decipher its results. In this case, the Director considered objective information in reaching the conclusion that the roof peak light did not create a nuisance, including the mixed commercial and residential zoning and development of the neighborhood, the lighting fixtures’ specifications, footcandle readings, and the opinion of police personnel that the light did not create a hazard for drivers or pedestrians. Among a variety of options, the UDC provides authority for the Director to enforce code violations as a criminal matter, subject to criminal penalties that may include imprisonment. Section 38.200.160.A provides: Violation of the provisions of this chapter or failure to comply with any of its requirements including violations of conditions of approval imposed by the review authority is a misdemeanor. Any person who violates this chapter or fails to comply with any of its requirements may upon conviction thereof be fined or imprisoned or both, either as set forth in state law regarding subdivision and zoning, or in accordance with section 1.01.210, and in addition must pay all costs and expenses involved in the case except as stated in subsection D of this section. Similarly, state zoning laws do not adopt a reasonable person standard. See Montana Code Annotated Title 76, Chapter 2, Part 3 Municipal Zoning. The Montana Supreme Court has applied an “abuse of discretion” standard in appeals from a Board of 326 Staff Report for Appeal Number 22382 10 Adjustments decision to a court of record, which necessarily implies that the finder of fact, in this case the Director, has the discretion to make determinations. The courts decline to reverse those determinations except when the determination constitutes an abuse of the fact finder’s discretion. As opposed to the heightened burden of proof required to prove guilt in a criminal context, the “reasonable person” standard advocated by Appellants is most closely affiliated with civil negligence claims and refers to exercising the same care that an ordinary person would under the same or similar circumstances. The reasonable person standard is not adopted in the UDC and it is inappropriate to apply to violations of code that may be enforced as a criminal misdemeanor. Finally, other remedies are available in the law for a neighbor to address a situation such as this outside of City code. The Appellants disagree with the Director’s interpretation and application of City code that PWC’s light does not constitute a public nuisance, but that does not mean that the Director’s determinations were in error nor does it leave the Appellants without other recourse. The “reasonable person” standard is not adopted in City code and is not an avenue for re-evaluating the Director’s decision in this municipal appeal. Appellants could pursue other remedies available in the law (e.g., mediation, civil claims) that could rely on a “reasonable person” standard. The BMC is unambiguous in assigning the Director authority for determining violations and enforcing the provisions of the UDC, including what constitutes an objectionable amount of light shining on a neighboring property. As much as Appellants would like to take a more active role in interpreting the code and assessing violations of it, the code does not assign that authority to citizens, nor does it employ a “reasonable person” standard. The Director’s determination that PWC’s lights are not in violation of BMC section 38.570.040.G.1 is reasonable and should be upheld. SECTION 3 – ANALYSIS OF 38.570.040.G.6 The appeal incorrectly states that the Director’s assessment of whether the roof peak light is objectionable “arbitrarily ignores other ‘site lighting’ requirements set forth in BMC 38.570.040.G, including G.6’s plain and unequivocal requirement that ‘fixtures used to illuminate signs must be [mounted at the top of the sign and] aimed [downward] so as not to project their output beyond the sign.’” To the contrary, the Director addressed every single subsection (1-7) of the code and explained at length how each subsection was either found in violation and remedied or was not found in violation. The City addressed sections G.1, 3, and 5 with a Notice of Violation letter to PWC. As 327 Staff Report for Appeal Number 22382 11 explained in the October 31, 2022 letter, each of those violations has been remedied. Additionally, Attachment G to the October 31, 2022 letter addresses Appellants’ assertions that PWC’s roof peak light also violates sections G.1, 4, and 7 on pages 5 -8. Further, pages 9 and 10 of the October 31, 2022 letter address Appellants’ assertions that the roof peak light violates sections G.2, 6, and 7. Please see the responses to each subsection of 38.570.040.G in the above referenced documents, which are attached to this staff report as the record of review, for a full discussion of the Director’s conclusions and disposition of each. The light fixture is the focus of the requirements found in subsection G.6, which provides: Externally illuminated wall-mounted and pole signs must be lighted by fixtures mounted at the top of the sign and aimed downward; ground-mounted sign lighting may be used for only monument style signs. Fixtures used to illuminate signs must not be aimed so as not to project their output beyond the sign. As shown in the lighting cut sheet provided on Attachment G, page 5 of the October 31, 2022 letter and photos taken by City staff, the roof peak light on PWC’s building is compliant. It has always been mounted at the top of the sign and aimed downward toward PWC’s wall-mounted sign. Some photos submitted by the Appellants appear to depict light projecting beyond the sign. In contrast, a photo taken by City staff on August 16, 2022 (included in Attachment G to the October 31, 2022 letter), without using any filter or alteration, clearly depicts the roof peak light shining downward with its light shining on, if not just above, the sign. PWC has since turned off the roof peak light entirely while it works to adjust the roof peak light to shine more directly on the sign, as depicted in the City’s December 29, 2022 photos included in this staff report.1 After evaluating the light fixture’s specifications, light meter readings, and photos taken by the City when the roof peak light was illuminated, the Director reasonably concluded that the light was fully compliant with subsection G.6, including its prohibition on projecting light beyond the sign. The determination of compliance was not based upon PWC’s future promise to adjust the light. A light that is currently turned off completely, which has no output at all, is inherently in compliance with the requirements of subsection G.6. The determinations at issue in this appeal should be upheld. Appellants argue that the roof peak light could be in violation when it is turned back on. Just as the City investigated and responded to past complaints about the roof peak light, the City can reassess the light once it is adjusted and illuminated again. No determination has been made about its future compliance; to date, only the roof peak 1 Appellants correctly point out an inconsistency in the October 31, 2022 letter on pages 4 and 5. In fact, PWC has not yet adjusted the light to shine more directly on the sign. PWC has stated that until the light is adjusted to more directly shine on the sign, the roof peak light will remain off. 328 Staff Report for Appeal Number 22382 12 light’s past illumination and its current state have been deemed in compliance based on objective evidence as detailed throughout this staff report. Although the City is willing to reassess the roof peak light once it is turned back on, effectively granting a portion of Appellants’ requested relief, a future re-inspection of the light does not alter the Director’s decision regarding compliance of the light as of the October 31, 2022 determination letter, nor does it amount to a delay of the resolution of this dispute as suggested in footnote 3 of the appeal. Accordingly, the application fee for this appeal should not be refunded. Considerable City staff time and resources were dedicated to the investigation and extensive communications with the Appellants, including processing this appeal and preparing materials for this hearing. Therefore, Appellants’ request for a refund of the filing fee for this application should be denied. SECTION 4 – ANALYSIS OF 38.570.060.A.3 AND 38.570.100 As explained in detail in Exhibit G to the October 31, 2022 letter, the City reviewed the wall mounted light fixtures installed on the PWC building and even included a figure showing the precise light and its specifications. These lights are designed to light horizontal areas, such as sidewalks and entrances. Appellants rely on Attachment 3 to the appeal application that “project[s] skyward light that illuminates surrounding trees ~40 feet in the air…” As noted above, the City has asked Appellants to provide the date on which each photo was taken, but has received no response. The fixtures meet full-cutoff criteria and the photos in this staff report taken on December 29, 2022 and those incorporated in the October 31, 2022 letter taken on August 16, 2022 demonstrate the wall mounted lights’ compliance. This evidence supports the Director’s determination that the wall mounted lights are compliant with BMC section 38.570.060.A.3. The Director also correctly determined that the wall mounted lights comply with section 38.570.100 of the BMC, which provides: When the city finds that a lighting installation produces unacceptable levels of nuisance glare, skyward light, excessive or insufficient illumination levels, or otherwise varies from this section, the city may notify the person responsible for the lighting and require appropriate remedial action within 30 days. (Emphasis added.) Section 2 of this staff report has already discussed the appropriate authority and standard employed by the BMC to enforce the code. Additionally, the plain language of the code relied upon by Appellants indicates that the City makes the determination of whether light constitutes an unacceptable level of nuisance glare, skyward light, or 329 Staff Report for Appeal Number 22382 13 excessive illumination. The Director considered the mixed-use nature of the neighborhood and zoning designation, all of the photos available, light measurement readings, and specifications of the light fixtures in reaching the reasonable conclusion that the wall mounted lights are not in violation of code. Appellants’ footnote also states that the monument light is off pending replacement and, therefore, Appellants cannot independently assess compliance of the monument lights. As discussed in section 3 of this staff report, a light fixture that is compliant along with a light that is turned off is inherently compliant with the City’s regulations. Furthermore, Appellants need not independently assess compliance because determining compliance is the purview of the Community Development Director pursuant to section 38.200.020 BMC. FISCAL EFFECTS No fiscal effects have been identified. ATTACHMENTS Record of Review PWC Notice of Violation June 8, 2022 letter to Weston October 31, 2022 letter to Weston, with Attachments A-L The full application and file of record can be viewed at the Community Development Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715. 330 BOZEMANCODE COMPLIANCEMTNotice of Zoning ViolationPrint Date: December 13*, 2021Pure Real Estate, LLC171st Ave E.Kalispell, MT 59901The property located at 708 N. Rouse Ave was identified as being owned by you and is in violation of the City ofBozeman's Zoning Code, specifically Chapter 38.570.040(G)(1)(3)(5) as follows: - Miscellaneous site lightingspecifications. Except as otherwise allowed in subsections E and G of this section, all lighting must comply with thefollowing requirements: 1. All outdoor lighting, whether or not required by this section, must be aimed, located,designed, fitted and maintained so as not to present a hazard to drivers or pedestrians by impairing their ability tosafely traverse and so as not to create a nuisance by projecting or reflecting objectionable light onto a neighboring useor property; 3. Except for residential lighting, street lighting, pathway intersection lighting and security lighting, alllighting must be turned off between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Exceptions will be granted to those businesses whichoperate during these hours; such lighting may remain illuminated only while the establishment is actually open forbusiness; 5. All outdoor lighting must be designed and located such that the maximum illumination measured in footcandles at the property line may not exceed 0.3 onto adjacent residential properties and 1.0 onto adjacent commercialproperties and public rights-of-way. Specifically, light measurements were taken on this property and found to be inviolation of the code sections listed above. The extra lighting placed on the exterior (string lights) should be turned off nolater than llpm nightly. Ako, the lighting at the front of the building facing onto Rouse Ave., as well as the lighting in therear that faces the creek, are in violation of the section stating what the footcandles must be to meet the code. The rearlights are especially bright (measuring 0.85 at the property line, and they are not allowed to be more than 0.3. Note thatsecurity lighting is allowed within the code, as long as it meets #5 listed above.You are hereby directed to correct the cited violation(s) within 30 days of receipt of this notice. If you fail to correct theviolations listed in this notice, the offending conditions will be forwarded to the Municipal Court, where it will beresolved. The violation of any provision of this article by any person, association, company or corporation shall be subjectto the penalties provided as follows: A first citation shall carry a mmimum penalty of $100.00; A second citation withinone year shall carry a minimum penalty of $150.00; A third and subsequent citations within a one-vear period shall carrya penalty not to exceed $500.00^An£_@erson who violatesthjs chapter or fails to comply with any of its requirements mayupon conviction thereof be fined or imprisoned or bothLeitheL_as set forth in state law regarding subdivision and zoning,or in accordance with section 1.01.210, and in addition must_@aY_alI costs and expenses involved in the case except asstated in subsection D of this section. Each day such violation continues is a separate_offense and punishable as.such.If you have any question^ please let me know.Thank yc^Gary D.jRobertsPrograrA Manager i Code ComplianceCity of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St [ P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771P: 406.582.2223 | C: 406.599.5347 | E: arobertsOBozeman.net331 BOZEMANCODE COMPLIANCEMTNotice of Zoning ViolationPrint Date: December 13*, 2021Pure Real Estate, LLC708 N. Rouse Ave.Bozeman, MT 59715The property located at 708 N. Rouse Ave was identified as being owned by you and is in violation of the City ofBozeman's Zoning Code, specifically Chapter 38.570.040(G)(1)(3)(5) as follows: - Miscellaneous site lightingspecifications. Except as otherwise allowed in subsections E and G of this section, all lighting must comply with thefollowing requirements: 1. All outdoor lighting, whether or not required by this section, must be aimed, located,designed, fitted and maintained so as not to present a hazard to drivers or pedestrians by impairing their ability tosafely traverse and so as not to create a nuisance by projecting or reflecting objectionable light onto a neighboring useor property; 3. Except for residential lighting, street lighting, pathway intersection lighting and security lighting, alllighting must be turned off between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Exceptions will be granted to those businesses whichoperate during these hours; such lighting may remain illuminated only while the establishment is actually open forbusiness; 5. All outdoor lighting must be designed and located such that the maximum illumination measured in footcandles at the property line may not exceed 0.3 onto adjacent residential properties and 1.0 onto adjacent commercialproperties and public rights-of-way. Specifically, light measurements were taken on this property and found to be inviolation of the code sections listed above. The extra lighting placed on the exterior (string lights) should be turned off nolater than llpm nightly. Also, the lighting at the front of the building facing onto Rouse Ave., as well as the lighting in therear that faces the creek, are in violation of the section stating what the footcandles must be to meet the code. The rearlights are especially bright (measuring 0.85 at the property line, and they are not allowed to be more than 0.3. Note thatsecurity lighting is allowed within the code, as long as it meets #5 listed above.You are hereby directed to correct the cited violation(s) within 30 days of receipt of this notice. If you fail to correct theviolations listed in this notice, the offending conditions will be forwarded to the Municipal Court, where it will beresolved. The violation of any provision of this article by any person, association, company or corporation shall be subjectto the penalties provided as follows: A first citation shall carry a minimum penalty of $100.00; A second citation withinone^^eai^shall carry a minimum penalty of $150.00; A third and^ubsequent citations within a one-year period shall carrya penalty not to exceed $500.00. Any person who violates this chapter or fails to comply with any of its reouirements mayupon conviction thereof be fined or imprisoned or both, either as set forth in state law reearding subdivision and zoning,or in accordance with section 1.01.210, and in addition must pay all costs and expenses involved in the case except asstated in subsection D of this section. Each day such violation continues is a separate offense and punishable as such.If you have any questions, please let me know.Than^il, /) ^vGary C). RobertsProgram Manager j Code ComplianceCity of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. [ P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771P: 406.582.2223 | C: 406.599.5347 | E: aroberts@Bozeman.net332 June 8, 2022 David Weston 717 N. Rouse Ave. Bozeman, MT 59715 Sent Via Email Only: weston@mail.com RE: PureWest Christie’s lighting complaints Dear Mr. Weston: This letter serves as a summary of facts gathered and actions taken by the City of Bozeman’s Code Compliance Division in response to your complaints about PureWest Christie’s Real Estate (PWC) lighting at 708 North Rouse Avenue. The City investigated and found three separate violations of the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC). Two of the violations were communicated to PWC on December 13, 2021 and PWC was notified about the violation regarding monument lights in March, 2022. The management of PWC has been working towards compliance by ordering and installing new wall lights to reduce the amount of lighting on the property, and placing other lighting on timers to automatically turn off during the hours of 11 p.m. to 6 a.m., consistent with City code. This process has been time consuming, but it is nearly complete. Since October 2021, the City has made several site visits to PWC to investigate your complaints, which included the roof peak lighting fixture, the wall light fixtures facing the parking lot area, rear lights along the creek, Christmas lights on the front of the building, and the monument lights at the entrance to the property. Those visits were conducted on October 22, 2021, December 7, 2021, December 11, 2021, March 3, 2022, March 20, 2022, May 26, 2022, June 1, 2022 and June 6, 2022. City personnel also conducted a few other informal drive-bys to check on PWC’s progress during the lighting changes. The findings of the investigation are summarized below. With respect to the monument light at the entrance to the parking lot, section 38.570.040.G.5, BMC generally limits the amount of light projected into the public right of way to 1.0 footcandles or 0.3 footcandles onto neighboring residences. Also, section 38.570.040.G.1 states, in part, that lights must be aimed, located, designed and fitted “so as not to create a nuisance by projecting or reflecting objectionable light onto a neighboring use or property.” I note that your concerns regarding the monument light were not part of the original complaint, but added through your correspondence of March 2022. The City Code Compliance department found that the monument lights were located too far from the monument sign, thus allowing lights to shine past the sign and onto properties across the street in violation of code. The City discussed this violation with PWC management and the lighting will be turned off until backlighting is installed on the sign in the future. Once installed, the new lighting will be on a timer to meet the code requirement that most site lighting must be turned off between the hours of 11 p.m. to 6 a.m., pursuant to 38.570.040.G.3. 333 Page 2 of 2 The exterior wall light fixtures facing the parking lot area emit an appropriate amount of light pursuant to BMC 38.570.040.A and G.5. However, Code Compliance and Planning Division staff determined that the lighting was in violation of section 38.570.040.G.2 because PWC’s wall light fixtures emitted light above the horizontal plane passing through the lowest point of the light fixture. In response, PWC management ordered and installed new wall lighting fixtures that now meet the code requirements. PureWest has informed the City that these lights constitute their security lighting, and as such, are allowed to remain on during nighttime hours, per section 38.570.040.G.3. In regards to the roof peak lighting, this light meets the footcandle requirements within the code, which is no more than 1.0 footcandles into the right of way, or 0.3 at the property line. However, the roof peak lighting was illuminated all night, in violation of section 38.570.040.G.3, BMC. PWC has placed the roof peak lighting on a timer, which turns these lights off from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. to comply with code requirements. The City’s investigation of the rear lights along the creek revealed that the lights were emitting excessive light and PWC was informed of the violation of 38.570.040.G.5. PWC initially replaced or dimmed the lights, which measured less than the maximum allowable footcandles during a subsequent inspection. PWC has since turned these lights off. The Christmas lights were removed in early January 2022. The notice of violation sent by the City to PWC in December allowed 30 days to correct a violation, and the Christmas lights were removed within that timeframe. PWC has assured the City it is diligently working to ensure all of the code violations are corrected and that their site remains in compliance with City regulations. A final inspection was completed on June 7, 2022. PWC has resolved all of the violations to the City’s satisfaction. I appreciate your concerns and patience as the City thoroughly investigated your complaints. Based on the final inspection, this matter is now closed. If you need anything further, please contact me at 406-582-2940 or abentley@bozeman.net. Sincerely, Anna Bentley, AICP Interim Director of Community Development 334 October 31, 2022 David Weston 717 N. Rouse Ave. Bozeman, MT 59715 Sent Via Email Only: weston@mail.com RE: Lighting Complaints Regarding PureWest Christie’s Exterior Lighting (708 N. Rouse Ave.) Dear Mr. Weston: The City of Bozeman shares your goal of ensuring PureWest Christie’s (PWC) lights are compliant with the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC). Please find attached a photo of the PWC site with labels for each light for clarity. (Attachment A) This letter responds to your email communications of June 6, 2022, June 9, 2022, June 29, 2022, and two emails sent on June 30, 2022, (Attachments B, C, D, E and F respectively). This letter also responds to your request made during a July 7, 2022 phone call with me and Assistant City Attorney Kelley Rischke for a detailed response to your February 4, 2022 letter, which is attached with the City’s response to each paragraph in red text (Attachment G). After extensive investigation into the allegations you have made in your communications on behalf of several of your neighbors, the City has found several code violations and worked with PWC to correct them. The City believes PWC is now fully compliant with code and has closed its file. June 6, 2022 email First, your June 6, 2022 email makes two principal assertions of noncompliance and asks “why PWC has not received a violation letter form the city, similar to the one you sent them in December over their Christmas lights?” The first assertion of noncompliance in this email is that the roof peak light “was on after dusk and remained on until at least midnight,” that it lit up your bedroom as well as other bedrooms in houses on your side of the street, and that the roof peak light is illegal pursuant to your understanding of a conversation you had with the City’s Code Compliance Manager, Gary Roberts, on May 24, 2022. Two emails from you to me and Mr. Roberts on May 24, 2022 (Attachment H and I) clarify that your understanding from the conversation is that “PWC has never been permitted/approved by the city for the lights they installed two years ago.” I am not privy to the conversation between you and Mr. Roberts; however, 335 Page 2 of 5 the City has since confirmed that PWC had a valid building permit issued on December 17, 2019 to install the roof peak and monument lights (Attachment J). PWC also received a building permit for the new wall mounted lights installed in response to the City’s investigation. Also, please note that building permits are issued to ensure the lights are installed in compliance with building codes for the protection of public safety. Building permits are not intended to ensure compliance with zoning codes. Even if PWC did not have a valid building permit to install the lights, which it did, your assertion that the “light is illegal and should not be on any time after dusk” does not equate to violations of zoning codes. In fact, zoning codes generally allow lighting to remain on until 11 p.m. and certain specific types of lighting may remain on all night. See 38.570.040.G.3, BMC. Contrary to your assertion, there is no requirement that lights must be turned off at dusk and the roof peak light was installed pursuant to a valid sign permit. Your second assertion of noncompliance in the June 6, 2022 email is that PWC turns off their illegal lights, only to turn them back on later, citing the illegal monument light and Christmas lights. The monument light was addressed between the City and PWC. First, PWC redirected its monument light to shine directly on the monument and ensured that the monument light was turned off after 11 p.m. in compliance with code following your complaint and the City’s investigation. More recently, PWC has turned off its monument light entirely until it installs backlighting on the sign, eliminating the need for a monument light to shine on the sign. The Christmas lights were likewise remedied. The City issued a Notice of Violation letter on December 13, 2021 regarding the Christmas lights (Attachment K) because the City confirmed that the Christmas lights were on past 11 p.m. in violation of 38.570.040.G.3, BMC. In our July 7, 2022 phone call, you reiterated that allowing PWC thirty days to remedy its Christmas lights essentially allowed them to have the lights up and operating past 11 p.m. in violation of code through much of the holiday season. We understand the frustration and, given that the City has already issued a Notice of Violation regarding their string lights, if PWC’s holiday lights remain on past 11 p.m. in the future, the City will shorten the time required for compliance. Finally, as explained during our July 7, 2022 phone call, the City does not always issue a formal Notice of Violation letter when the violation can be remedied through informal action. Many citizen complaints of code violations are resolved informally between the City and the offender. Informal resolution occurs when the offender acknowledges and remedies the code violation upon learning (e.g., via phone or email) that a violation has been observed. In these cases, the violation is resolved in advance of a formal Notice of Violation. Our process with PWC has involved formal and informal resolution. For example, Mr. Robert’s formal Notice of Violation letter contained three violations and my 336 Page 3 of 5 letter of June 8, 2022 to you (Attachment L) provided details of other violations of code that have been remedied, but for which no formal Notice of Violation was issued. In this instance, the City’s reliance on informal methods of resolution is based in part on the fact that PWC has been cooperative and responsive throughout the City’s investigation. June 9, 2022 email This email requests confirmation in writing of your understanding that PWC has never been permitted for their lights. As explained above, PWC had a valid permit issued on December 17, 2019 to install lights. More recently, PWC changed wall mounted light fixtures in response to your complaints and the City’s investigation. PWC did not obtain a building permit prior to installing the replacement wall mounted lights, but has since obtained a building permit and completed necessary inspections. I again note that a valid building permit pertains solely to compliance with the building code (i.e., life, fire, safety). The email also asserts that the roof peak light was not in existence prior to PWC’s occupancy of the building and you attached a photo showing the light is absent prior to when PWC started making changes to the building. We share your understanding that the roof peak light was not in existence prior to the remodel of the building that PWC undertook, but again, the roof peak light was installed pursuant to a valid permit. Finally, in a post script, your email asserts that there were some errors in my letter of June 8, 2022 to you. You specifically note that “we didn’t contact code compliance until November ’21, not October.” Mr. Roberts conducted his first site visit on October 22, 2021 after receiving information about your complaint from the City’s Neighborhoods Coordinator, Dani Hess. Our records indicate you contacted Ms. Hess on October 21, 2021 with an update to your initial contact sent in May 2021. Additionally, your post script asserts that in Mr. Roberts’ first two visits at least, he used the wrong lumen threshold and took readings in the wrong locations. Mr. Roberts did not take any lumen readings on his first two visits to the PWC property because he had no instrument to measure the light. Mr. Roberts received a LED light meter on November 16, 2021 and took care to ensure an accurate measurement by waiting until after the full moon to return to the site. He returned to PWC on December 7, 2021 and took appropriate readings of the light cast from the PWC lights from the appropriate location to take the readings, which is the property line pursuant to section 38.570.040.G.5, BMC. As a result of those readings, Mr. Roberts issued the December 13, 2021 Notice of Violation letter, which determined that the front (referred to as the roof peak light throughout this letter) and rear lights were in violation of the footcandle threshold and specifically included that the rear lights measured .85 footcandles at the property line, well over the limit of .3 in code. 337 Page 4 of 5 June 29, 2022 email Your email of June 29, 2022 begins by acknowledging that Mr. Roberts provided you with a copy of the building permit for the “wall mounted signage light” (referred to as the roof peak light throughout this letter), which you characterize as a “GROSS violation of municode for such lights” because “this light is pointed predominantly at a white wall from a foot away.” As discussed above, a building permit does not pertain to compliance with zoning code violations; a building permit establishes that the lights were properly and legally installed. The roof peak light was included in the December 13, 2021 Notice of Violation letter because it did not shut off at 11 p.m. Mr. Roberts determined that the roof peak light did not emit light in excess of code limits. PWC has since installed a timer to ensure the roof peak light turns off at 11 p.m., remedying the violation. While the City never found the roof peak light in violation of section 38.570.040.G.1 or 6, BMC, PWC has nonetheless responded to your complaint by agreeing to redirect the light to shine more directly on its sign in an effort to mitigate the amount of light reflected off the white wall of the building and instead concentrate the light more directly on the sign. PWC is currently in discussions with their architect to determine the best way to redirect the light. The City is satisfied that the roof peak light is now in compliance with code. June 30, 2022 7:05 a.m. email As noted in your email, Mr. Roberts conducted a site visit the evening of June 29, 2022, part of which was conducted from your back yard. Mr. Roberts observed a small amount of light on your back fence, but the light was so dim that it did not register any reading on the light meter. Additionally, Mr. Roberts reported that the light was so dim that he needed the use of a flashlight to walk around. Mr. Roberts noted that there was some light on the trees on PWC’s property, but that it measured below the requisite footcandles as measured from the property line. I note that this email seems to confirm that PWC’s lights are turned off at 11 p.m. in compliance with code because you note that you had to alter the photo taken after 11 p.m. by manually brightening it because it would otherwise just be a black photo. June 30, 2022 8:22 a.m. email This email provides one additional photo taken on June 20, 2022 and asserts that “because the city did not agree that any part of the bare bulbs in this fixture are visible across the street, we can deduce that 100% of the light shown in the picture is caused by (nuisance?, we think so) reflected glare bounding off PureWest Christie’s Real Estate white wall.” The City agrees that all photos depict lights on at PWC prior to 11 p.m. However, the City disagrees that the lights, as they have been replaced and adjusted, constitute a nuisance as of today. Although the City understands that the neighbors find the light objectionable and 338 Page 5 of 5 that the reflective glare experienced by the neighbors may be caused by the siding material or color, the City disagrees that the light creates a nuisance. The standard in the second part of section 38.570.040.G.1 “…and so as not to create a nuisance by projecting or reflecting objectionable light onto a neighboring use or property,” is not whether any member of the public asserts the light is objectionable, rather the code designates administration and enforcement of the code to the Director of Community Development, pursuant to section 38.200.020, BMC. Recognizing that whether the light is “objectionable” in the Community Development Director’s mind is a subjective standard, the City relies heavily on the more objective, measurable standards in the code to determine what constitutes an “objectionable” amount of light that creates a nuisance. Note that the City does not regulate the color of buildings, the placement or location of the lights on the building, or the color temperature of LED lights, all of which may contribute to the reflected light you are experiencing. However, PWC is in compliance with all requirements that the BMC does regulate. Mr. Roberts has consulted the Bozeman Police Department and determined that PWC’s lights do not constitute a hazard to drivers or pedestrians. The lights conform to all zoning code requirements, the roof peak lights have been adjusted to more directly shine on the sign, the wall mounted lights fixtures have been replaced, lights now turn off at 11 p.m. (with the exception of a few that remain lit for the upstairs residential tenants), and light measured repeatedly at PWC’s property line is below the .3 footcandle threshold. Therefore, the City has determined that lights do not constitute a nuisance. Thank you for engaging with the City to ensure PWC’s compliance with code. The City has determined that all of PWC’s zoning code violations as well as building permit violations have been remedied. If you disagree, you may appeal this administrative interpretation to the Bozeman City Commission by filing an appeal application with the Community Development Department within 20 working days pursuant to section 38.250.040, BMC. Sincerely, Anna Bentley, AICP Director of Community Development 339 Monument Lighting Roof Peak Lighting Wall Mounted Lighting PureWest Christie’s Lighting August 2022340 ATTACHMENT B Sent: Monday, June 06, 2022 at 7:57 AM From: "David Weston" <weston@mail.com> To: "Gary Roberts" <groberts@BOZEMAN.NET>, "Anna Bentley" <abentley@BOZEMAN.NET> Subject: Re: Fw: RE: RE: RE: PureWest Christie's Lighting Hi Gary, Anna, I hope all is well. Last night PureWest Christie's Real Estate (PWC) roof peak light was on after dusk and it remained on until at least midnight. Our bedroom window and inside our bedroom was lit up. Other houses on our side of the street and other bedrooms were lit up too. Based on our 5/24/22 conversation, Gary, and our own review of municode, this light is illegal and should not be on any time after dusk. PWC has a 17 month history of turning off their illegal lights, only to turn them back on later. They turned on illegal monument lights again on 3/4/22 (the same day we recieved a letter from you saying you had "found that there is no violation at this location.") That was almost a year after they turned off their original illegal monument lights. They did this again at Christmas when they again turned on over 150 bare bulbs scarcely a month after writing to us; "We are sorry to hear the other commercial building light has caused such stress on the neighbors." The Christmas lights stayed on for weeks after they recieved an official violation letter from your department. Now, after hearing from you on the phone on 5/24/22 that all the lights we complained about are in violation, and that you have recently conducted conference calls with them about their lights, the roof-peak light is back on after dark. In light of the fact that we are again suffering the consequences of PWC's illegal lighting, we would please like to be given some idea of when we can expect to recieve a written reponse to our complaint letter of 2/4/22, and our request of 5/24/22 asking for written confirmation of the judgements you shared on the phone on 5/24/22? It has been 7 months since we asked Bozeman Code Compliance to review what was 5 (now 7 including monuments) light fixtures. We would also like to know specifically why PWC has not recieved a violation letter from the city, similar to the one you sent them in December over their Christmas lights? Thank you, Dave Weston ~On behalf of 17 residents and all homeowners for 10 residences within a block of PWC. 341 ATTACHMENT C From: David Weston <weston@mail.com> Date: June 9, 2022 at 5:13:03 PM MDT To: Anna Bentley <abentley@bozeman.net> Subject: Re: Fw: RE: RE: RE: PureWest Christie's Lighting 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 Anna, Thank you for returning my phone call today. Per your message, may I sugest that instead of gathering files and documents to fullfill our request about confirming the lighting permit status of PWC, you could simply reply to this email confirming what Gary told me on the phone on 5/24/22: That PureWest has never been permitted for their lights. We are simply looking for confirmation in written form. I have asked your office for this confirmation in writing previously on 5/19/22 and 5/24/22. I would much prefer to just get a simple email than to have you gather, and then me review, city files. Especially as it would appear that this review has already been conducted by the Code Compliance Department. As an aside, Ryon Brewer told me that the roof peak light was permitted by the city, and existed before they took occupancy at 708. I think it's the other way around. The other lights existed but not the roof peak light. I have attached a photo of this light NOT existing before they started making changes to the building (turning the walls white). Just in case I could help clear up any confusion on that point. Thank you, Dave W. ps. There are a couple of errors in your letter yesterday. For instance, we didn't contact Code Compliance until November '21, not October. It was dissapointing to read how many times Mr Roberts made visits to PWC, largely because if the violations listed in your letter of 6/8/22 had been recognized in the inital visits, we could have avoided a fair amount of administrative effort on all sides, and the neighborhood could have enjoyed less time suffering the consequences of PWC's illegal lights. I'll note that in at least the first two visits (3 if Mr. Roberts visited in October before we called him), he used the wrong lumen threshold, and took readings in the wrong locations (all of which we have in writing). 342 ATTACHMENT D Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 2:40 PM From: "David Weston" <weston@mail.com> To: "Kelley Rischke" <KRischke@BOZEMAN.NET>, "Anna Bentley" <abentley@BOZEMAN.NET> Cc: "flamencagrlgmail.com" <flamencagrl@gmail.com> Subject: Re: RE: Administrative interpretation appeal Good afternoon, Ms. Rischke, Ms. Bentley, Regarding the 'open'/active investigation into PWC's 'city permit' status; Good news: this morning Mr. Roberts gave me a copy of the lighting/development permit for the 'wall mounted signage light' (it is classified as such in the document, and it is obvious that it is one anyway). This means it is in GROSS violation of municode for such lights. Both our, and Mr. Roberts', photos show this light pointed predominently at a white wall from a foot away. Mr Roberts' photo (attached) shows that this light barely hits the sign at all. I took a photo from the same angle with a regular old iPhone last night (also attached). You already have our photos of this fixture lighting up bushes, etc, at the base of the wall below the light (one attached). Of course, after multiple visits, and multiple evenings taking multiple photos of this fixture, and appellants' letters detailing the specific municode provision this fixture violates, we are deeply confused as to how this violation was not recognized over the last 9 months. But that isn't the only remaining violation. PWC's trees are still lit to the top (new pic also attached.) Gary Roberts mentioned that he planned to come back to look at PWC tonight, so I invited him into our back yard so he can see the spread of light without being hindered by all the lights that shine in your eyes when you stand right outside PWC's building. We don't know why or for what outcome Mr Roberts is visiting the site tonight considering this case is officially closed, and PWC has been found to have been approved by the city for their lights (despite the numerous violations recognized by the city in the past 9 months). We have not requested additional review from Mr. Roberts' or Ms. Bentley's departments since the 6/8/22 decision letter. In fact, we've been told the Administrative Interpretation Appeal is our only option now. That said, were happy to continue to try to help Mr Roberts in his activities, including tonights visit. We would much prefer to resolve this with Code Compliance and Community Dev, rather than appealing, but I will leave that up to you. If we are indeed required to pay close to $1000 dollars to get remedy or even an answer to an obvious violation, that we detailed in writing and in pictures months ago, then we will be considering all options at our disposal to resolve this ongoing issue. Our bedroom is still lit up before 11pm, so are others on the block. Sincerely, Dave W. (406.600.8943) ~On behalf of all homeowners for 10 residences within a block of PWC, and their tenants. ps. you mentioned in your 6/8/22 letter that we hadn't brought up monument lights in our original complaint. It is actually the first light listed and detailed in a letter I sent to both Dani Hess and Mr. Roberts separately in November of 2021. That is not the only time we wrote about issues with the monument lights prior to our detailed February complaint letter. There are other errors in your letter but they're probably also irrelevant at this point. 343 ATTACHMENT E Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 7:05 AM From: "David Weston" <weston@mail.com> To: "Kelley Rischke" <KRischke@BOZEMAN.NET>, "Anna Bentley" <abentley@BOZEMAN.NET> Cc: "flamencagrlgmail.com" <flamencagrl@gmail.com> Subject: Re: RE: Administrative interpretation appeal Good morning, Last night Mr. Roberts visited PureWest Christie's Real Estate again, and also made observations from inside our backyard. He has now seen what we see. I showed him a new location; the fence on the back of our yard, which is more than 180 feet away from the wall mounted signage light (aka 'roof peak light'). I've attached 'before 11pm' and 'after 11pm' pictures of this back fence location to this email (taken 6/20/22). The 'after' picture had to be brightened manually to show what the photo is of because it was otherwise just a black photo. The 'before 11pm' picture has not been modified at all. I've done the same for our bedroom window. Any of you are invited to visit and see this. If it is doing this to a fence more than 180 feet away from the light source (it's the only light fixture hitting our BACK fence on the back alley of our property), you can imagine what it does to our bedroom, which roughly 1/3 that distance from that light fixture. In person this is easy to see. Mr Roberts saw it on our bedroom window wall back in November 2021. I cannot not think of a better way to produce 'nuisance reflected glare' than by pointing a high power 12-bulb fixture at a white wall from a foot away, slighty pointed down to bounce light perfectly at our houses across the street. That light is ONLY supposed to hit the sign (which is bare metal, so we'll see how that goes if the light gets adjusted.) Mr. Roberts also saw the four story trees still lit to the top. Yes, our picture isn't a "perfect" recreation of reality, which would be very hard to capture, but neither are Mr. Roberts' pictures. The point is that the cameras and one's eyes can easily see light up there, when it is supposed to be "eliminated". One can easily see that light dissapear when the lights go off at 11pm, which Mr. Roberts saw last night. Of course, with the investigation closed, we are not banking on any result from this most recent visit/inspection. If the city decides to re-open the case as a result of Mr. Roberts' visit, we wish to be informed as soon as possible. Reopening the case would contradict what you have written to us in recent days. We have 6 working days until the appeal deadline now, which is taking significant resources and time to complete, so we'd appreciate not being put through that if the city decides to reopen the case. As an FYI, we have also begun reaching out to local organizations for support of our case. Sincerely, Dave W. 344 ATTACHMENT F From: David Weston <weston@mail.com> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 8:22 AM To: Kelley Rischke <KRischke@BOZEMAN.NET>; Anna Bentley <abentley@BOZEMAN.NET> Cc: flamencagrlgmail.com <flamencagrl@gmail.com> Subject: Re: RE: Administrative interpretation appeal 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 again, I've attached one more photo. On 6/20/22, I turned around on the exact spot where the pictures were taken of our lit up back-alley fence (I'm taking precise measurements of the estimated 180+ft distance from the back alley fence to the light fixture today); this is what you see. On the left is our trees/house. On the right is 715 N. Rouse (Harris property, listed in our complaint) which has a bedroom on the second floor directly across from the wall mounted signage fixture (aka roof peak fixture). That bedroom gets lit up badly too. Mr. Roberts saw this last night from this exact location and agreed with the following: Because the city did not agree that any part of the bare bulbs in this fixture are visible across the street, we can deduce that 100% of the light shown in this picture is caused by (nuisance?, we think so) reflected glare bouncing off PureWest Chirstie's Real Estate white wall. Thank you, Dave W 345 The following provides the detailed response to your February 4, 2022 letter that you requested during our July 7, 2022 phone call. These photos are referenced throughout this response: Photo taken by David Weston and attached to his November 8, 2021 email. Photo taken by Code Compliance Manager Gary Roberts on August 16, 2022 at 10:48 p.m. from the same position as the photo taken by Mr. Weston above. No flash was used and no filters were applied to this photo. 346 Photo taken by Code Compliance Manager Gary Roberts on August 16, 2022 at 11:03 p.m. from the same position as the photo taken by Mr. Weston above. No flash was used and no filters were applied to this photo. Good morning, Gary, Thank you for your guidance and assistance as we seek to understand and resolve the continued negative effect of outdoor lighting at PureWest Christie's Real Estate (PWC), at 708 N Rouse, on the undersigned 10 adjacent residences, which collectively account for 17 homeowners and tenants. We appreciate the time and effort you have expended on our block’s behalf since we first raised these concerns with you in November, after attempting to resolve them ourselves with PWC directly over the 10 prior months. Your letter dated December 13 provided PWC notice that it was in violation of three sub-sections of Chapter 38.570.040: (G)(1)(3)(5) of the Bozeman City Code as outlined below.  38.570.040(G)(1): All outdoor lighting, whether or not required by this section, must be aimed, located, designed, fitted and maintained so as not to present a hazard to drivers or pedestrians by impairing their ability to safely traverse and so as not to create a nuisance by projecting or reflecting objectionable light onto a neighboring use or property (emphasis added).  38.570.040(G)(3): Except for residential lighting, street lighting, pathway intersection lighting and security lighting, all lighting must be turned off between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (emphasis added). Exceptions will be granted to those businesses which operate during these hours; such lighting may remain illuminated only while the establishment is actually open for business  38.570.040(G)(5): All outdoor lighting must be designed and located such that the maximum illumination measured in foot candles at the property line may not exceed 0.3 onto adjacent residential properties and 1.0 onto adjacent commercial properties and public rights-of-way. Although it is our understanding that the City ultimately concluded that PWC had come into compliance with respect to Chapter 38.570.040(G)(5), we are unaware of any resolution of the other identified Code 347 violations in Chapter 38.570.040(G)(1) and (G)(3). We are thus writing to inquire as to whether PWC took any steps to remedy these identified violations, and, if so, how they were remedied. As noted in the June 8, 2022 letter, these violations have been resolved. Further information regarding each violation and its remedy is as follows: 1. The holiday lights were in violation of section 38.570.040.G.3, BMC, because the lights did not turn off at 11 p.m. as required by code. PWC began turning them off and/or removed the lights completely within the thirty days required for compliance. 2. The roof peak light (called “the lighting at the front of the building facing onto Rouse Ave” in the Notice of Violation letter) violated section 38.570.040.G.3 because the roof peak light did not turn of at 11 p.m. The letter erroneously stated the light violated section 38.570.040.G.5 by projecting footcandles in excess of .3 as measured at PWC’s property line. Gary Roberts, the City’s Code Enforcement Manager at the time, sent an email to you on January 14, 2021 noting that the roof peak light was not in violation with regard to the amount of light it emitted, only that it was in violation because it was not turned off after 11 p.m. A timer has been installed to ensure this light turns off every night at 11 p.m. 3. The Notice of Violation letter states that the lighting in the rear that faces the creek were in violation of sections 38.570.040.G.1, G.3, and G.5. (Note that these lights are mounted on the east facing wall of the building, but are different from the wall mounted lights on the south and west faces of the building, which are the subject of your complaints.) First, on December 11, 2021, the lights were especially bright, projecting or reflecting objectionable light onto neighboring properties, as shown by the measurement of .85 footcandles at the property line, in violation of both sections G.1 and G.3. PWC remedied these violations by reducing the amount of footcandles projected by these lights, as confirmed by a light meter reading taken by Gary Roberts on March 3, 2022. The Notice of Violation letter also found the wall mounted lights in violation of section G.3 because the lights remained on past 11 p.m. However, the letter also noted that security lights may stay on past 11 p.m. so long as it projected no more than .3 footcandles of light a measured at the property line abutting residential properties. The letter of June 8, 2022 to you cited the exception for security lighting for PWC’s ability to keep these lights on. The City has since learned, and conveyed to you during the July 7, 2022 phone call, that there is one or more residential tenants on the upper floor of the PWC building. The City now recognizes that regardless of whether the security light exemption applies, a different exemption, the residential exemption, applies to the lights. In either case, the PWC is compliant. In addition, after further reviewing the City’s Code, we believe we have identified additional Code violations, listed here:  Sec. 38.570.010. - Purpose (B, C, D, E)  Sec. 38.570.040. - Site lighting (G1, G2, G3, G4, G6, G7)  Sec. 38.570.060. - Lighting specifications for all lighting (A1, A2, A3, A4)  Sec. 38.570.100. - Nuisance glare  Sec. 38.570.110. - Nonconforming lighting. At the foot of this letter, we have included a more detailed description of our reasoning and would thus greatly appreciate it if you would please let us know if you agree with our assessment of their failure to 348 comply with these requirements. Of course, if your assessment differs, and you believe PWC complies with these requirements, please help us understand why this is the case. These provisions of code are discussed in detail below. PWC has remedied each violation of code and has made additional efforts to resolve this matter. Even though PWC’s light fixtures conformed to code requirements, PWC has replaced its wall mounted lights. The new wall mounted lights likewise conform to code requirements. PWC also adjusted the angle of its monument light before turning it off entirely. Additionally, PWC has agreed to adjust the angle of its roof peak light as well in response to the City’s investigation of your complaints. The City, therefore, disagrees with your analysis that PWC continues to be in violation. Moving forward, we would be grateful if you would please provide us a courtesy copy of all communications with PWC, including any written correspondence, so that we are better able to track the status of our complaint. We are also interested to learn how PWC responded to the creek lighting violations identified in your 12/13 letter, as it appears to us that they remain in non-compliance, given their continued illumination of the creek trees above their 2-story roofline. Because the violations have been remedied and this case is now closed, the City expects no further communications with PWC. Typically the City works to resolve violations and achieve compliance directly with the violator. Absent a formal public records request, the City does not typically provide a “courtesy copy” of correspondence to complainants or any other third party. I note that many of the records related to this file are attached to the letter to you of October 31, 2022. Further, as you have done and may continue to do, members of the public are welcome to come to our front counter and ask to access records we have onsite. Our efforts to resolve this dispute have lasted more than 13 months so we are eager to move this forward as expeditiously and thoroughly as is reasonable. To that end, please let me know if I can be of assistance in this process. The City’s efforts to resolve this have likewise spanned many months, with thorough investigation, and have resulted in successfully bringing PWC into compliance. The City has been responsive to your communications and complaints and has determined that PWC is now in compliance with City codes. Our inquiry is now closed. You may appeal this administrative decision. Information is included in the letter of October 31, 2022 to assist you in filing an appeal, should you decide to do so. Thank you again in advance for any assistance you can offer. Dave Weston ~On behalf of 10 residences (17 tenants and homeowners) within one city block of PWC Our reasoning: 1A) Roof-peak light fixture above the public sidewalk We can directly see partial bare bulb from inside our bedroom across the street. Drivers traveling in both directions on Rouse can see bare bulbs in this 12-bulb fixture. The fixture shield is not adequate. It is a nuisance because we had to install dark curtains inside our bedroom to block the direct and reflected light, which then prevents morning light coming in our room. This nuisance light prevents us 349 from opening the bedroom window on hot summer nights because the breezes we desire blow the curtains open, filling the room with light. Another house has blocked out their front window completely because of the glare. As explained below under each code section you have cited, the City disagrees that PWC is in violation. This cut sheet provided with PWC’s 2019 sign permit application is referenced in the responses to Sections 1A and 1B of your letter, which both discuss the roof peak light. PureWest Signage Lighting Cut Sheet Sec. 38.570.010: B & C & D & E Section 38.570.010 is the Purpose section of the code, which merely summarizes the policy aims of the code. The specific standards which constitute the objective code standards are found in various provisions of the code that follow the Purpose section. Protect drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians from the glare of non-vehicular light sources that shine into their eyes and thereby impair safe travel; Protect neighbors and the night sky from nuisance glare and stray light from poorly aimed, placed, applied, maintained or shielded light sources; Protect and maintain the character of the city; - Prevent excessive lighting – Sec. 38.570.040: G (1 & 4 & 7) As opposed to section 38.570.010 above, these are the some of the substantive standards that implement the Purpose section of the code. All outdoor lighting, whether or not required by this section, must be aimed, located, designed, fitted and maintained so as not to present a hazard to drivers or pedestrians by impairing their ability to safely 350 traverse and so as not to create a nuisance by projecting or reflecting objectionable light onto a neighboring use or property. With respect to 38.570.040.G.1, the City has determined that PWC’s lights do not present a hazard to drivers or pedestrians by impairing their ability to safely traverse. In consultation with the Bozeman City Police, our Code Compliance staff found that the lights do not present a hazard to drivers or pedestrians. Further, the City has determined that there is insufficient evidence to establish that a nuisance exists, nor is objectionable light shining onto a neighboring use or property in violation of code. The determination of whether light constitutes a “nuisance” or is “objectionable” under code belongs to the Director of Community Development pursuant to section 38.200.020 of the Bozeman Municipal Code. The Director of Community Development has determined that in the current case, the light does not constitute a nuisance nor is it objectively objectionable for two reasons. First, North Rouse Avenue is a street with a mix of commercial and residential buildings. Commercial buildings may have different lighting needs than residential buildings. Additional light can be reasonably expected in areas of the City that contain commercial uses, even those that are located in a neighborhood that includes residential uses. Second, street lighting (provided by Montana State Department of Transportation) along this particular roadway is less than some nearby streets with a comparable mix of commercial and residential buildings. This condition may contribute to a business’s need to light their building or the design choices they make regarding lighting. Both businesses and residences may light their properties consistent with code provisions, as discussed throughout the October 31, 2022 letter and associated attachments. Light emitted from PWC does not rise to the level of creating a nuisance, nor is it in violation of the City’s code. Rather, glare control must be achieved primarily through the use of such means as cutoff fixtures, shields and baffles, and appropriate application of fixture mounting height, wattage, aiming angle and fixture placement. The cut sheet provided by PWC to obtain the December 17, 2019 building permit depicts the type and location of the roof peak light PWC intended to install. (See PureWest Signage Lighting Cut Sheet above.) The application was approved without modifications, meaning the proposed light fixture met the requirements of sections 38.570.040.G.4 and 38.570.060. Additionally, pursuant to BMC section 38.560.120.B, “externally illuminated, wall-mounted, and pole signs must be lighted by fixtures mounted at the top of the sign and aimed downward….” After receiving your complaint, the City investigated the as-installed lighting and confirmed that it is a full cutoff fixture, with a bulb that is flush with the fixture and not protruding, the light is installed at the top of the sign, and it is appropriately aimed downward; therefore, it needs no shields or baffles. “Full cutoff” means that the fixture has no direct up-light, rather the light is directed downward. Not only is the light fixture code compliant, PWC has agreed to adjust the angle of its roof peak light in response to the City’s investigation of your complaints. Rather than the light fixtures, the City believes that two primary details of the PWC building may be responsible for the reflected light: the color of the building and the color temperature of the LED lights installed. The bright white walls of the exterior of PWC’s building likely contribute to reflected light. Likewise, the color temperature of LED lights vary greatly with lower Kelvin level lights producing a light 351 that appears more yellow or soft to the eye and higher Kelvin level lights appearing to emit a brighter, white light. Kelvin levels are not the same as wattage. The City does not regulate either the color of buildings or the color temperature of installed LED lights. As you can see from the informational chart below, bright, high color temperature lights are appropriate for use in parking areas and outdoors. Also note that the specifications sheet for the light installed on PWC’s building states that the fixture has a color temperature of 2700K. On-site lighting may be used to accent architectural elements but not to illuminate entire portions of buildings. Your selection of text from section 38.570.040.G.7 neglects to include other sentences of that section of code, which must be read together to understand the intent of the code. In its entirety, subsection 7 states: Floodlights, spotlights, or any other similar lighting may not be used to illuminate buildings or other site features unless approved as an integral architectural element of the development plan. On-site lighting may be used to accent architectural elements but not to illuminate entire portions of buildings. Where accent lighting is used, the maximum illumination on any vertical surface or angular roof surface may not exceed 5.0 average maintained footcandles. Building façade and accent lighting will not be approved unless the light fixtures are carefully selected, located, aimed and shielded so that light is directed only onto the building façade and spillover light is eliminated. (1) Directional fixtures used to illuminate flagpoles (state, United States and/or foreign nations may project their output beyond the flagpole. (emphasis added) 352 Subsection 7 first sets forth specific types of lights – floodlights, spotlights, and the like – that are designed and intended to be used to illuminate buildings. The roof peak light approved and installed on the PWC building is not a floodlight, spotlight, or similar. Rather, as explained above, the light complies with all physical attributes of light fixtures required by the code. The roof peak light is not intended to, nor does it, light up entire portions of the building as depicted in the photo taken on August 8, 2022. The roof peak light does not illuminate an architectural feature, but does illuminate a sign. Again, the color of the building and temperature of the lights may contribute to the perception that portions of the building are illuminated. Sec. 38.570.060: A (1 & 2 & 4) Lighting specifications for all lighting. This is the title of the section. Light fixtures and standards must be compatible with the surrounding area, the subdivision or site design, and the development's character and/or architecture. As explained in the response regarding 38.570.040.G.1 above, the area surrounding the PWC building and along North Rouse Avenue contains mixed commercial and residential uses. The area lies within the North East Historic Mixed Use (NEHMU) zoning district, which is appropriate for Community Commercial Mixed Uses and Maker Space Mixed Uses according to the Bozeman Community Plan 2020. Therefore, PWC’s lights are compatible with the mix of commercial and residential uses in this neighborhood. As needed, fixtures must be equipped with or be modified to incorporate light directing and/or shielding devices such as shields, visors, skirts, internal louvers or hoods to redirect offending light distribution and/or reduce direct or indirect glare. In accordance with 38.570.060.A.1, the light source (i.e. bulb) on the roof peak light does not protrude below the edge of the light fixture, as depicted in the cut sheet, nor is the bulb visible from adjacent streets or properties as shown in the photo below. In compliance with 38.570.060.A.2, the light fixture was approved as appropriate to the application of lighting a sign. PWC’s roof peak light fixture is consistent with the requirements of 38.570.060.A.4, and needed no equipment or modification to direct or shield light for approval because the light met all code requirements as proposed. As noted, PWC has voluntarily turned the roof peak light off until it can be adjusted to more directly shine on the sign in response to neighbor complaints. Sec. 38.570.100: Nuisance glare When the city finds that a lighting installation produces unacceptable levels of nuisance glare, skyward light, excessive or insufficient illumination levels, or otherwise varies from this section, the city may notify the person responsible for the lighting and require appropriate remedial action within 30 days. As described above, whether a nuisance exists is determined from the objective characteristics of the lights and the measurements of light produced, along with the reasonableness of the light given the surrounding area and land use designation. The Community Development Director determines whether the light constitutes a nuisance. In this instance, the Director determined that a nuisance does not exist. Nonetheless, the City has been in regular contact with PWC to remedy code compliance violations and communicate about continued neighbor complaints since December 13, 2021. Sec. 38.570.110: Nonconforming lighting 353 As discussed, the roof peak light is a conforming light. PWC’s 2019 sign permit application was approved because the roof peak light conforms to municipal regulations. Consistent with the lighting specifications found in 38.570.060, described above, and figure 38.570.010, PWC’s roof peak light has a bulb that is flush with its mount and the light is directed to shine inward toward its building and downward to illuminate its sign. 1B) Roof-peak light fixture above the public sidewalk Because section 1B appears to pertain to the same roof peak light fixture addressed in section 1A, responses will reference answers provided above. The front roof peak fixture lights up the entire wall and well beyond the wall. It does not accent just architectural elements. It is not supposed to light up whole portions of wall. It does not limit it's light to below the height of the fixture and it does illuminate above the horizontal plane (largely because it is too bright and/or shines onto a white wall). It does not limit its light to the wall signage mounted below the fixture. The light is not directed only onto the building façade and spillover light is not eliminated. PureWest Christie's offices are closed for most of the time their lights are on. Sec. 38.570.010: C & D & E Again, section 38.570.010 is the Purpose section of the code; it does not set forth actionable standards. Protect neighbors and the night sky from nuisance glare and stray light from poorly aimed, placed, applied, maintained or shielded light sources; Protect and maintain the character of the city; Prevent excessive lighting Sec. 38.570.040: G (2 & 6 & 7) Section 1A of your letter and the response addressed BMC 38.570.040.G.1, 4, and 7. Because subsection G.7 was addressed above, only responses to subsections G.2 and G.6 are provided here. All outdoor lighting fixtures must be shielded in such a manner that no light is emitted above a horizontal plane passing through the lowest point of the light emitting element, so that direct light emitted above the horizontal plane is eliminated. As discussed in various responses above, the roof peak light proposed and installed by PWC complies with all technical requirements for light fixtures found in code and is aimed downward, toward the sign on its building without emitting light above the horizontal plane of the mounted light. Photos provided by you prior to the initiation of the City’s investigation as well as those taken by the City after working with PWC to resolve code violations both depict a dark area above the horizontal plane of the mounted roof peak lighting. Further, PWC intends to adjust the fixture to better direct its light only on the sign mounted below it. Externally illuminated wall-mounted and pole signs must be lighted by fixtures mounted at the top of the sign and aimed downward; ground-mounted sign lighting may be used only for monument style signs. Fixtures used to illuminate signs must be aimed so as not to project their output beyond the sign. 354 The sign near the roof of PWC’s building that faces Rouse Avenue is illuminated by the roof peak light, which is mounted above the sign and aims downward and toward the building and the sign. The photo taken on August 16, 2022 shows that the roof peak light projects its light on the sign, not beyond it. Additionally, PWC is in the process of redirecting the light to further focus its light only on the sign. Floodlights, spotlights or any other similar lighting may not be used to illuminate buildings or other site features unless approved as an integral architectural element on the development plan. On-site lighting may be used to accent architectural elements but not to illuminate entire portions of buildings. Where accent lighting is used, the maximum illumination on any vertical surface or angular roof surface may not exceed 5.0 average maintained footcandles. Building façade and accent lighting will not be approved unless the light fixtures are carefully selected, located, aimed and shielded so that light is directed only onto the building façade and spillover light is eliminated. Addressed in section 1.A above. Sec. 38.570.060: A (1 & 2 & 3 & 4) Section 1A of your letter and the response addressed BMC 38.570.060.A.1, 2, and 4. Therefore, only a response to subsections A.3 is provided here. Light fixtures and standards must be compatible with the surrounding area, the subdivision or site design, and the development's character and/or architecture. See above. In all light fixtures, the light source and associated lenses may not protrude below the edge of the light fixture, and may not be visible from adjacent streets or properties. See above. Fixtures must be of a type and design appropriate to the lighting application. See above. For lighting horizontal areas such as roadways, sidewalks, entrances and parking areas, fixtures must meet IESNA "full-cutoff" criteria (no light output emitted above 90 degrees at any lateral angle around the fixture). The roof peak light is not intended to, and does not, illuminate “roadways, sidewalks, entrances, and parking areas,” as evidenced by the photo taken on August 8, 2022. This provision of the code is inapplicable to the roof peak light. As needed, fixtures must be equipped with or be modified to incorporate light directing and/or shielding devices such as shields, visors, skirts, internal louvers or hoods to redirect offending light distribution and/or reduce direct or indirect glare. See above. Sec. 38.570.100: Nuisance glare Section 1A of your letter and the City’s response to it addressed BMC 38.570.100. When the city finds that a lighting installation produces unacceptable levels of nuisance glare, skyward light, excessive or insufficient illumination levels, or otherwise varies from this section, the city may notify the person responsible for the lighting and require appropriate remedial action within 30 days. 355 2) 4 mid-wall light fixtures on the next three walls by their parking lot Wall Mounted Lights specifications provided as part of PWC’s 2022 Building Permit Application 356 Photo of wall mounted lights taken on October 17, 2022. Each of the mid-wall fixtures lights up everything below them, a lot above them, and well beyond the walls they're mounted on. The light fixture closest to the road has the light source/bare bulb visible to sidewalk pedestrians and vehicular traffic driving north on Rouse Ave. They are not supposed to light up whole portions of walls. They light up their entire lot, and the houses across the street. They are illuminating all their tall trees from TOP to bottom. The trees are twice the height of their building and about four times the height of the light fixtures themselves. This is obvious when the ambient light from traffic and homes dies down late in the evening. No other trees in the area are lit up this way. This makes their trees stand out from blocks away and is not consistent with the character of our historic residential neighbourhood/area/Historic Conservation Overlay District/city/night sky. These lights do not accent just architectural elements. They do not limit light to below the height of the fixture and they do illuminate skyward and above the horizontal plane (largely because they are too bright and/or shine onto a white wall). Their light is not directed only onto the building façade and spillover light is not eliminated. PureWest Christie's offices are closed for most of the time their lights are on. Sec. 38.570.010: B & C & D & E Again, this is the purpose section of the code; it does not set forth actionable standards. Protect drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians from the glare of non-vehicular light sources that shine into their eyes and thereby impair safe travel; Protect neighbors and the night sky from nuisance glare and stray light from poorly aimed, placed, applied, maintained or shielded light sources; Protect and maintain the character of the city; Prevent excessive lighting Sec. 38.570.040: G (1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 7) All outdoor lighting, whether or not required by this section, must be aimed, located, designed, fitted and maintained so as not to present a hazard to drivers or pedestrians by impairing their ability to safely traverse and so as not to create a nuisance by projecting or reflecting objectionable light onto a neighboring use or property. In consultation with the Bozeman City Police, our Code Compliance staff found that the lights do not present a hazard to drivers or pedestrians by impairing their ability to safely traverse. All outdoor lighting fixtures must be shielded in such a manner that no light is emitted above a horizontal plane passing through the lowest point of the light emitting element, so that direct light emitted above the horizontal plane is eliminated. As both your photo and the August 16, 2022 photo depict, a distinctly darker area exists above each wall mounted light. As required by code, direct light from each of these fixtures shines downward. As discussed above, some reflection of light off the white walls may occur. The fixtures meet code requirements, including full cutoff specifications so no direct light shines upward, and no shielding is required. 357 Except for residential lighting, street lighting, pathway intersection lighting and security lighting, all lighting must be turned off between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Exceptions will be granted to those businesses which operate during these hours; such lighting may remain illuminated only while the establishment is actually open for business. The wall mounted lights are intended to light pathways, provide security lighting, and provide light for residential tenants of the PWC building. As such, the wall mounted lights meet multiple exceptions to section 38.570.040.G.3. Nonetheless, PWC has voluntarily turned off wall mounted lights after 11 p.m. Vegetation screens may not serve as the primary means for controlling glare. Rather, glare control must be achieved primarily through the use of such means as cutoff fixtures, shields and baffles, and appropriate application of fixture mounting height, wattage, aiming angle and fixture placement. As shown in the specifications submitted with PWC’s building permit application and the daytime photo of the fixtures, the wall mounted lights are full cutoff fixtures with inset bulbs. As the August 16, 2022 photo depicts, light from these fixtures is aimed downward. The fixtures meet all code requirements and no shields or baffles are required. The wall mounted lights are located somewhat high on the building, which may contribute to the amount of light reflected off the white walls. Floodlights, spotlights or any other similar lighting may not be used to illuminate buildings or other site features unless approved as an integral architectural element on the development plan. On-site lighting may be used to accent architectural elements but not to illuminate entire portions of buildings. Where accent lighting is used, the maximum illumination on any vertical surface or angular roof surface may not exceed 5.0 average maintained footcandles. Building façade and accent lighting will not be approved unless the light fixtures are carefully selected, located, aimed and shielded so that light is directed only onto the building façade and spillover light is eliminated. Similar to the discussion of subsection G.7 regarding the roof peak lights, this subsection regulates types of lights – floodlights, spotlights, and the like – that are designed and intended to be used to illuminate buildings. The mid-wall lights approved and installed on the PWC building are not floodlights, spotlights, or similar. Rather, as explained above, the lights comply with all physical attributes of light fixtures required by the code. Although these lights illuminate more of the wall than the roof peak light, the mid-wall lights do not light up the entire south face of the building or the west facing wall, as depicted in the photo above taken on August 8, 2022. While recognizing that these lights do not illuminate architectural elements, note that the mid-wall lights emit less than five average maintained footcandles. Again, the color of the building and temperature of the lights may contribute to the perception that portions of the building are illuminated. Sec. 38.570.060: A (1 & 2 & 3 & 4) In all light fixtures, the light source and associated lenses may not protrude below the edge of the light fixture, and may not be visible from adjacent streets or properties. The bulbs of the wall mounted lights’ bulbs appear to be flush with the bottom of the fixture or slightly inset and do not protrude below the edge of the light fixture. While someone standing directly below the light on the sidewalk would be able to see the light bulb, the bulbs are not visible from adjacent streets or properties, as shown in the October 17, 2022 daytime photo of the building. 358 Fixtures must be of a type and design appropriate to the lighting application. The wall mounted fixtures are appropriate for outdoor lighting in a mixed commercial and residential area. For lighting horizontal areas such as roadways, sidewalks, entrances and parking areas, fixtures must meet IESNA "full-cutoff" criteria (no light output emitted above 90 degrees at any lateral angle around the fixture). The wall mounted lights illuminate sidewalks and parking areas and meet full cutoff criteria because all direct light is aimed downward and, as depicted in the August 16, 2022 photo above, no light is emitted above 90 degrees. As needed, fixtures must be equipped with or be modified to incorporate light directing and/or shielding devices such as shields, visors, skirts, internal louvers or hoods to redirect offending light distribution and/or reduce direct or indirect glare. The physical attributes of the light fixtures and the orientation of their direct light is discussed above. Light reflected off the white walls of the building does cause some indirect glare. However, the reflected light is not excessive as seen in the August 16, 2022 photo. Equipping the fixtures with shields or hoods likely would not reduce the amount of indirect glare because the same amount of light would be directed at the white walls. To reduce the indirect glare that is currently present, likely the walls would have to be a different color. As noted above, the City does not regulate the color of buildings. Sec. 38.570.100: Nuisance glare When the city finds that a lighting installation produces unacceptable levels of nuisance glare, skyward light, excessive or insufficient illumination levels, or otherwise varies from this section, the city may notify the person responsible for the lighting and require appropriate remedial action within 30 days. PWC has remedied the code violations noted in the Notice of Violation Letter. PWC has since taken additional remedial actions to diminish the light on and near the building. Many of the code violations cited in the Notice of Violation letter were remedied within 30 days, including putting the lights on timers to turn off at 11 p.m. Other remedial actions have taken longer, such as changing the wall mounted light fixtures and aiming the roof peak light more directly at the sign, but PWC has been in constant communication with the City regarding its progress. For the same reasons noted in the response to the roof peak light, the City has not found that PWC’s wall mounted lights constitute an unacceptable level of nuisance glare, skyward light, or excessive illumination. Sec. 38.570.110: Nonconforming lighting As discussed, the wall mounted lights - both the initial lights and the replacement lights - are conforming lights. Consistent with the lighting specifications found in 38.570.060, described above, and figure 38.570.010, PWC’s wall mounted lights have bulbs that do not protrude below the fixture and the light is directed to shine downward. 359 ATTACHMENT H From: David Weston <weston@mail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 4:54 PM To: Anna Bentley <abentley@BOZEMAN.NET>; Gary Roberts <groberts@BOZEMAN.NET> Subject: Fw: RE: RE: RE: PureWest Christie's Lighting 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 Gary, and Anna, Thank you for the phone call today Gary. I'd like create a record of our conversation here to support any possible future action we may take (in the event Pure West Christie's Real Estate (PWC) changes their mind about adjusting their lights, or current city staff move on from current postions.) My understanding from our phone conversation today is that; a) PWC has never been permitted/approved by the city for the lights they installed two years ago. b) PWC was found to be in violation of city code on every exterior light except those under the awning by their front door. In summary, the lights in violation are: The front roof-peak light, the four mid- wall lights, and the monument lights. c) PWC has been not been served an official violation notice, nor do they have a deadline for changing the current lights. Please let me know if I am incorrect in my summary of any of the above three points from our phone conversation. Thank you, Dave Weston ~On behalf of 17 residents and all homeowners for 10 residences within a block of PWC. 360 ATTACHMENT I From: David Weston <weston@mail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 5:54 PM To: Gary Roberts <groberts@BOZEMAN.NET>; Anna Bentley <abentley@BOZEMAN.NET> Subject: Re: Fw: RE: RE: RE: PureWest Christie's Lighting 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 Gary and Anna, I just ran into Ryon Brewer (principal) outside PWC and asked him about their plans to change their lights. Ryon said that the roof peak light is (and has been) in fact 'permitted'/approved by the City of Bozeman. This contradicts our conversation on the phone earlier today, Gary. He also said that he does not expect the roof peak fixture to change from its current state. May I change my request in the email below to respectfully ask that you reply to confirm that I am correct in my summary of our earlier phone conversation, rather than just let me know if any of it is incorrect. Thank you, Dave Weston 361 0'' Ifflllills<5:§^ss•s??s-us^1&5£Kusros>^.°,-Q^"^cu^11a: S OT0 £ §g.-^P !1ua:S iS0 S.s-Q$sCL01SS.i£.=-2b: -c •'=z '" =t00 "2 ro=3~^vCQ?iu S^ ^a>ro -a£CL%i- w0)<-c:fz^tIsti5^sP=Svs.-c.t^->tlliNsyeu-523^2§I'^l.IIil0•a,.9Iko -§^3^ Itil^2-I'ocil1siii!^lliplliS3IS II^1 §'8iffii5St-190\NC^J}1^I§I80I^I05w3z§362 ?I gIllIjIx,!r3I!lli£a as •s.s^i; g-i?;II ^llll jllll jlllItil;I!£I!IllsisiIIsitgIs Ss&•IiI•fsss.ll^ss?IsIllII11ssssi£L11?31igill!S|II I .- i"hi!jlliillS I IIIIliilllilhlltHIIIIUJIlll!"![IJlIII.iiiljlj£Issi!Hjij.isI& &S S ss!sl!!i ji!l{ijjilili?ii^??HtI52ItsIIssssi r1.11sis IIll11111Is5sf-c:liii.II?lli!lllltliliilillllllIjI1(,I= sS Iijis£IllIllsIiIIIIIUI11111 illiss&SS.SSI£JliIs S 5ill•sIIijHislHiss sIIsI!s s"ISiElss s?'sis£ S1.11ss sIsnIsSI1ssIIs•as.I•sss.iss'1S s sIs?12?IIss^5f-S!ll^IHIIIIsss^iiiI1!?SsE1Ill3IIHIIIs I11sItII?gSI!g«lsiIiI!S!'2NIllIll£s'i?gEg?i1II•UIsinssu•I SIllfflji!J!llijliiiilsjilIII2'£i-I^llllitil^ ^jjiI silli1^Ifil'1jlIIII11ii,•sIIHftst'S a s ?is; s n i •i.ii.EillI^l"liilijlia'.a,T'ilII'1.1IIIIliII1.111;1:lil51i2IIHIIilllj^ilH I'liiiiJiIl^jills^^;ls I S^SII2I?<hfi!jii9{i?~3U.l!lIllIH.1I iIJII;iJ mjp JJI•°' ajjjtii-iUtll!!!II IIs IIl!ilEitillllH:}{!iil}i!IHiilli||It!& g£sIsssl.\stjslJ!iiliiii2S£I•sI8 s.im5^sitit IrlllllllII!!!ijii£l|t|j|iilill!HIHl!ili{{{JJINjil!liililli!!tiiliifIIIlNiJiiI!'5 s ^'i!i1t1!wI11111IIiIIItU)l£ltlijjill1111ill1IJlli!lPiItltiltlliiiltlIJIIPI;ISs|lililii£s s.l illjllliiItiliji^^1^S ."g I Iill•B"^sftss3tpl^Fst3:IIIS!e%E if?iiljs?lilijiiiiHliil sils.£^Jll!!!{!Iljll_PiSill!i!£^illiliIf!^11.•ssill!ili!J§s I1^l!lISIIHilii!liiiiIll,.i2Sf8•s11<riIII!!JiIiiiJilllt^s363 •ipje^ueuiuj-Auut j 6t'Z9-6LE-t;6SbjO 'P^^od I ^l;# IS "oGaJQ 3N ZZ;?&ijnio3iiti3yv y!uv?*iuiimv£SIJilll^t!l?311!$1m^!1!1IllSli6g'lW"ei"ezogasnoy quoN 80^lasiinysde6euBis - Buip|ingesnoy isaMejndliljiili!liiisansJ)s§isuoisjAsy 5523i^18£r.s,?aisss"1I sJ£fe-smsMb01SH-ing0-Jt-I§g§sE-3g^sIgS Is:Hl0IUs•Sl&s_*.Qlsi£?IT-JsE."s.S1si=53^sIIs3©sfslgg—Ei.g.51UJ>M§s<^t}sgs'gedeospue-i (g)&ssgog^§ s^80Q)11aun <)J3dojd°5uja.gg•3AV3snoyN^a3?-^I-»<»tf<^.3S.^s;L/i<.t-£^:-^s.-<•^»^^\—^-^\\-»s'•I?IwD-1,Ill(r)°IISo364 II31vi?fciiJuKu-43je(ueuituww (6^9-GlE-t^Slao 'pueii;o;j | azit is uo6aJQ 3N ZEZZt]yni33iiHoyv IIIUVKIW^lisH^II!gliliillillS1Z6S 'IN ueiuazogasnoy WON 80Z133 i!Ny3deBeuBi9 - Buipijngesnoy iseMSJnd,?:hfjnI!^IlEl:suo!siA9y "anssi| sieg]003s?&dg§•s<§sGiss1ss.°g^g0ytess?^s^Gs sg§5^s33fcs^ss^_ '<Is)?.^wl($)?gfcssss3)s^s^s°w^^?:•:?\,Si/^<*\^:s.s'1^; "^^-^~~-. ^^^-Jm:&. \. Y-*%T.^°-1h^^^Ir^ts'gg.iEIissitN11•rIsCTKs"sr~1\-1I.Efr-^t*....-..^.,.-!_:..—,, I.IiuloKIs(r)365 City of Solsman Building Sivision'approved for* Construction8P19-00029162 12/H/19BOZEMANMTSIGN PERMIT APPLICATION;"'/', 0?';£:-J;:;-;'M;/;OFFICE USE ONIYPERM IT #.[A) APPLICATION NAMESPROJECTOR BUSINESS NAME: PureWest Real EstateSITE ADDRESS: 708 N Rouse Ave' Bozeman MT 59715STE#:APPLICANT'S NAME: DOU9 MinarikPHONE: 971-319-6249TrRST&LASTAPPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 2222 NE c"'e90n st *217. Portland OR 97232EMAIL: DOU9@minarikarch-c°mPROPER^ OWNER'S NAME: pur'e_Real Estate t-LCPHONE; 406-751-5600FIRST ATAST "-..—...-—.—-.—— —PROPERTY OWNER'S ADDRESS: ^ IstAve. East.Kaiispell, MT 59901 EMAIL: ryon@purewestmt.comBUSINESS OWNER'S NAME: pure Real Estate LLC dba PureWest Real Estate pHow. 406--nfiSTA LAST—. — - •ADORFSS:17 1stAve- East. Kalispetl, MT 59901SIGN CONTRACTOR: Signs to be Installed by general contractorBUSINESS LICENSE NAME —SIGN CONTR ADDRESS:EMAIL: ryon@purewestmt.comEMAIL:ELECT CONTRACTOR: ^uture Scope Contracted by OwnerBUSINESS LICENSE KAWE —~PHONE:PHONE:j B) APPLICATION CHECKLISTYESNOTESSUBMIT TWO SETS OF FULL COLOR PLANS 8 Yi Xll OR 11X17, FOR EACH SIGN CLEARLYl:''\!.'i.JJ..LII2 [.^'i!'L.';l''11': wi.TII.Jtli..!NL'^'LMAr!^Nj^;.r;'Tli?t(; , -i: • i\\.:.:.. •i'^LiCOMPLETE^ ^5_BE LOW:See A9.00 &A9.011. Color exterior photographs of each facade of the building and/or windows withsignage existing to remain and new proposed signage overlaid into the photograph(signage depicted must be as close as possible to the actual size to be installed onbuilding)E2. Sign Construction (cabinet, individual channel letters, push through lettering, vinyl,etc) CROSS SECTION DETAIL, Describe:.a>«3. Sign Illumination Details: Internal Illumination orfidirect Lightin^CircleOne) IFINDIRECT LIGHTING PROVIDE FIXTURE CUTSHEETS/See Cut Sheet Attached4. Sign Mounting Details: DETAIL OF PROPOSED HARDWARE5. Scaled site plan detail showing sign location, site vision triangles, setbacks,easements, and water and sewer lines (freestanding signs only)See A9.01'( :<icul,ite Allnwri square Foot,ige and Add Sign Details' •n R,<' - I P.equi! *•())*FOR DEPARTMENTAL USE ONLY BELOW THIS LINE0 PLANNING DEPARTWEm-0 BUILDING DEPARTMENT0 BUILDING PERMFT REQUIRED() APPROVED() APPROVED0 YES( ) DISPROVED( ) DISPROVEDC)NOAPPROVED BY:DATE366 [0-CALCULATE SIGNAGE ALLOWED FOR BUILDING:City of Bozempn Building Divisionapproved for Construction^19-00029162 12/17/19Zoning District*HMU3Allowed sq. ft. per linear foot of building frontage. First 25 Feet**Al'lowed sq. ft. per linear foot of building frontage > 25 Feet***-SEE THE TABLE IN BOZEMAN MU?;''i 1'.'.... — .si.iJ;.:?\- ' •-'.;'L.-;;.; ;^-''^L..;-":".;';i-.11 ll<''.'IM'MNETlNrE:l'-i 1-W naH.MAP.,rO_R.20NJ»,l^niST<,R|Ltjw\(B)I. ^f A1.5Length of Building Front (ft)***|_w^Less first 25 feetRemaining Frontage2550' - 0-'' ' •'' M' ?'is^:'';''ll..J'ul ;'' '' •1 !1" '.-'-''.^l^-l'l^H1'!;x (A Value) sx (B Value) is07575(C)(D)Total of C& D Values =New Signage RequestedTotal Existing SignageTotal Signage for Building[p-s- 150jAllowable Sien Amount (sa.ft)IK":43N/AT€0-43(sq.ft)(sq. ft, if applicable)D) FOR MULTI-TENANT BUILDINGS ONLY;COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN: YES OR NO (See A if Yes, B if No)(•„, _ Percent Allowable Signage or Plan approved square footage allotment":i:Must Include Copy of Approved Comprehensive Sign Plan and Signed Letter of Approval from Association or Manager*B. Total Bldg Floor Area (sq.ft): 8,950PERCENT OF TENANT SPACE:68["aTotal Tenant Floor Area (sq.ft): 6'097150 x .66 = 99 square feetE) SIGN DETAILSSign ftlFreestandingProjection/Blade/AwningWallDimensions in Feet_(L)x_(w)=_(L)x_(w)=w_ _(1-) x.4y_(w)=ArfEl (->q ft)Maxl-teigl'it**Value of Sign:]Project over Right of Way Yes or No36Sign #2FreestandingProjection/Blade/AwningWallDimensions in Feet<2)36 (L)x28 _(w)=_(L)x_(w)=._,._._(Ux_(w):.Arc a (,sq ft)MaxKeiglit**7 -!-<— I 5'-(]-AFG"only one sidefis couhtecr-pe!-&eeiiefr8^~iiL&e-0£9—i^rea of signslValue of SignProject over Right of Way Yes or^a>Sign »3Freestanding'rojection/Blade/AwningWallDimensions in Feet_(L)x_(w)=_(L)x_(w)=_(l)x._(w;=Area (sq ft)MaxKeiglis:**Value ofSignProject over Right of Way Yes or Not*Maxhei{ihl. measured frotii g/'Qiiniitotopnf-iiiiiiffrees.tiii^iiyandprofect'oristCjns oii!yjIF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CONTACT BOZEMAN PLANNING AT 406-582.2260 OR BUILDING AT 406-582-237SAPPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS: INTERPRETATIONS - BMC 38.35.040 W/IN 30 DAYS, PROfECT DECISIONS - BMC 38.3S.030 W/IN 10 DAYSNo building or other structure shall be erected, moved, added to or structurally altered without valid permits. This APPLICATION form is to be completedfor all development proposals which need building permits, pursuant of secUon 18.62.030 of the Bozeroan Municipal Code. This application form must becompleted and apprond by the appropriate authorities prior to building permit issuance. ALL BLANKS MUST BE COMPI.ETEO. AppllcaUons wiU not beaccepted without signatures. Incorrect InformaUon provided In con|unction with this APPLICATION may result in the delay or revocation of buildingand/or occupancy permits.APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE:PRINTED NAME:__. „_DATE:^\^ ^.-^; \^PROPERTC OWNER'S SIGNATURE- I/.^'-DATE: ; .? / " /^:i'p.^^1.^a2'••)-^-I^'^-V-l^-,.-.^'' ^ y ' . ___ /i^: (• I ^^LM.^U^-^l-.^--^./ ,"':'/?4"t./ <:'PRINTED NAMElal Ci^cc'r7367 DocuSign Envelope ID: 10F47302-760B-40C8-ADBB-FC945638C03BBOZEMANBuiidingMTI <;itv of Bozerttan ^uitdinq DivisTonn'Approved for Construction [IBP19-00029I62 12/17/19 [20 E Olive Street STE 208 • PO Box 1230Bozeman,MT 59771-1230Phone: (406) 582-2375 • permits@bozeman.netOwner Signature RequiredI, owner of the property at: 708 N Rouse Ave. Bozeman MT 59715Authorize, the applicant: PureWest Real Estate LLCAnd/Or General Contractor^To apply for a building permit for make changes to either myo Residence; orS Commercial Building-DocuSigned by;V=^.SC9A5D.7.2.EBD843E.___^__._._.____.___..____..____..___.._.___..____.___.._.Owner SignatureDavid NelsonPrinted Name:708-203-0496Phone number:6/12/2019Date:368 Nexus Outdoor LED Wall LightBy Hinkley LightingL; I lf't»l°I'p?*,'p?n <('^'~c»('":;-I L-l'-^<Pt"M"'«d.t£2e<(onyn£DonBP19-00029162('vision[on12/17/19€»li Us .'877.,445,44.»6Product OptionsFinish; BroiizeSii!6: ;ilTi3!l, LargsDetailsl,.iiii:'.)t' Iwad [•!!i;.at»3 3SC ''(."irfcs Ml- firsiMR ticfjustnisiitaInciudes a l.?0v sigi'' iil.iht ka iwtii aii el'ictrunir a'arisiiiriiiar, jiuKllon !!o;!covsr, liylit engine, aiid :'!" w<\ ?" stanis.Oii-nniabli;! Wiien Used With n i"!"(-cn)nic' low vyltgys (ELV) Uinr'ner (N')tIncluded)III.. Listed W»i:WdiTnlity: S yeai- ,r;ani'factura (.ierect Wdl nnty anti i.EO iritygral(;ticoinponants can'y 3 'lO-yFaf limited. Made In ChinaDmiensionsSmaii Op'ti'on Baehpitita; l)i3i"ec.;r 4,75"Smati Optis;' ?i;rt'.ira; Winth n,S". 1-leiglitS", E'ccsnsion S,4"Larga Option Biicfcpiate; D!aiviatei"!,75"Largo O'ptwii TrftWff- Wititli 31.5", Heigiit';", !:;;(Eansion 6,4"Lighting7,3 Watt !5QO LuiiiSils! 1.20 Vo!l: lnteg!'ated L£P: CRl: SO CalorTemp; 2700KLifi->sp;in; 40000 hoursAdditiona! DetailsPradurt UBl,: !TCi:p$;;/www.lumeiis.conVi'").u;;-oiit(.ic!nr.led. 3!l.lig.t-by.h!nl<ley.lighi:ing-H>;.YPJ.3514;i,htn'lRaiing; UL Listed WetShown in BifiiWi finish. Srpail sizeNotes;Product ID: HKYP133143Prap-iit'ad by;Pi'eparad tor;Pi'OJOd!Room;yi^^n.i&n^Approv.ii;fCreatad Dsceinber Ocli, 20!.y369 BOZEMANCODE COMPLIANCEMTNotice of Zoning ViolationPrint Date: December 13*, 2021Pure Real Estate, LLC171st Ave E.Kalispell, MT 59901The property located at 708 N. Rouse Ave was identified as being owned by you and is in violation of the City ofBozeman's Zoning Code, specifically Chapter 38.570.040(G)(1)(3)(5) as follows: - Miscellaneous site lightingspecifications. Except as otherwise allowed in subsections E and G of this section, all lighting must comply with thefollowing requirements: 1. All outdoor lighting, whether or not required by this section, must be aimed, located,designed, fitted and maintained so as not to present a hazard to drivers or pedestrians by impairing their ability tosafely traverse and so as not to create a nuisance by projecting or reflecting objectionable light onto a neighboring useor property; 3. Except for residential lighting, street lighting, pathway intersection lighting and security lighting, alllighting must be turned off between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Exceptions will be granted to those businesses whichoperate during these hours; such lighting may remain illuminated only while the establishment is actually open forbusiness; 5. All outdoor lighting must be designed and located such that the maximum illumination measured in footcandles at the property line may not exceed 0.3 onto adjacent residential properties and 1.0 onto adjacent commercialproperties and public rights-of-way. Specifically, light measurements were taken on this property and found to be inviolation of the code sections listed above. The extra lighting placed on the exterior (string lights) should be turned off nolater than llpm nightly. Ako, the lighting at the front of the building facing onto Rouse Ave., as well as the lighting in therear that faces the creek, are in violation of the section stating what the footcandles must be to meet the code. The rearlights are especially bright (measuring 0.85 at the property line, and they are not allowed to be more than 0.3. Note thatsecurity lighting is allowed within the code, as long as it meets #5 listed above.You are hereby directed to correct the cited violation(s) within 30 days of receipt of this notice. If you fail to correct theviolations listed in this notice, the offending conditions will be forwarded to the Municipal Court, where it will beresolved. The violation of any provision of this article by any person, association, company or corporation shall be subjectto the penalties provided as follows: A first citation shall carry a mmimum penalty of $100.00; A second citation withinone year shall carry a minimum penalty of $150.00; A third and subsequent citations within a one-vear period shall carrya penalty not to exceed $500.00^An£_@erson who violatesthjs chapter or fails to comply with any of its requirements mayupon conviction thereof be fined or imprisoned or bothLeitheL_as set forth in state law regarding subdivision and zoning,or in accordance with section 1.01.210, and in addition must_@aY_alI costs and expenses involved in the case except asstated in subsection D of this section. Each day such violation continues is a separate_offense and punishable as.such.If you have any question^ please let me know.Thank yc^Gary D.jRobertsPrograrA Manager i Code ComplianceCity of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St [ P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771P: 406.582.2223 | C: 406.599.5347 | E: arobertsOBozeman.net370 BOZEMANCODE COMPLIANCEMTNotice of Zoning ViolationPrint Date: December 13*, 2021Pure Real Estate, LLC708 N. Rouse Ave.Bozeman, MT 59715The property located at 708 N. Rouse Ave was identified as being owned by you and is in violation of the City ofBozeman's Zoning Code, specifically Chapter 38.570.040(G)(1)(3)(5) as follows: - Miscellaneous site lightingspecifications. Except as otherwise allowed in subsections E and G of this section, all lighting must comply with thefollowing requirements: 1. All outdoor lighting, whether or not required by this section, must be aimed, located,designed, fitted and maintained so as not to present a hazard to drivers or pedestrians by impairing their ability tosafely traverse and so as not to create a nuisance by projecting or reflecting objectionable light onto a neighboring useor property; 3. Except for residential lighting, street lighting, pathway intersection lighting and security lighting, alllighting must be turned off between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Exceptions will be granted to those businesses whichoperate during these hours; such lighting may remain illuminated only while the establishment is actually open forbusiness; 5. All outdoor lighting must be designed and located such that the maximum illumination measured in footcandles at the property line may not exceed 0.3 onto adjacent residential properties and 1.0 onto adjacent commercialproperties and public rights-of-way. Specifically, light measurements were taken on this property and found to be inviolation of the code sections listed above. The extra lighting placed on the exterior (string lights) should be turned off nolater than llpm nightly. Also, the lighting at the front of the building facing onto Rouse Ave., as well as the lighting in therear that faces the creek, are in violation of the section stating what the footcandles must be to meet the code. The rearlights are especially bright (measuring 0.85 at the property line, and they are not allowed to be more than 0.3. Note thatsecurity lighting is allowed within the code, as long as it meets #5 listed above.You are hereby directed to correct the cited violation(s) within 30 days of receipt of this notice. If you fail to correct theviolations listed in this notice, the offending conditions will be forwarded to the Municipal Court, where it will beresolved. The violation of any provision of this article by any person, association, company or corporation shall be subjectto the penalties provided as follows: A first citation shall carry a minimum penalty of $100.00; A second citation withinone^^eai^shall carry a minimum penalty of $150.00; A third and^ubsequent citations within a one-year period shall carrya penalty not to exceed $500.00. Any person who violates this chapter or fails to comply with any of its reouirements mayupon conviction thereof be fined or imprisoned or both, either as set forth in state law reearding subdivision and zoning,or in accordance with section 1.01.210, and in addition must pay all costs and expenses involved in the case except asstated in subsection D of this section. Each day such violation continues is a separate offense and punishable as such.If you have any questions, please let me know.Than^il, /) ^vGary C). RobertsProgram Manager j Code ComplianceCity of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. [ P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771P: 406.582.2223 | C: 406.599.5347 | E: aroberts@Bozeman.net371 June 8, 2022 David Weston 717 N. Rouse Ave. Bozeman, MT 59715 Sent Via Email Only: weston@mail.com RE: PureWest Christie’s lighting complaints Dear Mr. Weston: This letter serves as a summary of facts gathered and actions taken by the City of Bozeman’s Code Compliance Division in response to your complaints about PureWest Christie’s Real Estate (PWC) lighting at 708 North Rouse Avenue. The City investigated and found three separate violations of the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC). Two of the violations were communicated to PWC on December 13, 2021 and PWC was notified about the violation regarding monument lights in March, 2022. The management of PWC has been working towards compliance by ordering and installing new wall lights to reduce the amount of lighting on the property, and placing other lighting on timers to automatically turn off during the hours of 11 p.m. to 6 a.m., consistent with City code. This process has been time consuming, but it is nearly complete. Since October 2021, the City has made several site visits to PWC to investigate your complaints, which included the roof peak lighting fixture, the wall light fixtures facing the parking lot area, rear lights along the creek, Christmas lights on the front of the building, and the monument lights at the entrance to the property. Those visits were conducted on October 22, 2021, December 7, 2021, December 11, 2021, March 3, 2022, March 20, 2022, May 26, 2022, June 1, 2022 and June 6, 2022. City personnel also conducted a few other informal drive-bys to check on PWC’s progress during the lighting changes. The findings of the investigation are summarized below. With respect to the monument light at the entrance to the parking lot, section 38.570.040.G.5, BMC generally limits the amount of light projected into the public right of way to 1.0 footcandles or 0.3 footcandles onto neighboring residences. Also, section 38.570.040.G.1 states, in part, that lights must be aimed, located, designed and fitted “so as not to create a nuisance by projecting or reflecting objectionable light onto a neighboring use or property.” I note that your concerns regarding the monument light were not part of the original complaint, but added through your correspondence of March 2022. The City Code Compliance department found that the monument lights were located too far from the monument sign, thus allowing lights to shine past the sign and onto properties across the street in violation of code. The City discussed this violation with PWC management and the lighting will be turned off until backlighting is installed on the sign in the future. Once installed, the new lighting will be on a timer to meet the code requirement that most site lighting must be turned off between the hours of 11 p.m. to 6 a.m., pursuant to 38.570.040.G.3. 372 Page 2 of 2 The exterior wall light fixtures facing the parking lot area emit an appropriate amount of light pursuant to BMC 38.570.040.A and G.5. However, Code Compliance and Planning Division staff determined that the lighting was in violation of section 38.570.040.G.2 because PWC’s wall light fixtures emitted light above the horizontal plane passing through the lowest point of the light fixture. In response, PWC management ordered and installed new wall lighting fixtures that now meet the code requirements. PureWest has informed the City that these lights constitute their security lighting, and as such, are allowed to remain on during nighttime hours, per section 38.570.040.G.3. In regards to the roof peak lighting, this light meets the footcandle requirements within the code, which is no more than 1.0 footcandles into the right of way, or 0.3 at the property line. However, the roof peak lighting was illuminated all night, in violation of section 38.570.040.G.3, BMC. PWC has placed the roof peak lighting on a timer, which turns these lights off from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. to comply with code requirements. The City’s investigation of the rear lights along the creek revealed that the lights were emitting excessive light and PWC was informed of the violation of 38.570.040.G.5. PWC initially replaced or dimmed the lights, which measured less than the maximum allowable footcandles during a subsequent inspection. PWC has since turned these lights off. The Christmas lights were removed in early January 2022. The notice of violation sent by the City to PWC in December allowed 30 days to correct a violation, and the Christmas lights were removed within that timeframe. PWC has assured the City it is diligently working to ensure all of the code violations are corrected and that their site remains in compliance with City regulations. A final inspection was completed on June 7, 2022. PWC has resolved all of the violations to the City’s satisfaction. I appreciate your concerns and patience as the City thoroughly investigated your complaints. Based on the final inspection, this matter is now closed. If you need anything further, please contact me at 406-582-2940 or abentley@bozeman.net. Sincerely, Anna Bentley, AICP Interim Director of Community Development 373