The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About638300221650987091) �t ! _ i =4• t r• d hZ 4 -� f ! Z.-05217 Bozeman Gateway PIOD Preliminary Plan southwest at Col.tege%Huttine . Mitchell; Development Group r: ti August 1,0, °2005 o to • ry o FILE REVIEW SHEET PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT File Name: File Number. ?--O J aA PT Reference Files: -o�� p��y�� o`ti�\3, �' �L�(' —1-- 0((o I Date Date Done N/A Due Done By DRC initial week review ❑ DRC second week review ❑ DRC final week review ❑ DRB review ❑ DRB staff report due ❑ WRB review- if applicable ❑ Comments from other review agencies due ❑ Notice to applicant and adjoiners (not less than 15 or more than 30 working days El the City Commis sion hearing) Post notice (not less than 15 or more than 30 working days before the City ❑ Commission hearing) Newspaper notice (not less than 15 or more than 30 working days before the City ❑ Conuzussion hearing) City Commission staff report due ❑ City Commission hearing date ❑ Final approval letter to applicant ❑ Recommended Recommended Approval Recommended Date N/A Approval with Conditions Denial DRC action f ❑ DRB action ❑ WRB action ❑ Approved Approved with Conditions Denied Date City Commission action Date Final Site Plan due: Improvements Agreement required? ❑ Yes ❑ No Date returned: Date of Final Site Plan approval: Date Final Site Plan approval expires: Date financial guarantee received: Date financial guarantee expires: Date financial guarantee released: Date Temporary Occupancy is granted: Date Final Occupancy is granted: 1 Pro ect Activity Lod Ulm1 pity of 5ozeman r CIDepartment of Planning& Comrriunity Development 'roject Name: �V„� de No: Date Activity Staff Staff Cumulative Members Hours Hours i Project: � 1-/ File #: E —0,�Saj Review for completeness by If complete, return to front office for file. If incomplete, write/contact applicant and explain why by To DRC: 7 To DRB: - DRB Report Due: °l To Planning Board: Planning Board Report Due: To Zoning Commission: Zoning Commission Report Due: To City Commission: - / 7 ltmZa City Commission Packet Due: /D-/-- City Commission Work Session: Notice to Paper: - for publication on ��" a`�- Notice to adjoiners and post site on : - s Message Page 1 of 1 Ted Mitchell From: Ted Mitchell [ted@mdandi.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 3:34 PM To: 'Dave Skelton' Cc: 'Jim Ullman'; 'Andy Epple'; 'Tim Cooper' Subject: RE: Bozeman Gateway PUD Dave, There are no lots planned for any sort of residential development in Phase 2. Conceptually, the City Commission requested that we provide them an implementation plan for a residential component in the core of the development. Planning felt they needed this material before they submitted Phase 3 final plat to the City Commission on August of 2006. All information concerning the Residential Implementation Plan was sent to Planning and the City Manager's office on August 22, 2006. For your convenience I will ask Melissa from my office to forward via e-mail information that was previously sent you over a year ago that satisfied condition#39 concerning the Conditional Use Permit for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision Preliminary P.U.D. Plan. Due to the size of the file Melissa will send you two a-mails immediately following this correspondence to you. After you have had an opportunity to relook at the material you will see that the Residential Conceptual Plan is shown for Phase 4 (the core of the project) not Phase 2. If you should have any further questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Ted 10/9/2007 TD- -- - - ---- -- -- - kJ,-1 0 .LA,) � /mow, ��. �`�� ._ �... r } .� ' I � . 1 � 1]+ >t ,� • .,,_. { I Memorandum co��rrai Date: August 22, 2006 To: Andrew Epple—City of Bozeman Planning Director David Skelton— Senior Planner From: Mitchell Development Group, LLC—Ted Mitchell Subject: Residential Implementation Plan—Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. Southeast Corner Huff ne&Fowler Avenue—Bozeman,MT. CC: Chris Kukulski,City Manager The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. encompasses a 72.2 acre parcel at the above location all of which is zoned B-2 Community Business District. The Bozeman Zoning Code states that"the intent of the B-2 district is to provide for a broad range of retail and service functions oriented to major arterial streets". Additionally, this particular zoning district allows for the incorporation of a residential element. Accordingly,we are pleased to present the residential component herewith and excited about the possible opportunity to include residential units into the project. The conceptual residential component for the Gateway project would be comprised of two (2) separate elements within the core of the development as illustrated on the enclosed plans, aerials and elevations. They are as follows: 1.) Apartment and/or condominiums above the first floor of the "Life Style" Center adjacent the southern edge of Technology Boulevard. 2.) Two (2) multi-storied residential structures situated along the northern perimeter of Garfield Street. The apartment and/or condominium units within the Life Style portion of the project would conceivably be made up of a second (2d) story (or possibly a Yd) above the first floor retail uses. Mitchell Development Group, LLC (MDG) estimates that there would 1 total 25—30 units per floor ranging from 750— 850 square feet. Of importance is that the apartments or condos would be contingent upon the construction and occupancy of the retail portion of the Life Style Center. The illustration enclosed is similar to a rendering we previously displayed. We have always desired to include residences above the Life Style Center. The original version has been modified by adding balconies. Regarding the two (2) multi-storied residential facilities, enclosed are conceptual drawings of a potential site configuration, building elevations and unit floor plans along with a decked parking structure. Each facility would offer I'floor covered parking along with six (6) additional floors with approximately 72 residential units ranging from 1,000 to 3,380 square feet. Construction timing is obviously contingent upon market demand, among other things. We ask that you retain this information on file in confidence due to its conceptual nature. This submittal satisfies the requirement of disputed condition#39 from the December 12, 2005 Bozeman City Commission meeting concerning the Conditional Use Permit for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision Preliminary P.U.D. Plan. Said condition reads as follows: "That the applicant submit an implementation plan for a residential component of seventy (70) or more residential dwelling units with a substantial number of dwelling units located in the core of the development prior to review and approval of Phase 2." As noted above, MDG disputes the content of condition 439 as set out in our formal written response to the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. zoning conditions. The actual Bozeman City Commission motion eliminated any project phasing restriction issue and instead addressed a height relaxation request. With this submittal MDG does in no way withdraw its dispute of condition#39. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 2 1 + l • .i- Y� .. -t, r 1+` ` J O ,r ice.-•+.T ,�� cenlNcero cAlleNtt i � �'� � • � . IJ PAID PP fa� kill_ m tl �^ BL • z+ �y j a s." �o t iz CD 1 2 o 55 � •.� p f ar �—� VIE. r—v—1► a t od Al • � !e•i� a r 1�' HRONICL LANE \ O w �1 -� fM• � � � :.sir � �� ,� �' ��. •1►1i � i1 WIN Im CZ �1, ` .�. r• �" ..tire, y •I:,Fr, � �� f) i4 r Il g7-Tip t M-7- II rz is . Imo+ �„fii ILO I ,a h1: Diu lip. s✓ fl IIY i T I - IF �1 Ing wt r ..ter r.u.■■ �� ' - `� i � 2 a �' �f d d! ti 'J i ,i ',� ,I U ;� B a u u :; 1 �; r � , 75 Tom, m I IIFM I '!�I'"'i 1� 1 I 7 � QQ -I C fD O Z N{M O N ;c� _ v � ,1 'F .ro 1ylD is', � :`:.' �� I �•n � � q � ♦ + , j 1 7 I �, wy. 1 le 1 r wl.0 1 IF Lit ':r �/� �l►��1-�1 r` r *,11LSd�Si`df� willillp, Ellr, tea14, w* 5y ��,y � L _LY'p wI• 4, �� M V mCILC£i3 tO m �tirt 5 p CT aN•�' �T ��,� IJ - - i � jam— -,�.� I�t. rn N�ev'Dt DI r, I, y 'd �, +�� ti Y {� �I �� +I �i ''Ni':I �}' �+ r� l' AI it ;� �, �r/�/;cam/�.r�'=�� •— pp r� I T TIs 7471,TiF I : N•G � t. � "I�I��I �s= "7 Ia:_ Loo,ol V a d c:�•i4'.......... i Ir � !oi W f ■� A v„� m W dj �'1 !6 f: A : 1 .: }� _ o rn n _ ^' .orb r_ �I-I I I-I-'�-1 z m 4A /Z Yl = je, . ft ,ems �,� ' :� � ► _ �, Ag z 2M$1 job lw blul You ' . '�'l �� ;,�b� ��•� �;� �� . �� i r •- `,r!� �j��• / off!1�� f � r • lip { ! ►1�� . t�, ��'� jam`bi 1 r {`�..". +.may �1� •� -it's '•�fi� �, � � i glee, l ., �� t�i,+► r i a �I t 7 N tl ' r1 A' U f 4 .S q i -�. * ; r,i1 ►imp► ■■yyy!!!ii111-.^t wi "f tAMA �, J _ter . MAI IL, �tAll;"IRRY ; 1 '? AAA y az J!, , al __ ZOL � 07 fin' O T � '1►��t�� '� � � ��• A • 4 Iq t• u f S t tt i t _ U to " �Z it s1 s sZ dD 1 2• 1 1 u � d t� � ( ZoS PC A Z c i ,� ,� �I ,7 '� ,9 4 u N I �a n 'i i l 416 11 . ty z1 r ♦ �t � sY r� �� ,r i 1� � ire• r � S zy yt 't 61% 1� 1� • iY s� op 4t- 40 tit {t y► t1 rooA K �4 3 069 `M —4v da 10 raw a � e4 Alp f 7 �0�4i irk bo r Page 1 of 3 Mitchell Development From: Bell, Eric A. [Eric.Bell@c-b.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 10:13 AM To: dskelton@BOZEMAN.NET Cc: mitchell_dev@sofast.net; Jim Ullman;jolene@peakstoplains.com Subject: Bozeman Gateway Dave, Ted has directed me to incorporate as much of the exact text from the conditions as feasible. There are only 4 out of 37 conditions that we have concerns with. It will take only a short discussion with someone from the planning department to get things moving forward. I hope you will be the one to help. Listed below, you will find exact verbiage of the condition in question, followed by my comments in bold. I am currently updating the development manual with the changes so we can provide you and the DRB a black and white version by tomorrow night. Your quick response would be appreciated. However, if I do not hear from you, I will not be able to address the following issues within the development manual. Condition 10. The Final PUD Plan and Development Manual shall discuss the treatment of street intersections that are enhanced by pedestrian-friendly entrances, plazas or design features such as benches and landscape planters. Building entrances near the sidewalk edge that contain an entry plaza should also be considered at the intersections of local streets with Technology Boulevard and not only in the commercial area, but also along the business park/professional office corridors. This would also apply at the corner of Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street. I am having considerable trouble understanding the intent of this condition. I am confused as to the definition of "building entrances that contain an entry plaza". The only way I feel comfortable incorporating this verbiage is if I understand what you are looking for. A specific response on this issue,from you,is necessary. Also in Condition 10. If it is the decision to locate the grocery store at the southeast corner of West Main Street and Fowler Avenue,a building entrance and plaza must occur along the entryway corridor,preferably at the northwest corner of the building. A grocery store entrance and plaza occurs along the entry way corridor and that requirement is in the development manual. Due to the interior layout of the grocery store it is not feasible for this entrance to be located at the northwest corner of the building. Since this element is only preferred and is not possible per reasonable grocery store design,the exact verbiage has been left out of the manual. Please let me know if you are in agreement. Condition 17. The Bozeman Design Objectives Plan states that the following elements must be achieved in order to reduce the perceived mass of a building: a change in color or change in material shall be used in each building module; a 20%change in vertical height between each module; change roof form; change in articulation. The current Bozeman Design Objective Plan reads as follows: 1. Divide a building into modules that express dimensions of structures seen traditionally. - In general,a primary facade plane should not exceed 100 feet in length. 2. Buildings shall employ all of the following design techniques: - Change the height of a wall plane or building module. The change in height shall be at least 20% of the vertical height. 2/21/2006 Page 2 of 3 The definition of a building module is not exactly clear. If a building module is every 1.00' then a 20% change in vertical height is appropriate. If a building module is a "traditional" storefront, not longer then say 20 or 30 feet,then a 20% change is extreme and will result in a strange,ill proportioned building. We need to define the term "building module" and make sure all facades are as aesthetically pleasing as possible. A quick discussion about this topic should create a solution that is far more beneficial for the city and the developer. Condition 25. All of the buildings on the perimeter of the development shall have a second store front(double fronted design)that is oriented towards the streetscape and shall include a colonnade and a sidewalk connection to the perimeter sidewalk/trail system. Buildings will have store front design along the rear that is oriented towards the street. While clear vision store front and/or a second public entrance is encouraged, it is by no means required. The typical tenant occupying these spaces will require storage and "back of house" type operations in the rear of their space. The public will not want a view of these spaces and therefore spandrel glass and service entrances will be used along most of the rear of buildings. To require public entrances in the back of the convenience center will leave it unleasable and abandoned. It is my recommendation that we require the use of the "double fronted " design as it is shown by the diagram on page 40 of the Bozeman Design Objective Plan. Using it at the corner of the buildings where the parking lot meets the street seems much more appropriate. Please let me know your thoughts on this issue. The current wording suggests that a colonnade and a sidewalk are to connect to the perimeter sidewalk/trail system. This'seems irrational so I assume the condition is trying to suggest that a colonnade be provided along the back facades of buildings. The presence of a colonnade was never suggested by the back of building study elevations presented to the DRB on November 9th, 2005 at 3:30PM. Besides being of significant expense,these colonnades would seldom be used by the public,would darken the back facade, and would provide an area for garbage and vagrant collection. Colonnades along the rear of building will not enhance the project and should not be required by the development manual. Condition 34. A common master signage plan depicting the actual location, dimensions, height, illumination and use of materials for all freestanding signs shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Final PUD Plan approval. Both the pylon signs and monument signs shall be constructed of materials compatible with the overall building design theme for the development and illustrated accordingly in the Development Manual. All signs shall obtain a sign permit prior to construction and installation,and shall comply with the required regulatory standards set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance. The Development Manual will need to include a graphic component of the master sign plan for the entire property that reflects the theme desired with this PUD This includes discussion on the position of signs as part of the overall building composition; avoid obscuring architectural details, materials, and use of color and relief,three-dimensional signage, placement of freestanding signs along street frontages, entrances into the development, and addressing required setbacks and street vision triangles The team is currently sorting out the beginnings of a environmental graphics package for the project. When completed, this should accurately depict the design of the monument and pylon signs. The process will take some time but will be completed for final plat. Unfortunately there is no way to get an accurate design for signage into the development manual in this week. I suggest we leave that section as is, and the DRB review the rest of the document knowing it will be updated in the near future. I need to know if this strategy will work for you. Please help me make the last finishing touches to the development manual so that things can move forward. My client has spent an incredible, almost unjustifiable, amount of time and money trying to perfect this document. Sincerely, Eric Bell 214-920-8198 This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee 2/21/2006 �eal�s t� �'lai�s De,S 1 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE I PLANNING 1 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PHONE MEMORANDUM Spoke with: Dave Skelton Date: 02/10/06 Company: City of Bozeman Planning Project No.: 05022 Phone No.: 406-582-2260 Project: Bozeman Gateway PUD R e: 2/1/06 Memo to the DRB Telephone conversation with City Planner Dave Skelton regarding issues that I raised in an email dated 2/7/06 (attached). Dave indicated that we will need to submit a landscape plan of all the open space areas in the entire PUD. his plan should be submitted along with the site plan. We also discussed the requirement of boulevard trees in 1 per 50 feet. I cited in the Design Objectives Plan (pages 66 and 67) does not have that specific of a requirement. Dave indicated that this is a requirement that is listed in the CUP/PUD Staff report, requirement #8 on page 23, in addition to a requirment of the UDO, chapter 18- 48. He advised to follow the requirements of the UDO as well as the conditions of approval. We discussed his comment about the native species along the corridors. I pointed out to him the sections of the Development Manual that call out native seed mixes and woody plants that are native. This list is shown on page 64 as shrub materials used in both natural areas and formal shrub beds, in addition to page 65 and 66 that list additional native species more formally suited for more hydric regimes, such as along watercourses. Dave said he would send me the list that is being recommended from the 2 DRB members to include a comprehensive list of plants that may be considered. I indicated to him that the City would also have a chance to formally review the specific species during review of the construction documents. He also indicated that he would like a typical sketch of a cluster planting showing an example of what type of species mixes would be included. He cited the example of the storm outlet pipe as a good basis for what he is looking for, but to add the species names. We finally discussed his recommendation of hardscapes (trail specifications). In the email reference above, I attached word Page 2 of 2 documents of the trail specifications that I received from Ron Dingman at the City's Parks Department. I asked if this was enough to satisfy his statements made in the 02/01/06 memo. Dave indicated that this would for the gravel trails, but indicated that there is a standard asphalt specification for asphalt trails. He indicated that it is not available digitally, and he will fax it to me. From: Jolene Rieck c c: Ted Mitchell Dave Skelton Jim Ullman v i 208 North Broadway,Suite 350 Phone: (406) 294-9499 Billings,Montana 59101 Fax: (406) 256-7123 Pagel of 2 0 Jolene Rieck From: Jolene Rieck[Jolene@peakstoplains.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 12:08 PM To: 'dskelton@bozeman.net' Subject: Bozeman Gateway Landscape & OS Plans Hello Dave: (I left you a voice mail, too). I would like to discuss with you the memo you authored on February 1, 2006 regarding the design manual. I am still confused as I thought we agreed that a landscape plan of the entire development was not necessary at this time and only to highlight particular areas of interest was then intent. According to your memo,this is incorrect. As per your recent memo, we are interpreting the final landscape plan to be: 1. A schematic drawing of the landscaping in all open space areas, not individual building site, areas. Building site landscaping will be reviewed and approved as they are individually developed. 2. The landscape features can schematically show their relationships to existing power poles, property lines, underground facilities; however, because the final grading plan has not been developed, the plan needs to be able to be flexible to accommodate future ponds, ditch and stream relocations, utility changes, etc. 3. The West Main Street Corridor. I have reviewed the Corridor Specific Design Guidelines (City of Bozeman, Design Objective Plan, dated 2/14/05), specifically pages 66 and 67. It indicates the Guidelines for West Main Street. It says, "The following streetscape elements would be appropriate in this corridor: • Street trees—these should be installed In the MDT(Montana Department of Transportation)- right-of-way when feasible. • Landscape accents, including a landscaped median • Simple furnishings..." It does not state that a formal spacing of boulevard trees at one tree per 50 lineal feet is required along West Main Street. The current intent of the landscape plan does indicate that the Bozeman Gateway would like to provide a "green"edge along West Main Street. Because we would like to provide certain views into the development, a formal boulevard planting would be undesirable. Also, because it was requested to keep these areas looking more natural,we suggested cluster planting trees, but still maintain the number of trees as if it were a formal linear boulevard planting. The clusters would still create the green edge, but may be offset from each other instead of a formal line. In addition, it is difficult to establish a boulevard planting due to the meandering asphalt trail and the overhead power lines. We do not want to plant large shade trees under power lines. Undoubtedly, the power company will come through and "V"cut the trees as they see fit. I have spoken with MDT regarding planting of trees in their ROW. They indicated that it would be a special consideration and they must be planted at least 30'from the edge of the shoulder and out of the clear zone. This means that the trees would be planted at the bottom of the ditch and would probably not be effective as the elevation of the bottom of the ditch is far below the highway. You could probably even see over the trees and directly into the development,which does not provide for what I read as the intention of the guideline. I thought we had agreed on the cluster planting approach, but we may have mis-communicated. I would like further guidance on how to proceed. 4. You indicate in the next paragraph discussions about native-type species along the water corridors. Please see pages 59, 63, 64 and 67 of the Development Manual that have images showing native areas around watercourses. The plaza area with the two ponds in the heart of the development would have very intense pedestrian traffic. Providing native grasses in this area would not only collect garbage but would not hold well to the foot traffic that would be anticipated in a great gathering location. Again, these are schematic drawings and until the formal grading and design of the watercourse areas are completed and ready for construction, I am not sure how much more specific we can get. Please advise. 2/10/2006 Page 2 of 2 0 0 5. Hnrdscape. As indicated on page 71,the specifications are from the City of Bozeman Parks Department. I have asked for an asphalt specification many times and have not received one, probably due to the fact that an asphalt trail profile should be designed to the specifications of the site. Attached are the specifications that have been given to me by the Parks Department. Please advise on how you would like me to proceed in order to satisfy this requirement. Finally, if you could just clarify for me what the intent is of the overall landscape plan and how it will be used, that would be helpful. I am under the assumption that any construction plans of the open space areas will go before the DRB and related processes any way. Is this correct? Thank you for your attention to this matter. Jolene Rieck,Landscape Architect Peaks to Plains Design, P.C. 208 N.Broadway,Suite 350 Billings,MT 59101 jolene@ peakstoolains.com www.pegkstoplains com 406-294-9499 phone 406-256-7123 fax 2/10/2006 Page 1 of 3 d G Mitchell Development From: Bell, Eric A. [Eric.Bell@c-b.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 10:13 AM To: dskelton@BOZEMAN.NET Cc: mitchell_dev@sofast.net; Jim Ullman;jolene@peakstoplains.com Subject: Bozeman Gateway Dave, Ted has directed me to incorporate as much of the exact text from the conditions as feasible. There are only 4 out of 37 conditions that we have concerns with. It will take only a short discussion with someone from the planning department to get things moving forward. I hope you will be the one to help. Listed below, you will find exact verbiage of the condition in question, followed by my comments in bold. I am currently updating the development manual with the changes so we can provide you and the DRB a black and white version by tomorrow night. Your quick response would be appreciated. However, if I do not hear from you, I will not be able to address the following issues within the development manual. Condition 10. The Final PUD Plan and Development Manual shall discuss the treatment of street intersections that are enhanced by pedestrian-friendly entrances, plazas or design features such as benches and landscape planters. Building entrances near the sidewalk edge that contain an entry plaza should also be considered at the intersections of local streets with Technology Boulevard and not only in the commercial area, but also along the business park/professional office corridors. This would also apply at the corner of Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street. I am having considerable trouble understanding the intent of this condition. I am confused as to the definition of "building entrances that contain an entry plaza". The only way I feel comfortable incorporating this verbiage is if I understand what you are looking for. A specific response on this issue, from you,is necessary. Also in Condition 10. If it is the decision to locate the grocery store at the southeast corner of West Main Street and Fowler Avenue, a building entrance and plaza must occur along the entryway corridor,preferably at the northwest corner of the building. A grocery store entrance and plaza occurs along the entry way corridor and that requirement is in the development manual. Due to the interior layout of the grocery store it is not feasible for this entrance to be located at the northwest corner of the building. Since this element is only preferred and is not possible per reasonable grocery store design,the exact verbiage has been left out of the manual. Please let me know if you are in agreement. Condition 17. The Bozeman Design Objectives Plan states that the following elements must be achieved in order to reduce the perceived mass of a building: a change in color or change in material shall be used in each building module; a 20%change in vertical height between each module; change roof form; change in articulation. The current Bozeman Design Objective Plan reads as follows: 1. Divide a building into modules that express dimensions of structures seen traditionally. -In general,a primary facade plane should not exceed 100 feet in length. 2. Buildings shall employ all of the following design techniques: - Change the height of a wall plane or building module. The change in height shall be at least 20% of the vertical height. 2/21/2006 Page 2 of 3 J. • The definition of a building module is not exactly clear. If a building module is every 1,00' then a 20% change in vertical height is appropriate. If a building module is a "traditional" storefront,not longer then say 20 or 30 feet,then a 20% change is extreme and will result in a strange, ill proportioned building. We need to define the term "building module" and make sure all facades are as aesthetically pleasing as possible. A quick discussion about this topic should create a solution that is far more beneficial for the city and the developer. Condition 25. All of the buildings on the perimeter of the development shall have a second store front(double fronted design)that is oriented towards the streetscape and shall include a colonnade and a sidewalk connection to the perimeter sidewalk/trail system. Buildings will have store front design along the rear that is oriented towards the street. While clear vision store front and/or a second public entrance is encouraged, it is by no means required. The typical tenant occupying these spaces will require storage and "back of house" type operations in the rear of their space. The public will not want a view of these spaces and therefore spandrel glass and service entrances will be used along most of the rear of buildings. To require public entrances in the back of the convenience center will leave it unleasable and abandoned. It is my recommendation that we require the use of the "double fronted " design as it is shown by the diagram on page 40 of the Bozeman Design Objective Plan. Using it at the corner of the buildings where the parking lot meets the street seems much more appropriate. Please let me know your thoughts on this issue. The current wording suggests that a colonnade and a sidewalk are to connect to the perimeter sidewalk/trail system. This seems irrational so I assume the condition is trying to suggest that a colonnade be provided along the back facades of buildings. The presence of a colonnade was never suggested by the back of building study elevations presented to the DRB on November 9th, 2005 at 3:3013M. Besides being of significant expense,these colonnades would seldom be used by the public,would darken the back facade,and would provide an area for garbage and vagrant collection. Colonnades along the rear of building will not enhance the project and should not be required by the development manual. Condition 34. A common master signage plan depicting the actual location,dimensions,height, illumination and use of materials for all freestanding signs shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Final PUD Plan approval. Both the pylon signs and monument signs shall be constructed of materials compatible with the overall building design theme for the development and illustrated accordingly in the Development Manual. All signs shall obtain a sign permit prior to construction and installation,and shall comply with the required regulatory standards set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance. The Development Manual will need to include a graphic component of the master sign plan for the entire property that reflects the theme desired with this PUD This includes discussion on the position of signs as part of the overall building composition; avoid obscuring architectural details,materials, and use of color and relief,three-dimensional signage, placement of freestanding signs along street frontages, entrances into the development, and addressing required setbacks and street vision triangles The team is currently sorting out the beginnings of a environmental graphics package for the project. When completed, this should accurately depict the design of the monument and pylon signs. The process will take some time but will be completed for final plat. Unfortunately there is no way to get an accurate design for signage into the development manual in this week. I suggest we leave that section as is, and the DRB review the rest of the document knowing it will be updated in the near future. I need to know if this strategy will work for you. Please help me make the last finishing touches to the development manual so that things can move forward. My client has spent an incredible, almost unjustifiable, amount of time and money trying to perfect this document. Sincerely, Eric Bell 214-920-8198 This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee 2/21/2006 CITOF BOZEMAN 0 ` DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260 CI 20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263 P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 vwvw.bozeman.net February 11, 2006 Ted Mitchell Mitchell Development Group,L.L.C. 1315 8`h Avenue N., Great Falls,MT 59401 RE: Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. Zoning Application No. Z-05217 Dear Ted, The City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development has completed its second review of the updated Development Manual for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.; and as a result, offer the following comments for your consideration. Foremost in reviewing the document, staff believes the .Development Manual for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. is one of the finest documents this office has had the opportunity to review. A lot of time has been put into it, was well thought out, and the illustrations serve their purpose well. We believe that as an integral tool for implementing the development of the project, that it will guide the project as you and community has envisioned all along and will be a contributing element to the West Main Street entryway corridor. In finalizing the Manual, Landscape Plan, and Final Site Plan for the development it would appear that it is probably 80% complete. However, it is the last 20% of the approval process that is the most difficult and it is imperative that we are on the same wave length before granting final approval. We hope you realize our purpose in providing the following comments. Although there is a disclaimer in the document stating that the exhibits and plans are intended to only visually emphasize points within the text, it is important that there your team is not misguided or misled in terms of site, building, landscape and signage. Thus, staff is making a serious attempt to clear some discrepancies in the document, landscape plan and final site plan so your team and future tenants of the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. clearly understand the commitments made with this project. Staff has reviewed your responses to the conditions of approval referenced in the Development Manual and find that some of the references contain similar language to the conditions or language that changes the context of the condition of approval. It is important that you make sure to include the specific language outlined in the conditions of approval as staff is requesting in the comments provided below. This is also the case with the Landscape Plan and Final Site Plan. Concerns with exhibits that do not comply with the conditions of approval or the U.D.O. are of concern. Again, the disclaimer in the manual is fine but you must realize that there are clearly direct conflicts with the U.D.O., particularly with signage. The exhibit on page 24 that shows the monument sign along Huffine Lane and two additional tower signs at the entrance is going to have to be modified once the common signage plan is resolved.. planning • zoning • subdivision review • annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration • neighborhood coordination • 0 Condition #7 -A conceptual pLan of the transit stop in relation to the street, boulevard sidewalk and open space corridor should be provided in the Manual. For purposes of infrastructure and street construction the type of transit stop should be determined at this time (i.e..,pullout lane?). Condition #8 -The landscape plans do not illustrate the regular spacing of boulevard trees and must be revised accordingly. Staff could not find the language in the manual that talks about: "street character along the West Main Street entryway corridor, Fowler Avenue and Garfield Street shall call for architectural features that suggest a presence of store fronts, plazas, fenestration treatment and architectural details that reflect the "lifestyle center" conceit." Condition #9 -This condition specifically states "commercial and retail drive-thrus and associated apprentices (speaker phones, signage, ATM, canopies, etc.) shall not front onto the entryway corridor or corner-side of the building and will not impact the building facade of the satellite structures along the streetscape." Include this specific language in the manual on page 23,word for word. Condition #10 - Please identify in the Manual were the Language in this condition is specifically provided. Condition #13 - Clearly state on page 55 where you plan to use a slope of 3:1, or 33%. Condition #14 - Items addressing this condition and what is expected with the Landscape Plan is addressed in the letter to Jolene Rieck dated February 10, 2006. Condition #15 - Where does the manual contain the following language: "The design standards shall specifically discourage the use of "pea" gravel or decorative 1 3/0" to 2" washed rock gravel, or less. All . landscape islands that include decorative rock or gravel as a groundcover shall specify "river rock" or equal in the landscape plan." The letter to Jolene Rieck also requested a series of typical landscape features to be included in the manual that will be installed throughout the development." Condition #19 - The D.R.B. and A.D.R. staff agreed that the term "synthetic surface" applied to only the artificial types know as "Dryvit", "E.I.F.S.", or similar. Please language on page 99 accordingly. Condition #20 - See comments already provided in the D.R.B. memo dated February 1, 2006. Condition #25 - Where does the manual talk about - "All of the buildings on the perimeter of the development shall have a second store front (double fronted design) that is oriented towards the streetscape and shall include a colonnade and a sidewalk connection to the perimeter sidewalk/trail system. All corner buildings shall include a type of design feature directed towards the corner (a concave area or a bump-out constructed of transparent materials) and shall be noted accordingly in the Development Manual." This language needs to be included in the manual and the exhibit on page 98 only touches on aspects of this condition. Condition #28 - This has already been discussed in the previous D.R.B. memo of February 1, 2006. Conditions #30 - Please provide the specific language of this condition in section h of page 97. Condition #34 - The applicant's response makes the presumption that the exhibits and plans in the Development Manual are correct,which is not true, and staff refers you to your disclaimer on page 85. Thus, the lengthy condition #34 and discussion in the staff report. The exhibits on page 24, 50 and 51 have not been approved as part of the common sign plan. An approved common signage plan that shows proper location, placement, dimensions, materials, color and illumination will need to be provided. Staff will go Page 2 • 0 into further detail once you have submitted the common signage plan. Please make sure to review Section 18.52 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Condition #36 - Staff will review this further once it has the opportunity to review the protective covenants. Condition #39 - The residential component will need to be addressed once we have an approved version of the minutes by the City Commission. Please take the time to review all of the above comments. There is probably some overlap between this correspondence with the D.R.B. memorandum of February 1, 2006 and the letter to Jolene Rieck, but at least that way we are able to identify all of the issues that still need to be addressed in order to obtain Final P.U.D. Plan approval. Per the recommendation of the D.R.B. at the our last meeting, please remove from the modified Development Manual all references where it starts with "The Bozeman Design Objectives Plan calls for...." (i.e..,page 94, 97, etc.). Once the common signage plan has been provided for review, staff will provide you with the necessary comments. Section 18.52 of the Unified Development Ordinance should give you a good start on the limitations with signage within the planned unit development. Staff would prefer that once we have finalized the common signage plan that we modify some of the key exhibits in the Manual that make reference to signage (i.e., 24, 50 and 51). Or, we could just provide the final plan and include in the document. There lave been references to M.D.O.T. allowing landscape features in the right-of-way. . If so, please provide staff with.a letter from the state agency allowing this to happen. We tried this on North 19`h Avenue..and they would not let the developers install trees, trails, water features and landscape elements in the right-of-way. With your urgency to get before the D.R.B. with the Development Manual and an informal on the supermarket staff has not had the opportunity to review the protective covenants yet. It will probably take a couple more weeks to finalize comments on that document. We have not determined to what degree and detail the Final Site Plan should contain, but will let you know shortly. Most of the emphasis has been on the Manual and Landscape Plan. Please make sure to remind Jolene Rieck that this entryway corridor is the last corridor in our community to be developed. The complexity and scale of this project needs the typical details for landscape features included in the Manual so it is clear with development of each phase. Looking forward to seeing you on Wednesday. ectfuUy, avid P. Skelton enior P anner DS ps cc: Carter&Burgess Consultants, Inc., 1420 W. Mockingbird Lane, Suite 800, Dallas,TZ 75247 Morrison-Maierle, Inc.,P.O. Box 1113,Bozeman,MT 59771 Jolene Rieck, Peaks to Plains Design, 208 N. Broadway, Suite 350,Billings, NIT 59101 Page 3 f , 1420 W. Mockingbird, #800 Carteru-Burgess Dallas, Texas 75247 214-920-8100 Phone 214-688-0618 Fax E MEMORANDUM R DATE: February, 14 2006 t TO: David P. Skelton, Senior Planner FROM: Eric Bell,Carter&Burgess i SUBJECT: Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. Zoning Application No.Z-05217 r s s The following is a response to the comments made from the second review of the updated Development Manual s for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D dated February 11,2006. t Condition #7 -A conceptual plan of the transit stop in relation to the street, boulevard sidewalk and open i space corridor should be provided in the Manual. For purposes of infrastructure and street construction the type of transit stop should be determined at this time (i.e..,pullout lane?). 4 • A plan of the transit stop will be designed by the civil engineer and added to the Development Manual on page 44 Condition #8 -The landscape plans do not illustrate the regular spacing of boulevard trees and must be revised accordingly. • Page 65,s. currently states"Trees planted in boulevards shall be spaced at 35 to 45 feet on center to create a rhythm along the street and to buffer as well as reduce the heat island effect from the } parking lots" • The landscape architect is preparing a landscape plan that will show the regular tree spacing. jf Staff could not find the language in the manual that talks about: "street character along the West Main Street entryway corridor, Fowler Avenue and Garfield Street shall call for architectural features that suggest a presence of store fronts, plazas, fenestration treatment and architectural details that reflect the "lifestyle center" conceit." • Page 86,Convenience Center and Outparcels currently states"In particular,the facade of any buildings that face north onto the entry way corridor must be enhanced by pedestrian friendly entrances, plazas and/or patios." • Page 90, f. currently states"The backside of buildings shall be addressed by the continuation of similar architectural features,light features,materials,color palette and awnings over the doors on all four sides of building elevations." • Page 43,e. currently states"Restaurants along Hume Lane will incorporate outdoor dining and sitting areas." • Page 98,currently states. "A cohesive architectural vocabulary shall be applied to all exterior facades. There will be no `back' of buildings in that all sides of all buildings have prominent views to the public and will be treated as such." Ii 4 i Mr.David P.Skelton Bozeman Gateway February 13,2006 Page 2 of 7 • The following text will be added to page 86 under Convenience Center and Outparcels as well as to page 87 under Office-Professional: "Street character along the West Main Street entryway corridor,Fowler Avenue and Garfield Street shall call for architectural features that suggest a presence of store fronts, plazas,fenestration treatment and architectural details that reflect the"lifestyle center" concept." Condition #9 -This condition specifically states "commercial and retail drive-thrus and associated apprentices (speaker phones, signage, ATM, canopies, etc) shall not front onto the entryway corridor or corner-side of the building and will not impact the building fagade of the satellite structures along the streetscape." Include this specific language in the manual on page 23,word for word • The current text on page 23 states "The view of drive-thru facilities and associated appurtenances must be minimized from the entry way corridor. This can be achieved by orienting them so as they face parking rather then the street itself. These amenities will not front onto the entry corridor or major thoroughfares as indicated by the diagram."will be replaced with the following text: "Commercial and retail drive-thrus and associated appurtenances (speaker phones, signage, ATM, canopies, etc.) shall not front onto the entryway corridor or corner-side of the building and will not impact the building facade of the satellite structures along the streetscape. Drive thrus and associated appurtenances facing Garfield Street and Fowler Ave will be discouraged, however, they will be considered based on their design merit. . Condition #10 -Please identify in the Manual were the language in this condition is specifically provided Dewier 5" 2005 Reexmmdai Ca u&i9n 10. The Final PUD Plan and Development Manual shall discuss the treatment of street intersections that are enhanced by pedestrian-friendly entrances, plazas or design features such as benches and landscape planters. • Page 33, b. currently states "The active street front environment will provide a variety of color,textures and variations in building planes. All main entrances to retailers will open to the main street." • Page 34, c. currently states "A rhythm will be provided by pedestrian scale light poles with colorful banners every 50'. Occurring between them at 50' intervals will be a 4' x 6' planting bed with a tree to provide texture as well as shade." • Page 34,e.currently states"Street furniture and way finding signage will be abundant." • Page 66, a. currently states "Planting beds will be found along trails, next to buildings, and as a backdrop to plaza spaces and seating areas." • Page 70, e. currently states "Site furnishings will be abundant in public plazas, main street, or anywhere pedestrians are expected to gather." Building entrances near the sidewalk edge that contain an entry plaza should also be considered at the intersections of local streets with Technology Boulevard and not only in the commercial area, but also along the business park/professional office corridors. This would also apply at the corner of Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street. i i Mr.David P.Skelton Bozeman Gateway February 13,2006 Page 3 of 7 • Page 100, under Retail Transparency currently states "Transparency requirements shall apply to all facades that face a designated main street. This applies to all retailers in the Lifestyle and Convenience Center as well as any commercial ventures in the Office/ Professional area." • Additional clarification of this portion of the condition is requested Please call or e-mail to discuss. If it is the decision to locate the grocery store at the southeast corner of West Main Street and Fowler Avenue,a building entrance and plaza must occur along the entryway corridor,preferably at the northwest comer of the building. • Page 86, Convenience Center and Outparcels currently states"In particular,the facade of any buildings that face north onto the entry way corridor must be enhanced by pedestrian friendly entrances,plazas and/or patios." f • Page 43,e.currently states"Restaurants along I3uffine Lane will incorporate outdoor dining and sitting areas." s . Conditi6n #13 :.Clearly state on page 55 where you plan do.use a slope-of 3:1.,or 33%. s Dexnlxr 56 2005 Rexmwu& Condition 13. ' The water-features along the West Main Street entryway' ` corridor shall be designed as open space S amenities as organic in shape and form, and lined with appropriate aquatic and wetland features,native grasses and indigenous plants. Provisions will outlined in the Development Manual and/or protective .covenants that The P.U.D. Landscape Plan- shall include landscape plan of the water features for review and approval prior to Final P.U.D. Plan approval. Side slopes for the water features shall not exceed 25%slope. • Page 55, g. currently states "The max slope anywhere in the project shall be 3:1, 33% or less. Rip rap, retaining walls or other means shall be used in places where slope might be greater." but will be revised to read "A maximum slope of 3:1, or 33% will only be used to transition grade from building to hardscape. Rip rap,retaining walls or other means shall be used in places where slope might be greater." Page 55, h. will continue to read "Maximum slope around water features shall not exceed 4:1,or 25%." • Page 20,b. currently states "Arrange grading to insure positive drainage, but do not exceed a slope of 3:1, or 33% slope." but will be revised to read "Arrange grading to insure positive drainage. A maximum slope of 3:1, or 33% will only be permitted where absolutely necessary to transition grade from the building to surrounding hardscape. The maximum slope around water features shall not exceed 4:1,or 25%." Condition #14 - Items addressing this condition and what is expected with the Landscape Plan is addressed in the letter to Jolene Rieck dated February 10,2006. Dtonler 5" 2005 Rawmn&Conditzon 14. The final Landscape Plan shall specifically address landscape details for the three open corridors,two public trails within the north off-street parking lot, and West Main Street entryway corridor. Detailed landscape plans shall also be included for the two public plazas within the interior of the lifestyle center and the small public spaces along the north/south water courses. Prior j I Mr.David P.Skelton Bozeman Gateway February 13,2006 Page 4 of 7 to Final PUD Plan approval the Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Office and D.R.B. for approval. • The landscape architect is currently preparing a final Landscape Plan. • The team has no record of a letter addressed to Jolene Rieck dated Feburary 10, 2006. Please forward Condition #15 - Where does the manual contain the following language: "The design standards shall specifically discourage the use of"pea" gravel or decorative 1 1/4" to 2" washed rock gravel, or less. All landscape islands that include decorative rock or gravel as a groundcover shall specify"river rock"or equal in the landscape plan." • Page 66, e. currently states "Mulch in planting beds will be washed rock mulch greater than 1-112 inches in size. Mulch will be applied at 3-inch depth, with mulch pulled away a minimum of 1-inch from the stems. Mulch will be placed as to allow a minimum of lh inch allowance from the top of the edging. Lava rock is prohibited." but will be revised to read "This development manual specifically discourages the use of"pea" gravel or decorative 1 1/4" to 2" washed rock gravel, or less. All landscape islands that include decorative rock or . gravel as a groundcover shall specify "river rock" or equal in the landscape plan. Lava rock is prohibited." The letter to Jolene Rieck also'requested a series of typical-landscape features to be included in the manual that will be installed throughout the development." ' • The landscape architect is currently preparing a series of typical landscape features to be included Condition #19 - The D.R.B. and A.D.R. staff agreed that the tern"synthetic surface" applied to only the artificial types know as"Dryvit","E.I RS.",or similar. Please language on page 99 accordingly. • Page 99, the first bullet point will be revised to read "E.I.F.S. (Dryvit, Sto) may be used in limited areas covering a maximum of 25% of any facade. A strong emphasis on the treatment, color palette, variation in joint detail, pattern, relief, and architectural detail must be provided." Condition #20- See comments already provided in the D.R.B.memo dated February 1,2006. Deamier 5J' 2005 Rawrnmd& Cb? i t on 20. The Development Manual will discuss presentation onto a street regardless if it's the main street for the lifestyle center,private street or a public street with respect to a formal entrance, store fronts, covered entrances, and public spaces. • Page 98,currently states."A cohesive architectural vocabulary shall be applied to all exterior facades. There will be no`back'of buildings in that all sides of all buildings have prominent views to the public and will be treated as such." • Page 90, f. currently states"The backside of buildings shall be addressed by the continuation of similar architectural features,light features,materials,color palette and awnings over the doors on all four sides of building elevations." I Mr.David P.Skelton Bozeman Gateway February 13,2006 Page 5 of 7 Condition #25 - Where does the manual talk about - "All of the buildings on the perimeter of the development shall have a second store front (double fronted design) that is oriented towards the streetscape and shall include a colonnade and a sidewalk connection to the perimeter sidewalk/trail system. • Page 92,under Convenience Center currently states "All tenant main entrances will open to the parking in front of the building. Other entrances to the side or rear of the buildings are encouraged." • Page 102, under Secondary Entrance currently states "A secondary entrance will open out to the parking lot in the rear of the store if applicable. This entrance will be held to the same criteria as the main entrance and must open directly onto a sales floor. A hallway or corridor from the entrance to the sales floor will NOT be permitted." • Page 102, under Service Entrance currently states ""Service entrance doors should be aesthetically pleasing. a. A minimum of one exterior door at the rear fa5ade will be provided. Service doors will be a Y-0" x 7'-0" glass and muntin door with a T-0" wide glass and muntin sidelight. b. Tenant will provide a canopy to protect a minimum of 20 square feet at the service entrance. This canopy should compliment the fagade design and will be governed by the Projecting Design elements section below." but will be revised to read"Service entrance doors shall be as architecturally,interesting and inviting as the main ..entrance by,incorporating similar materials, design ,elements and architectural detail. These doors shall not appear to be a plain back or rear entrance that are typical of service entrances. a. A minimum of one exterior door at the rear facade will be provided. Service doors will be a Y-0" x 7'-0" glass and muntin door with a.2'-0" wide glass and muntin sidelight. b. Tenant will provide a canopy to protect a minimum of 20 square feet at the t.. service entrance. This canopy should compliment the facade design and will be governed by the Projecting Design elements section below." ;.: All corner buildings shall include a type of design feature directed towards the corner (a concave area or a bump-out constructed of transparent materials) and shall be noted accordingly in the Development Manual." This language needs to be included in the manual and the exhibit on page 98 only touches on aspects of this condition. • Page 94, b. will add the text "All corner buildings shall include a type of design feature directed towards the corner." Condition #28 - This has already been discussed in the previous D.R.B.memo of February 1,2006. DawAr 56 2005 Rexmrndsi Canditzon 28. Sconce lights and goose neck lights (down lights only) shall be added to the larger retail buildings (over 15,000 square feet). • Page 112, e. currently states "Lighting such as sconce lights or goose necks should be used to visually break up large building masses at night." but will be revised to read " Lighting such as sconce lights or goose necks shall be used to visually break up large building masses at night." Exposed, unshielded neon tube lighting and continuous L.E.D. string lighting are not permitted in the planned unit development and shall be noted accordingly in the Development Manual and protective Mr.David P. Skelton Bozeman Gateway February 13,2006 Page 6 of 7 covenants of the property owner's association. The lighting guidelines may indicate that neon lighting and L.E.D. lighting may be used as a subtle lighting element under the soffits, behind the fascia or in the sign package (i.e.,backlit feature) as an indirect,obscure lighting detail. • Page 114, 1. currently states "Exposed neon tube or LED string lighting will be highly regulated by the GRB in response to aesthetics and design intent. Due to the intense nature of these light sources they easily become visually overwhelming and obtrusive. Excessive use creates a muddled composition of intense focal points that in turn cheapens the image of the project at night. Any use of neon tube or LED strings as an intense visual stimulus for advertising or other purposes will not be permitted. Neon tube or LED strings can be used for subtle light elements, for example lighting under soffits, behind facias, within sign packages, or as a creative design enhancing lighting details." However to following statement will be added at the end of the previous text: "Exposed neon tube and LED strings will be discouraged, however, they will be considered based on their design merit." Conditions #30- .Please provide the specific language.of this condition in section h of page 97. Dawzber.56 2005 Condition 30. Those areas of the building facade to be finished in a synthetic material (i.e., E.F.I.S., dryvit, stucco,or similar finish) shall place a strong emphasis on the treatment, color palette and variation in joint detail and pattern,relief and architectural detail, and noted accordingly in the Development Manual. • Page.98, the first bullet point will be revised to read ""E.I.F.S. (Dryvit, Sto) may be used in limited areas covering a maximum of 25% of any facade. A strong emphasis on the treatment, color palette, variation in joint detail, pattern, relief, and architectural detail must be provided." The second bullet point will be revised to read "Stucco with a strong emphasis on the treatment, color palette, variation in joint detail, pattern, relief, and architectural detail." Condition #34 - The applicant's response makes the presumption that the exhibits and plans in the Development Manual are correct,which is not true,and staff refers you to your disclaimer on page 85. Thus,the lengthy condition #34 and discussion in the staff report. The exhibits on page 24,50 and 51 have not been approved as part of the common sign plan. An approved common signage plan that shows proper location,placement,dimensions,materials, color and illumination will need to be provided. Staff will go into further detail once you have submitted the common signage plan. Please make sure to review Section 18.52 of the Unified Development Ordinance. • The architect is currently preparing a design for the project signage. Condition #36 - Staff will review this further once it has the opportunity to review the protective covenants. Demzber 5d' 2005 RexnnrNd& Condition 36. The applicant shall implement an "Off-Street Parking Lot Implementation Plan" for each phase of the planned unit development that ensures adequate parking facilities are available for the general public in each phase of the P.U.D. The gross floor area of buildings in each phase will be determined based on the ability to comply with the required minimum off-street Mr.David P.Skelton Bozeman Gateway February 13,2006 Page 7 of 7 parking standards outlined in the Unified Development Ordinance. This will be further addressed during site plan review of each individual project. The applicant shall further provide a notation on the subdivision plats and in the protective covenants and Development Manual that all off-street parking areas are to be held in common ownership by the property owners'association for use by the general public. • Page 30, a. currently states "All off-street parking areas are to be held in common ownership by the property owners'association for use by the general public." Condition #39 - The residential component will need to be addressed once we have an approved version of the minutes by the City Commission. • Agreed Should you have any questions regarding the items listed above,or if you need any additional information, please feel free to contact me at 214-920-8198 or e-mail me at eric.bell@c-b.com. Sincerely, Eric Bell Carter&Burgess,Inc. cc: Ted Mitchell,Mitchell Development Group,L.L.0 Jolene Bieck,Peaks to Plains Design Jim Ullman';Morrison-Maierle,Inc. Andy tpple,Planning Director Dawn Smith,Chairperson for the DRB r� CIT F BOZEMAN DEP�TMENT OF PLANNING AND CO MUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260 20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263 P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozeman.net MEMORANDUM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: DAVE SKELTON, SENIOR PLANNER RE: BOZEMAN GATEWAY SUBDIVISION P.U.D. FINAL PUD PLAN REVIEW ZONING APPLICATION #Z-05217 DATE: APRIL 12, 2006 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attached please find the final Development Manual for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Fowler Avenue, immediately south of the Gallatin Valley Mall. This manual is being delivered to you, two weeks in advance of the April 26 meeting of the D.R.B., in order to give you ample time to review the document and allow staff to list this matter on the agenda as a Consent Agenda item. The City Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit application for said project on December 12, 2005 with the following condition: "Prior to submitting for Final Plat review and approval of the initial phase(s) for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. the applicant shall obtain Final P.U.D. approval by the Planning Director. A draft of the revised protective covenants and restrictions for the property owner's association, preliminary draft of the Final P.U.D. Plan and Development Manual addressing all of the conditions of approval and outlined in the staff report shall be submitted for review by the City Commission, Planning Office and D.R.B. a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to submitting for final plat review and approval of the initial phase(s) of the subdivision." Based on the above condition, both the Planning Office and D.R.B. must approve the Development Manual prior to Final P.U.D. Plan approval by the Planning Director. On February 8, 2006 the D.R.B. reviewed a preliminary draft of the Development Manual addressing the conditions of approval with the applicant. Since that meeting the applicant has updated the Manual to address those items identified during the meeting. Staff has included with this cover memorandum a copy of the applicant's approval letter outlining all of the conditions of approval. The applicant has provided a written narrative addressing the conditions of approval and where in the Development Manual the conditions are discussed. Keep in mind that this document is a tool to review each specific development proposal within the planned unit development. It planning • zoning • subdivision review • annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration • neighborhood coordination does not exempt the D.R.B. * addressing other matters that may ari uring site plan review of each C individual projects that were not anticipated during the initial review o the project. The Development Manual is a commitment on the part of the developer to follow through with the concept of the Bozeman Gateway as discussed in the introduction of the manual. Architectural Guidelines - The applicant has addressed the remaining issues related to the architectural guidelines as outlined in the conditions of approval by the City Commission. Said revisions to the document also include those items discussed at the last meeting of the D.R.B. on this project. Staff has concluded that adequate language is provided in the document to address any related matters to the architectural guidelines, as well as drive-thru facilities, use of synthetic materials, back of structures fronting onto the streetscape, plazas and public places along the streetscape, etc., etc. Landscape Plan - The applicant, with the assistance of staff and Elissa Van Zorva have been working diligently with the Montana Department of Transportation and NorthWestern Energy to finalize a landscape plan that will avoid any potential conflicts with the existing utilities along Huffine Lane. The exhibits provided in the back of the Development Manual generally address the issues identified by both agencies and will be finalized upon submitting the final landscape plan to proceed with installation of site related improvements during the initial phase. Common Sianage Plan- The applicant has modified the common signage plan for the project to comply with the Unified Development Ordinance, in-lieu of requesting further relaxations to the Ordinance at this time (i.e.., twin towers on page 52). Staff has reviewed the exhibits included in the Development Manual, in particular pages 50-51, and found the proposal to comply with the U.D.O. However, this does not exclude the applicant from requesting further relaxations to the Sign Ordinance of the U.D.O. if they so choose. Staff has advised the applicant of support of the proposed monument signs illustrated on page 52; however, in order to achieve this the applicant must request a variance to the U.D.O., as it was not part of the original application. A Consent Agenda item allows the D.R.B. to consider the proposal and recommendations of staff prior to the regular scheduled meeting on said matter. If the advisory body is in concurrence with staff and finds said application acceptable, with recommendations provided by staff, the D.R.B. may automatically approve the proposal with no discussion before the body as part of the Consent Agenda. The only action required of the D.R.B. is to formally approve the Consent Agenda items as listed on the D.R.B. agenda. Based on the final draft of the Development Manual for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D., the Planning Office approves the document as submitted and recommends to the D.R.B. approval as submitted. Should you have any questions on the Development Manual, or the Bozeman Gateway project in general, that staff may assist you with in advance of the April 26`h meeting in order to keep it on the Consent Agenda, don't hesitate to contact the Planning Office. Should you feel the need to pull this item from the Consent Agenda, please contact the staff in advance of the meeting, so the applicant may attend the meeting. DS/dps cc: Mitchell Development Group, L.L.C., 1315 81h Avenue N., Great Falls, MT 59401 Carter &Burgess Consultants, Inc., 1420 W. Mockingbird Lane, Suite 800,Dallas, TX 75247 Morrison-Maier]e, Inc., P.O. Box 1113, Bozeman, MT 59771 Zoning File No. Z-05217 Page 2 Page 3 CIF BOZEMAN • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260 •', 20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263 P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozeman.net December 21, 2005 Ted Mitchell Mitchell Development Group,L.L.C. P.O. Box 738 Great Falls, MT 59403 Greg Stratton Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 901 Technology Boulevard P.O. Box 1113 Bozeman, MT 59771-1230 RE: The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.UD. Zoning Application#Z-05217 Dear Ted and Greg, On Monday, December 12, 2005 the City Commission conditionally approved the application for a Conditional Use Permit for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision Preliminary P.U.D. Plan to develop a mixed- use commercial, professional office and retail planned unit development on 72.2 acres legally described as Tract 2A of the Amended Plat of West College Minor Subdivision No. 195A located in the NW '/a of Section 15, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The proposal was evaluated against the review criteria and requirements of the adopted Growth Policy and the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. The City Commission's decision was based on the fact that, with conditions, the proposal will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the community, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance and the adopted Growth Policy. The decision of the City Commission is final. The conditions of approval are as follows: 1. The PUD shall comply with all approved conditions of the subdivision preliminary plat approval. 2. Conditional approval of the Preliminary P.U.D. Plan and final approval of the Final P.U.D. Plan for Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. by the Planning Director is limited to the approval of the master plan and development guidelines of the Development Manual only. Approval does not exempt the applicant from compliance with all provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code, which are applicable to this project and site plan review of individual projects within the P.U.D. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. 3. Prior to submitting for Final Plat review and approval of the initial phase(s) for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. the applicant shall obtain Final P.U.D. approval by the Planning Director. A draft planning - zoning - subdivision review - annexation - historic preservation - housing - grant administration - neighborhood coordination T1 • • of the revised protective covenants and restrictions for the property owner's association, preliminary draft of the Final P.U.D. Plan and Development Manual addressing all of the conditions of approval and outlined in the staff report shall be submitted for review by the City Commission, Planning Office and D.R.B. a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to submitting for final plat review and approval of the initial phase(s) of the subdivision. 4. The landscape features and trail improvements along the West Main Street entryway corridor that front onto US 191/Huffine Lane and West Garfield Street shall be installed with Phase 1 of The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. 5. That all pedestrian/bicycle crossings and walkways with streets be given greater emphasis by using similar pavers that reflect the surface treatment of public plazas and areas of outdoor social activities. Connections between streets, off-street parking lots, and public areas should also be given attention in terms of raised walkways, pavers, pedestrian lighting and landscape features. The Final PUD Plan will contain a written narrative and detailed plan in the Development Manual whereby the project provides a public information shelter and map display area along the West Main Street entryway corridor. This area will serve as a regional.trail connection point for pedestrians and bicycles along the corridor. 6. Pathways must be maintained by the developer in conformance with the approved maintenance plan until 50% of the lots are sold. Thereafter, the homeowner's association is responsible for pathway maintenance (Section 18.50.110 ). Plans and specifications for the trail will need to be reviewed by the Parks Department,prior to construction. A Type II Class trail is recommended along the watercourse corridor with the placement of appropriate pedestrian crossings at all intersections with interior subdivision streets. A typical cross section of the public trails, Both Type I and Type II, shall be included in the landscape guidelines and will include trail specifications, typical landscape guidelines, and site grading plans for review and approval prior to final plat approval.. 7. Provisions for a transit stop within the interior of the PUD and an information center along the West Main Street entryway corridor shall be incorporated into the site design for review and approval with the Final PUD Plan. A written explanation, illustrations and details shall be included in the Development Manual for review and approval. 8. The public streetscape shall contain a regular spacing of boulevard trees along all streets, both public and private, in concert with landscape features and screening of off-street parking lots; primarily, areas along West Garfield Street and US Highway 191/West Main Street. All trees to be installed in the boulevards, off-street parking lots, common open space areas, public plazas and individual subdivision lots will be installed at 2-inch caliper in diameter. Street character along the West Main Street entryway corridor, Fowler Avenue and Garfield Street shall call for architectural features that suggest a presence of store fronts, plazas, fenestration treatment and architectural details that reflect the "lifestyle center" concept. The Development Manual shall contain said language to insure implementation of said streetscape features. 9. Commercial and retail drive-thrus and associated apprentices (speaker phones, signage, ATM, canopies, etc.) shall not front onto the entryway corridor or corner-side of the building and will not impact the building fagade of the satellite structures along the streetscape. The Development Manual will provide a typical illustration that speaks to this provision prior to Final PUD Plan approval. 10. The Final PUD Plan and Development Manual shall discuss the treatment of street intersections that are enhanced by pedestrian-friendly entrances, plazas or design features such as benches and landscape planters. Building entrances near the sidewalk edge that contain an entry plaza should also be Page 2 • • 4 considered at the intersections of local streets with Technology Boulevard and not only in the commercial area, but also along the business park/professional office corridors. This would also apply at the corner of Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street. If it is the decision to locate the grocery store at the southeast corner of West Main Street and Fowler Avenue, a building entrance and plaza must occur along the entryway corridor,preferably at the northwest corner of the building. 11. The Development Manual and Landscape Plan shall address the treatment of drainage basins in the open space corridors with regard to placement of said facilities and outlet structures. These facilities must be properly landscaped and prevent any impact on the landscape features along these corridors. Specific landscape details will be required with the final landscape plan to demonstrate proper landscape of the facilities. The landscape guidelines shall state that drainage basins will not eliminate the installation of landscape and landscape features as depicted on the Preliminary PUD Plan; and if so, will be replaced outside of the open space corridors. A landscape architect shall certify on the Landscape Plan that landscape features installed over or around areas that contain a drainage basin in the open space corridor will not be impacted. 12. That the landscape guidelines of the Development Manual state that the surface ponds along West Main Street are not part of the storm water facilities and will be maintained as landscape feature along the entryway corridor. Provisions will be discussed in the protective covenants and Development Manual that will limit the fluctuation of said ponds to ensure that they remain an effective landscape feature along the entryway corridor. Should the design and installation of the surface ponds result in problems with fluctuation and are not considered an effective landscape element of the entryway corridor, resolution of the problem shall be resolved prior to the filing of the final plat for the second phase(s) of the major subdivision. 13. The water features along the West Main Street entryway corridor shall be designed as open space amenities as organic in shape and form, and lined with appropriate aquatic and wetland features, native grasses and indigenous plants. Provisions will outlined in the Development Manual and/or protective covenants that The P.U.D. Landscape Plan shall include landscape plan of the water features for review and approval prior to Final P.U.D. Plan approval. Side slopes for the water features shall not exceed 25% slope. 14. The final Landscape Plan shall specifically address landscape details for the three open corridors, two public trails within the north off-street parking lot, and West Main Street entryway corridor. Detailed landscape plans shall also be included for the two public plazas within the interior of the lifestyle center and the small public spaces along the north/south water courses. Prior to Final PUD Plan approval the Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Office and D.R.B. for approval. 15. The final Landscape Plan shall expand on the types of vegetation sought within the design standards and should a stronger emphasis on clustered landscape features, low-profile vegetation, native type species, vegetation along the watercourse corridors and West Main Street entryway corridor, flowering and perennial species, and ground cover. The design standards shall specifically discourage the use of "pea" gravel or decorative 1 '/4" to 2" washed rock gravel, or less. All landscape islands that include decorative rock or gravel as a groundcover shall specify "river rock" or equal in the landscape plan. 16. That the applicant will provide surface finish elevations for all parking lots and building finished floor elevations with respect to associated watercourse features. The Development Manual and protective covenants shall state that all open space areas and associated watercourse setbacks will remain undisturbed unless otherwise approved by the Planning Office. All grade transitions between off-street Page 3 parking lot areas and abutting watercourse open space areas shall not exceed a maximum slope of 4:1, or 25% slope. 17. The Bozeman Design Objectives Plan states that the following elements must be achieved in order to reduce the perceived mass of a building: a change in color or change in material shall be used in each building module; a 20% change in vertical height between each module; change roof form; change in articulation. The architectural guidelines should discuss components that help to establish a human scale along the facade, store fronts, primary entrances (i.e., one-story elements). Expression of each floor in the external skin and use of materials should also be noted. The Development Manual will need to provide illustrations for each of these guidelines as discussed and revise any illustrations proposed in the Development Manual that do not reflect said criteria. 18. The architectural guidelines for the development suggest that the Convenience Center, Outparcels and Office-Professional areas will incorporate the architectural vocabulary of the lifestyle center. However, modifications will be required due to the significant variation in building type and scale. The Development Manual goes on to state that an exact determination of which entities will be responsible for which elements of design and construction will be determined by individual lease or sales agreements. In-lieu of this, the Development Manual shall give specific attention to each of these areas of the mixed-use development and identify what must be achieved in each of these areas to maintain the architectural integrity of the overall development theme. The Development Manual shall graphically address the presentation of building facades that face onto the public streets (i.e., West Main Street entryway corridor, Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street) and through the use of illustrations illustrate the architectural theme sought with the "lifestyle center of the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision. This also applies as well to the professional office, business park and convenience components of the development, as well as the rear facades of both sides of the "lifestyle" center situated along Technology Boulevard. 19. The architectural guidelines of the Development Manual will be modified to state that not more than 25% of any of the building facades shall be covered with a synthetic surface. 20. The Development Manual will discuss presentation onto a street regardless if it's the main street for the lifestyle center, private street or a public street with respect to a formal entrance, store fronts, covered entrances, and public spaces. 21. Section V of the Development Manual - "Review Procedures of the Development Manual" shall be revised to clarify that the site plan review process for individual projects within the planned unit development are not an informal review by the City of Bozeman and shall instead follow the prescribed site plan review process outlined in the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. The Manual shall further note that with site plan review applications for each building project shall include in the submittal detailed elevations, floor plans, landscape plan, site plan, colored rendering, accurate color palette, and materials sample board specific to said project 22. No corporate or franchise style architecture shall be permitted in the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision and noted accordingly in the Development Manual and the protective covenants and restrictions of the property owner's association documents. 23. The general building materials theme and color palette shall be continued throughout all phases of the development. The types of cultural stone to be used throughout the project shall be reviewed and Page 4 approved by the D.R.B. and A.D.R. staff as part of the Final P.U.D. Plan and noted accordingly in the Development Manual. 24. The Development Manual shall be modified to specifically state that all roof top mechanical equipment will be properly screened through the use of proper architectural screening techniques or with parapet walls that will reach a height that is equal or greater than the top of all mechanical equipment. Any ventilation for plumbing or air exchange that is not mechanical related equipment shall be painted to match the color palette of the roof and/or architectural screening. 25. All of the buildings on the perimeter of the development shall have a second store front (double fronted design) that is oriented towards the streetscape and shall include a colonnade and a sidewalk connection to the perimeter sidewalk/trail system. All corner buildings shall include a type of design feature directed towards the corner (a concave area or a bump-out constructed of transparent materials) and shall be noted accordingly in the Development Manual. Any additional exhibits presented to the D.R.B. and City Commission that are found acceptable shall be included in the Development Manual. 26. The backside of the buildings shall be addressed by the continuation of similar materials on all sides of the building(s) with similar architectural features, light fixtures, materials, color palette and awnings over the doors on the rear or back elevations. 27. The development guidelines shall contain language for all store fronts that encourages the use of dark bronze anodized, or similarly darker frames,in-lieu of the brushed stainless steel finish. 28. Sconce lights and goose neck lights (down lights only) shall be added to the larger retail buildings (over 15,000 square feet). Exposed, unshielded neon tube lighting and continuous L.E.D. string lighting are not permitted in the planned unit development and shall be noted accordingly in the Development Manual and protective covenants of the property owner's association. The lighting guidelines may indicate that neon lighting and L.E.D. lighting may be used as a subtle lighting element under the soffits, behind the fascia or in the sign package (i.e., backlit feature) as an indirect, obscure lighting detail. 29. The architectural guidelines of the Development Manual shall contain language that discourages the use of translucent or transparent awnings and shall instead be opaque in material through the use of fabric or metal materials only. 30. Those areas of the building fagade to be finished in a synthetic material (i.e., E.F.I.S., dryvit, stucco or similar finish) shall place a strong emphasis on the treatment, color palette and variation in joint detail and pattern,relief and architectural detail, and noted accordingly in the Development Manual. 31. All crossings within the Planned Unit Development shall be constructed with scored concrete or pavers similar to the surface materials installed throughout the public outdoor public areas. The crossings shall be noted as such on the Final PUD Plan and details for the pattern(s) shall be provided in the final development guidelines. 32. Larger seating areas with planters shall be installed throughout the plazas and public areas and a typical detail of the planters included in the Development Manual. 33. The development guidelines shall indicate that no backlit cabinet type "box" signs will be permitted in each phase of the development unless a three-dimensional component is included that creates a sense of architectural relief and where no plastic, translucent or transparent face are permitted. This shall be addressed in the comprehensive signage plan for the planned unit development and shall be submitted Page 5 r to the Planning Office prior to Final PUD approval that depicts a sign package that exhibits qualities of style,relief and compatibility. 34. A common master signage plan depicting the actual location, dimensions, height, illumination and use of materials for all freestanding signs shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Final PUD Plan approval. Both the pylon signs and monument signs shall be constructed of materials compatible with the overall building design theme for the development and illustrated accordingly in the Development Manual. All signs shall obtain a sign permit prior to construction and installation, and shall comply with the required regulatory standards set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance. The Development Manual will need to include a graphic component of the master sign plan for the entire property that reflects the theme desired with this P.U.D. This includes discussion on the position of signs as part of the overall building composition; avoid obscuring architectural details, materials, and use of color and relief, three-dimensional signage, placement of freestanding signs along street frontages, entrances into the development, and addressing required setbacks and street vision triangles. 35. The north off-street parking lot in Phase 4 will replace two off-street parking spaces along each of the two watercourse open space corridors for the placement of an 18' by 18' public area with benches, pavers and landscape features. A typical detail of this area shall be illustrated accordingly in the Development Manual as part of the landscape guidelines and the final Landscape Plan for the development. The watercourse corridors shall have a minimum width of not less than thirty feet, exclusive of the 18' by 18'public area. 36. The applicant shall implement an "Off-Street Parking Lot Implementation Plan" for each phase of the planned unit development that ensures adequate parking facilities are available for the general public in each phase of the P.U.D. The gross floor area of buildings in each phase will be determined based on the ability to comply with the required minimum off-street parking standards outlined in the Unified Development Ordinance. This will be further addressed during site plan review of each individual project. The applicant shall further provide a notation on the subdivision plats and in the protective covenants and Development Manual that all off-street parking areas located within the development will be held to a reciprocal shared parking easement and agreement for use by the general public. 37. All parking lot lights and internally illuminated signs shall be turned off within one hour of closing, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director of City Commission during site plan review of each individual project within The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. Only security lights will be permitted to remain on throughout the night. 38. The City of Bozeman shall be party to any modifications, changes or amendments to the protective covenants and restrictions and to the Development Manual for The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. as it relates to the conditions of approval for the subdivision Preliminary Plat and zoning P.U.D. Preliminary Plan. 39. That the applicant submit an implementation plan for a residential component of seventy (70) or more residential dwelling units with a substantial number of dwelling units located in the core of the development, prior to review and approval of Phase 2. 40. That all site plan review applications within the subdivision will be subject to review by the Design Review Board. 41. That office buildings 3, 4, and 5 in Phase 3 be rotated to front onto Garfield Street. Page 6 42. Building heights will be permitted not to exceed a height of sixty-five (65) feet based on the merits of a residential component for the planned unit development. Said approval includes modifications by the City Commission to the Planning Board's recommended conditions #3, #36, and #38, as well as the addition of conditions #39, #40, #41, and #42 by the governing body. Staff would recommend that you schedule a meeting at your earliest convenience to discuss the details of the conditional approval and how it will effect your construction schedule. Please feel free to contact me at 582-2260 if you have any questions regarding the above comments, status of the applications or the review process in general. Sincerely, / i r D I vid P. S elton Se �or Pla ner cc: Planning File No. P-05049 Zoning File No. Z-05217 Page 7 Dave Skelton 0 • From: Greg Stratton [gstratton@m-m.net] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 12:16 PM To: Dave Skelton Subject: Set back issue Dave: This is difficult to describe in words but here is our best shot. We are proposing a 50' open space corridor along Huffine Lane. 18.30.060 requires buildings and parking to be set back 25' fron any Class II entryway corridor. The the open space corridor we are actually increasing the required setback along Huffine Lane by 25 feet. we can meet all of the setback requirements along both Huffine Lane and Garfield St. by simply reducing the open space corridor along Huffine Lane to the required 25 feet and shifting the entire site to the north. This will reduce our open space performance points to about 21.9 still meeting the open space requirement. With the addtional 25' we can move the entire site to the north by 10' or so and meet all the setback requirements. In lieu of this we are asking for setback relaxations within the subdivision to maintain the 50, along Huffine Lane. Narrowing the 50' will make it more difficult to provide the landscaping and green space ammenities that we want to along Huffine Lane. We feel the site plan as proposed very effectively utilizes the site from both the applicants perspective and the City's perspective. We are basically asking to trade setback areas within the subdivision for the increased open space along Huffine Lane. The setback relaxations generally apply only to parking and not buildings. The setbacks proposed will be more than adequate to mitigate any visual effects through landscaping. The increased open space along Huffine Lane actually provides considerably more area than we asking for through the reduced set backs. Is more important to have increased open space along the entryway corridor or the additional 5' setback along Garfield. We feel strongly that the site plan as proposed works for both the site and surrounding area and lends itself favorably to the entryway corridor requirements. 1 • � Page 1 of 1 Dave Skelton From: JOHN HARPER Uslsharper@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 6:54 AM To: Dave Skelton Cc: Sue Harkin Subject: Bozeman Gateway To: Dave Skelton (dskelton@bozeman.net) From: John Harper Recreation and Parks Advisory Board subdivision review committee Date: January 12, 2005 RE: Bozeman Gateway MaSub Pre-Application #P-04063 meeting January 10, 2005 attending: Sue Harkin (Recreation Dept.), Joanne Jennings, Anne Banks, John Harper The applicant notes that the Bozeman Community 2020 Plan shows that an east west trail corridor passes through the property along the Farmers Canal. This is a continuation of the alignment of the trail which was included in the pre-application for Advance Technology Park Phase IV which we reviewed last September. That proposal shows the trail ending at the common property line with Bozeman Gateway. However, Bozeman Gateway proposes to place the eastern end of the trail at the southwest corner of the intersection of West College and the proposed Chronicle Lane. Following the perimeter of the applicant's property, this is approximately 1,000 feet from the point where the trail would terminate on the Advanced Technology Property. The trail connection between these points clearly needs to be made if the trail is to be moved in accordance with Bozeman Gateway's proposal. 10/19/2005 MORRISON r:,ENGINEERS SCIENTISTS � SURVEYORS PLANERS MAIERLE, INC. 901 TECHNOLOGY BLVD• P.O.BOX 1113 BOZEMAN,MT 59771 • 406-587-0721 • FAX:406-587�176 An Employee-Owned Company DRB Meeting 11/9/2005 Response to questions from Dave Skelton dated 11/8/2005 • Is the water feature along the entryway corridor designed to be a part of the storm water runoff facilities or not? The water feature along the entryway corridor designed to operate in concert with the natural drainage along the south side of Huffine Lane. The features will be located directly adjacent to an existing natural drainage that naturally drains the site. During major flooding events as the water rises in the natural drainage it will naturally rise in the water features. There is no way to avoid this if they are to operate naturally. These fluctuations will be natural, temporary in nature, and short term as runoff drains from the site. If the City wants the water features they need to be designed to operate as part of the overall natural site drainage or they will not function properly. These drainages are not in any way part of the storm water detention ponds or treatment system for the subdivision. They are designed as part of the natural drainage through the site. Please refer to our extensive discussions with Bob Murray at the,DRC Meeting on October 26, 2005. Bob agreed that the drainage plan worked and met the requirements of City Code. • The grading plan shows the water feature not continuing west beyond Harmon Stream Boulevard, but all of the site plans indicate so. Which is correct? The water feature will continue across Harmon Stream Boulevard as indicated on the site plan. • Is there a storm water drainage Swale in the entryway corridor that is receiving credit for the open space points required for the planned unit development? There is a natural stream drainage through the entryway corridor that is being enhanced by incorporating the water features as shown. • What are you expecting the building setbacks for buildings from the right-of- way to be along the "lifestyle center" (i.e., Technology Boulevard, Harmon Stream Boulevard, and Chronicle Lane) where there is diagonal parking? "Providing resources in partnership with clients to achieve their goals" GIMORRISON NoMERLE,INC. As outlined in our request of October 27, 2005 the building setback along Technology Blvd. is requested at 15 feet. The thought behind it is to provide a minimum 12 foot sidewalk outside of the parked car overhang. • How do you intend to install the landscape features along the entryway corridor where there is sanitary sewer and storm drainage mains installed underground in Open Space#2 and Open Space#6? Open Space#2 —The sewer is to be located generally under the walking paved trail to provide access for maintenance. This will minimize the landscaped area to be disrupted. The storm drain main is shown on the drainage plan for schematic purposes only with the final location to be determined during design. It can be placed under the parking lot asphalt within a drainage easement if necessary. Keep in mind there is 75' of green space between the parking lot and the West Main Street curb line — plenty of room for landscaping. Open Space#6—The sewer main is to be located directly behind the curb to provide easy access for maintenance. The open space area ranges from between 50 feet and.120 feet wide providing more than enough room for both the sewer main and the landscaping. • Could you explain how do you intend to install the boulevard landscape and yard landscape features along Fowler Avenue with an underground storm water main in the front yard? There is 35 feet between the service drive and Fowler Avenue curb lines. The pipe zone will occupy 15 feet and will be on the property side of the right-of-way. Boulevard Trees will not be affected. There will be more than enough space for additional landscaping. As an after thought we may consider placing the sidewalk directly over the storm drain pipe as a sort of boulevard trial providing even more space for landscaping. • If there is a sanitary sewer main in the front yard of Lot#10 - #13 how do you plan to install all of the landscape features shown in the illustration provided the DRB when the larger vegetation is not allowed to be installed over utilities? The sanitary sewer main will be located under the service drive to provide access for maintenance. • How can you justify the trade off of reducing setbacks for off-street parking in-lieu of encroaching into the open space area along the entry way corridor UJMORMSON Uri MMERLE,INC. when required yard setbacks along interior street frontages are not part of the open space calculations? What physical features are controlling the proposed street alignment and location for Technology Boulevard? If we reduce the setback along West Main St. we will need to provide additional open space somewhere else on the project. Most likely along the west boundary of Lots 2 and 3 where we have a significant green area already for which we are not taking credit. The only physical features controlling the Technology Blvd. street alignment are the connection at Fowler Ave. and keeping the stream crossing just west of Harmon Stream Blvd. perpendicular to minimize disruption to the wetland. • Page 1 of 2 <t, Dave Skelton From: Ron LeCain [rlecain@confluenceinc.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 3:13 PM To: Dave Skelton; 'Bacon, Lynn'; 'Crayton, Cyndi'; 'Crowe, Elizabeth - MT'; 'LeCain, Ron'; 'McFadzen, Mary'; 'O'Neil, Steve' Subject: RE: Revision to WRB comments on the Gateway project Dave, This is the final recommendation of the WRB. We are recommending that the city wave the requirement to expend the 50'watercourse setback by the width of wetlands within the setback zone because of all the efforts they made to enhance, protect and construct wetland on the project. In other words, yes, they can build up to the boundary of the delineated wetland or the 50 foot watercourse setback. However, as I noted in the recommendations, the city is asking the WRB to comment on a watercourse setback from a jurisdictional perennial stream, and a jurisdictional wetland. This is not described in the duties of the WRB within the wetland regulations. Please call me at 585-9500 to discuss this further. Best regards, Ron LeCain Wetland Specialist Confluence Consulting, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Dave Skelton [ma ilto:dskelton@BOZEMAN.NET] Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 1:26 PM To: Ron LeCain Cc: Lynn Bacon; Elizabeth Crowe; steveoneil@earthlink.net; McFadzen,Mary; Cyndi and Bob Crayton Subject: RE: Revision to WRB comments on the Gateway project Importance: High Ron, is this the final on your recommendation? Also, are you recommending that the developer.may construct up to the identified wetlands delineated boundary, or not? Or as delineated on the site plan. If so, please verify. It is rare that relaxation of watercourse setbacks with associated wetlands are supported by the decision-making bodies. Therefore, your concise recommendations of what the developer can, and can do, as far as encroaching into required setbacks is critical. Your input, as well as the rest of the WRB is appreciated and thanks to all of the Board for taking the time to visit the site. Because the Planning Board/City Commission staff report is due tomorrow, we would sure appreciate your feedback. If not, we will go with the recommendation as provided. Respectfully, David P. Skelton Senior Planner City of Bozeman 20 East Olive Street P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771-1230 11/9/2005 0 Page 2 of 2 Phone: (406) 582-2260 Fax: (406) 582-2263 E-Mail: dskelton@bozeman.net -----Original Message----- From: Ron LeCain [mai Ito:rlecain@confluenceinc.com] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 4:32 PM To: Dave Skelton Cc: 'Lynn Bacon'; 'Elizabeth Crowe'; steveoneil@earthlink.net; 'McFadzen,Mary'; 'Cyndi and Bob Crayton' Subject: Revision to WRB comments on the Gateway project Dave, I have revised the WRB comments at Lynn's request to specifically address the watercourse setback on the project, and the requirement to add the width of wetlands to the 50'watercourse setback. Of note, making recommendations on watercourse setbacks is not described in the duties of the Wetland Review Board. If this is something the city would like the WRB to do we may need to make some modifications to the LIDO, or come to some verbal understanding of an expanded role for the WRB. Please call me or any other board member with any questions. Best regards, Ron LeC'ain Wetland Specialist Confluence Consulting, Inc. 11/9/2005 0 Bozeman Gateway ZMA RESOLUTION NO. Z-05269 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CITY OF BOZEMAN ZONING MAP ON APPROXIMATELY 28.4±ACRES DESCRIBED AS THE EAST 28.4 ACRES OF TRACT 2A OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF WEST COLLEGE MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 195A LOCATED IN THE NW1/4 OF SECTION 14 AND NE1/4 OF SECTIONI5, T2S, R5E, P.M.M, CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA, FROM `BP" (BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT)TO "B-2" (COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has adopted a Master Plan pursuant to 76-1-604, MCA; and WHEREAS, the Bozeman City Zoning Commission has been created by Ordinance 1500 and Resolution No. 3312 of the City of Bozeman, pursuant to Title 76-2-307, MCA; and WHEREAS, Mitchell Development Group, L.L.C., applied for a Zone Map Amendment, pursuant to Chapter 18.70 of the Unified Development Ordinance to amend the City of Bozeman Zoning Map from `BP" (Business Park District) to `B-2" (Community Business District) on 28.4± acres of property described as the east 28.4 acres of Tract 2A of the Amended Plat of the West College Minor Subdivision No. 195A located in the NW '/a of Section 14 and the NE t/a of Section 15, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana; and WHEREAS, the proposed Zone Map Amendment has been properly submitted, reviewed, and advertised in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.70 of the Unified Development Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday, January 18, 2006, to receive and review all written and oral testimony on the request for a Zone Map Amendment; and WHEREAS, no members of the general public spoke in favor of, or opposition to, the requested zone map amendment; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission finds that the request for a zone map amendment generally complies with the twelve (12) criteria established in Title 76-2-304, MCA; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission finds that the request for a zone map amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of Chapter 18.70 "Zone Map Amendments" of the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission, on a vote of 3-0, recommends to the Bozeman City Commission for a Zone Map Amendment from `BP" (Business Park District) to `B-2" (Community Business District) on 28.4± acres of property described as the east 28.4 acres of Tract 2A of the Amended Plat of the West College Minor Subdivision No. 195A located in the NW '/a of Section 14 and the NE '/a of Section 15, T2S, RSE, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, be approved with the following contingencies. 1. That the applicant submit a zone amendment map, titled "Bozeman Gateway Zone Map Amendment", on a 24" by 36" mylar, 8 '/2" by 11", or 8 1/2" by 14" paper exhibit, and a digital copy of the area to be zoned, acceptable to the Director of Public Service, which will be utilized in the preparation of the Ordinance to officially amend the City of Bozeman Zoning Map. Said map shall containing a metes and bounds legal description of the perimeter of the subject property, total acreage of the property and adjoining rights-of-way and/or street access easements. 2. That the Ordinance for the Zone Map Amendment shall not be drafted until the applicant provides a metes and bounds legal description and map rezoned, which will be utilized in the preparation of the Ordinance to officially amend the zone map. DATED THIS 18`h DAY OF JANUARY'2006 Resolution No. Z-05269 Andrew C. Epple, Planning Director Ed Musser, Chairperson City of Bozeman Department of City of Bozeman Zoning Commission Planning and Community Development • 0 THE CITY OF BOZEMAN ZONING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2005 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Ed Musser called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Ed Musser Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Cliff Chisholm Andrew Epple, Director, Planning and Community Development JP Pomnichowski Carol Schott, Recording Secretary Visitors Present Jim Ullman Sharon McIlhattan Steve Ziegler Doug Smith Cameron Clark Paul Rugheimer Sandie & Jerry Hammer Rob Pertzborn Bryon Dingman Lynn Rugheimer Don Jackson Hallie Rugheimer Michael Pl... Pat Martin ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES) {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Zoning Commission and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.) Chairperson Musser OPENED THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY ITEM WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ZONING COMMISSION AND NOT SCHEDULED ON THE AGENDS. Hearing none, he CLOSED PUBLIC COMMENT portion of the meeting. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JANUARY 4, 2006 Chairperson Musser called for corrections or additions to the minutes of January 4, 2006. Hearing none, he declared the minutes stand approved as written. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW Zone Map Amendment Application#Z-05269 - (Bozeman Gateway). A Zone Map Amendment requested by the owner and applicant, Mitchell Development Group, LLC, to amend the City of Bozeman Zoning Map from `BP" (Business Park) to `B-2"(Community Business District). The property is legally described as the east 28.4 acres of Tract 2A of the amended Plat of West College Minor Subdivision No. 195A, in the NW'/4 of Section 14, and the NE'/of Section 15, T2S, R5E, PMM, Gallatin County, Montana, and is generally located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Fowler Avenue. (Skelton) City of Bozeman Zoning Commission Minutes—January 18,2006 1 s � Senior Planner Dave Skelton presented the Staff Report. Ms. Pomnichowski stated this requested GPA change appears to be a rarity in the community and also allows the property to conform to the land use designation of the 2020 Plan. Planner Skelton concurred. John Davison, representing Mitchell Development, asked the Zoning Commission to support the rezoning. Chairperson Musser OPENED THE HEARING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, and hearing none,he CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE HEARING. Ms. Pomnichowski stated the application appears to meet zone map amendment criteria. MOTION: Ms. Pomnichowski moved, Mr. Chisholm seconded, to recommend approval of application#Z-05269 with Staff contingencies. The motion carried 3-0. ITEM 5. OLD BUSINESS Director Epple updated the Zoning Commission on City Commission recent actions on projects which they had reviewed. He noted some new Zoning Commission members were appointed at the January 17, 2006 meeting. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS -None ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Zoning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Andrew Epple, Director Ed Musser, Chairperson Planning and Community Development City of Bozeman Zoning Commission City of Bozeman Zoning Commission Minutes—January 18,2006 2 IC � ENGINEERS i�i�i MOSON SCIENTISTS All SURVEYORS LJ - MAIERLE, INC. 901 TECHNOLOGY BLVD• P.O.BOX 1113 • BOZEMAN,MT 59771 • 406-587.0721 • FAX:406-587-176 An Employee-Owned Company DRB Meeting 11/9/2005 Response to questions from Dave Skelton dated 11/8/2005 • Is the water feature along the entryway corridor designed to be a part of the storm water runoff facilities or not? The water feature along the entryway corridor designed to operate in concert with the natural drainage along the south side of Huffine Lane. The features will be located directly adjacent to an existing natural drainage that naturally drains the site. During major flooding events as the water rises in the natural drainage it will naturally rise in the water features. There is no way to avoid this if they are to operate naturally. These fluctuations will be natural, temporary in nature, and short term as runoff drains from the site. If the City wants the water features they need to be designed to operate as part of the overall natural site drainage or they will not function properly. These drainages are not in any way part of the storm water detention ponds or treatment system for the subdivision. They are designed as part of the natural drainage through the site. Please refer to our extensive discussions with Bob Murray at the DRC Meeting on October 26, 2005. Bob agreed that the drainage plan worked and met the requirements of City Code. • The grading plan shows the water feature not continuing west beyond Harmon Stream Boulevard, but all of the site plans indicate so. Which is correct? The water feature will continue across Harmon Stream Boulevard as indicated on the site plan. • Is there a storm water drainage Swale in the entryway corridor that is receiving credit for the open space points required for the planned unit development? There is a natural stream drainage through the entryway corridor that is being enhanced by incorporating the water features as shown. • What are you expecting the building setbacks for buildings from the right-of- way to be along the "lifestyle center" (i.e., Technology Boulevard, Harmon Stream Boulevard, and Chronicle Lane) where there is diagonal parking? "Providing resources in partnership with clients to achieve their goals" Lam MORRISON LAW MAIERLE,INC. As outlined in our request of October 27,2005 the building setback along Technology Blvd. is requested at 15 feet. The thought behind it is to provide a minimum 12 foot sidewalk outside of the parked car overhang. • How do you intend to install the landscape features along the entryway corridor where there is sanitary sewer and storm drainage mains installed underground in Open Space#2 and Open Space #6? Open Space#2 —The sewer is to be located generally under the walking paved trail to provide access for maintenance. This will minimize the landscaped area to be disrupted. The storm drain main is shown on the drainage plan for schematic purposes only with the final location to be determined during design. It can be placed under the parking lot asphalt within a drainage easement if necessary. Keep in mind there is 75' of green space between the parking lot and the West Main Street curb line — plenty of room for landscaping. Open Space#6—The sewer main is to be located directly behind the curb to provide easy access for maintenance. The open space area ranges from between 50 feet and.120 feet wide providing more than enough room for both the sewer main and the landscaping. • Could you explain how do you intend to install the boulevard landscape and yard landscape features along Fowler Avenue with an underground storm water main in the front yard? There is 35 feet between the service drive and Fowler Avenue curb lines. The pipe zone will occupy 15 feet and will be on the property side of the right-of-way. Boulevard Trees will not be affected. There will be more than enough space for additional landscaping. As an after thought we may consider placing the sidewalk directly over the storm drain pipe as a sort of boulevard trial providing even more space for landscaping. • If there is a sanitary sewer main in the front yard of Lot#10 - #13 how do you plan to install all of the landscape features shown in the illustration provided the DRB when the larger vegetation is not allowed to be installed over utilities? The sanitary sewer main will be located under the service drive to provide access for maintenance. • How can you justify the trade off of reducing setbacks for off-street parking in-lieu of encroaching into the open space area along the entry way corridor MORRISON GEA MAIERLE,INC. when required yard setbacks along interior street frontages are not part of the open space calculations? What physical features are controlling the proposed street alignment and location for Technology Boulevard? If we reduce the setback along West Main St.we will need to provide additional open space somewhere else on the project. Most likely along the west boundary of Lots 2 and 3 where we have a significant green area already for which we are not taking credit. The only physical features controlling the Technology Blvd. street ^ alignment are the connection at Fowler Ave. and keeping the stream crossing just west of Harmon Stream Blvd. perpendicular to minimize disruption to the wetland. y • MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION BOZEMAN, MONTANA February 14, 2005 The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in work session in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, on Monday, February 14, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Andrew Cetraro, Commissioner Jeff Krauss, Commissioner Marcia Youngman, Commissioner Steve Kirchhoff, Commissioner Lee Hietala, City Manager Chris Kukulski, Assistant City Manager Ron Brey, Director of Public Service Debbie Arkell, Planning Director Andy Epple, Acting City Attorney Tim Cooper and Clerk of the Commission Robin Sullivan. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. Public comment Ms. Wren Bade, South 9th Avenue and West Curtiss Street, expressed concern that City crews stopped maintaining the ice at the Bogert pavilion on January 26, and the recent warming trend caused the ice thickness to diminish and the hockey boards to become unstable. She stated that, even if the temperatures reach 50 degrees during the day, the ice can remain viable if it is maintained. She stressed that the community is losing a valuable asset and asked the Commissioners to require that it be maintained. Mr. Farwell Smith, 513 South Third Avenue, noted that he came to Bozeman from Chicago, which was warmer but had 50 days of skating each year. He recognized that Bozeman has two refrigerated ice rinks, however, he cautioned that not everyone can afford to skate at them. He stated it is a shame that the Bogert rink is not being maintained, so that those who cannot afford the fees can still enjoy the opportunity to skate. City Manager Kukulski stated that both he and Director of Public Service Arkell were aware of and supported Superintendent of Facilities and Lands Goehrung's decision to terminate maintenance of the ice due to the warm weather. He noted that on Friday and Saturday, the Bogert ice rink was full of water because of the high temperatures and acknowledged that today it is once again frozen. He recognized that if the cold weather continues, then ice could possibly be retained. Review of Proposal for CTEP Proiect-College Street to Huffine Lane Bicycle/Pedestrian Pathway(2.08 miles of 10-foot wide concrete shared-use pathway) Included in the Commissioners' packets was a memo from Grants Administrator Sara Folger forwarding information on the Community Transportation Enhancement Program and identifying the College to Huff ine bicycle/pedestrian pathway as the next project to be funded. Grants Administrator Sara Folger gave an overview of the proposed project, which is a 10-foot- wide shared use off-street pathway along the south side of West College Street from South 11 th 02-14-05 work north side of Huffine Lane t erguson Avenue. She noted a ma' of the costs would be funded through the Community TrdWortation Enhancement Project(CTElWhonies,which have been under- utilized to date. She noted the City currently has a large reserve in this fund, and the Montana Department of Transportation has indicated that it may rescind the funding if it is not expended. The Grants Administrator stated that the steering committee identified this project as its top priority last fall, and work has been undertaken between that time and now to identify the various elements needed to complete the project, including areas where there are no sidewalks and areas where existing sidewalks simply need to be widened. She then indicated that, based on the plans that she was shown by the Mitchell Group this afternoon,there is a potential that the walkway can be located along the south side of Huffine Lane through that project, with crossings to be provided at Fowler Avenue and possibly at the west entrance to the Gallatin Valley Mall; and that revision could significantly reduce the costs of the project. She observed that as development continues in this western entrance to the community, traffic will naturally slow. The Grants Administrator concluded her presentation by noting that a public hearing on the formal application for this project is scheduled for March 7. At Commissioner Youngman's request, Grants Administrator Folger identified the six active CTEP projects, which include the bicycle infrastructure project on which work was done this past summer; roof reconstruction on the East Willson School, which is scheduled for this year; the Emerson Cultural Center lighting project, which is currently being bid; and improvements to Soroptimist Park, which are scheduled for this year. In addition, she will be soliciting bids for a consultant to identify the location and parameters for the Milwaukee rail/trail project, which will assist in identifying impacts on any additional development on the parcel that was purchased for the new library site. She indicated that two additional projects are still active but could be dropped. One is the historic signals on Main Street, which are now to be included in the Montana Department of Transportation's resurfacing project, and the other is the ADA ramps, which are currently being incorporated into sidewalk projects. She suggested that the$150,000 currently set aside for these two projects could be put back into the CTEP reserve fund and used for other projects. Responding to Commissioner Krauss, the Grants Administrator indicated that no CTEP monies have been earmarked for the library project itself; however, she suggested that some of the monies budgeted for the Milwaukee rail/trail project could be used for landscaping of the plaza. Further responding to Commissioner Krauss, Grants Administrator Folger indicated that CTEP monies could be used for the installation of an historic signal at the intersection of West College Street and South Willson Avenue; however, she cautioned that signal will probably be installed before a CTEP project could be approved and funded. Mayor Cetraro thanked Grants Administrator Folger for the update. Pre-Application Plan and PUD Concept Plan Review - The Bozeman Gateway Major Subdivision- proposal to subdivide +72 acres of undeveloped agricultural land lying along the south side of US Highway 191/West Main Street into 61 commercial lots for mixed-use commercial/retail/professional office development - Morrison-Maierele, Inc. for Mitchell Development Group, LLC (Z-04313) Included in the Commissioners'packets was a memo forwarding the pre-application plan and zoning planned unit development concept plan for The Bozeman Gateway Major Subdivision, along with comments from the reviews conducted by the Development Review Committee and the Design Review Board. 02-14-05 work 1 Senior Planner Dave Skelton gave an overview of the proposal for The Bozeman Gateway Major Subdivision, a mixed use commercial, retail and professional office development along the south side of Huffine Lane/West Main Street across the street from the Gallatin Valley Mall. He noted that the Development Review Committee, Design Review Board and City Planning Board have reviewed this pre-application; and their comments have been included in the packet. He stated that these comments, as well as the feedback received from the City Commission, will be taken into consideration as the applicant prepares formal applications for this project. Senior Planner Skelton identified possible points of discussion, including multiple variances to the unified development ordinance, the arrangement of subdivision lots that results in no street frontage, the orientation of buildings, and proposed encroachments into the watercourse setbacks and wetlands setbacks. The Senior Planner noted that Farmers'Canal divides the property in half; and the applicant is proposing to pipe the canal through a portion of the project. He drew attention to the trail systems proposed in the interior of this subdivision, noting that adequate pedestrian crossings must be provided. He also noted that safe pedestrian crossings on Huffine Lane at Fowler Avenue and possibly Harmon Street have been identified as essential. He then identified other issues of discussion before the advisory bodies, including the orientation of buildings and ensuring that adequate buffering is provided to ensure that this project is a contributing element to the entryway. Responding to Commissioner Kirchhoff, Senior Planner Skelton stated that a very rough approximation of the parking needed for this development indicates that the conceptual plan provides the proper amount, falling well within the minimum and maximum number of spaces required by code. He noted that one point of discussion might be the parking provided under common ownership versus the parking owned by specific tenants. Mr. Mark Masek, architect representing the applicant, stated that the design team has paid high attention to detail in this project in light of the site's location in the western entryway corridor to the community. He then noted that, in conjunction with the development,the applicant proposes to extend West Garfield Avenue and Huffine Lane and indicated that the traffic signal at the intersection of Huffine Lane and Fowler Avenue has been approved. He noted that West Garfield Street is to be constructed as a collector, with bicycle lanes on both sides of the streets. He stated that the slip lane is to be eliminated at the intersection of West College Street and West Main Street/Huffine Lane. Mr. Masek drew attention to the significant amount of open space provided, landscaping, berming, water features and trail system. He also drew attention to the alignment of Fowler Avenue, noting that at the south end it has been moved to the east to avoid the wetlands as much as possible. Under this project, the perennial streams are to be enhanced with plazas and benches, ponds are to be added, and the wetlands are to be left in their natural states to the greatest extent possible. Mr. Greg Stratton, Morrison-Maierle, stated the developer's team is comfortable with virtually every comment that has been submitted to date. He requested Commission comment on the request for relaxation from the watercourse and wetlands setback requirements,to allow for a 35-foot setback from the high water mark rather than 50 feet from the edge of the watercourse as required by the code, and to allow for a 10-foot setback from watercourses and wetlands that are created as a result of this development. He noted that the requested reductions would provide the flexibility needed to shift the watercourse within the overall setbacks for the watercourse. He noted that there are many areas on the site that are not high quality wetlands, but provide drinking holes for the cattle 02-14-05 work that are currently pastured there. He indicated that the setbacks will be undisturbed, except for possible trails; and all streets and parking lots that may encroach into the setbacks will be curbed and the run-off will go through treatment ponds before entering the waterways. He then noted that outlets are needed to circulate the ponds, and their proposal is to develop streams through the parking lots with those outlets. Mr. Stratton stated the applicant proposes to do a lot of off-site mitigation work to address the wetlands issues, and is currently working with the Montana Wetlands Legacy to determine what would be acceptable. Commissioner Youngman stated that, given the size of the property, she cannot find any topographical justification to reduce the setbacks from the watercourses and jurisdictional wetlands, although she has no problem with relaxing the standards for those wetlands that are artificially created in conjunction with this project. Senior Planner Dave Skelton noted that the Wetlands Review Board will have an opportunity to provide comment on any proposals to modify or enhance the wetlands.areas. He then suggested that if the wetlands on this site are not determined to be an asset to the community, the further enhancement of a significant contributing wetland located off-site may be determined preferable. Commissioner Youngman noted that if the wetlands are, indeed, caused by the cows then they would be deemed artificial and may need to be reclassified. She expressed her appreciation for the imaginative design of the project and her interest in being responsive to that design whenever possible. She expressed strong concern about relaxing setback requirements on the natural waterways, although she might give consideration to a general 50-foot setback that narrows because of the watercourse wiggling within the setback, and expressed a willingness to be flexible on those water amenities that are created. She also thanked the applicant for providing a plan that avoids impacts on the natural features through the realignment of Fowler Avenue, which protects both the waterway and the grove of cottonwood trees. Senior Planner Skelton stated that, some time ago, someone trenched the ditches, which caused the wetlands to deteriorate. In recent years, however,the vegetation and riparian area have come back, with the result being a possible amenity for the community that should be protected. He further noted that the two middle watercourses are beginning to rejuvenate themselves; and the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks has indicated it may wish to protect those fisheries and not allow any relocations. Commissioner Krauss characterized this proposal as raising the bar for other developers. He recognized that, while a majority of Fowler Avenue may be realigned to protect the watercourse, at the north end it must align with the existing street; and that will result in encroachment into the setback. He then identified two issues raised at the Planning Board meeting but not included in the minutes. The Planning Board encouraged the applicant to widen the setback along the watercourse to the east as it moves northward through the site to provide as much protection as possible. The Board also talked about the design of the big anchor store at the northwest corner of the development and the possible need to double front it, to possibly dogleg the building to reduce its massive appearance, and to move the loading dock to the corner and provide berming to minimize its visual impacts, The Board also encouraged multiple heights for the retail development to the south. He expressed appreciation for the bike lanes along Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street, noting that they further expand the corridor system the City is trying to develop, He concluded by indicating he is a little concerned about the streambank setbacks and indicated interest in protecting the viable fishery through the site. 02-14-05 work Commissioner Hietala stated he supports the proposed development. Mayor Cetraro indicated he echos the other Commissioners' comments. Responding to Commissioner Kirchhoff, Mr. Ted Mitchell, applicant, stated he is interested in attracting both national restaurants and local restaurants to this site. He then stressed his desire to promote uniqueness within this development. Further responding to Commissioner Kirchhoff, Mr. Mitchell stated it is his intent to provide one- story development along West Main Street and to possibly increase the height of structures further back in the site. He then indicated that the site of the proposed convention center/hotel is what has been determined the best site, given its proximity to the demand generators. Also, it is further from the street and the traffic noises, which the hotel franchisers counsel is preferable. He estimated the project will take seven to nine years to build out, and cautioned that the project will not lay out well if he is required to strictly adhere to the setback requirements set forth in the code. The Commission thanked Mr. Mitchell for the opportunity to review this project. Informal Review-StoneRidge Square PUD Concept Plan -allow construction of one large-scale retail building within the 181,743 square foot retail complex at the northwest corner of West Oak Street/North 19th Avenue - Springer Group Architects (Z-04264) Included in the Commissioners' packets was a memo forwarding the concept plan for one large scale retail building within a 181,743-square-foot retail complex located in StoneRidge Square. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of North 19th Avenue and West Oak Street, Associate Planner Jami Morris briefly introduced this concept plan and reminded the Commission that this property has been zoned to allow regional, community and neighborhood commercial development. Mr. Lowell Springer noted that the first concept plan he submitted for this project worked very well for his clients but met with pretty strong criticism before the Commission. He distributed a packet of plans reflecting some of the changes that have occurred as a result of that first review, noting that the plan submitted for consideration at this time addresses the issues previously raised. He noted that the revisions include creating more of a downtown feel in the"B-1"zoned area at the southern portion of the site and proposing smaller structures that meet the guidelines for the StoneRidge Planned Unit Development. He highlighted the main entrance to the development, noting it is to be flanked by two rather large retail structures and provide vehicular access, ending at a plaza that provides pedestrian access to the green space along the eastern boundary of the site. He then noted that several building envelopes have been moved closer to North 19th Avenue, and the larger structures have been moved outside the "B-1" zoning boundary. Mr.Springer noted that he has been working with the potential clients as he has attempted to address the City's concerns and has been able to get them to compromise on a variety of issues. He has also worked with Planning staff as the plan has progressed. Mr.Springer posted some architectural renderings, stressing that these are simply conceptual and not detailed or final, 02-14-05 work Page 2 of 2 Response: We have included budgetary cost estimates in Section 8 of this submittal. "5. Detailed site plans must be included." Response: At a face to face meeting on Friday, May 6, 2005, with Susan Kozub and James Goehrung and Jolene Rieck of Peaks to Plains Design, Susan and James agreed that Valley West could submit the detailed planting, site and irrigation plans near the end of the current phase construction, but before the start of the next phase and before final plat approval of the current phase. Future phases will be treated in the same manner. We have included phase one and two construction plans that have already been implemented. Record drawings for phase one were submitted to the Parks Department in the past. Peaks to Plains Design would like to be present at the Recreation and Park Board and committee meetings when this submittal is discussed so we can be available to answer any questions that may arise. Please let me know when this project is on the agenda. If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call. S incerely, olene Rieck, ASLA Landscape Architect Cc: Doug Oberg, Aspen Enterprises, LLC Rob Pertzborn, Intrinsik Architecture Greg Stratton, Morrison Maierle, Inc. Barbara Vaughn, Vaughn Environmental Services Attachment • BEFORE THE BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF FINDINGS OF FACT GALLATIN CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW OF GALLATIN CENTER SUBDIVISION P.U.D.,PHASE IV, CITY OF BOZEMAN,GALLATIN COUNTY,MONTANA PURSUANT to the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, Section 76-3-101 through 76-3-625, Montana Codes Annotated, and the Bozeman Area Subdivision Regulations, a public meeting and public hearing were scheduled, after notice given, before the Bozeman Planning Board on December 2, 2003, and before the Bozeman City Commission on December 15, 2003, on the above-entitled application. The applicant presented to the City Commission a proposed preliminary subdivision plat to subdivide 48.73±acres of land and create nine (9) commercial lots as the fourth phase of a mixed-use commercial subdivision. The purpose of the public hearing was to consider all relevant evidence relating to public health, safety, and welfare, including the required environmental assessment and recommendation of the Planning Board, to determine whether the plat should be approved,conditionally approved, or disapproved. It appeared to the City Commission that all parties and the public wishing to appear and comment were given the opportunity to do so, and therefore, being fully advised of all matters having come before it regarding this application,the City Commission makes the following Findings of Fact, as required: FINDINGS OF FACT / I. The application for preliminary subdivision plat review of Gallatin Center Subdivision P.U.D., Phase IV, was submitted to the Bozeman Planning Office on October 8, 2003. The preliminary subdivision plat, as proposed, will subdivide 48.73± acres of land and create nine (9) commercial lots. All commercial lots will be served by City of Bozeman water and sanitary sewer services, and will be accessed by public streets with improvements to Cattail Street, North 19" Avenue, and the construction of interior local subdivision streets. Dedicated parkland is not required with said subdivision. A public open space/linear trail corridor will be developed along the course of East and West Catron Creek. GALLATIN CENTER SUBDIVISION P.U.D..PHASE IV -FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER 1 The subdivider has requested a variance to Section 16.14.170 "Watercourse Setback" of the City of Bozeman Subdivision Regulations to reduce the required stream setbacks from fifty (50) feet to thirty-five (35) feet along a portion of East Catron Creek. II. Notice of the public hearing before the Bozeman City Commission was published in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on Sunday, November 16, 2003, and the notice was posted at the site and mailed by Certified mail, return receipt requested, to all adjoining property owners. III The Planning Board heard the matter of preliminary subdivision plat review on December 2, 2003. The Planning Staff reviewed the project at that time.and discussed the recommended conditions of approval submitted by the. Development Review Committee, including: street improvement standards, public open space/trail corridors, placement and location of,public trails along East and West Catron Creek,limited access onto Durston Road,.collector street standard for North 15t'Avenue, bike paths and lanes, pedestrian trail system, and the need for signalization improvenients-at the intersection ofDurston Road and North 15'h Avenue. The Planning Staff discussed the history of Gallatin Center Subdivision P.U.D. and the developer's request to relax the regulatory standards outlined in Section 16.14.170 "Watercourse Setback" of the City of Bozeman Subdivision Regulations. The Planning Staff reported that no written testimony, in favor of, or opposition to, the preliminary plat application was received as of the public meeting before the Planning Board. IV. Chris Budeski of Allied Engineering,representing the applicant, discussed the history of the commercial planned unit development, responded to questions by the Planning Board, and discussed items related to the requested variance to maintain the East Carton Creek setback of thirty-five (35)feet instead of the new fifty (50) foot setback required by the subdivision regulations. Gene Graf, owner and applicant, responded to questions regarding the condition of the public trail and open space corridor along West Catron Creek, and problems with maintaining the public corridor behind Costco and Target. GALLATIN CENTER SUBDIVISION P.U.D.,PHASE IV -FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER 2 V. The public meeting portion on this matter was opened for public comment with one (1) member of the general public, Blair McGavin residing at 1013 Thomas Drive, providing testimony. Mr. McGavin expressed concern with the impact on Thomas Lane residents with the construction of North 27`h Avenue and the ability to annex to the City to obtain municipal services. After calling for further public testimony, and hearing none, the Planning Board closed the public comment portion of the meeting. VI. After finding that the Preliminary Plat was properly submitted and reviewed under the procedures of the Bozeman Area Subdivision Regulations, the Bozeman City Zoning Regulations, and the Bozeman Area Master Plan, the Planning Board reviewed and considered the facts against the criteria established in Title 76-3-608, M.C.A. The Planning Board considered .the recommended conditions prepared by the Planning Staff.and Development Review Committee, and discussed the variance to the East Catron Creek thirty-five (35) foot setback and possible relocation of the watercourse to.eliminate the need to request a variance. VII. The Planning Board found that with the attached conditions the major subdivision would comply with the primary review criteria, and therefore voted 6-1 to forward a recommendation of conditional approval to the Bozeman City Commission in Planning Resolution No. P-02050 with said conditions recommended by the Planning Office. VIII. The matter of preliminary plat review for Gallatin Center Subdivision P.U.D., Phase IV, after notice given, was scheduled to be heard before the City Commission on Monday, December 15, 2003. Prior to said public hearing on the matter, the applicant requested that the public hearing be opened and continued before the City Commission until February 2, 2004. IX. The matter was considered at a continued public hearing before the City Commission on Monday, February 2, 2004. The Planning Staff reviewed the project at that time, outlining the need for a continued public GALLATIN CENTER SUBDIVISION P.U.D.,PHASE IV -FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER 3 hearing before the governing body, and forwarded the Planning Board's recommendation of conditional approval to the City Commission. Chris Budeski of Allied Engineering, representing the applicant, discussed items related to the requested variance to maintain the East Carton Creek setback of thirty-five (35)feet instead of the new fifty (50) foot setback required by the subdivision regulations, condition of the public trail and open space corridor along West Catron Creek, and problems with maintaining the public corridor behind Costco and Target. X. The public meeting portion on this matter was opened for public comment. After calling three times for public testimony, and receiving none,the public hearing portion on this preliminary plat application was closed. XI. The City Commission then considered the minutes, public record and recommendation of the Planning Board, the developer's.testimony, and weighed the,proposed subdivision against the primary criteria for subdivisions established in Title 76-3-608, and found as follows:,, a .. 76-3-608.3.a,M.C.A. 1) EFFECTS ON AGRICULTURE: Historically, the subject property has been used for agricultural purposes with the majority of the 48.73- acre parcel used for cultivating crops or pasture. The Soil Potential Maps identify the site as being good producing soils for agricultural activity and a viable farm unit. As a result, 48+acres of good producing agricultural land will be eliminated from agricultural activity based on the Soil Maps. The property under consideration is a subsequent phase of Gallatin Center Subdivision P.U.D. that is consistent with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan and is designated to develop as "Regional Commercial and Services" and "Business Park" 2) EFFECTS ON LOCAL SERVICES: The preliminary plat application is part of a phased planned unit development containing a preliminary master plan for accessing municipal infrastructure for the purposes of providing sanitary sewer and domestic water service, as well as adequate transportation facilities for the general public, and emergency services, police and fire protection. The cost of extending infrastructure to the property will be the sole responsibility of the developer, unless over sizing of water and/or sanitary sewer main capacities is requested by the City. In such cases, the City of Bozeman will participate in the over sizing of infrastructure. 3) EFFECTS ON NATURAL ENVIRONMENT No significant physical or topographical features, exclusive of East and West Catron Creek and associated wetlands, have been identified on Phase IV of Gallatin Center Subdivision P.U.D. Any GALLATIN CENTER SUBDIVISION P.U.D.,PHASE IV -FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER 4 relocation, mitigation and/or enhancement of watercourses and associated wetlands will occur only with the approval of 310 and/or 404 Permits from the Gallatin County Conservation District and Army Corp of Engineers. Groundwater quality will be protected by the installation of municipal sanitary sewer services, and provisions have been included in the applicant's submittal to address the control of noxious weeds, agricultural fencing and maintenance of pubic trail/stream corridors related to the two watercourses. 4) EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT Because the area in question was historically used for cultivating agricultural crops prior to this development proposal, and finding no substantial evidence of mature vegetation, bushes or trees existing on the property in question, no significant impacts on wildlife or wildlife habitant have been identified. The potential impact on the riparian area for both watercourses and established wetlands will be addressed with requirements for issuance of Section 310 and 404 Permits. Therefore, no effects on any significant wildlife and their habitat should occur as a result of the proposed subdivision. 5) EFFECTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY The Bozeman Development Review Committee (D.R.C.) reviewed the application for Preliminary Plat review of Gallatin Center Subdivision P.U.D., and as result have determined that said impacts to the area's public health and safety identified with this subdivision proposal and outlined in the this staff report, have the ability to be mitigated based on the recommended conditions of approval prepared by the D.R.C. 6) EFFECT ON AGRICULTURAL WATER USERS FACILITIES Any relocation and/or alterations of East and West Catron Creek must include an assessment of the potential impacts to downstream water users facilities during construction. Nonetheless, the applicant will need to provide a notation of the final plat stating that the development of Phase IV will not interfere with any agricultural water user facilities for downstream water rights. All subdivisions must be reviewed against the criteria listed in 76-3-608.3.b-d, M.C.A., 1995 regardless of compliance with master plan status. As a result, the Planning Office has reviewed this application against the listed criteria and further provides the following summary review: 76-3-608.3.b,M.C.A. (i) - Compliance with survey requirements provided in Part 4 of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act. The proposed major subdivision appears to have complied with the survey requirements in Part 4 of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act and will be filed in the Gallatin County Clerk & Recorder's Office with Final Plat review and approval. (ii) - Compliance with the local subdivision regulations provided for in Part 5 of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act. The proposed major subdivision is in general compliance with the City of Bozeman Subdivision Regulations based on the recommended conditions provided by the Bozeman Development Review Committee and other applicable review agencies. (iii) - Compliance with the local subdivision review procedures. GALLATIN CENTER SUBDIVISION P.U.D.,PHASE IV -FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER 5 The application generally complies with the subdivision review procedures for a major subdivision established in the Bozeman Area Subdivision Regulations. Based on the recommendation of the D.R.C. and other applicable review agencies, as well as any public testimony received. The Bozeman Planning Board shall forward a recommendation in a Resolution to the Bozeman City Commission who will make the final decision on the proposed major subdivision. 76-3-608.3.c,M.C.A. (c) -Provision for easements for the location and installation of any planned utilities. All new facilities (i.e., electricity, gas, telephone, cable) will be installed underground. Appropriate easements shall be referenced on the Final Plat and the appropriate certificate on the plat granting the use of the easements to the necessary entities shall be provided. The Development Review Committee recommended a condition of Preliminary Plat approval that required the applicant to clearly identify the thirty (30) foot wide utility easement on the Final Plat for sewer and water mains that are located outside of dedicated public right-of-ways. 76-3-608.3.d,M.C.A. : . (d) -Provisions of legal and physical access to each parcel. Legal and physical access to this application for Preliminary Plat review will occur from the extension of Cattail Street and North 27`h Avenue..- :Both:North Vh Avenue and Cattail Street are identified as collector roads for this area and will be constructed according to acceptable City collector standards. Direct access to each individual lot will occur from predetermined access points that comply with the regulatory standards for egress/ingress separation and proximity to street intersections. No direct access onto North 19`h Avenue will be permitted and shall be noted accordingly on the Final Plat for this subdivision. XII. After considering all matters of record presented at the public hearing and meeting, the City Commission found that the proposed preliminary plat for Gallatin Center Subdivision Planned Unit Development, Phase IV, to divide 48.73± acres and create nine (9) commercial lots, inclusive of the requested variance to Section 16.14.170 "Watercourse Setback" of the City of Bozeman Subdivision Regulations, would comply with the requirements of the Bozeman Area Subdivision Regulations and the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act if certain conditions were imposed. ORDER THEREFORE,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, on a vote of 5 to 0, that the Preliminary Subdivision Plat to subdivide 43.73±acres and create nine(9)commercial lots, has been found to meet the primary criteria of the Montana Subdivision Platting Act, and is therefore approved, subject to the conditions listed below. The GALLATIN CENTER SUBDIVISION P.U.D.,PHASE IV -FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER 6 s • evidence as stated in the Findings of Fact,justifies the conditions imposed on the subdivision to ensure that the final plat complies with all applicable regulations, and all required criteria, that appropriate and safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation is provided, adequate infrastructure and public services are provided, and adequate public access, utility easements, and rights-of-way are provided. 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,M.C.A. 1. Stormwater Master Plan: A Stormwater Master Plan for the subdivision for a system designed to remove solids, silt, oils, grease and other pollutants from the runoff from the private and public streets and all lots must be provided to and approved by the City Engineer. The master plan must depict the maximum-sized retention basin location, show location of and provide easements for adequate drainage ways within-the subdivision to transport runoff to the stormwater receiving channel. The plan shall include sufficient site grading and elevation information(particularly for the basin site, drainage ways and finished lot grades), typical stormwater detention/retention basin and i discharge structure details,basin sizing calculations and a stormwater maintenance plan. Any stormwater ponds located within a park or. open space shall be designed and constructed to be conducive to the normal use and maintenance of the open space. Stormwater ponds for runoff generated by the subdivision (e.g., general lot runoff, public or private streets,common open space, parks,etc.) shall not be located on easements within privately owned lots. While the runoff from the individual lots will be dependent on the intensity of use on each lot, the maximum sizing of the storm retention facilities for each lot will be established based on maximum site development. Final facility sizing may be reviewed and reduced during design review of the final site plan for each lot. The final approved stormwater master plan for the subdivision only covered the property from Cattail Street north. The report for the remainder of the property never went beyond the preliminary stages. A stormwater report must be submitted for this phase of the development, and all stormwater facilities needed to serve the subdivision infrastructure must be installed with the rest of the improvements for the subdivision. 2. Plans and specifications and a detailed design report for water and sewer main extensions, storm sewer and the public street, prepared by a professional engineer, shall be provided to and approved by the City Engineer and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. The applicant shall also provide professional engineering services for construction inspection, post-construction certification, and preparation of mylar record drawings. Construction shall not be initiated on the public infrastructure improvements until the plans and specifications have been approved and a pre-construction conference has been conducted. No building permits shall be issued prior to substantial completion and City acceptance of the required infrastructure improvements. GALLATIN CENTER SUBDIVISION P.U.D..PHASE IV -FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER 7 3. All infrastructure improvements including 1) water and sewer main extensions, and 2) public streets, curb/gutter, sidewalks fronting parks, open space, rear yard frontages or other non-lot frontages, and related storm drainage infrastructure improvements shall be financially guaranteed or constructed prior to final plat approval. City standard residential sidewalks shall be constructed on all public street frontages of a property prior to occupancy of any structure on the property. Upon the third anniversary of the plat recordation of any phase of the subdivision, any lot owner who has not constructed said sidewalk shall, without further notice, construct within 30 days said sidewalk for their lot(s), regardless of whether other improvements have been made upon the lot. This condition shall be included on the plat and in the covenants for the subdivision. 4. The location of existing water and sewer mains shall be properly depicted. Proposed main extensions shall be noted as proposed. 5. The Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, SCS, Montana Department of Environmental Quality and Army Corps of Engineers shall be contacted regarding the proposed project and any required permits (i.e., 310, 404, turbidity exemption,etc.) shall be obtained prior to final site plan approval. 6. Easements for the water and sewer main extensions shall be a minimum of 30 feet in width, with the utility located in the center of the easement. In no case shall the utility be less than 10 feet from the edge of easement: . 7, Project.phasing shall be clearly defined including installation of infrastructure. 8. The developer shall make arrangements with the City Engineer's office to provide addresses for all individual lots in the subdivision prior to filing of the final plat. 9. Site plans for development on the individual lots will not be reviewed until the plans for the North 19t' Avenue/Valley Center Road improvements project have been approved by MDT and the City of Bozeman. No building permits will be issued until the North 19`h Avenue/Valley Center Road construction contract is awarded, and then on a case by case basis to ensure concurrent construction of the street project and the site project will not negatively impact the public safety and to ensure alternate routes are acceptable. 10. If construction of the proposed development conflicts with the North 19`" Avenue/ Valley Center Road construction, the development's construction activity shall be suspended at the City's or MDT's discretion. 11. North 27 h Avenue/Thomas Lane will be required to be improved to one half a collector standard as shown in the Transportation Plan including curb, gutter, and sidewalk. A minimum 24-foot wide driving surface shall be provided to accommodate two-way traffic until the west half is built. This shall be constructed from Cattail Street to the southern boundary of this subdivision with Phase II of the subdivision. A temporary gravel cul-de-sac shall be installed on the southern end of the street extension. 12. One foot no-access strips shall be dedicated the required distance from all intersections to make future driveways on all lots comply with the zone code. 13. That with development of Gallatin Center Subdivision P.U.D. the subdivider: 1) install the public trail within the West Catron Creek trail/stream corridor as an 8-foot wide asphalt surface with the proper specifications determined by City staff, 2) that the trail running south through Phase IV should be situated along the east side of the watercourse starting at least 170 feet north of Cattail Street, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Office, 3) that a weed control plan must be more effectively implemented GALLATIN CENTER SUBDIVISION P.U.D.,PHASE IV -FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER 8 within the corridor, and 4) that access points along Lot 18 and Lot 19 onto North 27th Avenue be limited to not more than one(1) shared access. 14. That the subdivider install with final plat for Phase IV pedestriantbike trail identification signs in accordance with G.V.L.T. standards at both sides of Cattail Street with the West Catron Creek pedestrian trail, and that the subdivider provide typical details and specifications for the identification signs, for review and approval by the Planning Office and Gallatin Valley Land Trust. 15. That water rights, or cash-in-lieu thereof, shall be provided and paid for prior to final plat review and approval. If the final plat of the subdivision is filed in phases, water rights, or cash-in-lieu thereof, will only be required for each phase of the subdivision that is being filed. The applicant shall provide payment of the calculated cash-in-lieu of water rights based on an amount determined by the Director of Public Service. 16. That all the subdivision blocks within the subdivision plat, separated by dedicated public rights-of-way, shall be clearly delineated using individual block numbers with each block containing its own group of lot numbers, unless determined differently by the Director of Public Service. 17. That prior to proceeding with any ground disturbance or installation of municipal infrastructure and/or streets, the subdivider shall provide the Planning Office with a Cultural Resource Inventory determining if any unknown or. unrecorded cultural resources exist on the site in question and if such.sites do exist, whether or not they will be impacted by the development of said lands. 18. That prior to proceeding with any ground disturbance.or installation of municipal infrastructure and/or streets, the subdivider shall provide the Planning Office with approved Section 310 and Section 404 Permits from the applicable review agencies determining whether or not said watercourses and/or . wetlands will be impacted by the development of said lands. 19. That the applicant provides a landscape plan of the West Catron Creek and East Catron Creek open space trail/stream corridors prepared by a certified landscape architect or nurseryperson illustrating the landscape design features, location and placement of the public pedestrian trail, typical cross section of the corridor including public trail specifications, and site grading plan for review and approval prior to submitting for final plat review and approval. The West Catron Creek public trail/stream corridor shall be delineated on the final plat as identifying the entire corridor being situated on the site of the major subdivision and not on a portion of the adjoining property of Cattail Creek Subdivision, Phase 1. 20. That the contractor physically installing said trail improvements shall be required to hold a pre- construction meeting with the City of Bozeman Parks Department prior to proceeding with installation of said trail improvements and provide the Planning Office with written approval by the Superintendent of Facilities and Public Lands to proceed with construction of the trail improvements, and that said provisions and trail specifications be noted accordingly in the property owner's association documents for review and approval by the Planning Office. 21. That the subdivider install a scored concrete pedestrian crosswalk with signage for pedestrian and bike pathway crossings at the intersection Cattail Street and North 27th Avenue (i.e., similar to that in Cattail Creek Subdivision), crosswalk markings at the intersection of Cattail Street and Max Avenue, similar to that at the intersection of Burke Avenue and Max Avenue, and continue the same crosswalk scored concrete markings at the intersection with North 19th Avenue similar to the intersection of Burke Street and North 19th Avenue. The subdivider shall submit plans and specifications for all pedestrian bridges proposed for crossing East and/or West Catron Creek, all street crossings, and signage details for review and approval by the Planning Office, prior to proceeding with said improvements and prior to submitting for final plat approval. GALLATIN CENTER SUBDIVISION P.U.D.,PHASE IV -FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER 9 22. That the subdivider shall be responsible for installing sod, boulevard trees, and an irrigation system in the public right-of-way boulevard strips along all external subdivision streets and adjacent to subdivision parks or other common open space or common areas in accordance with Section 16.14.110.A "City of Bozeman Rights-of-Way". 23. Prior to proceeding with installation of any landscape irrigation wells, the applicant shall obtain a well permit from the Gallatin County and Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. 24. That boulevard street lighting shall be incorporated into the subdivision and that all lighting shall comply with City standards in effect at the time of installation, (Section 18.42.150 Unified Development Ordinance) with exception of Max Avenue, and shall be subject to review and approval by Planning staff prior to installation. 25. That the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for the property owners' association shall be modified to include provisions for the installation, maintenance and upkeep of the public trail/stream corridors, as well as the design and installation of improvements within the corridors. This includes, but is not limited to: 1)trail standards and installation specifications, 2) landscape design features, 3) placement of landscape furniture and lighting, 4) pedestrian crossings and signage, 5) maintenance and upkeep of grass turf, 6) regular mowing, 7) control of noxious weeds, 8) proper installation of landscape irrigation, 9) design, screening, and approval of installation of irrigation wells and irrigation utilities, and 10) common ownership of pubic trail/stream corridors, for review and approval by the Planning Office prior to submitting for final plat review and approval. 26. The property owners' association documents shall be amended.to state that no structures,'including; but not linuted.to irrigation wells, irrigation power facilities, ground mounted utilities, impervious surfaces, pads, or.other.related utilities shall be allowed in the public trail/stream corridors without further approval by the Planning Office. Stormwater runoff facilities will not be permitted in the stream corridor unless it exceeds the area of the corridor defined by the 50-foot watercourse setback. The protective covenants shall also contain provisions for the maintenance and upkeep of all common open space areas and public trail/stream corridors in a healthy, growing condition at all times, and maintained under a single, annually renewed contract with a qualified grounds maintenance contractor,for review and approved by the City of Bozeman prior to submitting for final plat review and approval. 27. Any grading plan that involves the relocation of the East and/or West Catron Creek will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Office, as well as all applicable review agencies; including, but not limited to, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Gallatin Conservation District, and City Engineer's office. Any final grading plan for construction of streets and infrastructure that adjoins a public stream corridor shall also provide grading information for the relocation of any watercourses for review and approval by the Planning Office prior to proceeding with any installation of streets and/or municipal infrastructure. 28. That the final plat contain a notation stating that all downstream water user facilities will not be impacted by this subdivision and that it also be noted accordingly in the by-laws and protective covenants for the property owners' association. 29. Boulevard sidewalks will be installed along both sides of Max Avenue with the extension of the private street to its intersection with Cattail Street or financially guaranteed as required under Section 16.14.050 of the subdivision regulations. 30. Access onto North 27`h Avenue from Lot 18 and Lot 19 will be limited to not more than one (1) 30-foot- wide shared-access easement and noted accordingly on the final plat and in the protective covenants of the association documents for review and approval by the Planning Office. GALLATIN CENTER SUBDIVISION P.U.D.,PHASE IV -FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER 10 31. The applicant shall dedicate with the final plat a 60-foot-wide public right-of-way for Minter Street at the south end of Lot 19 that will continue from North 27th Avenue eastward to the existing right-of-way for Rawhide Ridge. 32. The temporary turn around at the south end of North 27th Avenue will be constructed in the 60-foot wide dedicated right-of-way for Minter Street, not the West Catron Creek stream corridor. 33. That the final plat shall comply with Section 16.08.070 "Final Plat" and Chapter 16.32 "Certificates" of the City of Bozeman Subdivision Regulations and shall conform to all requirements of the Uniform Standards for Final Subdivision Plats including provisions for all appropriate certificates and language, certification from the City Engineer that as-built drawings for public improvements were received, and accompanied by all appropriate documents, including a Platting Certificate. Four (4) mylar copies of the final plat must be submitted for final plat approval, along with two (2) digital copies of the final plat, on a double sided, high density 3'h-inch floppy disk, and five (5)paper prints. 34. That the applicant obtain Montana Department of Environmental Quality approval of the subdivision prior to final plat approval pursuant to Section 16.16.101 through 16.16.805 A.R.M. 35. That the applicant provide with the application for final plat review and approval a copy of a signed Memorandum of Understanding with the Gallatin County Weed Control District. 36. The final plat shall provide public utility easements along all front, side, and rear lot lines as required by Section 16.14.050 "Easements" of the subdivision regulations. However, in the event front and/or rear yard utility.easements are used, side rear yard easements must still be provided on the plat unless written confirmation:is,submitted to the Planning Office from all utility companies and the Director-of,Public Service indicating that front yard 25-foot-wide easements are adequate to service said subdivision lots. The utility easement notation required in Section 16.14.060.B.4 of the Bozeman Subdivision Regulations shall also be provided on the final plat. 37. That the final plat contain the following language that is readily visible with lettering, at a minimum height of 1/4-inch, placing future landowners of individual lots on notice of the presence of high groundwater in the area of the subdivision for review and approval by the Planning Office: "Due to the potential of high ground water tables in the areas of the subdivision, it is not recommended that residential dwellings or commercial structures with full or partial basements be constructed without first consulting a professional engineer licensed in the State of Montana and qualified in the certification of residential and commercial construction." 38. The subdivider shall ensure that all construction material and other debris is removed from the subdivision prior to final plat approval, or prior to release of said financial guarantee, if an Improvements Agreement is necessary with the final plat. 39. That the developer shall enter in an Improvements Agreement with the City of Bozeman guaranteeing the completion of all improvements in accordance with the preliminary plat submittal information and conditions of approval. If the final plat is filed prior to installation of all improvements, the developer shall supply the City of Bozeman with an acceptable method of security equal to one hundred fifty (150) percent of the cost of the remaining improvements. 40. That the developer shall have three (3) years from the date of preliminary plat approval to complete the conditions of preliminary plat approval and apply for final plat approval. At the end of this period the City Commission may, at the written request of the subdivider,extend its approval for a period of no more than one (1) calendar year except that the City Commission may extend its approval for a period of more than one (1) year if that approval period is included as a specific condition of a written subdivision GALLATIN CENTER SUBDIVISION P.U.D.,PHASE IV -FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER 11 I v • improvements agreement between the City Commission and the subdivider, provided for in Chapter 16.22 of the Bozeman Subdivision Regulations. 41. That the applicant submit with the application for final plat review and approval of Gallatin Center Subdivision P.U.D., Phase IV, a written narrative stating how each of the conditions of preliminary plat approval has been met or satisfactorily addressed. The preliminary approval of this subdivision shall be effective for three (3) years from the date of Preliminary Plat approval, or February 2, 2007. At the end of this period the City Commission may, at the request of the subdivider,extend its approval for not more than the one (1) calendar year. However, preliminary approval may be extended for more than one (1) calendar if the developer enters into, and secures, an Improvements Agreement for the Subdivision. DATED this day of , 2004. BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION Andrew L.Cetraro,Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Robin Sullivan, Clerk of the Commission Paul Luwe, City Attorney GALLATIN CENTER SUBDIVISION P.U.D.,PHASE IV -FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER 12 CIT* BOZEMAN ' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260 20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263 P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozeman.net December 21, 2005 Ted Mitchell Mitchell Development Group,L.L.C. P.O. Box 738 Great Falls,MT 59403 Greg Stratton Morrison-Maierle, Inc. 901 Technology Boulevard P.O. Box 1113 Bozeman, MT 59771-1230 RE: The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.UD. Zoning Application #Z-05217 Dear Ted and Greg, On Monday, December 12, 2005 the City Commission conditionally approved the application for a Conditional Use Permit for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision Preliminary P.U.D. Plan to develop a mixed- use commercial, professional office and retail planned unit development on 72.2 acres legally described as Tract 2A of the Amended Plat of West College Minor Subdivision No. 195A located in the NW 1/4 of Section 15,T2S, R5E,P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County,Montana. The proposal was evaluated against the review criteria and requirements of the adopted Growth Policy and the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. The City Commission's decision was based on the fact that, with conditions, the proposal will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the community, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance and the adopted Growth Policy. The decision of the City Commission is final. The conditions of approval are as follows: 1. The PUD shall comply with all approved conditions of the subdivision preliminary plat approval. 2. Conditional approval of the Preliminary P.U.D. Plan and final approval of the Final P.U.D. Plan for Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. by the Planning Director is limited to the approval of the master plan and development guidelines of the Development Manual only. Approval does not exempt the applicant from compliance with all provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code, which are applicable to this project and site plan review of individual projects within the P.U.D. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. 3. Prior to submitting for Final Plat review and approval of the initial phase(s) for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. the applicant shall obtain Final P.U.D. approval by the Planning Director. A draft planning . zoning • subdivision review . annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration • neighborhood coordination of the revised protective covenants and restrictions for the property owner's association, preliminary draft of the Final P.U.D. Plan and Development Manual addressing all of the conditions of approval and outlined in the staff report shall be submitted for review by the City Commission, Planning Office and D.R.B. a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to submitting for final plat review and approval of the initial phase(s) of the subdivision. 4. The landscape features and trail improvements along the West Main Street entryway corridor that front onto US 191/Huffine Lane and West Garfield Street shall be installed with Phase 1 of The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. 5. That all pedestrian/bicycle crossings and walkways with streets be given greater emphasis by using similar pavers that reflect the surface treatment of public plazas and areas of outdoor social activities. Connections between streets, off-street parking lots, and public areas should also be given attention in terms of raised walkways, pavers, pedestrian lighting and landscape features. The Final PUD Plan will contain a written narrative and detailed plan in the Development Manual whereby the project provides a public information shelter and map display area along the West Main Street entryway corridor. This area will serve as a regional trail connection point for pedestrians and bicycles along the corridor. 6. Pathways must be maintained by the developer in conformance with the approved maintenance plan until 50% of the lots are sold. Thereafter, the homeowner's association is responsible for pathway maintenance (Section 18.50.110 ). Plans and specifications for the trail will need to be reviewed by the Parks Department prior to construction. A Type II Class trail is recommended along the watercourse corridor with the placement of appropriate pedestrian crossings at all intersections with interior subdivision streets. A typical cross section of the public trails, Both Type I and Type II, shall be included in the landscape guidelines and will include trail specifications, typical landscape guidelines, and site grading plans for review and approval prior to final plat approval.. 7. Provisions for a transit stop within the interior of the PUD and an information center along the West Main Street entryway corridor shall be incorporated into the site design for review and approval with the Final PUD Plan. A written explanation, illustrations and details shall be included in the Development Manual for review and approval. 8. The public streetscape shall contain a regular spacing of boulevard trees along all streets, both public and private, in concert with landscape features and screening of off-street parking lots; primarily, areas along West Garfield Street and US Highway 191/West Main Street. All trees to be installed in the boulevards, off-street parking lots, common open space areas, public plazas and individual subdivision lots will be installed at 2-inch caliper in diameter. Street character along the West Main Street entryway corridor, Fowler Avenue and Garfield Street shall call for architectural features that suggest a presence of store fronts, plazas, fenestration treatment and architectural details that reflect the "lifestyle center" concept. The Development Manual shall contain said language to insure implementation of said streetscape features. 9. Commercial and retail drive-thrus and associated apprentices (speaker phones, signage, ATM, canopies, etc.) shall not front onto the entryway corridor or corner-side of the building and will not impact the building facade of the satellite structures along the streetscape. The Development Manual will provide a typical illustration that speaks to this provision prior to Final PUD Plan approval. 10. The Final PUD Plan and Development Manual shall discuss the treatment of street intersections that are enhanced by pedestrian-friendly entrances, plazas or design features such as benches and landscape planters. Building entrances near the sidewalk edge that contain an entry plaza should also be Page 2 • • considered at the intersections of local streets with Technology Boulevard and not only in the commercial area, but also along the business park/professional office corridors. This would also apply at the corner of Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street. If it is the decision to locate the grocery store at the southeast corner of West Main Street and Fowler Avenue, a building entrance and plaza must occur along the entryway corridor,preferably at the northwest corner of the building. 11. The Development Manual and Landscape Plan shall address the treatment of drainage basins in the open space corridors with regard to placement of said facilities and outlet structures. These facilities must be properly landscaped and prevent any impact on the landscape features along these corridors. Specific landscape details will be required with the final landscape plan to demonstrate proper landscape 'of the facilities. The landscape guidelines shall state that drainage basins will not eliminate the installation of landscape and landscape features as depicted on the Preliminary PUD Plan; and if so,will be replaced outside of the open space corridors. A landscape architect shall certify on the Landscape Plan that landscape features installed over or around areas that contain a drainage basin in the open space corridor will not be impacted. 12. That the landscape guidelines of the Development Manual state that the surface ponds along West Main Street are not part of the storm water facilities and will be maintained as landscape feature along the entryway corridor. Provisions will be discussed in the protective covenants and Development Manual that will limit the fluctuation of said ponds to ensure that they remain an effective landscape feature along the entryway corridor. Should the design and installation of the surface ponds result in problems with fluctuation and are not considered an effective landscape element of the entryway corridor, resolution of the problem shall be resolved prior to the filing of the final plat for the second phase(s) of the major subdivision. 13. The water features along the West Main Street entryway corridor shall be designed as open space amenities as organic in shape and form, and lined with appropriate aquatic and wetland features, native grasses and indigenous plants. Provisions will outlined in the Development Manual and/or protective covenants that The P.U.D. Landscape Plan shall include landscape plan of the water features for review and approval prior to Final P.U.D. Plan approval. Side slopes for the water features shall not exceed 25% slope. 14. The final Landscape Plan shall specifically address landscape details for the three open corridors, two public trails within the north off-street parking lot, and West Main Street entryway corridor. Detailed landscape plans shall also be included for the two public plazas within the interior of the lifestyle center and the small public spaces along the north/south water courses. Prior to Final PUD Plan approval the Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Office and D.R.B. for approval. 15. The final Landscape Plan shall expand on the types of vegetation sought within the design standards and should a stronger emphasis on clustered landscape features, low-profile vegetation, native type species, vegetation along the watercourse corridors and West Main Street entryway corridor, flowering and perennial species, and ground cover. The design standards shall specifically discourage the use of "pea" gravel or decorative 1 1/4" to 2" washed rock gravel, or less. All landscape islands that include decorative rock or gravel as a groundcover shall specify "river rock" or equal in the landscape plan. 16. That the applicant will provide surface finish elevations for all parking lots and building finished floor elevations with respect to associated watercourse features. The Development Manual and protective covenants shall state that all open space areas and associated watercourse setbacks will remain undisturbed unless otherwise approved by the Planning Office. All grade transitions between off-street Page 3 parking lot areas and abutting watercourse open space areas shall not exceed a maximum slope of 4:1, or 25% slope. 17. The Bozeman Design Objectives Plan states that the following elements must be achieved in order to reduce the perceived mass of a building: a change in color or change in material shall be used in each building module; a 20% change in vertical height between each module; change roof form; change in articulation. The architectural guidelines should discuss components that help to establish a human scale along the facade, store fronts, primary entrances (i.e., one-story elements). Expression of each floor in the external skin and use of materials should also be noted. The Development Manual will need to provide illustrations for each of these guidelines as discussed and revise any illustrations proposed in the Development Manual that do not reflect said criteria. 18. The architectural guidelines for the development suggest that the Convenience Center, Outparcels and Office-Professional areas will incorporate the architectural vocabulary of the lifestyle center. However, modifications will be required due to the significant variation in building type and scale. The Development Manual goes on to state that an exact determination of which entities will be responsible for which elements of design and construction will be determined by individual lease or sales agreements. In-lieu of this, the Development Manual shall give specific attention to each of these areas of the mixed-use development and identify what must be achieved in each of these areas to maintain the architectural integrity of the overall development theme. The Development Manual shall graphically address the presentation of building facades that.face onto the public streets (i.e., West Main Street entryway corridor, Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street) and through the use of illustrations illustrate the architectural theme sought with the "lifestyle center of the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision. This also applies as well to the professional office, business park and convenience components of the development, as well as the rear facades of both sides of the "lifestyle" center situated along Technology Boulevard. 19. The architectural guidelines of the Development Manual will be modified to state that not more than 25% of any of the building facades shall be covered with a synthetic surface. 20. The Development Manual will discuss presentation onto a street regardless if it's the main street for the lifestyle center, private street or a public street with respect to a formal entrance, store fronts, covered entrances, and public spaces. 21. Section V of the Development Manual - "Review Procedures of the Development Manual" shall be revised to clarify that the site plan review process for individual projects within the planned unit development are not an informal review by the City of Bozeman and shall instead follow the prescribed site plan review process outlined in the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. The Manual shall further note that with site plan review applications for each building project shall include in the submittal detailed elevations, floor plans, landscape plan, site plan, colored rendering, accurate color palette, and materials sample board specific to said project 22. No corporate or franchise style architecture shall be permitted in the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision and noted accordingly in the Development Manual and the protective covenants and restrictions of the property owner's association documents. 23. The general building materials theme and color palette shall be continued throughout all phases of the development. The types of cultural stone to be used throughout the project shall be reviewed and Page 4 approved by the D.R.B. and A.D.R. staff as part of the Final P.U.D. Plan and noted accordingly in the Development Manual. 24. The Development Manual shall be modified to specifically state that all roof top mechanical equipment will be properly screened through the use of proper architectural screening techniques or with parapet walls that will reach a height that is equal or greater than the top of all mechanical equipment. Any ventilation for plumbing or air exchange that is not mechanical related equipment shall be painted to match the color palette of the roof and/or architectural screening. 25. All of the buildings on the perimeter of the development shall have a second store front (double fronted design) that is oriented towards the streetscape and shall include a colonnade and a sidewalk connection to the perimeter sidewalk/trail system. All corner buildings shall include a type of design feature directed towards the corner (a concave area or a bump-out constructed of transparent materials) and shall be noted accordingly in the Development Manual. Any additional exhibits presented to the D.R.B. and City Commission that are found acceptable shall be included in the Development Manual. 26. The backside of the buildings shall be addressed by the continuation of similar materials on all sides of the building(s) with similar architectural features, light fixtures, materials, color palette and awnings over the doors on the rear or back elevations. 27. The development guidelines shall contain language for all store fronts that encourages the use of dark bronze anodized;or similarly darker frames,in-lieu of the brushed stainless steel finish. 28. Sconce lights and goose neck lights (down lights only) shall be added to the larger retail buildings (over 15,000 square feet). Exposed, unshielded neon tube lighting and continuous L.E.D. string lighting are not permitted in the planned unit development and shall be noted accordingly in the Development Manual and protective covenants of the property owner's association. The lighting guidelines may indicate that neon lighting and L.E.D. lighting may be used as a subtle lighting element under the soffits, behind the fascia or in the sign package (i.e., backlit feature) as an indirect, obscure lighting detail. 29. The architectural guidelines of the Development Manual shall contain language that discourages the use of translucent or transparent awnings and shall instead be opaque in material through the use of fabric or metal materials only. 30. Those areas of the building facade to be finished in a synthetic material (i.e., E.F.I.S., dryvit, stucco or similar finish) shall place a strong emphasis on the treatment, color palette and variation in joint detail and pattern, relief and architectural detail, and noted accordingly in the Development Manual. 31. All crossings within the Planned Unit Development shall be constructed with scored concrete or pavers similar to the surface materials installed throughout the public outdoor public areas. The crossings shall be noted as such on the Final PUD Plan and details for the pattern(s) shall be provided in the final development guidelines. 32. Larger seating areas with planters shall be installed throughout the plazas and public areas and a typical detail of the planters included in the Development Manual. 33. The development guidelines shall indicate that no backlit cabinet type "box" signs will be permitted in each phase of the development unless a three-dimensional component is included that creates a sense of architectural relief and where no plastic, translucent or transparent face are permitted. This shall be addressed in the comprehensive signage plan for the planned unit development and shall be submitted Page 5 to the Planning Office prior to Final PUD approval that depicts a sign package that exhibits qualities of style,relief and compatibility. 34. A common master signage plan depicting the actual location, dimensions, height, illumination and use of materials for all freestanding signs shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Final PUD Plan approval. Both the pylon signs and monument signs shall be constructed of materials compatible with the overall building design theme for the development and illustrated accordingly in the Development Manual. All signs shall obtain a sign permit prior to construction and installation, and shall comply with the required regulatory standards set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance. The Development Manual will need to include a graphic component of the master sign plan for the entire property that reflects the theme desired with this P.U.D. This includes discussion on the position of signs as part of the overall building composition; avoid obscuring architectural details, materials, and use of color and relief, three-dimensional signage,placement of freestanding signs along street frontages, entrances into the development, and addressing required setbacks and street vision triangles. 35. The north off-street parking lot in Phase 4 will replace two off-street parking spaces along each of the two watercourse open space corridors for the placement of an 18' by 18' public area with benches, pavers and landscape features. A typical detail of this area shall be illustrated accordingly in the Development Manual as part of the landscape guidelines and the final Landscape Plan for the development. The watercourse corridors shall have a minimum width of not less than thirty feet, exclusive of the 18' by 18'public area. 36. The applicant shall implement an "Off-Street Parking Lot Implementation Plan" for each phase of the planned unit development that ensures adequate parking facilities are available for the general public in each phase of the P.U.D. The gross floor area of buildings in each phase will be determined based on the ability to comply with the required minimum off-street parking standards outlined in the Unified Development Ordinance. This will be further addressed during site plan review of each individual project. The applicant shall further provide a notation on the subdivision plats and in the protective covenants and Development Manual that all off-street parking areas located within the development will be held to a reciprocal shared parking easement and agreement for use by the general public. 37. All parking lot lights and internally illuminated signs shall be turned off within one hour of closing, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director of City Commission during site plan review of each individual project within The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. Only security lights will be permitted to remain on throughout the night. 38. The City of Bozeman shall be party to any modifications, changes or amendments to the protective covenants and restrictions and to the Development Manual for The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. as it relates to the conditions of approval for the subdivision Preliminary Plat and zoning P.U.D. Preliminary Plan. 39. That the applicant submit an implementation plan for a residential component of seventy (70) or more residential dwelling units with a substantial number of dwelling units located in the core of the development, prior to review and approval of Phase 2. �� +F,,y ,7+�I G c hl,�� 40. That all site plan review applications wi � the subdivision will be subject to review by the Design Review Board. 41. That office buildings 3, 4, and 5 in Phase 3 be rotated to front onto Garfield Street. yr�l�I�wJc 70 c G all —1 k-1 C c.+ ,�+� 51(�� R9yl+c.� v �— Page 6 42. Building heights will be permitted not to exceed a height of sixty-five (65) feet based on the merits of a residential component for the planned unit development. Said approval includes modifications by the City Commission to the Planning Board's recommended conditions #3, #36, and #38, as well as the addition of conditions #39, #40, #41, and #42 by the governing body. Staff would recommend that you schedule a meeting at your earliest convenience to discuss the details of the conditional approval and how it will effect your construction schedule. Please feel free to contact me at 582-2260 if you have any questions regarding the above comments, status of the applications or the review process in general. Sincerely, David P. Skelton Senior Planner cc: Planning File No. P-05049 Zoning File No. Z-05217 Page 7 r OZEMAN GATEWAY ZONE MAP AMENDMENT FILE NO.Z-05269 BOZEMAN ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM: ZONING APPLICATION NO. Z-05269 --- An application to amend the City of Bozeman Zone Map from "BP", Business Park District, to "B-2", Community Business District, on property legally described as the east 28.4 acres of Tract 2A of the Amended Plat of West College Minor Subdivision No. 195A located in the NW1/4 of Section 14 and NEIA of Section 15, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. APPLICANT/ OWNER: Mitchell Development Group, L.L.C. P.O. Box 738 Great Falls, MT 59403 REPRESENTATIVE: Morrison-Maierle, Inc. P.O. Box 1113 Bozeman,MT 59771 DATE/TIME: Before the Bozeman Zoning Commission on Wednesday,January 18, 2006 at 7:00 PM in the Commission Meeting Room, 411 East Main Street, Bozeman, Montana, and before the Bozeman City Commission on Monday, Februar3 6 2006 at 7:00 P.M. in the Community Room of the Gallatin County Courthouse, 311 West Main Street, Bozeman, Montana. REPORT BY: Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Contingencies ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Location/Description: The subject property is described as the east 28.4 acres of Tract 2A of the Amended Plat of West College Minor Subdivision No. 195A located in the NW 'A of Section 14 and NE 'A of Section 15, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The site in question is situated south of West College Street and US 191/Huffine Lane, north of West Garfield Street, and immediately southwest from the Bozeman Daily Chronicle facility. Please refer to the location map provided on the following page. Bozeman Gateway Zone Map Amendment—Staff Report 1 0 / y is •.� R-3,are :PLI ., y !'l. IIe B-2 o Ix HUF t b COLTEi; Subjec B;P - Prope PLI Vicinity Map Proposal: .The applicant has made application'to.-the Bozeman Planning Office for a Zone Map Amendment to amend the City. of Bozeman Zone Map from `BP" (Business Park District) to `B-2" (Community Business District) on.28.4± acres of land situated southwest of the.Bozeman Daily Chronicle facility and west of the Advanced Technology Park: The site is commonly referred to as the east one-third of the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. The site is vacant, agricultural lands in native grasses and pasture. However, the subject property is a part of the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. totaling 72.2 acres of mixed-use commercial development. The Farmer's Canal bisects the site from west to east and an unnamed drainage from the south to north intersects with the Farmer's Canal in the western half of the requested zone map amendment. No other topographical or physical features have been identified on the site in question. In December of 2005, the City Commission granted the applicant conditional approval of a preliminary plat application and conditional use permit application to develop the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. A stipulation of approval for both applications requires the landowner to address a inconsistency in the Land Use Plan Element of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan and the current `BP" zoning designation on the east 28.4 acres. Said condition requires the applicant to process a zone map amendment from `BP" to "B-2" so the subject property mirrors the current "Community Commercial" land use designation. Adjacent Land Uses/Zoning: North: Bozeman Daily Chronicle zoned "BP" (Business Park District) Highway 191/Huffine Lane, West College Street, and commercial development zoned `B-2" (Community Business District). South: Undeveloped agricultural land under Gallatin County jurisdiction zoned "AS" (Agricultural Suburban) and owned by the State of Montana Endowment and Research Foundation Bozeman Gateway Zone Map Amendment—Staff Report 2 East: Advanced Technology Park zoned `BP" (Business Park District). West: The remainder of The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. zoned `B-2" (Community Business District). Staff Findings: The Bozeman Planning Office has reviewed the application for a Zone Map Amendment against the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, the City of Bozeman Zoning Ordinance, and the twelve (12) criteria established in Section 76-2-304, Montana Codes Annotated, and as a result offer the following summary- review comments for consideration by the Zoning Commission and City Commission. 1) IS THE NEW ZONING DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? The Land Use Plan Element of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan designates the property to develop as "Community Commercial". Activities within this land use category are the basic employment and services necessary for a vibrant community. Establishments located within these categories draw from the community as a whole for their employee and customer base and are sized accordingly. A broad range of functions including retail, education, professional and personal services, offices, residences, and general service activities typify this designation. In the "center-based" land use pattern, Community Commercial areas are integrated with significant transportation corridors, including transit and non-automotive routes, to facilitate efficient travel opportunities. Community Commercial areas are generally 120 to 140 acres in size and are activity centers for an area of several square miles surrounding them. The density of development is expected to be higher than currently seen in most commercial areas in Bozeman and should include multi-story buildings. It is considered desirable to have residences on upper floors in some circumstances. The applicant is requesting an `B-2" (Community Business District) zoning designation to address an inconsistency with the "Community Commercial" land use designation for this property. Chapter 18.18 "Industrial Zoning Districts" of the Unified Development Ordinance defines the "B-2" zoning designation as areas that provide for a broad range of mutually supportive retail and service functions located in clustered areas bordered on one or more sides by limited access arterial streets. These areas are primarily commercial in character and set forth certain minimum standards for development within those areas. The `BP" (Business Park District) is one of three industrial zoning districts established to provide opportunities for a variety of employment and community service functions within the community while providing predictability. The `BP" district is to provide for high quality settings and faculties for the development of a variety of compatible employment opportunities, while contributing to the overall image of the community. The site under consideration for a zone map amendment has been classified for "Community Commercial" since the adoption of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan in 2001. In June of 2004 the Planning Office provided an overview of the current land use inventory prepared under the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan and calculated that the City designated 965 acres, or 3.9 percent of the City, as "Community Commercial." Of those 965 acres, 801 acres was already developed or have approvals from the City for development. Since June 2004 an additional 15.231 acres of "Community Commercial" has been added to the land use inventory (i.e., Swenson GPA and Bozeman Gateway Zone Map Amendment—Staff Report 3 StoneRidge GPA), totaling 980.231 acres The remaining 179.123 acres,which the subject.property is part of, are vacant and have multiple owners, a variety of parcel sizes, and variety in location. 2) IS THE NEW ZONING DESIGNED TO LESSEN CONGESTION IN THE STREETS? Improvements to the area's transportation system were addressed with the preliminary plat review of The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. as proposed by the applicant for this zone map amendment. This included the construction Fowler Avenue (minor arterial), intersection improvements along West College Street (principal arterial), and construction of West Garfield Street (local street). The applicant has recently constructed both Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street as a requirement of the major subdivision. West Garfield Street is constructed to a collector standard as a recommended mitigation stemming from the traffic analysis prepared by Robert Peccia&Associates for the major subdivision. 3) WILL THE NEW ZONING SECURE FROM FIRE, PANIC AND OTHER DANGERS? The regulatory provisions established for the requested zoning designations, in conjunction with provisions for adequate transportation facilities (primary access and/or secondary/emergency access) should adequately address these concerns with future development of the property. These issues have been addressed with the conditions of approval set forth with subdivision and zoning review of the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U-.D. •However, during site plan review for each subdivision lot within the development, these issues will be further evaluated based on each site specific proposal 4) WILL THE NEW ZONING PROMOTE HEALTH'AND GENERAL WELFARE? Development of the subject property requires review and approval by the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, City Engineer's Office and Director of Public Service. Finding that the subject property is a portion of the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D., development issues related to municipal infrastructure (i.e., water and sanitary sewer) and public services (i.e., police and fire protection) have already been addressed. Effects on local services were addressed with the conditions of preliminary plat approval to mitigate and concerns identified by the Development Review Committee. 5) WILL THE NEW ZONING PROVIDE ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR? The regulatory standards set forth in the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance for the "B-2" zoning district, as well as the Development Manual (i.e., yard setbacks, lot coverage, open space and building heights) for the commercial subdivision should provide for adequate light and on the subject property. 6) WILL THE NEW ZONING PREVENT THE OVERCROWDING OF LAND? Approval of the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. requires that adequate areas of open space are provided and the protection of existing natural features (i.e., water courses, associated wetlands and mature vegetation) are guaranteed. The protection of the sites amenities, provisions for open Bozeman Gateway Zone Map Amendment—Staff Report 4 i • • space, and development of the entryway corridor along West Main Street in concert with the regulatory standards for the P.U.D. and B-2 zoning will avoid the overcrowding of land. 7) WILL THE NEW ZONING AVOID THE UNDUE CONCENTRATION OF POPULATION? The "B-2" zoning designation is one of three commercial zoning districts with the purpose to establish areas within Bozeman that are primarily commercial in character and to provide opportunities for a variety of employment and community service opportunities. Although a residential component may be considered in the "B-2" district, the principal intent and purpose of the zoning is commercial. 8) WILL THE NEW ZONING FACILITATE THE ADEQUATE PROVISIONS OF TRANSPORTATION, WATER, SEWER, SCHOOLS, PARKS, FIRE, POLICE, AND OTHER PUBLIC REQUIREMENTS? An assessment of the impacts to infrastructure, public services, schools, park land, and other community requirements were evaluated during preliminary subdivision plat review The applicant is currently design plans and specifications for infrastructure and streets for review and approval by the City Engineer's Office for this area. Because the requested zone map amendment will not establish a residential zoning designation, provisions for parkland and open space were not necessary. Thus, any potential impacts on schools should also be limited. Issues related to topographical and physical features of the site, in addition to the existing wetlands, high ground water table and associated hydric soils have been addressed with conditional approval of the preliminary plat. 9) DOES THE NEW ZONING GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE PECULIAR SUITABILITY OF THE PROPERTY FOR PARTICULAR USES? The site is an integral element of The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D., a six-phased mixed- use planned unit development containing a blend of professional offices, retail services and hotel/conference facility on the east one-third and a mixed of retail service and commercial uses on the west two-thirds. Anticipated build-out of the project is scheduled for approximately seven years from the time the first phase of the subdivision is initiated. The integrity, high quality setting and image of the community has been addressed with the approval of the mixed-use commercial development. Those uses that are allowed with the development of the commercial planned unit development are consistent with the intent and purpose of the `B-2" (Community Business District) zoning district. The "BP" (Business Park District) is one of three industrial zoning districts established to provide opportunities for a variety of employment and community service functions within the community while providing predictability. The "BP" district allows for land uses that include hospitals and light manufacturing to public buildings and technology research establishments as permitted principal uses. Other uses that may be considered as a conditional use permit range from banks and day care centers to health and exercise establishments and essential services (Type II). Although these land uses shall be developed so as to recognize the impact on surrounding or adjacent development they are not typical of the "Community Commercial" land use designation. Bozeman Gateway Zone Map Amendment—Staff Report 5 10) DOES THE NEW ZONING GIVE REASONABLE CONSIDERATION TO THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT? This criteria has been addressed with the conditional approval of the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. to proceed with development of the subject property. Based on the conditions of approval placed on the planned unit development, development of the site will contribute to the overall image of the community and compatibility with adjacent land uses and zoning is required. 11) WAS THE NEW ZONING ADOPTED WITH A VIEW OF CONSERVING VALUE OF BUILDINGS? No structures currently exist on the subject property. There is no residential development in proximity to the site and current land uses patterns in to area mirror the community commercial designation encouraged along the West Main Street entryway corridor. 12) WILL THE NEW ZONING ENCOURAGE THE MOST APPROPRIATE USE OF THE LAND THROUGH SUCH COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL AREA? The purpose of this zone map amendment,is a directive set forth with approval of the preliminary plat and conditional use permit for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision to address a conflict between the Land Use Element of the 2020 Plan and the current `BP" zoning designation;which is not consistent with the "Community Commercial"land use.des'Ign ation. The City Commission through adoption of the growth policy identified the entire 72.2 acres of the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. as "Community Commercial' as typified by the `B-2" (Community Business District) zoning .designation. Finding, that the proposed The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. is consistent with the "Community.Commercial' land use designation and further finding the desire to ensure that all zoning designations on the City of Bozeman Zone Map are consistent with adopted growth policy, the Planning Office recommended that the applicant proceed with a zone map amendment to amend the City of Bozeman Zone Map from "BP" to `B-2" for the 28.4 acres in question. The Planning Office advised the applicant during preliminary plat review of the subdivision that staff will support the requested zone map amendment as effort to maintain consistency between the land use designation of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan and the City of Bozeman Zone Map. Public Testimony: As of the writing of this staff report, the City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development has not received any written testimony on the matter. Any written comments received will be forwarded to the applicable bodies reviewing the proposal. Staff Recommendation: Based on the summary review of this staff report, the Planning Office finds that a "B-2", Community Business District, zoning designation would be in general compliance with the twelve (12) criteria established by Montana Codes Annotated and the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan; and as a result, recommends to the Bozeman Zoning Commission approval of a `B-2" zoning designation. Bozeman Gateway Zone Map Amendment—Staff Report 6 r . • Staff recommends approval of the Zone Map Amendment application with a `B-2", Community Commercial District, zoning designation, contingent on the following recommendations and terms: 1. That the applicant submit a zone amendment map, titled "Bozeman Gateway Zone Map Amendment", on a 24" by 36" mylar, 8 '/z" by 11" or 8 '/z" by 14" paper exhibit, and a digital copy of the area to be zoned, acceptable to the Director of Public Service, which will be utilized in the preparation of the Ordinance to officially amend the City of Bozeman Zoning Map. Said map shall containing a metes and bounds legal description of the perimeter of the subject property, total acreage of the property and adjoining rights-of-way and/or street access easements. 2. That the Ordinance for the Zone Map Amendment shall not be drafted until the applicant provides a metes and bounds legal description and map of the area to be rezoned,which will be utilized in the preparation of the Ordinance to officially amend the zone map. THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOZEMAN ZONING COMMISSION WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION FOR A DECISION AT THEIR PUBLIC HEARING WHICH IS SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2006. IN THE CASE OF WRITTEN PROTEST AGAINST SUCH CHANGES SIGNED BY THE OWNERS OF 20% OR MORE OF THE LOTS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO OR WITHIN 150 FEET FROM THE STREET FRONTAGE, -THE AMENDMENT SHALL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE EXCEPT BY THE FAVORABLE VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION. ATTACHMENTS Report Sent To: Mitchell Development Group,L.L.C., 1315 8`h Avenue N., Great Falls, MT 59401 Carter&Burgess Consultants, Inc., 1420 W. Mockingbird Lane, Suite 800, Dallas, TX 75247 Morrison-Maierle, Inc.,P.O. Box 1113,Bozeman,MT 59771 cc: Planning File No. Z-05269 Bozeman Gateway Zone Map Amendment—Staff Report 7 BABC 0 !9 MEADOWS, PHASE 1, 'PARK 3 _� r 7 r p .a Trails Stream BOZEN POND �----,� - _ : ❑ Parks M A -ram=- �w , q City Limits 5 � ' • - Dl. 31 Text w I OL { n N City of Bozeman Aerial Map Bozeman Gateway ZMA City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development 1 inch equals 474 feet BABCOCK MEADOWS, PHMSE 1 P`'ARK 3 '� I' Y --� Trails o u� A $LStream �� ' -" ❑ Parks I13 EMAN i � q 9 City Limits 31 1.3 -- Im Im ar U r OW IL xR am Ic Text f� 4 1 F' City of Bozeman Aerial Map Bozeman Gateway ZMA )k City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development 1 inch equals 474 feet BA1PMEADOWS, PHASE .r-.r --' Trails o - — Stream n K -ti `� ' '; ❑ Parks BOZEMAN A_ q City Limits Cb rO El - gr f 31 Text • 't City of Bozeman Aerial Map Bozeman Gateway ZMA City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development 1 inch equals 474 feet BABCOCK MEADOWS, �.- �' Trails Stream +{i v 5 EMI IN POND --�-- '� . -- Parks 4 q j City Limits �e T W MM W DFI 31 0� pill* •• • • 141 Text j FFr� •• - 1 1 o t g P City of Bozeman Aerial Map Bozeman Gateway ZMA )k City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development 1 inch equals 474 feet PHRASE±1 BABCOCK MEADOWS, , w 7' --� Trails ° Stream _ � ° , �" _ ❑ Parks IBOZEMAN POND -� - °- l „ ,r� o� City Limits 31 Fab Text i 'A 1=0 1 O In MG la City of Bozeman Aerial Map Bozeman Gateway ZMA A* City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development 1 inch equals 474 feet City of BozemanI ` Receipt / f rL-1 Bozeman, Montana �,(� �� , 20 Received of �(�✓Y`11 :�Y1 '►.( -tzJ �(.n ?�(/�( aP� U the sum oP A9 v ' ollars for ,•!.1 •� % L 4'��•Oj✓f/cC� /'I�'l�rJj,!/;� 'ZYV��.�` '1 ! v� a "T' i/ '.J/� ' .�`�d''J�»R 5' IQ.,J� �! '""".! BOZEMAN MANNING AND CITY OF*MAN • e.. .. . DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Office Building C IF. phone 406-582-2260 W�W_vvm 20 East Olive Street D fax 406-582-2263 P.O. Box 1230 AUG 10 2005 lanning@bozeman.net cOMMUNI EY DE VE IOEMENI Bozeman,MT 59771-1230 www.bozeman.net DEPARTMENT Of PLANNING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLI ATION& MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT n 1 1.Name of Project/Development: The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. 2. Property Owner Information: Name: Mitchell Development Group,LLC E-mail Address: mitchell_dev@sofast.net c/o Ted Mitchell Mailing Address: PO Box 738, Great Falls,MT 59403 Phone: (406) 761-4400 FAX: (406) 761-4401 3.Applicant Information: Name: Mitchell Development Group,LLC E-mail Address: mitchell_dev@sofast.net C/o Ted Mitchell Wiling Address: PO Box 738, Great Falls,MT 59403 [Phone: (406) 761-4400 FAX: (406) 761-4401 4. Representative Information: Name: Morrison-Maierle,Inc. E-mail Address: gstratton@m-m.net C/o Greg Stratton Mailing Address: PO Box 1113,Bozeman,MT 59771 Phone: (406) 587-0721 FAX: (406) 587-1176 5. Legal Description: Tract 2A of the Amended Plat of West College Minor Subdivision,No 195 A 6. Street Address: Southwest corner of West College Street/ Huffine Lane Intersection 7. Project Description: Mixed Use Commercial Development 8. Zoning Designation(s): B-2,BP 9. Current Land Use(s): Vacant 10. Bozeman 2020 Community Plan Designation: Community Commercial Page 1 11. Gross Area: Acres: 72.2 SqW Feet: 12.Net Area: AN. 50.9 Square Feet: Is the Subject Site Within an Overlay District? ® Yes,answer question 13a ❑ No,go to question 14 fa.Which OverlayDistrict? ❑ Casino Neighborhood Conservation Entryway Corridor ❑ g ® tryv' y 14.Will this application require a deviation(s)? ® Yes ❑ No 15.Application Type (please check all that apply) ❑ O.Planned Unit Development-Concept Plan ❑A.Sketch Plan for Regulated Activities in Regulated Wetlands ® P.Planned Unit Development—Preliminary Plan ❑B.Reuse,Change in Use,Further Development Pre-9/3/91 Site ❑ Q.Planned Unit Development—Final Plan ❑ C.Amendment/Modification of Plan Approved On/After 9/3/91 ❑R.Planned Unit Development—Master Plan ❑D.Reuse,Change in Use,Further Development,Amendment/COA ❑S.Subdivision Pre-application ❑E. Special Temporary Use Permit ®T.Subdivision Preliminary Plat ❑F. Sketch Plan/COA ❑U.Subdivision Final Plat ❑ G. Sketch Plan/COA with an Intensification of-Use ❑V.Subdivision Exemption ❑H.Preliminary Site Plan/COA ❑W.Annexation ❑I.Preliminary Site Plan ❑X. Zoning Map Amendment ❑J.Preliminary Master Site Plan ❑Y.Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment ❑K. Conditional Use Permit ❑ Z.Zoning Variance 00 0 L. Conditional Use Permit/COA ❑AA. Growth Policy Map Amendment M.Administrative Project Decision Appeal ❑BB. Growth Policy Text Amendment ❑N.Administrative Interpretation Appeal ❑ Other: This application must be accompanied by the appropriate checklist(s),number of plans or plats,adjoiner information and materials,and fee (see Development Review Application Requirements and Fees). The plans or plats must be drawn to scale on paper not smaller than 8/2- by 11-inches or larger than 24-by 36-inches folded into individual sets no larger than 8t/2-by 14-inches. If 3-ring binders will be used, they must include a table of contents and tabbed dividers between sections. Application deadlines are 5:00 pm every Tuesday. This application must be signed by both the applicant(s)and the property owner(s)(if different)before the submittal will be accepted. As indicated by the signature(s) below, the applicant(s) and/or property owner(s) submit this application for review under the terms and provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code. It is further indicated that any work undertaken to complete a development,approved by the City of Bozeman shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and any special conditions established by the approval authority. Finally,I acknowledge that the City has an Impact Fee Program and impact fees may be assessed for my project. I(We)hereby certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my(our)knowledge. Applicant's Signature: Date: Applicant's Signature. Date: Property Owner's Signature: Date:5v,171 Property Owner's Signature: Date: roperty Owner's Signature: Date: Page 2 (Development Review Application—Prepared 11/25/03) PLIED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CHECK* The appropriate checklist shall be completed and returned as part of the submittal. Any item checked "No" or"N/A" (not op licable) must be explained in a narrative attached to the checklist. Incomplete submittals will be returned to the applicant. A. ❑ Planned Unit Development—Concept Plan. The following information and data shall be submitted: PUD Concept Plan Information Yes No N/A Data regarding site conditions, land characteristics, available community facilities and ❑ ❑ ❑ utilities and other related general information about adjacent land uses and the uses of land within one-half mile of the subject parcel of land Conceptual (sketch) drawing showing the proposed location of the uses of land, major ❑ ❑ ❑ streets and other significant features on the site and within one-half mile of the site A computation table showing the site's proposed land use allocations by location and as a ❑ ❑ ❑ percent of total site area B. ® Planned Unit Development—Preliminary Plan. The following information and data shall be submitted: PUD Preliminary Plan Information Yes No I N/A The following information shall be presented in an 81/2-by 11-inch vertically bound document.The document shall be bound so that it will open and he flat for reviewing and organized in the following order: Application forms ® ❑ ❑ A list of names of all general and limited partners and/or officers and directors of ® ❑ ❑ the corporation involved as either applicants or owners of the planned unit development Statement of applicable City land use policies and objectives achieved by the ® ❑ ❑ proposed plan and how it furthers the implementation of the Bozeman growth policy Statement of the proposed ownership of open space areas ® ❑ ❑ Statement of the applicant's intentions with regard to future ownership of all or ® ❑ ❑ portions of the planned unit development Estimate of number of employees for business,commercial and industrial uses ® ❑ ❑ Description of rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the ® ❑ ❑ applicant Where deviations from the requirements of this title are proposed, the applicant ® ❑ ❑ shall submit evidence of successful completion of the applicable community design objectives and criteria of §18.36.090 (PUD Design Objectives and Criteria), BMC. The applicant shall 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 Planning 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 shall be described Detailed description of how conflicts between land uses of different character are ® ❑ ❑ being avoided or mitigated Statement of design methods to reduce energy consumption, (e.g., ® ❑ ❑ home/business utilities,transportation fuel,waste recycling) A development schedule indicating the approximate date when construction of ® ❑ ❑ the planned unit development, or stages of the same, can be expected to begin and be completed, including the proposed phasing of construction of public improvements and recreational and common space areas One reduced version of all preliminary plan and supplemental plan maps and ® ❑ ❑ graphic illustrations at 8'/2-by 11-inches or 11-by 17-inches size Page 3 (PUD Checklist—Prepared 12/2/03) Adik In addition to all of th rmation listed on the Site Plan Checklist,the Wing information shall be included on the site plan: Notations of proposed ownership, public or private, should be included where ® ❑ ❑ appropriate • The proposed treatment of the perimeter of the planned unit development, ® ❑ ❑ including materials and techniques used, such as screening, fences, walls and other landscaping Attorney's or owner's certification of ownership ® ❑ ❑ Viewsheds: 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 Describe and map areas of high visibility on the site as seen from adjacent off-site ® ❑ ❑ locations Street cross-section schematics shall be submitted for each general category of street,including: The proposed width ❑ ❑ ❑ Treatment of curbs and gutters,or other storm water control system if other than ® ❑ ❑ curb and gutter is proposed Sidewalk systems ® ❑ ❑ Bikeway systems, where alternatives to the design criteria and standards of the ® ❑ ❑ City are proposed Physiographic data,including the following: A description of the hydrologic conditions of the site with analysis of water table ® ❑ ❑ fluctuation and a statement of site suitability for intended construction and proposed landscaping,in compliance with§18.78.120.B.3.c,BMC • Locate and identify the ownership of existing wells or well sites within 400 feet of ® ❑ ❑ the site If the project involves or requires platting, a preliminary subdivision plat, subject to the ® ❑ ❑ requirements of this title relative to subdivisions,shall be submitted Not withstanding the waiver provisions of§18.78.080.B.9, BMC, at the discretion of the ® ❑ ❑ City Engineer, a traffic impact analysis shall be prepared based upon the proposed development. The analysis shall include provisions of the approved development guidelines, and shall address impacts upon surrounding land uses. The Director of Public Service may require the traffic impact analysis to include the information in §18.78.050.L, BMC. If a traffic impact analysis has been submitted as part of a concurrent subdivision review,that analysis shall meet this requirement If the development's compliance with the community design objectives and criteria is ® ❑ ❑ under question, the City Commission may require additional impact studies or other plans as deemed necessary for providing thorough consideration of the proposed planned unit development A proposed draft of a legal instrument containing the creation of a property owner's ® ❑ ❑ association sufficient to meet the requirements of §18.72.020 (Property Owners Association),BMC shall be submitted with the preliminary plan application C. ❑ Planned Unit Development—Final Plan. The following information and data shall be submitted: PUD Final Plan Information Yes No N/A A list of names of all general and limited partners and/or officers and directors of the ❑ ❑ ❑ corporation involved as either applicants or owners of the planned unit development A final plan site plan shall be submitted on a 24- by 36-inch sheet(s) at the same scale as the approved preliminary • plan. If a different scale is requested or required,a copy of the approved preliminary plan shall be submitted that has been enlarged or reduced to equal the scale of the final plan. However,only the scales permitted for the preliminary plans shall be permitted for final plans. The final plan site plan shall show the following information: Page 4 Land use dat a information as required on the preliminary Wlan) ❑ ❑ ❑ Lot lines,easements,public rights-of-way as per subdivision plat ❑ ❑ ❑ Attorney's or owner's certification of ownership ❑ ❑ ❑ • Planning Director certification of approval of the site plan and its conformance ❑ ❑ ❑ with the preliminary plan Owner's certification of acceptance of conditions and restrictions as set forth on ❑ ❑ ❑ the site plan A final landscape plan consistent with the conditions and restrictions of the approved ❑ ❑ ❑ preliminary plan shall be submitted. If shall also be consistent with the Chapter 18.48 (Landscaping),BMC, except that any stated conditions and restrictions of the preliminary plan approval shall supersede the provisions of Chapter 18.48(Landscaping),BMC An official final subdivision plat of the site must accompany the final planned unit ❑ ❑ ❑ development plan when applicable. City approval of the final subdivision plat shall be required before issuance of building permits Prior to submission of the final plan to the DRC and ADR staff, engineering plans and ❑ ❑ ❑ specifications for sewer, water, street improvements and other public improvements, and an executed improvements agreement in proper form providing for the installation of such improvements,must be submitted to and approved by the City A plan for the maintenance of open space, meeting the requirements of §18.72.040 ❑ ❑ ❑ (Common Area and Facility Maintenance Plan and Guarantee), BMC, shall be submitted with an application for final plan approval. Open space shown on the approved final plan shall not be used for the construction of any structures not shown on the final plan • • Page 5 Proposal Property Owners Adjacent to proposal site and across watercourses,roads*,etc. Within 200 feet of proposal site. Legal Description of Property Property Owner's Name Mailing Address of Property Owner from County Tax Records Minor Subdivision 195A, Tract C=1A Advanced Technology,Inc. 1711 W. College St. 1 Bozeman, MT 59715-4913 Minor Subdivision 195, Tract 1 Big Sky Publishing, LLC '221 1st Ave W., Suite 405 2 Seattle, WA 98 1 1 9-423 8 Triangle Area Annexation, COS 178A -Tract A First Citizens Bank of Bozeman, P.O. Box 30918 3 Inc.Attn: Corporate FAC Billings, MT 59116-0918 COS 467 -Tract 1 Main Mall Limited Partnership P.O. Box 80510 4 Billings, MT 59108-0510 AD%Gallatin Mall Group, LLC Buronepe Annexation -Tract 2 Thomas&Peggy Reihman 3320 Sundance Dr. 5 Living Trust Bozeman, MT 59715-9265 Minor Subdivision 135, Fish, Wildlife & Parks Larry Bowman 337 Summer Ridge Rd. 6 Annexation -Lot 2 Bozeman, MT 59714-7771 Page 1 of'2 Minor Subdivision 135, Fish, Wildlife &Parks Rocky Mountain Credit Union 3400 N. Montana Ave. 7 Annexation - Lot 1 Helena, MT 59602-7802 Jerry.Gustafson Parkway Plaza Subdivision & Commercial P.U.D. -Lot 6, GMRP, LLC 3623 Brooks St. 8 Blk 1 Missoula, MT 59801-7359 COS No. 1243C -Tract A-1-A-1 State of Montana 9 Bozeman, MT 59715 Endo�%nnent&Research Foundation COS No. 1243 - Tract B State of Montana 0' 10 • Endowment&Research Bozeman, MT 59715 Foundation Part of Section 14, T2S R5E, Gallatin County State of Montana 11 Endowment&Research Bozeman, MT 59715 Foundation *,If road is a state highway, also include Montana Department of Transportation in property owner list. F:/PLNG/FORMS/adjoiner.list.doc Page 2 of 2 .f ENGINEERS MOMStN t` t SCIENTISTS INC. SURVEYORS PLANNES MMERLE,INC 901 TECHNOLOGY BLVD• P.O.BOX 1113• BOZEMAN,MT 59771 •406-587-0721 • FAX:4 6-587-1176 An-Employee-Owned Company November 29,2005 Mr.Dave Skelton City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development ( �J P.O.Box 1230 D Bozeman,Montana,59771-1230 g 2005 NOV 2 Re: The Bozeman Gateway MMI#3638.003 AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dear Dave: Enclosed for your use and inclusion in the commission packets for the public hearing on December 5, 2005 are the following: • Architectural renderings of the N.W.portion of the lifestyle center. • Architectural renderings of convenience center fronting Fowler Avenue. • Architectural renderings of the view of the grocery store from the Huffine/Fowler intersection. • Elevation views of all four sides of the grocery store. i • A site plan for the grocery store and bank. • A summary prepared by Robert Peccia and Associates providing clarification to certain aspects of the Traffic Impact Study. We are also taking this opportunity to remind you of a couple of modifications to the relaxations that are requested with this project. 1) The Applicant has offered to reduce the building height relaxation from the requested 146 feet to the maximum building height in the downtown Bozeman area either at this time or in the future. This modification can be made with the Final PUD Plan submittal. 2) The Applicant has also made application for a zone change to B-1 for the portion of the property currently zoned B-P. Per our email correspondence with you dated November 11,2005 this zone change will eliminate the need for the vast majority of the setback relaxations. The only area we are requesting the relaxation is along Technology Boulevard between Harmon Stream Blvd.and Fowler Ave. Again,Dave, we thank you and Andy for your assistance through the approval process of this project. If we can provide any additional exhibits or information for the public hearing please let us know. Sincerely, Morris n-Maierle,Inc. Greg Stra on,P.E. Project Engineer H:\3638\O03\D0CS\REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE\Response to Dave—November 29.doc "Providing resources in partnership with clients to achieve their goals" '�_�- """'!' � � � ,�,.� � ( '� �� it .1� ►� i� Il U�,.� � � �- i f November:9.:005 Carter==Burgess ��t;��ti;::us Developmen�Group BOZEMAN, MONTANA s!'"dam► t�� x,�, � I � gar=.- �, �o ��- 49 � f t J i 1 �- . � s.� �B�e' —►a>i >I�i� 1'a� e� s � ,sue �`��r.�� - vo.e�,ocr=s,aoas oav««•�mww- Carter::Bur ess . � lOrJ..SQV BE M.l ERI'. w- - _ - _ - - /'MitC hell .spa► � _ _ _;i 3` '4- [' t' ti, :.4;,- � r� �Xow.yo-c- THE BOZEI AUM GATEWAY BOZ :MAN, MONTANA _ Iµ La jdP fir 'I r•� ira Y � ~{{ I X'- t T%-y � .�-- i!' � i;l� �� - I j � :►'i~�'�•i �`� '�t�.. Y�+{�{Y �,,I! _ 4 3',..L 'r � r.- •'I 7 .r�•.cr�. �xef'i`�rQ� ss, �y:, ai,� .:.. "• ts' 14 :;!{,y1Cw. a�.>',V� ._ - _ / ►�'�i � r'sx� �_�'�'� "! L.:tr�e �'�«�^•• ^��4��7 ice;:l_ ilr' 'cS i _�r►�,�.1. 't�{j= - ,�.r+�;��i-i�:i-�<'�'�—i��' ` -- �—+=�='�tiu'�irl.:i:��'a�=rt"C�j�=�.•�� —'4'T--S'r.��—s�-cy„•.�.`��, ALi �, t._ _ _ --•�� r��,:.< .:. it ;:�' — r -� � a `.... � i''� ""�•�'-�- _ _�' V o�em[xr 29 2005 Carter••Burgess 1 ■. �al� _t. F!Mitchell Developmenr,Group 7a THE BOZE-IVIAN A GATEWAY -0�`'y�'s'm� ��' BOZEMN, MONTANA- edAV ie�r'i�� e ELEVATION—EAST FRONT tlEte�� ..,�WIIIU�IiliH111U16�llllHWlhi._ �ii \�—� IIIIIIN�IHIIlIIi181��HJ�U�"---- — ai ii �i i >ii ELEVATIONWEST tV NORTH ELEVATION SCALE:1116" V-0" SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE:1/16" V-0" s�/�IQ�1f111�11af111f1�Ls� ____ T� � /r `1 ri of ial o_1_rd ri el.�� ^.�t'4�.�Y ,. A JY�i�� ,.Fl.�f�ii- �tl!'s•?�err.�'a� ` i® i � '•� � i�� Nflilfl " '1111 iifi: �itli�l �il====M�� _ ��. �11#�lllil �� , GROCERY • - E ELEVATIONS ,�. Vovembcr T9.2005 CO�t2►�Buf9@55 ®en\i0W21SOti .,...-..� ■®1„�I�w-E.R, _ • Mitchell - -- ••-• -•-- - "' `- Developmem•Group P��'=��M - `� THE BOZEMAN GATEWAY �•��E••��••-�s••� MONTANA r e, x:�aie ow mcww cnK -xonL 5— -k—A.:Nw i.M-°M: 13 om .mill a ' I 'I I �I f \ a 10, \ \ ' ` dII I :I Ir I1 o iLur � h II ' I o II Ii _ � I II — I lal A MON STREAAf i 9 //��I I I x E� s� k iV CF BOZEMAN GATEWAY CI , 602EMAN MONTANA ,�.• MORRISON a = °" MAIERLE INC. "` g GROCERY STORE&BANK SITE PLAN wR°i"M" w �jul •ie:tal�ief iin .' w`a.an 1OPOi WALK® W. drt °r • �O C19 November 28, 2005 1 � Mr. Ted Mitchell �j Mitchell Development and Investments Oct 1315 81h Avenue North Great Falls, MT 59401 Re: Traffic Impact Study(TIS) Clarifications CIVIL The Bozeman Gateway"Mixed-Use"Development Bozeman, Montana TRANSPORTATION RPA was asked by Mitchell Development Group to expand on a few ENVIRONMENTAL concepts contained in the Traffic Impact Study(TIS)prepared for"The ENGINEERS Bozeman Gateway" dated February, 2004. The need for this clarification was based on a recent Planning Board meeting held on the project in Bozeman on November 15, 2005. Specific items that are discussed herein are in response to the City of Bozeman staff report prepared for the project in anticipation of the City Commission meeting scheduled for December 51h, 2005. The items discussed herein are organized according to the headings provided in the aforementioned staff report. Traffic Generation The statement made in the staff report that "...according to the traffic impact study a total of 29,454 (1,081 trips during the AM peak hour and 2,888 trips during the PM peak hour) average daily trip ends will be generated by this development" is in fact correct. However what gets lost in this issue is that the 29,454 trips generated at full build-out are not all "new"trips on the adjacent roadway system. The reasoning for this is the concept of"linked"trips and "pass-by"trips, which is explained later in the TIS. Basically, due to the types of land uses proposed within the development, the ITE Trip Generation Manual allows a reduction of trips, in varying percentages, to account for drivers combining their destinations at a mixed-use development. The explanation of the sharing of trips is contained on pages 18 and 19 of the TIS. An explanation of "pass-by"trips is also contained on the same pages. Pass-by trips account Helena Office for vehicles that are already on a roadway(i.e. Huffine Lane) that will P.O. Box 5653 now stop off at a development (i.e. The Bozeman Gateway) to utilize a 825 Custer Avenue Helena, Montana 59601 feature of the site. A good example is a supermarket. In and of itself, a -5000 FAX(4 6)447- supermarket has so many trips that will be generated by its presence. FAX(406)447-5036 www.rpa-hin.com However, many of those trips are"pass-by" trips, i.e. a vehicle already on Huffine Lane now may shift off the roadway to utilize the supermarket, and then get back on Huffine Lane to continue towards Bozeman. Kalispell Office P.O. Box 5100 100 Coperative Way Kalispell,MT 59903-5100 Phone: 406-752-5025 FAX 406-752-5024 www.rpa-hln.com Page 2, Mr. Ted Mitchell 11/28/05 So even though the supermarket has a "trip generation", the number doesn't mean that all the trips generated are "new" trips,because a certain number of trips are discounted due to the "pass-by"phenomena. The reduction percentages for"pass-by" and "internal"trips are contained in the various trip generation tables later in the TIS. If the goal is to identify the total number of"new" trips on the roadway system, then the "internal"trips are subtracted from the "generated trips", and from that resulting number(known as the total "driveway trips") the "pass-by"percentages are calculated and further subtracted from the resultant number. By doing this, the true number of"new"trips on the roadway system are calculated. This was perhaps not explicitly presented in the TIS for the project, so it is expanded upon in detail below for both Phase 1 and full Build-Out of the development. Phase 1 Table No. Total Internal Resultant Total Pass Resultant Total. 'Generated Capture Reduction Driveway -By mReduction New Trips Rate (%) -(Linked'Trips) Trips % (Driveway Trips) 'Trips Table 8 1,091 N/A N/A 1,091 N/A N/A 1,091 Table 9 6,817 20% 1,363 5,454 31.5 1,718 "3;736 Table 10 6;501 20% 1,300 5,201 31 1,612 3,589 Table 11 1,686 10% 169 1,517 32 485 1,032 Totals 16,095 N/A 2,832 13,263 N/A 3,815 F 9,448. Phase 1 Total Generated Trips = 16,095 (less "linked" trips) =2,832 Total Driveway Trips = 13,263 (less "pass-by"trips) =3,815 Total New Trips =9,448 J • • Page 3, Mr. Ted Mitchell 11/28/05 Full Build-Out Table No. Total Internal Resultant Total Pass Resultant Total. Generated Capture 'Reduction .Driveway -By Reduction -New Trips Rate % Linked Trips Tri s % '' Drivewa Trips) Trips Table 12 2,399 N/A N/A 2,399 N/A N/A 2,399 Table 13 716 N/A N/A 716 N/A N/A 716 Table 14 1,265 N/A N/A 1,265 N/A N/A 11265 Table 15 16,622 11% 1,828 14;794 17 2,515 12,279 Table 16 6,501 25% 1,625 4,876 21 1,024 3;852 Table 17 1,686 10% 169 1,517 21 319 1,1.98 Totals .29,454• N/A 3,887 .25,567 N/A 3,858 .21,709 Full Build-Out Total Generated Trips= 29,454 (less "linked"trips) = 3,887 Total Driveway Trips = 25,567 (less "pass-by"trips) = 3,858 Total New Trips = 21,709 The actual "new"trips that will be realized on the surrounding roadway network are 9,448 trips (for Phase 1) and 21,709 trips (for Full Build- Out). These trips will be distributed on the surrounding roadway network according to the percentages listed in the staff report (obtained from the TIS) and as shown below: ,Description -Percent Phase 1 Directional Full .Directional Distribution 'Total Assignment Build-Out Assignment (Phase 1) Total (Full Build-Out).. To/from East 45% 9,448 4,252 21,709 9,769 W. Main St. To/from West 15% 9,448 1,417 21,709 3,256 Huffine Lane To/from North 5% 9,448 . 472 21,709 1,085 Fowler Ave. To/from East 15% 9,448 J,417, 21,709 .3,256 (W. College St.) W. Garfield St. 20% 9,448 1,890 21,709 41343 Total N/A N/A 9,448 N/A 21709 � • Page 4, Mr. Ted Mitchell 11/28/05 Capacity Regarding the discussion in the staff report listed under the "Capacity"heading, there is some confusion over the statement at the end of the first paragraph that states "...The study states that the intersection of South 19`h Avenue/West Garfield Street would be decreased substantially with these improvements, but would still function below L.O.S. "C"." The issue regarding this intersection with the MDT revolved around the eastbound left-turn movements (i.e. leaving Garfield Street and turning north onto South 19`h Avenue). This is the turning movement that causes the intersection to fall below LOS C as a result of the development. Unfortunately, it appears the mitigation agreed upon with the MDT never ended up in the Traffic Impact Study. To make this intersection function at a LOS of C, and to ensure the mitigation on Garfield Street on the west leg of the intersection is appropriate given the projected travel characteristics of the development, it was agreed to not allow eastbound left-turn movements off of Garfield Street. This was in fact a condition for mitigation at the intersection by the MDT, and the intersection exhibit dated 5/12/05 by Morrison Maierle correctly shows the mitigated geometry. Through the use of a raised concrete island (commonly referred to as a"pork chop"), vehicles will be prohibited from turning from Garfield Street north onto South 19`h Avenue. This mitigation effort will allow the impact of the development to be effectively treated at this location. Other Comments The narrative presented to this point contains only items directly related to the staff report that required further explanation. It is appropriate to offer a few other remarks as this development is considered by the City Commission. These other comments relate to the Chronicle Way access off of College Street, and the "by-pass" phenomena that will be created by the construction of Garfield Street and Fowler Avenue. 4 • Page 5, Mr. Ted Mitchell 11/28/05 The access off of College Street at Chronicle Way has been designed to provide for the swift exit and entrance of vehicles on College Street. The eastbound movement on College Street will encounter what is commonly referred to as a"slip—lane", which acts to allow a protected exiting of vehicles from the main travel path(in this case College Street). This type of access has gained favor with permitting agencies in recent years, especially where they are specifically accessing a business or development cluster, and due to their geometrics, any possibility of vehicle stacking and back-ups into the main travel route are virtually eliminated. The use of these types of "slip-lanes" are found throughout Montana, and the intersection layout as proposed is the best possible layout for providing access and minimizing any adverse affect on College Street. Additionally, the creation of the Garfield Street and Fowler Avenue corridor will benefit overall traffic flow in the vicinity of this portion of Bozeman by providing an alternate route for vehicles presently using the South 19'h/College Street/Huffine Lane roadways to travel west and east of Bozeman. The presence of these two roadways will reduce traffic volumes at the intersection of South 19`" Avenue and College Street, as well as the intersection of College Street, Huffine Lane and West Main Street. This is an important component of the overall traffic picture in this area of Bozeman, directly attributable to the mitigation offered by this development, that will benefit all users of the community's transportation system. I trust that the items contained herein and presented will help to clarify any outstanding issues regarding traffic associated with this proposed development. Obviously, a great deal went into this Traffic Impact Study(TIS), and constant coordination and review with the Montana Department of Transportation occurred as well to properly mitigate all concerns on their roadway system. Please do not hesitate ` to contact me if I can be of further assistance as you prepare for your upcoming City Commission meeting. Sincerely, ROBERT PECCIA &ASSOCIATES, INC. Jeffrey A. Key, P.E. Manager, Traffic & Transportation Division - CI OF BOZEMAN Is DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260 20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263 P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net ' Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozemon.net MEMORANDUM TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: DAVE SKELTON,SENIOR PLANNER RE: BOZEMAN GATEWAY SUBDIVISION P.U.D. DATE: SEPTERMBER 28,2005 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Attached please find the P.U.D. Preliminary Plan Review application for The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision Planned Unit Development to subdivide 72.2 acres and create sixty (60) commercial lots for construction of a mixed-use commercial/business park/professional office development south of the Gallatin Valley Mall. The property is located in the West Main Street Entryway Overlay District and; as a result, requires a Certificate of Appropriateness and review by the Design Review Board. Based on the scale and magnitude of the mixed-use planned unit development the Planning Staff and Design Review Board determined that it would benefit the advisory board to have additional time to the review the project prior to forwarding a recommendation to the Planning Board and City Commission. Therefore, Staff is submitting the P.U.D. Preliminary Plan Review application in advance for review by Design Review Board on the following dates; Tuesday, October 12, and Wednesday, October 25. The first meeting will involve an overview by the Planning Staff and a short presentation by the applicant with the opportunity for members of the D.R.B. to identify major issues for discussion. This should give the D.R.B. ample time to investigate any key points of discussion and allow the applicant to provide any additional information the Board may request. The second meeting will include a summary of staff s D.R.B. staff report, discussion by the advisory body, and a formal recommendation to the City Commission. You are receiving copies of a portion of the Preliminary Plat application and P.U.D. Preliminary Plan Review application for your review. In addition you received a copy of the Development Manual prepared by Carter- Burgess, Inc., that includes the architectural and landscape guidelines for the project. Should you wish to review the entire subdivision document,please contact the Planning Office for a copy. Also included is the informal staff report and minutes of the D.R.B. meetings on January 12 and January 26, 2005. Please make sure to take care in reviewing the applications and please avoid marking the Development Manual. You may make notes in everything but the Development Manual, which must be returned unmarked for Planning Board and City Commission packets. Thank you for your assistance and patience with the review of this project. DS/dps cc: Mitchell Development Group,L.L.C.,P.O. Box 738,Great Falls,MT 59403 Carter-Burgess, Inc., 1420 Mockingbird Lane, Suite 800,Dallas,TX 75247 Morrison-Maierle, Inc., 901 Technology Blvd.,Bozeman, MT 59718 planning • zoning • subdivision review . annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration • neighborhood coordination • DESIGN REVIEW BOARD • WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2005 I MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:32 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Bill Hanson Chris Saunders, Associate Planner Dawn Smith Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner Brian Krueger David Skelton, Senior Planner Scott Hedglin Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Randy Carpenter Visitors Present Ted Mitchell John Davison John H. Larsen Mark Mitchell Greg Stratton Bill Ogle James Nickelson Jamie Lenon ITEM 2. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 2004 (Continued from 12/22/04.) Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of November 10, 2004. MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2004 (Continued from 12/22/04.) Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of December 8, 2004. MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 4. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 22, 2004 Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of December 22, 2004. MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—January 12,2005 1 ITEM 5. Presentation by Chris Kukulski, City Manager—Y2 hour. Chris Kukulski, City Manager, introduced himself to the DRB and explained the City's long- term goals. ITEM 6. U.D.O. Edits Discussion A. * Discussion of the U.D.O. text amendments pertinent to the DRB. Continued to the meeting of January 26, 2005. ITEM 7. The Bozeman Gateway Concept PUD #EZ-04313 (Skelton) A. Southwest of the intersection of West College Street and Huffine Lane * A Concept Planned Unit Development Application to allow the construction of a mixed-use commercial development on 72.2 acres with related site improvements. Ted Mitchell, Mark Mitchell, John Davison, John Larsen, and Greg Stratton joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the project noting that the DRB was informally reviewing the project so the advisory board could have a dialog with the applicant before the project was formally reviewed by the DRB in two weeks. He stated the project started as an extension of the Advanced Technology Park and had been modified with the sale of the property, identifying commercial development north of Huffine Lane, and development of the recently adopted Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. He added that the applicants and he had invited City Commission members to attend the next meeting of the DRB. Mr. Mark Mitchell noted the background of the Mitchell Group; who has been working on the Gateway project for the past year. He stated the applicants wanted to keep and enhance the wetlands on the site and added they had offered to install Garfield Street from South 19th Avenue to Fowler Lane and Fowler Lane to Huffine Lane, at their expense. He stated there would be a traffic signal installed at their expense as well. He stated the easements were negotiated in favor of the City of Bozeman, but the applicant would be responsible for curb and gutter on one side of the road with a gravel shoulder on the other side. He stated there would be major redesigns of intersections to make the project's accesses work. He stated they had taken special care in keeping with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan and they had enhanced the frontage on Huffine Lane using the placement of retention ponds. He stated there would be a plaza with a pond in the center of the development. He stated the hotel component fit well with the lodging demand generators on the west side of town. He stated the applicant had taken special care to design a project that would be an asset to Bozeman and had been working with the Army Corp of Engineers and the Department of Transportation from the project's inception. Mr. Larsen stated he and the developers had an on-site charette regarding what would fit on the site and how it would be arranged. He stated some of the wetland areas posed difficulties given the limited developable area. He stated he came to the conclusion that the Farmer's Canal was bisecting the site and had decided to incorporate the canal into the development. He City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—January 12,2005 2 presented a color renderi epicting the types of uses (hotel, clu00mmunity center, shopping center, etc.) and their arrangement on the proposed development, as well as potential • views from various proposed structures on the site. He noted the proposed enhancement of the natural streams and the addition of ponds throughout the development. He stated they developed specific architectural character for areas of the development and presented a color rendering of the proposed entrance from Huffine Lane, of the interior streetscape, and the central plaza. He stated there would be natural stone up to 10 feet. He stated there would be a fireplace, an ice rink / water feature, and audio equipment in the plaza for public gatherings. He added that the formal water features would be blended with the natural water features and there were significant pedestrian connections proposed throughout the development; promoting pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Mr. Hanson asked how the number of parking stalls compared to the number of parking stalls required by the U.D.O. Mr. Larsen responded that the project would meet the requirements when compact spaces were calculated in. Mr. Hanson asked if Staff had given the applicant options for parking calculations. Mr. Saunders responded that shared parking was allowed as long as there was an obvious agreement. Mr. Larsen responded that the site, as a whole, had met the requirements. Mr. Hanson stated the DRB was supportive of parking reductions but the problem with retail development was they pushed the envelope on the number of stalls. Mr. Larsen added that grocery stores were often adamant about the arrangement and number of parking stalls. Mr. Hanson asked if the City would allow storm water retention into an active waterway. Mr. Stratton responded that the retention ponds were not connected to the active waterways and they would use an old canal that has been dry. Mr. Hanson stated that the pollutants needed to be filtered from the retention ponds. Mr. Stratton responded they would be filtered by City engineering standards. Mr. Hanson asked if the open space requirements had been met. Mr. Saunders responded that it was a point system with a variety of ways to meet those points, and publicly accessible spaces would be worth more points. Mr. Hanson stated the project was in a stream corridor, and asked if there would be difficulties meeting open space requirements because part of the open space was unusable as it was in a waterway. Mr. Stratton stated the calculation of open space was based on the net area multiplied by 0.25. Mr. Hanson suggested Staff review the usable space next to the stream corridors. Mr. Hanson asked why there was no residential development proposed with so many pedestrian connections on the site. Mr. Larsen replied there was no market for residential development in that location. Mr. Ted Mitchell stated the parking requirements would become an issue if there were residential development due to the tremendous cost of ramping driveways to residences. Mr. Carpenter suggested residential structures with below-grade parking. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded the water level was too high to incorporate below-grade parking. Mr. Carpenter asked if they had met the impervious surface requirements. Mr. Stratton responded they had not calculated those requirements yet. Mr. Carpenter asked where the retention ponds, outlets, and filtration areas would be located. Mr. Stratton responded that the water would be released from the detention ponds into the discharge pipes or canals and then to the outlets; which had not been formally located in the proposal yet. Mr. Carpenter suggested being cautious in the design of the retention ponds so that the project would remain attractive. Mr. Carpenter asked if the pedestrian and bike trails were more for internal. Mr. Larsen responded that the City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—January 12,2005 3 connection to the east (thollege) and the residential developmen4ross Huffine Lane would likely be using the pedestrian and bike trails. Mr. Carpenter asked how the pedestrians would be moved safely across Huffine Lane. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that there would be a signal installed on Huffine Lane as it was no longer a highway and inside corporate city limits. Mr. Carpenter asked if there would be screening along Huffine Lane. Mr. Larsen and Mr. Ted Mitchell indicated where screening was proposed. Mr. Carpenter stated that not many of the views would have terminal vistas from the boulevards and the plaza. Mr. Carpenter asked how the phases of development would be completed and how the circulation would be maintained. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that Garfield Street and the intersection of South 19`' Avenue and Fowler Lane would be constructed in the first phase, the second phase would be the development of the east side of the project. Mr. Hedglin asked the projected fill-out for the retail space; was there enough of an attraction to the site to occupy the retail spaces. Mr. Stratton responded there would be 216 retail spaces. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded the development would be filled-out within 7 or 8 years. Mr. Krueger stated that, with a PUD, an applicant could design their project with more flexibility and asked what the applicant was proposing that would be above and beyond the zoning requirements for a PUD. Mr. Larsen responded that the project would be more upscale; i.e. many of the wall coverings would be upgraded, outdoor fireplaces, a plaza, etc. Mr. Larsen responded that the applicant had not looked upon the project as an upgrade to the normal PUD. Mr. Stratton responded that the PUD development was a method by which to request variances, for example; the width of the streets, diagonal parking, longer blocks, and other irregularities. Mr. Stratton added that none of the requested variances were too far from code requirements. Mr. Krueger asked Mr. Ted Mitchell to explain why they would retain the curviness of the street through the development. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that the curved street served the purpose of slowing traffic and it added a unique quality to the site. Mr. Krueger asked if the diagonal parking would be on a two lane street. Mr. Larsen responded that it would be a two lane, two way street with diagonal parking. Mr. Krueger asked which of the page of design images in the submittal materials and the proposed design images on the renderings were being proposed. Mr. Larsen responded that they would like to see varied architectural designs with multiple architects working on the project and there would be overall design standards for the development. Chairperson Smith asked what level of retail "BP" zoning allowed. Mr. Saunders responded there was mainly "B-2" zoning in the proposal, and Mr. Ted Mitchell illustrated where there was a small area of "BP". Planner Saunders explained the differences between "BP" and "B- 2" zoning with regard to allowable retail space. Chairperson Smith asked if a drive-thru was allowable in the "B-2" zoning. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that drive-thru's were allowable and indicated their locations on the color rendering. Chairperson Smith asked if the City would be reviewing the final submittal of the project. Planner Saunders responded that individual final site plans would be reviewed. Chairperson Smith asked what made this a "lifestyle" development when pedestrian pathways were dominant. Mr. Larsen responded it was an open-air shopping center; not like a mall with parking along the outside of the structures, and there were many entertainment opportunities located within the "lifestyle" development. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes-January 12,2005 4 • Mr. Hanson stated he appreciated that the project was presented with good graphics and site plan analysis. He stated the project had interesting character with expansion prospects and suggested reducing the number of parking stalls and adding green spaces that people could mingle in. He stated the location of the grocery store on the corner of the entryway corridor was problematic and suggested relocating the grocery store or adding extensive screening. He stated he felt that, comparatively, the proposal had a wonderful character and he applauded the applicant's efforts. He suggested the drive-thru be closely examined and cited the Taco Bell drive-thru as a bad example. Mr. Carpenter stated he agreed with Mr. Hanson's comments regarding the presentation of the project to the DRB. He stated he was excited about the concept of "lifestyle centers" and appreciated the thoughtfulness and thoroughness of the site design. He suggested they know the percentage of impervious surfaces and what efforts could be made to keep the number of impervious surfaces down. He stated he was surprised to hear that the applicants did not think residential development would work, despite the parking issues. He stated he thought the reduced opportunities for vistas could improve with a less curved street. He stated it would be a conflict for the applicant's to make the project pedestrian and bike friendly while maintaining the proposed drive-thru's. Mr. Hedglin stated he would be curious to see the project in ten to twenty years. He stated developments were moving away from the enclosed shopping atmosphere. He stated he would like to see the use of natural materials throughout the development. Mr. Krueger stated he appreciated the irony of rebuilding another main street in a town with a great main street. He stated he liked the preservation of the watercourse and wetlands to enhance the area. He suggested keeping and enhancing the character of Bozeman within the development. Chairperson Smith stated she agreed with previous DRB comments. She stated she would be the person riding her bike to the development and she would like to know where the connections between the sidewalks and the bike trails would be. Mr. Larsen responded there would be a bike lane throughout the development and along Huffine Lane. Chairperson Smith suggested the placement of nodes and a place where cars cannot go so that bicyclers could go there. She stated she would like to see a connection to Babcock Street. She stated she would like to see as many large trees as possible preserved on the site. She stated she was concerned with the parking lot between Huffine Lane and Gateway Boulevard, and the parking lot on Garfield Street, which was proposed abutting the street. She stated she was concerned with the Chronicle Lane access because people turn left into the bank drive-thru and congestion is common. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that the access was a right-in, right-out only. Mr. Stratton responded the traffic study showed there would be 3,000 cars per day eliminated from that intersection with the extension of Garfield Street and Fowler Lane. Mr. Carpenter added that he did not think a Main Street sort of thoroughfare was exclusive of vehicular travel. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes-January 12,2005 5 0 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 0 WEDNESDAY,JANUARY 26, 2005 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Bill Hanson Ben Ehreth, Assistant Planner Dawn Smith Jami Morris, Associate Planner Mel Howe David Skelton, Senior Planner Scott Hedglin Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Carol Asleson Joseph Thomas Visitors Present Ed Thulin Mark John Davison Ted Mitchell Greg Stratton John H. Larsen Catherine Koenen Mike Promisco ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JANUARY 12, 2005 Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of January 12, 2005. MOTION: Mr. Krueger moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Continued until the next meeting. ITEM 4. U.D.O. Edits Discussion A. * Discussion of the U.D.O. text amendments pertinent to the DRB. Continued until the next meeting. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW A. The Bozeman Gateway Concept PUD #Z-04313 (Skelton) Southwest of the intersection of West College Street and Huffine Lane * A Concept Planned Unit Development Application to allow the City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—January 26,2005 1 con*ction of a mixed-use commercial devwment on 72.2 acres with related site improvements. Mel Howe joined the DRB. John Larson, Ted Mitchell, and Greg Stratton joined the DRB. Planner Skelton presented the Staff Report noting the location of the proposed project. He stated the size, scale, and magnitude of the project would have a substantial impact on the Entryway Corridor and there were a number of requested relaxations; i.e. reduction of block length and width, spacing of drive accesses, encroachment into the 50 foot watercourse setback. He noted the significance of the proposed improvements to the traffic situation in the area and added that Garfield Street would end up functioning as a Collector Street with the development of this property. He stated the open space provisions were being worked through as there were discrepancies in the calculations from the applicant and Planning Staff. He stated the applicant could gain performance points by incorporating residential development onto the site and indicated the locations of ponds and public plaza areas stating the applicant would receive credit for the public open space areas. He stated the applicant proposed a trail system and to re-route the Farmer's Canal with the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board and the Gallatin Valley Land Trust accepting the concept design. He stated the landscaping was broken into six disciplines and listed them. He stated the thumbnail sketches and landscaping would be provided with the Developmental Manual and the signage would be taken care of at a later date. He stated the parking calculation had been based upon 800,000 square feet and the applicant was slightly over the allowable maximum amount of parking (roughly 3,000 total parking spaces). He stated Staff would like to see a breakup in the presentation of off-street parking along the Entryway Corridor, did not want to see franchise architecture, and would recommend the orientation of the drive-throughs' be located away from the Entryway Corridor. He stated the Developmental Manual should outline exactly what the "Lifestyle Center" would be. Mr. Krueger stated he was concerned with the requested relaxation for the 50 foot stream setback. He stated that the project would be a phase development starting with the grocery store and retail pads and asked, if the developer was unable to finish the project, what would happen to the PUD. Planner Skelton responded that a time limit of some sort would be placed on the project and added that a new developer could consider modifications to the PUD, but the final approval of the project would be binding. He added the key was to have a unified plan through the establishment of the Development Manual. Ms. Asleson asked how many phases of development were proposed. Planner Skelton responded there would be six phases. Mr. Ted Mitchell indicated the phases on the color rendering and added that Fowler Lane and Garfield Street improvements would begin in roughly 30 days. Ms. Asleson stated she agreed with Mr. Krueger regarding the watercourse setback and asked Planner Skelton why Staff was allowing the requested relaxation. Planner Skelton responded the relaxation was not a blanket relaxation and only occurred at three or four points in the development. Ms. Asleson asked if Staff had hoped to decrease the proposed amount of parking. Planner Skelton responded that Staff would like to see a reduction in parking, but the difficulty would be in determining which parking stalls to eliminate. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes-January 26,2005 2 Mr. Hanson asked about the discrepancy in the calculation of the open space credits. Planner Skelton responded that the discrepancy was due to the required setbacks and whether or not they would be 50 or 25 feet; he added that the calculation was complicated. Mr. Hanson asked if the ponds and wetlands were calculated. Planner Skelton responded that the only landscaping not calculated were those areas within the parking areas as they were separate points. Mr. Hanson stated the plat map showed a lot of cut up pieces. Planner Skelton responded that it was difficult to determine which tenants wanted lots and how many they would need. Mr. Hanson stated Bridger Peaks had not been depicted as broken up and cited several areas where parking would become an issue if one tenant bought several lots. He asked Planner Skelton if he had discussed the proposed anchor ("Big Box" store) and service entries on the corner of the Entryway Corridor. Planner Skelton responded there had been some discussion with regard to relocating some of the features and added that Staff was concerned with the orientation of the building. Chairperson Smith asked Planner Skelton to further explain the lot and parking lot issue as she was reviewing the parking requirements like she would review another project's parking requirements. Planner Skelton responded that the applicant was aware of Staff's concerns with parking and added that, at this time, the parking was an unknown factor with Staff suggesting common ownership. Planner Skelton stated he was hoping for comment from the DRB regarding the need for satellite buildings to help buffer and break up the parking. Mr. Hanson asked if there were discussions with the applicant regarding the linear parks and the insertion of public areas. Planner Skelton responded that options for public areas had been discussed. Mr. Mitchell stated there had been a misunderstanding regarding the parking on the site and added that, at this time, they were unsure of their prospective tenants and would not know how the site would need to be divided. He added that the applicant did not want to have to come back later for subdivision and boundary re-alignments of lots. He stated the applicant would like to control the parking by selling the building pads to the individuals and retaining the parking lots to maintain by their standards and control. He indicated two lots where the parking might be sold with the building pad and insisted that the development would maintain, light, and landscape the remaining parking lots with the tenants paying their percentage of the maintenance. He stated the grocery store screening along the Entryway Corridor had been addressed and the building would be moved away from the setback to avoid the public seeing any unsightly building facades. He stated the potential drive-throughs' would be placed on the south side of the structures and screened; with the exception of the bank drive-thru, which would be tastefully done. He added that one of the ponds could be reduced in size and a public recreation area inserted. Mr. Stratton stated the natural features (streams) could be relocated and maintained in order to meet the required setback. He stated the wetland areas were not high quality wetlands; they had been cow pastures for years, and the applicant thought the area could be mitigated with a City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes-January 26,2005 3 404 permit for Wetlands 1*eet the setback requirement. He sta*the basis for the Variance request was to leave the area in a natural state. Mr. Mitchell added that the applicant was going to unnatural lengths and expense to preserve the natural wetlands and perennial stream and added that Fowler Lane would be constructed on this property to avoid damaging the wetlands. Mr. Stratton stated the applicant would meet the open space requirements no matter what they had to do and the width of the landscaped islands would be greater, but probably not to 60 feet. He stated the parking requirements would be met. Mr. Larson stated the suggestion of expanding the sidewalks would make the streets fundamentally too wide. Mr. Mitchell added it would defeat the purpose of having a "Lifestyle Center". Mr. Stratton addressed DRB concerns from the first meeting. He stated the many impervious surfaces would be dealt with through drainage, the filtering of retention ponds would be taken care of on-site, there was no residential component planned for the project, the drive-thru facilities would not be on the Huffine Lane side (with the exception of the bank), the building materials would be tasteful-if not natural, bike parking nodes would be placed at every pedestrian entrance to the core area, and the architectural character of the development would not be radically different from the existing character of Bozeman, but unique. Mr. Larson stated the grocery store would be the least impacted area on the site and added that the orientation and location of the structure kept the development unified. Ms. Asleson asked why the corner anchor (grocery store) would insist on that particular lot. Mr. Larson responded that the wetlands and physical features on the site would not accommodate a 60,000 square foot structure in any other location. Mr. Davison added the tenant would insist on the exposure and visibility from Huffine Lane and the convenience of deliveries. Ms. Asleson suggested the applicant provide landscape detail with the formal submittal. Ms. Asleson asked if the traffic on the through street could be slowed down by curving the road or the placement of speed bumps. Mr. Stratton responded traffic calming could be done several ways. Mr. Thomas stated the terminus of Gateway Boulevard was an office building and suggested the terminus should be the hotel. Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Larson agreed, but the proposed hotel location was determined by the amount of traffic and exposure. Mr. Hanson asked if there were adequate pedestrian pathways at one location and suggested widening them. Mr. Larson responded the idea was to move pedestrians from the parking areas to the plaza and businesses. Mr. Hanson asked how the lot lines through buildings would be dealt with. Mr. Stratton responded they would be addressing setbacks for each lot and the buildings would be repositioned with boundary realignments. Mr. Hanson stated he was supportive of and excited about the project, but he would like to see development of larger open spaces for public gatherings. He stated the lot lines were a concern, the location and orientation of the grocery store was a concern, and the proposed drive-throughs' should be located along the rear of the structures. He stated the improvements to the streams would offer greater enhancement to the project than the relaxation of the setback City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—January 26,2005 4 and he looked forward to Oing the formal submittal of the projec* Mr. Thomas stated he agreed with Mr. Hanson's comments regarding the grocery store and again suggested the relocation of the hotel. Ms. Asleson stated she supported the project but agreed with Mr. Hanson's comments regarding the grocery store site, the plaza area should be for the public, and she was eager to see the project as it developed. Mr. Krueger stated he was concerned with the phasing of the project as the developer's of each lot could be different and added that the straight street through the property would make it easier to sell lots. Chairperson Smith stated she was thankful the applicant had addressed the DRB's previous comments. She stated she was open to satellite buildings as long as they were not huge, but larger, buildings and added that she would also support grouping the structures. She stated she agreed with Mr. Hanson with regard to drive-throughs' and she would like to see the detention ponds treated as a wetland area or completely dried up due to the threat of West Nile Virus. She stated the service driveway could be relocated and she was undecided regarding the requested relaxations because outdoor green space could be used to compensate for the requested relaxation. B. Creekwood Concept PUD #Z-04293 (Morris) 2215 Bridger Drive * A Concept Planned Unit Development Application for the unified development of a 53 lot subdivision zoned R-S (Residential Suburban District) and R-1 (Residential Single-Household, Low Density District) with relaxations and a 30% residential density bonus. Catherine Koenen, Shawn Shahan, Dennis Foreman, and Mike Promisco joined the DRB. Planner Morris presented the Staff Report noting what materials the applicants would need to provide because the site is in an R-S zone and within an Entryway Corridor. She indicated they would need to provide adequate provisions for tenant privacy and suggested the use of a larger setback in one location. Mr. Shahan stated they were trying to create a pedestrian subdivision with 8,100 linear feet of trail systems and added that the Gallatin Valley Land Trust had coordinated with them on the design of the trail system. Chairperson Smith asked Planner Morris the purpose of the 30% density bonus. Planner Morris responded in'order to get more density, the PUD points must be met. Chairperson Smith asked if the street frontage minimum of 50% would be met without the parkland adjacency. Planner Morris responded that was one requested relaxation. Chairperson Smith asked if the public was invited to use the trail system and parks. Mr. Shahan responded that the community was welcome and encouraged to use the trails and parks. Chairperson Smith asked if there would be covenants restricting the size of the structures. Mr. Shahan responded City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes-January 26,2005 5 THE BOZEMAN GATEWAY CONCEPT P.U.D. ZONING FILE NO.Z-04313 `DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT ITEM: ZONING APPLICATION NO. Z-04313 -- AN APPLICATION FOR CONCEPT P.U.D. PLAN REVIEW FOR A MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL/PROFESSIONAL OFFICE/RETAIL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON APPROXIMATELY 72.2± ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF HUFFINE LANE/US HIGHWAY 191, ZONED "B-2", COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND "BP", BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT. APPLICANT: MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, I.L.C. %TED MITCHELL P.O. BOX 738, GREAT FALLS, MT 59403 OWNER: MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, I.L.C. %TED MITCHELL P.O. BOX 738, GREAT FALLS, MT 59403 DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2004, AT 3:30 P.M., IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM, ALFRED M. STIFF PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, 20 EAST OLIVE STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANA REPORT BY: DAVE SKELTON SENIOR PLANNER ----------------------------------------------------------------------------7---------------------------------------------- Project Description: The subject property is legally described as being Tract 2A of the Amended Plat of West College Minor Subdivision No. 195A located in the NW 'A of Section 15, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, and is further identified as property situated south of Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 and Gallatin Valley Mall, and west of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle facility. The site is approximately 72.2 acres in size and fronts Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 along the north boundary, extension of Fowler Avenue on the west and extension of Garfield Street on the south boundary. Please refer to the vicinity map and exhibits provided in the applicant's submittal. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 1 Proposal: The applicant, Mitchell Development Group, L.L.C., has made application for Concept P.U.D. Plan Review of a mixed-use commercial, professional office, and retail planned unit development consisting of 61 commercial/business park lots zoned `B-2" and `BP". The proposal is also undergoing a concurrent pre-application subdivision plan review of the 72+ acre site as a major subdivision. The five-phased mixed-use planned unit development is located in the West Main Street entryway corridor overlay district along its north boundary and is bound on the north by the major arterial street, Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 and Gallatin Valley Mall. The Advanced Technology Park and Bozeman Daily Chronicle are to the east and partially developed lands under Gallatin County jurisdiction are to the west. The placement of mixed land uses within the development focuses on a mix of professional offices, retail services and hotel/conference facility on the east one-third and a mixed of retail service and commercial uses on the west two-thirds. The `B-2", Community Business District, allows for a broad range of mutually supportive retail and service functions located in clustered areas bordered on one of more sides by limited access arterial streets. Principal permitted uses range from banks and hospitals to offices and hotels/motels. Conditional uses permitted in the district range from automobile fuel sales to technical or vocational schools to light goods repair and light manufacturing. The `BP", Business Park District, provides for high quality settings and facilities for the development of a wide range of compatible employment opportunities. These areas should be developed so as to recognize the impact on surrounding or adjacent development and contribute to the overall image of the community. Compatibility with adjacent land uses and zoning is required. Permitted uses range from hospitals and professional offices to research laboratories and public buildings. Conditional uses that may be considered in the `BP" district range from banks and day care centers to type II essential services. Chapter 18.36—Planned Unit Development The intent of the planned unit development concept is to promote maximum flexibility and innovation in the development of land and the design of development projects within the city. As a result, the developer has requested multiple relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance with this application for P.U.D. review. With regard to the improvement and protection of the public health, safety and welfare, it shall be the intent of the Ordinance to promote the city's pursuit of community objectives as outlined in Chapter 18.36 of the Unified Development Ordinance. The purpose of the Concept P.U.D. Plan Review is for discussion of the applicant's proposal with the designated review committees in order to identify any requirements and applicable standards and policies, as well as offering the applicant the opportunity to identify major problems that may exist and identify solutions prior to making formal application. Relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance: The following relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance have been identified with the application for subdivision pre-application plan review and P.U.D. concept plan review: • Section 18.42.030.I "Frontage" and Section 18.44.090.B.2 "Drive Access" to not have access for all subdivision lots from an improved pubic street, approved private street or alley. • Section 18.42.040.B "Block Length" to allow the block lengths to exceed 400 feet. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 2 • Section 18.42.040.0 "Block Width" to allow the block widths to be more than 400 feet. • Section 18.42.100.B.3.c — "Setbacks" to encroach into the 50-foot minimum setback required along watercourses. • Section 18.42.100.B.4.b — "Watercourse Setback" to allow the required watercourse setback to not include adjacent wetlands. • Section 18.44.030.A.1 "Intersections" to allow streets to intersect at angles less than 90 degrees. • Section 18.44.090.D.3 "Spacing Standards for Drive Access" to allow the average spacing of intersections on Fowler Avenue to be reduced from 660 feet to 420 feet. Natural Features: The application identifies four watercourses existing on the site and has delineated these features in the submittal. Three of the watercourses establish the crux of existing physical features on the site. The Fish, Wildlife & Parks has identified these as either a stream or intermediate streams. Therefore there are associated jurisdictional wetlands and the applicable watercourse setbacks. A Section 404 Permit has been granted by the Army Corp of Engineers to mitigate any related impacts to distributing existing wetlands with the construction of Fowler Lane. The wetlands identified with the two interior intermediate streams will remain generally undistributed. However, the applicant is requesting to encroach into the required 50-foot watercourse setback and from the wetlands boundary associated with the watercourses. There are basically three general points of conflict between the required watercourse setback and development of the property; 1) Lot #14 and #15 in Phase One, 2) Lot #24 in Phase Four , and 3) Lot #49 in Phase Two. The applicant's basis for requesting a relaxation to reduce these watercourse setbacks based on hardship and/or evidence of conflicting physical features lends itself to an unfavorable recommendation by staff. Open Space: Under section 18.36.090.E.2.7.b of the U.D.O. at least twenty performance points must be earned through a combination of affordable housing or additional open space. The applicant has elected to meet the performance points by providing additional open space at: 1) one point for each percent of the project that provides non-public area, or 2) one and one-quarter points for each percent of provided as publicly accessible open space. The portion of the project to be used in determining the size of the area for open space is the gross area less dedicated land transferred to the public. The area provided for open space shall be exclusive of yard setbacks and interior off-street parking lot landscape. Approximately 16.84% (16 points) of open space, including 1.25% credit for the pubic access to the corridors, was calculated by staff. This is a discrepancy compared to the submittal information of 21.5% (21 points) in the application, which may be in part be due the application using required yard setbacks along the west side of Fowler Avenue and south side of Huffine Lane in the open space calculations. This will need to be confirmed with the preliminary plan and preliminary subdivision plat applications. Ponds: The concept plan proposes a series of ponds as public landscape features within the context of the development. The two ponds in proximity of Gateway Boulevard serve as exceptional elements of the public plazas and social interaction, while the ponds along Huffine Lane are aesthetic landscape features along the entryway corridor. Ample space between building, streets and water features along Gateway Boulevard must be provided as an effective place for public activities. The water features along the Huffine Lane will also serve to accommodate storm water runoff from The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 3 impervious surfaces. As a result, the ponds along Huffine Lane will fluctuate substantially based upon the time of the year, and degree of spring showers and runoff. As open space features along the entryway corridor, pre-treatment of garbage and refuse, as well as grease, oil and silt will need to occur "prior" to discharging into these ponds. The ponds may not serve as the principle treatment facility for grease, oil, silt, and refuse. These ponds must be designed to necessitate a principle landscape feature as their principle function and as a storm water runoff facility secondly in order to receive the needed credit for open space. Pedestrian Circulation: A hierarchy for pedestrian circulation for this area includes: 1) development of Fowler Avenue and Garfield Street as the area's major transportation network with associated bike lanes and boulevard sidewalks, 2), developing a major linkage in this part of the community for a public trail system currently identified along the Farmer's Canal, 3) implementing the "lifestyle center" along Gateway Boulevard that recognizes pedestrian circulation, 4) interior public streetscape and sidewalks for pedestrian circulation, and 5) a public trail system within the interior of the mixed-use commercial development. Because the pedestrian circulation system will aid in producing an efficient, functionally organized, and cohesive planned unit development, consideration should be given to stronger connections between areas of useable open space, through off-street parking lots, as well as connections with public areas. Fewer accentuated crossings across the collector street, Fowler Avenue, should be considered to limit the potential conflict between vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Greater attention should be given to the intersections with Huffine Lane and West Garfield Street. Emphasis on raised walkways, pavers, and landscape features should be given to any pedestrian crossings along the major street system,perimeter streets, and interior streets within the development. If it is the wish of the developer to reroute the planned "future trail corridor" along the Farmer's Canal ditch that is designated in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, it is imperative that the trail system provide users with the ability to: 1) interact with the mixed-use commercial development, 2) experience the physical features of the open space areas, or 3) continue along the public trail system as part of the community's trail system with the least amount of resistance from vehicular movement, off-street parking lots and related engineered facilities (i.e., storm water runoff facilities, drainage swales,itrigation.wells, etc. The Gallatin Valley Land Trust and Bozeman Recreation Parks Advisory Board generally supported the concept of the trail system with the understanding to address the points discussed in the previous phase. Until a detailed master plan is provided the advisory bodies recommended an impervious surface along Huffine Lane and throughout the parking lots, and a more natural, Class II type, trail system along the open space stream corridors. Landscape: At the concept level the application does not delineate in detail the amount of landscape features that are intended. However, the submittal does suggest substantial areas of green space and public landscape features. In all aspects of the development proposal emphasis on common landscape furniture and landscape features should be noted. Landscape irrigation is imperative and placement of irrigation system is crucial. All irrigation wells will be properly screened from the streetscape,public buildings,public plazas and open space areas. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 4 • Public Streetscape - Boulevard trees at a regular spacing of one (1) tree per fifty (50) lineal feet of street frontage will be installed along all pubic street frontages for both local and perimeter streets. • Off-street Parking Lot — In addition to the required interior parking lot landscape, parking areas that adjoin the public streetscape should contain meandering low-profile berms and foliage, as well as well as landscape features designed in clustered arrangements of season types and color. • Key access Points — The principle access points from Fowler Avenue, Garfield Street, Huffine Lane/US Highway 191, and West College Street should contain expansive landscape features that emphasize the importance of the natural landscape and how it plays a major role in the form and character of the entryway corridor and community. A strong emphasis with the access from Huffine Lane is encouraged as the formal entrance from entrance along the entryway corridor. • Public Areas and Plaza—Not only does the public plaza within the core of the development, serve as a place for social interaction, the entire Gateway Boulevard lends itself to both landscape features and furniture. These should generate a common theme through the development as part of a unified planned unit development. • Open Space/Watercourse Corridors — Landscape features in these areas should be informal and consistent with the natural setting of the area. Ample width for the watercourses that bisect the off-street parking lots must be provided (i.e., minimum of 60 feet). • Entryway Corridor — The Design Objectives Plan for entryway corridors encourages the West Main Street corridor to a create a "green edge" over time on both sides of the street and that street frontage landscaping should be strongly emphasized. Therefore, the streetscape along this corridor should include both a formal setting of boulevard trees, designed in concert with a more informal setting to emphasize the importance of urban open space and the quality of urban lifestyles in the community. Lighti� As with landscape features and furniture, lighting of public areas, open space and major entrances into the development should implement a common theme that supports the "life style" concept of the commercial planned unit development. Off-street parking lots should be properly illuminated but not become an intrusive element along the entryway corridor during the evening hours. Pam Off-street parking calculations are conceptual at this stage of the process. The approximate project breakdown of land uses is outlined in the applicant's submittal, totaling approximately 800,000± square feet. Based on the formal of 1 parking space/300 square feet of retail store and service establishments, approximately 2,267 parking spaces would be required. Using the 125% maximum threshold that is allowable, 2,834 spaces are permitted as a parking ceiling by the U.D.O. A rough count of off-street parking proposed with the development is estimated at 3,059 space,which exceeds the 125%allowable maximum. Due to the scale of the project, it is recommended that the minimum width for parking lot drive aisles should exceed the minimum required width of 26 feet. Fronting off-street parking facilities directly onto Huffine Lane and the entryway corridor is not recommended. Si a e: Signs should be an integral part of the overall architectural design and should be part of the Development Manual. A common signage program that specifies location, size, lighting, materials, and unified graphic design for both shared and individual signs should be expected. Low profile signs should be strongly encouraged along Huffine Lane and Fowler Avenue and should be limited to only project identification signage. A larger project identification sign may be considered based on location, placement and need. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 5 Public Areas and Plazas: Consideration should be given to identifying a general theme for the public outdoor plaza area(s) with landscape furniture and features, as well as lighting. The areas between the building and Gateway Boulevard should remain wider than expected for the protection of pedestrians from vehicular movement, as well as providing an adequate area of drop-off and pick-up of the patrons. A 20-30 foot wide sidewalk storefront should not be unreasonable. Accenting key pedestrian crossings and connections is an important element of these public areas. Landscape features, outdoor furniture, lighting, seating areas, outdoor vendor areas should be integral elements of these areas. Consideration of a possible location for a transit system should also be investigated. Building Design The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. is located in the West Main Street entryway corridor; and as a result, said guidelines should be applied using a "sliding scale" approach with the attitude of the greater the degree of change proposed, the greater and more elaborate the degree of review. In this case, the design expectations must be applied with the intent of achieving high quality design that reflects the local community character, climate, history and natural environment. As this is a multi-phased project, the Development Manual that will include the architectural and landscape guidelines will play an integral role in maintaining the quality of the project and the "lifestyle" concept that the developers intend to exploit. Variety in architectural design with dramatic architectural forms is encouraged. However, not at the cost of losing a unified theme or encourage franchise architecture. The guidelines should develop a vocabulary of acceptable materials, treatment and use of materials, patterns, fenestration, scale and directional expression. Use of offsets, fenestration treatment, proportions, and emphasis of main entrances should be included. The following building orientations should be considered. • All buildings requiring a service area must avoid the impression of not having a rear to the building. • The presentation of the rear of the grocery store fronting the corridor must be responsible to the West Main Street entryway corridor, Fowler Avenue and development patterns within the context of the proposal. The current location makes it difficult to address. • The office building at the west end of the development should be closer to the entryway corridor with a majority of the off-street parking to the south of the structure. • If the development is proposing future building pads along the West Garfield Street frontage, they should be included as part of the discussion for this concept plan review. • A larger satellite building fronting onto Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 should be situated in the central area of the development to reduce the visual impact of the parking area. • Careful scrutiny will be given to any land use that contains a drivethru facility. The covenants will specifically restrict any drive thru facility from facing onto the West Main Street entryway corridor. • Franchise architecture is not recommended as part of the Design Objectives Plan for entryway corridors. These land uses must also exemplify the sprit of the "lifestyle" center. Protective Covenants and Architectural&Landscape Guidelines: The ability of the mixed-use planned unit development to ensure compatibility with, and sensitivity to, the immediate environment of the site will fall substantially on the aptitude of the applicant to prepare The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 6 .J a Development Manual, which will implement the architectural and landscape guidelines for the project. Consideration must be given to scale, mass, neighborhood identity, landscape, orientation of buildings, use of materials, color palette, and specific architectural character-giving features that will define the architectural parameters of the planned unit development. The Manual should clearly outline the concept of a "lifestyle center" and illustrate the methods by which to implement the concept. The mixed-use commercial development will have the most immediate and greatest impact on adjoining properties to the north, which in the West Main Street entryway corridor, and should have the highest degree of review. Landscape, buffering features, open space, fencing and orientation of buildings adjoining the future development to the west, south, and east must be considered. Provisions for the maintenance and upkeep of open space, public areas, trail system, streetscape, ponds, and other related areas should be clearly outlined. All common areas should be maintained and kept in good condition under a single contract with a landscape maintenance company. Landscape irrigation and placement of irrigation wells must be addressed. No irrigation wells and related facilities will be situated in the yard setbacks, but instead immediately adjacent to said improvements and properly screened. Attachments: Applicant's Submittal for Concept P.U.D. Plan Review Mailed To: Mitchell Development Group, L.L.C., 1315 81h Avenue N., Great Falls, MT 59401 Carter&Burgess Consultants, Inc., 201 North Charles St., 9`h Floor, Baltimore, MY 21201 Morrison-Maierle, Inc., P.O. Box 1113, Bozeman, MT 59771 The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 7 TRACT A-1-A-1 I' v GO.S No. 1243C I STATE RE YONTH yy ENOOwMFNT AND:RESEARCH iDIWQGMIW _ n It p z En g I I BOZEYAA',YT 59115 . II 11 to OZ'L99 M ZO 61.00N IN 54 ,ro .t ti mlY ,P I rn L i , iT - - - ._�=^,. -. �• fL809 gZ6C-0ON � � 1I '' �L �o�o- �-p•�:a�- _IJ _...._-- __-_- t!• Vail — o\•T c,-_ .... .:,,.,- 1, �.., .�1-....�...r� t,: ",Y �S,. �� !1 m�o z I h c a — ATTsr�ox li r orz - I ', _,_,_ _ �`� _:)�:' _ _ �_I•. s ,, �� I '"�o m� a 19 I � I �, �s A� Pt- II � '°�• f"] L, •.I I kw - �7 '�' , \ 1\; - A{•SSItOL 1Df.M.f•�= h ��' I' l = I A0� .OQRI y1L. �� p� •WSAI �,'.. t `,SgLft - -'� i I �"' I � �--1 l 1 °I It L•es.o-f'If�:r ascot NOIJSDON I I IJI W lye ' � I .-3�- ��t r�z•'. b ��-'�B1�AYC=mm ^ I 'I � "st3oygcti u 6 W •.-_;' 1 a -�`�G._�;t- 'If:tOL i'R\ L IJ1 ;1 c'I-x�<'t--�,;,. .- �•',..I '�', : 11q�7-�.�Qu�1�_ �� -"�. .�i II 'O°V� II I� ' �;.� :✓ i5 w _ ''� `'Ui,u. I, 1 �' p �'�'�.'� S A I u I ~ O SY' ��99'CIL-1 00 00,• e q {I 'I II ! II 1 �- (/] l �1 •sss� �vJ= a z � a M1- li _ `$ ,. Nov_—� �-�• Q oT �M--Ll I! I IT xv itl \ 1 r j(+S.:� f�r- \ 6.4 uJ I! IoT Yr�s.g b' A rL$y.r 9w 4 1 1 LOT 14 p�•; ,.I!;`• 11 Vl �,..L °gR !3' iai- 9�i ° �$ Ryr I 41049;SgFtq 13� I � w''P' bg -{1mo ', �a• I'. I it ,ry /V 1 1� •'Iq ' Pt•" �\ �t IS ,Vy�1 Lsv l Lll �I L �I� ;`\ 4 \ X'N \ �� J �' .t. :R `p t` �'• I' �L IS {'•(1 Ca�I II 1�N� I cn Ie.14SgFt - '�' 1• vi. 1 i�n'xt � •mWt.t .+..�� typ �h.' � 'r8` :ai�7, \� '�`' I 1� � UbIiI '�'I� NQ I z 1��1 � � � _.''I I J, rJA71' �\ _1 O \. O➢� `g �c° I _II'.; � �10 �,I `y, � u flO Ik ttl, !E F o � CiJI 1 �II os S� 4.iL Aft- ilk t, � r �oep'�eT•I\^ ` is I .',-1 /y$ L t ::II! I1 -$ y, �ro� "l rLOTL� I� & \ �� pbvll' 25$ L 1� I ^7 I ', .1 tIDt s� .1 IUTAtaori I•I• I pa J �//-f -roV' I I •'IS 4 \ g,ao• 2 LOTS bijl I / Inn c1 @_ '700- q�r, `I' "l1 c S •1 I. I 59 M 7.ONWG. 8_> T. 1= BOUNDAIdY r` � rLOTgpB - r I . m � . EIS•- II q RVcn 00.00' O W O R� �.� 1 E OS'a 4 +B /w �q\1�.�7..•. �'` I ..G^, 1711 Ii 'Jam;'j i�" "'$�.-. •uq:= �_ �� -_-_•'�.mi N"-` �. dl t• pGbOC �. ®.I I i'\.3LIAllgS I•I \\\ ��`\ . P= �°°��. _ _B;.tit •s•° I � \ f '"__•l5 ,\'' I / YL.L1 _ y 1-1 P` \ %`�' 1,II'I:'I '\ --•t`�o� � I•� I, xCb�-<'� - .. • x , Z0 Po ryY 11 Y 91' •. - \ IICag -§O yy pO I—� I• O I = u XgD potvl I r 1 r X N I I t `q 94 N !;il \ 1 �I, L_ °r .I'. 1,II• ooI uIAIDN`- � R / O r F8' � II: I�� . $�➢' xo Il; I ±�P f� m� K - I '\ 11 �� g�� •` t �� H N ,IOS011 pOSSI N G: \ I so my SCo/az ] Y I Ito' IK zu. g II I w _I O I y1I 5 �� y� I o ro L g in 3 r'• �n 1' v gg `I I'. II m• �P ib -1d"4 � B, IgQ�`� yS� �N�+ orro i .Ltg`".' FN At7Ai• I" i ! 1p1DOt I^ z J� w a h A a •I I \ 'I .I ;,taro t 4� to g z_ c a@ '`I :m� 3llm� O v'1+q 0 �Is�'r1 II •��' �_'�'� � \ ,wo I I e N _o66G6GSGG=� m Jf �r- b t •''S5'L8Z uIDUN - o AI I 83°8 I' {I ►�• `I' \ l I ` .L61L1'•. 16K1. u t. 9iy A pill E a gbB O �LfAIyGS.., ID� $: r r V17, �Y R r _ r (�� ^'„? Loa. ''<f > lu brcn .! I',. ,� I I �o 's. N 1 fnQ ' °m�r�� m moo CK: F u m � { 1• !Yt 3�lit. ' r L OG C N \- -- �i O b[[ - TRACT ?A �qa -- 088980R41^_ U X OZ .I , > Q �'' z D1h0R SU&)No. 1951 rn / w..`(a$sjy i AwANCEn rtcNNaocr. 0 ` L/�nRm it7 coLurE I - 4 8OZ9"N.MT J 15 >� O o D 0 m y z to �I�r•' p4 t° °o �Q0o �v � m ✓I { I Q' E `�MBSNz m r Zo z ?< Rq a a= ®n $ t€(+@ n to m� of ! I ! I I I I I I I !I Si g �j Q L� {� z ° Sit I v lIn D NgtnSt 7F €mm'�' �'� Sd � �,• Alp0 3 > Fp I. 3 zIml m c +>rI, 4 t• PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN THE BOZEMAN GATEWAY SUBDIVISION P.U.D. BEING TRACT 2A OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF WEST COLLEGE MINOR SUBDIVISION No. 195A SITUATED IN THE NW1/4 SECTION 14 AND THE NE1/4 SECTION 15, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA OWNE PURPOS MITCHELL OEVELOPMENT @ TO CREATE 72 LOTS FOR INVESTMENT.LLC COMMERCIAL USE P.S.BOX 738 ' GREAT FALLS.MT 59403 1 50 100 (IN FEET \ 1 lIIII II L- �= POTENTIAL b BUILDING SITE - - -- _- - _ __ t = 37 ;1! © ® - - - 0 o` 1rMitchell 11 " Z. Development Group _ - = CarternBurgess CtD - - - = , © - ,;:;III CD CD POTENTIAL -'� _= BUILDING SITE CDOil I LLL� - © _ _ _ � -- r © -+ c5 ® o © o - I ! II!I!I I! I ! . it I LII !iI . i(:�MORRISON O m' 1/4 SEC. SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE MAIERLE,INC. NE 5 Ts SF n+xm Me..o se.ea.,..a.vm•�I�l ar-em re l.n,v>-um PRINCIPAL MERIDIgN, MONTANA CLIENT:At1�Ha11 De elooment Grovo GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA FIELD WORK DATE:7/26/05 PLOTTED DATE: Aug/002/2005 — 10:57:15 am DRAWING NAME:me u DRAWN BY: SMR SCALE: H:\3638\003\ACAD\PREPIAT\e-Ot"Peat'I-0.q CHECKED 8Y-SJM PROJ q:3638.003 SHEET 1 OF 1 1-1.-.- PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN THE BOZEMAN GATEWAY SUBDIVISION P.-U.D. BEING TRACT 2A OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF WEST COLLEGE MINOR SUBDIVISION No. 195A SITUATED IN THE NW1/4 SECTION 14 AND THE NE1/4 SECTION 15, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA MITCHELL DEVV&O ENT R TO CREATNE E 72LL0 FOR INVESTMENT.BOX LLC COMMERCIAL USE P.S.FALLS. T _ 738 CRFAT FAE15.MT 39403 100 IN FEET d HUFFINE LANE "C.�.'�'. I ' , ._._.�._,.__�_.�— �^'�--•�_ r--- _ _. _. / .POND' _ REST PAD PONDS 3. I�ty 05 RETAIL REST p y� REST REST PAD PAD I PAD , u III `j" 1. 1 ANCHOR PARK T �!" / D Q IK O MINI — aKE II ♦`� ` \ � � ANCHOR i / � ><PAraiK.`\� �� j RETAIL OFFICE O ` T om_ L- 1 OFFICE PONn LLI OFFICE I FC'L/Np CARE R \ETAIL Q RETAIL Q / 1 I 1 RETAIL J Development )� O81KE �j PARK MINI I r ' ' .POND' O��'� x �• / ANCHOR RETAIL -� BpV a2 1 PJCPiK -EV,ggRp W REST/ 1 ` '—•BARK-- REST 4 Q ~ •-•�lJ// /i /T BIKE �onD i I J � J W RETAIL L Z / PARK O d° RE' 7 OFFICE U CarternBurgess RETAIL #2 Z HOTEL 1 Q REST/ REST ANCHOR I rI 0 C0NFF-RENCE U CINEMA O V W 1 1 �' RETAIL rI L ry T t / OFFICE OFFICE -U /� #4 #3 - � i I 2'—•---'--i� � ) '1 � � ,I` � OFFICE O M f __" 'i -�+- -�-'d :_, - .. I - • G FIEL-D-STREET $- . --- .J E IMORRISON 1/4 SEC. SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE l^{91•�1 II MAIERLE,txc. NE �5 �NW � F PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MONTANA CLIENT:MEtcKell Development Group GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA FIELD WORK' DATE:7/26/05 PLOTTED DATE: Aug/02/2005 — 10:52:11 am DRAWING NAME:-- DRAWN BY: SMR SCALE: \sass\ooa\uwp\PREP+AT\Em:avy PPM1 PI•La.a CHECKED BY-SJM PROJ p:3638}G 003 SHEET OF 1 i • . MAN • Mi 1 J � —v •'� 1•IJC�. V � r' f a f 1 f '-- - `i, -Ir _ —� � .,1•Illa. __ � I -- .�" --.� I' �t ',11 d, �,` � •..� (� a .f t �.T .�\ s�ltc�`•�-v � �/ I y I�nn■ ■.n�fintnnu�� ,i �' � 'r."•' ' � `�` �`..••.+..ram•'•�,j "r:,t ANCHOR rs «r � ,• ,V =% � — .,�. •��+� 'M`i" � .n•� _ •••• �� .Nw.. wr•. wwr•r •,•Iwr n•n+ I) .� � `,' �' / �� _ g �,.. .. . n' ••w warty. wr' ru.. rw ' l ` a V�•�✓ itJ+i ~ .��' _ � �•• • / � '�� .. _'. ,�__,e..:_r%F�.z'w'r,�_, i_rt�t_•• �''�'A I'• t � ��O ... ._ • .`� ,`� ,��,�. _ o d ! .. •.v� .� NAMitchell f�, � f y �j,.� �� ® of --�y,.•. . Development Group MISON . i - -_� -' �� '• � � '� � � ` � Mrs r v � � ,�] �.', ,�•+,�- ..'^�'`" " ' � I � ��J— ---r� / , - � !! `r 'p' � .� 1 �. � � 1 � wra. f Carter��Burgess 1 • . � � � ark 1� tiI .to i • ' � S• � � t �I " � . � �� Ili; '= �f. �" ! •1 ® � � . .:• ��_• • � �• gg � "" '_ -- ` e ` i I.n .•Ir„•1 •f.� i �• �, � � r ..a•r w••r wn+ •r •.wr ..,,+n «tti •r.r .r..,,,�C (t, ar �,r �`Z+ �► • i t• �n •n � N ® -- - - . {: .�•��C •=:tea r�\► � �ti• - =_1T ..�� r W r ` r • �. • r r ■ ► . . ��®® MERIDIAN,PRINCIPAL PLOTTED DATE: . .- .. .• q ;b.fi a s. .'+j' 4 -..rr r— _c� .(b.."" ...« '� .�� '�� _1 a, »v .�,•" .' ,-�• 'Y ,r " ' r: � v.V�. t. .;i` • ',.:.. ;�. � nt'F }-/ i `I•. _ @ y^7 .1• •�.r y z .: F... tom._._ -- - "'1�1- - 16. ! Y ,. a• _ ;t� '{ ��ti. .!' .� Y- 1'� .iy - ,r• �1 ILLi rl R ,. s1 1r.3-'.- .. p t r`t.. u�; -- � }.�-• _ �A � -�_v� - .tom'.- - f �f' �;- i. ..� :{�' ,5. � _ �2•:- _ -- ter...+• ny c • t ;'� �� y. .��"� ��-'� © �..-_.__.-^F-r,-^�--.�,�-��" � l��Q•sue` :�' G7.'�� t-��C� - Ji. info .�.••� -�, ,:�:7ii.l :: U3 Y L g:., v `•?' - ' ,j � �'"�'-- O ! •'"yx1/.i7A �� lrL]iL•) � � Vt:+1�J � �^ r+a ..1 li�:�1 U� �. .d �� -� p w 1 b SW VV o' '.�. ►�' V � G—'� 0 � ' j o Q � •11� � �� o lip - .� NUD (LUd v `!' •,-.�� y a x�_- - ._ 1 f t` .� � Q � 1 ��J'k d � 6 p .o r .1`, 1 a � o� p f`� � 0 D p b O O �lii ASS'E-R PLAN SCALE: 0 100, 200' June 6.2005 Carter::Burgess r 1 1'1oRttisoN �j .r Carter d Burgess Consultants. Inc Q;Q]M11ERLE.r.� itchefl • M. � •„ ,, F.cq ` Morrison-Maierle. Inc. - 17 ""' ' 'Development roup Tul 7:4•12:;!;It;- ti E f ax 7:4 .6 Gltf:' 90t Technology Bltiv. Mitchel! Development Grwtp •.':c�,, ? ` Bozeman,MT 517 ::1h Avt N 96 THE BOZEMAN GATEWAY e:,Cli P.O.Box 1113 71,t 4463 Fax 4('3lri:a,Cl ru ` • .�: i ��1:vOrtR Ch�rih:g SIfe�1 :31�'F;OC+ .'F Tl•. •\:,,;`' 1,'•�'' 8alimo .Maryiantl 2:201 '.1M�,•.ii Y�'"'�'.,�� Bowmen,MT 59771-1113 ` �•'�' Teo 410 727 6773 Fax 410 727.6783 •',;,t.,, Ta1:406.507.0721 Fax:406-587-1176 BOZEMAN MONTANA I. 7 n[:.il4 G€!L d�_�._sCC`�."=.:3.f'..lit R..;.�fiaseMtl • i nli t, p 1 r - � i �• ; � ,.;.�. .ihSt ► tre. ^� ��a't.-sir ? '��, 'wit.:: r�12-:.,,� + ..x. !� ` ,a�*,Iry-�2��.� ��•-• _ ".s'�"-�. I tv June 6,2005 A•Cb.,ert Ds,q nr•r rlaa��r r.... . .n..�• u•:v,•,r4„•,.nun, t CarternBurgess �1MpAORRIS01 l� MItCf ell Carter d Burgess Consultants, Inc. J1 MAJERLE.iv Development Group 1420 Viest Mockmgb,re Lane Sup -200 ••••,.... .,,....i..,,�..i .. , ... bauas.Texas 75247 Morrison.Materle,Inc ^ Tel 214 920 8100 Fax 2 14 688 0618 901 Technology Blov Mitchell Development Group 1315-tl1h Avo N Bozeman,tAT 591117 But North Charles 2120.91h Floor Bozeman, ,,,3 THE B OZE MAN GATEWAY Greal Falls LIT 594°' But me Mary lane ue,'. Bozeman•M3 59771-1113 let 4067614400 Fax 406 Te1.410.727.6773 Fax'410 727.6783 Tel:406.587.0721 Fax:406-587-1176 J:)2t104 C&IM d Burgess C..*Ms•Mc.AN RgMS R—.d BOZEMAN, MONTANA , 11p,Ar ®r . ®I®11►�'�111lIIWM,�►=411WL;9I1►tll®11®I/►='4�IlIMI11,�__�fl(®16 r■' � � — - - Kk oil, 4 frM. L A rd -A- • IF M 2111s; , M I • A June 6,2005 Do vcloncUowmcr A1CmjeCI1Desjqne,fPlanm,, Clvu E.9—e, CarterSurgess Aa MORRISON �Aitchell Carter a Burgess consultants, Inc. EEIMAIERLE.m. Development Group 1420 West rAock,ngbird Lane Su,te 800 Dallas.Texas 75247 Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Mitchell Development Group let:214.920.8100 Fax 214.688.0618 9 0' Technology 'ch n*I*gy Bldv. 13 5-8lhIAvc'4 N T II ri lFals. 759401 Bozeman. M 5 817 ea Tel-406.761.4400 F-406 761.4401 20:i North Charles Street.9ta Floor P.O-Box 1113 Ba more.IAaryland21201 Bozeman, MT 59771-1113 THE BOZEMAN GATEWAY Tel:410.727.6773 Fax:410.727.6783 Tel:406.587.0721 Fax:406-587-1176 B07-EMAN, MONTANA oc 2W4 Caner&Bwg=Cmt%gares.1=;W Rights Reserved 4. Are, -►A1y/� ��IIII1�1�i%F."%i~ lr ;.••ii2�rJ .Sr may' nw •�+��eTP• i�-. � tom' �` e..�rl� �.��. •��i' .t :Li Al�n' rva� �: A\\ ■4., •,,�_ � �—eras•.._) �Ir r.IL.♦ , �:�, .s.. � r ♦ . • ♦ all, =;�;�� ,r- ,�''F•. '�.��,2 ��'�" `are' ��. ,r:,'�. �'' , tq: 'ni;(•►,;:�1��i�►{'�- ! ° —� I __ •• ,•' ".,, _ ter• — l '',K1D�_'1'')i®f �G�.. '��.r vu!!6� '==:':-•_ _ _' I �"ut'► �1i'uI _ va 1*.� :��1 r lrr ul,arrrra _ }��.Syaw'��.�. —��.:�•_ �r �_�.i'1 � I'.�li„�V ,I_.a.rs) • 1 June 6,2005 i.rChrirtl Dt�s�9 npr PI'onnt•r C:+:'t nq:nr�r Carter burgess ��MORRISON Carter 8 Burgess Consultants, Inc �. MAIERLE.i�1 t/I Mitchell 14701Vesl laoctimAque Lanr Su:1e FDO - Development Group C',.h—.Texas 75247 Morrison.Malerle. Inc " Tel 214 92D E100 fax 21a 688 061� 901 Te chnoloyy Bldv Mitchell Development Group 1315-81h Ave N Bozeman,MT 59817 Greal Falls tAT 59401 201 North Charles Street.9lh Floor P.D.Bex„13 THE BOZE MAN GATEWAY Te140G'7Gi 4400 Tax 408701.n401 Bellmore,Maryland 21201 Bozeman,MT 59771-1113 Te1:410.727.6773 Fax'410.727,6783 Te1:406.587.0721 Fax:406-587-1176 BOZEMAN, MONTANA �ZOW Ca14r♦Bugua DW WCar/S,alC AR R�145 Re4erVCd �;k�x^�. --?vu�roPr A,;,:a,��Tr-rr�,+' � �•, ;�,`<'3 • f _`•� o �� -, � n, ` ,x� Ap `-!ir "•tt {1�.�-'�TM�j��Si{� ,.'fir-•1. �! \" a .� + n oc o o ••i., ',�„ �, ~ ��_ * , fit'• ` �'." ! •'�-- T} .+°'�'•. ��Ud, vry �, po_I/1�� Ip .�, c°� � (��t 1, `al"•>fe � �'�l - � �� i .'�1 �" �k•v�o v l o cam `•,•t`, + 1 .0— `V is f;p f� - 4'r' ;;�t}. '`.`q► '=i; ` t f RVNI o� �. B: •, .."9 � R o C ,`, ^7 >f�• ``rrh,}z+., -. �! 0 �I� lit Oti1.>tms�tl� f i'x �; n r:i'= n vi��'- , - �. ��./ "r` '`" f,�r' ,p`�`e�r.��'i,.�Q.r3��`x;;�. ^Y,•� �4t_rx � ,,t+ � ��y -,� :�,ti N o o m � � « -'� :_aa�= �►i ;;~.;��. �+�,��y` `''! i1•i�'��,1 b ga a dF�•• .�, iiu�$ ,`` �`Ys�s� �•; � N'--`p =" �� -�� ,� '�q� t,.. .rf ka'F.t'w1�<<�'+ '1 �� F, <k .I` � ,'i�iJa ..�,: i x,, o, ,T o ,� ,. w.,,��'�„ � �r p�Sy"S!{ 1 rti y"L�� >e�*�,ya •� i ��o' MVr•x `ham t _ ,.; rr C,!•, �.t' ," �-,L xt�` "'. _m �- -� '�`�� e J _ �i � •'li> i:y„ .es'....�4:� _� `•tg�.��t �5`v��,cy �.��, • • ,. .• i F_.I�I. ,Q II` '�i; "`� `J `��, .. �t:._ mod+ } may' (II(, r :y. " •�� JQ • x � ,y�� ,,,, �.A iNA��.*..J� �•�YA}�,,��,+,.Ly-^,�m''i Y�C'ti7,. ` � C 1 p y� 4. F}n •-y. ��11 F 1 A, F '=J\Z•� Ir r,.,I 11 �. I��®� R r./y,;T , .. } . /► ►1�r a'•�n '^a P' max, fie �t s + i A wt.•:i4 i } .r. ,1- ra-•ia;'� ,•,,-, fir' Y.J 'a, k + y� �' ul 31 NOT, O Y• as .+t• tit y P •. gyp} � '� ilie i t s ICImc =a, is ASK.,. �.•� f � at iiLAAl' •� � _ r . .11 IN mum"mjgj&k� . ?rr ��7 • �• •�@Q (� .` �• :�^ `+tea.,d: ♦y .F_,- � .: F.. Tt ZEMLL zap. �"- �'• ��' �• • � ' �:f�a� I• arim it W t r SDI Po 71.1 sm -d� \\c•�E ��jIR r 7 e,b 'a•v1 'S�• •I1 a t Y"j h y •f'� t 1 F ,' • i 'ti� �Yss t i' I�I ��;�fpp�11�� "��•y� , .{ ` J I;` '•.•i 11..'y� o �f4>...74.:�' c y r ; �. L.Y•e .,{ t•r.•,/ ` qy�v �.�_ _ I ��• �.`I. ;� `'+f,�,i' '•4i ��5�'r�� '1st`^•-'� ff3� /�'a�y •lvr `� .�`'� '� d �i;t ?y3a��s.,,a .;�' `� a�' y l ii°a. ` t l' �l _ �•r../fY� '�. _� ... _ y t' Brat r',{ ;^ `=�,`y,'�,�"l� �ii�•. � C ` 13,� », — •ut. �., eR 1 sJ ' n ,4; t�S ► ��rr i �'+• `• r sc r �rRt .,• N ' Nk •.n _ 3.... t , +'#i:,, ''- i L •�:�, 1 '� '•�l'y •{i, .;I,9.4 .'rN 1 - Ye F �'i�]r'aa<< ; 'di °t � •,,_(,''7��•_5=•,.i :,r.,�t`YS � .'3.: �. � ..A � � r �j � �+u .r:a { vi K �{ �. 5�:, t}1> �.• r = � ' ,�t fit,Fw: rt '� rt i:P. •yz 1,1� 1', pn FA- `"` L3 ..?;• - rf ..7 it n�� ::C• yr>t41 •!i f•_ •!' + / _ •}�i'c•.• � r ,s•"� .�r�'� `�` •` �'� '� �''4' aa~ � '"a'•�ai•�= �'F.�A .� [M R� tom:• E .� _+• ��'••�;� } 'j_ i` ..! s i� y t �fl" :k�� r``�f?f .• � 19' • �� I�+.� •,s 1fw+ , '1 ��"'l.. ;'-+r-.....,>. 04 ..�v .•S 2 :l I _ I�� 1<- ,. }��"�41, h pa.f.�`3f{'; /,..}.`y .,- '`r'' ® ,.,;' ,� b ,!■ �. ;� �� 4�0. tea .. �,• I . •► - �' '•`�« `+t, �! 1 " �'. r'LI— �, ;:ter y ti •;- •--- _ri �+�' � tom-. jV y 1.'y� 1:�,.'��` ..� � 1 •�" tom.,,, ,# -:�';� �. ['�►' � t'1� I s� __ � � r... _ T.-. ..fete : ,.` �\ tlt� .ri:�;� .�v'� —GJ• I,L} .Sn �i1 � ��y'" .�1.��[�__�_. •_4;y��14: ,{ 3. �� t'A� Y3 AIj♦ �y �y. _r IBM err ►,I to �'I, 'L• J1) �'' -,T:k� � -�-... Irfi' It 17. 4. Nt :,t V., a try _� - - ,f .•Lam` .� "'.i( 3 ;11: � e'� ► y.r ".l' it 4'�L`.nI'r� w Ef..-`�..-..J q�I•�i, ~ I �' �'�j t,r~yt^ iF,; ;r�+A 4 � ffiL WE 1�1 y f -�'rw �z� t c. a � z}il�'it 'I �:,��;��L�l�`TM��i� .♦ '� ',F, �!�rH� t ' �- Cat 14 -•'II .s n \_ � �' ! r•?-Tit .7� � �. • � �,:,:�;'�'.. '� �4 �," I r'p��f�:� •1 �� r — �e.�. �� ill � '.,,t •• �' �. � 1 q � 0 ro)' —` i r�;j�lkr.,�f:�� .. `• -� ." - •�\ •mod `�'� a,i,',. ��,_- •fib`•'•-� �I; �I f�\�' i �"1��. ��.,ay., �i F ;,:;•, ,;rye �:s? ,. r: I e u F 1 1 .A�j 7„ / 1 • j•T t I s �� Y� i 4A,, its "• . �` �` . Its ti*�a IL— Jv- � � 1 �� i '�^ �. _ .��,�.. .4,� � ��i • � � .�i� �� yam: ' , v L ..t w i 'x - `�u�. �:lf+?�'^"u'y- ,tsv;.r��;yq�j-#.,�_ _rc;�- ,--r+� .1!=- .._ _=.""3,!�. ¢z c:�;�->L4� .l,•:�- ,u- - �Y't J.:" •��•- 'G>e,• i�'�. a �_C. tt,. M19. __ . 4 =��uv •i Y. =-..�.....•. a_. .. - '.:b. `-t.,?:- .`fr ., .,.. _ .+ ... ._ � - ..4 r �:, w"�-`PF - •^!y' 14, -a,m�':+7 F'f'u.. -;di' .F� ..r: FS.';*�7:;tw. PRIOR- .h .�w t! �'_�,�� - t't.%•''.. - � l:, ems. .+ t),. - ��% - i„ ..,rt,. 'fL!SP x -0,i ,{,ty, - a•5-- +T" .w, sT'i - F.� -•r :�•-,. X-.r �e•.v..�� T� 1 ��.' 'c ':ay ;r. �.�i :t,^-.isK.�??s'__�"'�, ss `�:s.�'=tt';w:•�'^- _ ,� 1.,,- F. , `h. - -.�1. ,iA ..%1:.,. .t::sl8 "",��.- `7..-!•�< .�4:4"`:os�_ `�`� ._^v_,...:f. E.i..`,�,i;,",4 -:+�'' .. .�.Vi;: {p.. . ,x '$`.' �i+ ,,.Ya•- rr.., �.'w ��by.•,'•ur�,k,., •.,�•n�•-'�'= {:r"�t•-N;.�•' •'�; .n .:.- - ';�F <p. __ `. v1a, -1?c - L 's, � _ 'k.' ..-r'`' :•i.- ':.3' 1..: ,s,.. �5:',c orr` ' .:-:.z:5:-. '-+•,"��{ �- "I1:Y!"iFs+f"E?f- +ti% :.y �'x ..ter. -k- - •'' •G-i':`wi<<, _ ..,�,,-. ..s„�,.-:c., c"'rn-�g-... S, ) ,t, ,� w.'�.�"'�C .'-�_s.... .nv�r -t5,a%=,i�._..;: •r=s'-x .-,.f.:}i�. ., -:•�r'. .v- S -•ivF'P'.^ �._ ��yy^9! lY.$ j��q�:.., t:6�.�. _,fY[fi�u"i' y.�1 L3`t."�j': - ,�.Mr„"�!<? - :,Z ��. _ v f:. 'N2' �Y:-.... k „Y•�'ti;..:..:"Y`�'tii'.'7:F Y+,Y„-.'.✓ _. r,a!' { ';'( � :,,fir- ::1£'�ssL•�.c�• �;n:-• arm. •�'.5�;-'%:'_y �'y' ,. )>z, *_ e_ $}. ': •k.+v.<tr.r.-o'f �."-.. R+3..:=:s�+i ':;y i:: •s - - - ,c - :�� r�•y' ,c-.__vfi., ac.� --_-�.,:.-T_n4€ „�` rs�,y"<:��• _.t - � �;;tc r�'•+°a?' . ,>j, ,;.,,= -. •r r $i'=�• .e c_.4«s�=•:_t;°-i°?�' ,,•e,�, .....d':',�Frs -r-�:.'?= r.l�. -},, r.�..skr•..:,2 c;t., c- A' +.{" ?4;-' - �,I' •^ T, ,,. ..s'@ i'.:. - ,i1,FL r^..h.,rc:.4�J y r:!.,.,1. _.II" u.S�',< s,•rrt`- .i`£'r _ 1 - � .c :m"i�, �'x..z._ F+x.- - } .j'�'r?,. :� .ram._, _.. k_:; ,,,,, r., '1..:t"•.,�:, ?�:;.'-:� - S�' . • :,-�'��..T',:':::e3F.�._-�... - 'Y� ., �,. 'S:� _: ti! :fib•_.. �..t.v_ _ ,Y• :y.;,'.. y..i..,J .J.�es�. "• •ye� _rs•�•.; s- _i�_,_`J� i l�T:. 4,- a:•.y'i -+K.._. -•t�.�'_�.: brssc-L:sr.��.ce�":. ",-c'-s:.. 1:...m- .. 'l � _ ,! • -- a-F,�a.";• -,' 4-: a s�j.-yu,�c .,�C'{..h,,,y�. -_.... :r',i^'.�r+1`cl' t- .v.; `" } ..uv.�[',.�.�.<+ry .,t'• _ .S" ,.-}a?.:3,�- .,��,.�HiaK%��Y�' •i�1.� :i�Yf„ryl,-L4.,i'it-"l`j;"'� i!�h -� •1;•Y .Si.,�>' _y$3'�'•• ,�.. ...f_ .��_a.,: - ,,Y n „1,:at+' '`�`�•t�W-'�- •l�z'- 'k'k ., .'4�` !','�t't�'-c: f..,r.�. - r :;m :1f�., e s 1 :.1.�, d'�- �yc��-,'w ,,,_ ,yvi t�d4 a c: t•. r r, �� }� '`�f .a, 'sr..,� :7`��"^? sr 3r_ �,y -.x> � N .� ?' z; u•, _ x y,.� ?tg � -y^' •.� S'tx_> •fr""..R�r+?: +, -r'sl�� ..,`,^ �< ! ¢•.?'�Jif.•.�..+�+,..a.�." � ( .r .e.,h,lt ,Y••� .f.�� q,. •iis� , ��. 'r �r,;`}_�e,�„�.1ss'�.. <��'r i _ y,. ,U .k• _ L a! .''7•''.}n i^- -'Y, 3.Z:S rH , , tX��. _ .y�t;,kr�'y,}i'h s -. j1,,» ;�a xr + :-r s. -.s 4 ;•,�; .d ,�"' ci': „h. �• '��' �� "."r�, t� , 4tf'•1S'• •,�} t��Y i�-�"'''jam 1t.. l 1 � .', �� ...S•: •T,y`3: • -r -i''�*� �1s?}. az:� i t: ..:t. .rs'i��.`:;-,:.tip .r 1. _ -��'k`` �� r` �t' y S. . r - _ _ 4y�P�..� .. .✓ .fir . _ - r>. +.�r.,xj��rl,� > v '•.•R .. ... _ _. _ - _.,.. _ -� '. i r � t -a•�"r.a`�i`i-. -`°�Y . ' �:ez+rsrac�stsrtr.-se.m:•== .. �>�a'. - -.ve?- , R S. Fx�1� r ,� �✓�`r,!: ` ��t. 7 �� .`' '�•�� -A_. '� '� .n'",.zv'•;�•.�.2w` �i �rx, �5 x r!1 V'�"'�33 �„Y 1 s: ' ��x ��- -..�. .-::. ,(To- >. .. 1'",. .. .Z ro''a'�- sal ,.csr•-- . ! _ 4 a��ck.,,s � ,a: 'r•y%' ,., �,-,.+'l�t t Fa't - •s�• 1 ..> iry,9• t � �,� � -.��.- ''t-. ,d ' A�,rt 'dr +.",F'' s - .�' r�} �...°r. _K'ien: � :.+i' es•- �v�- �` ">I > -�� :.-bra: � �...-t0��`�F�An _ - x:, ��r,::i Sn,.y, .:�,,,y'd'�'4.. :t, � �.' r+.X+,[s s"y:ssj:. .� y... d"^�t. r, a ...•,,,., 'i •,.,Y.--. „x+ -'� �� t.F (,�::;� -'� "'�.4[t.L' -art r�_3( .�F ,:.;gas";. �,:jd�•'' �:,�. 7`y.-.a�.,:..,. ,,.,-idi - ��% _ ��•:�.::,.,.:=. J.k= ;.„,,`i - ^� (rr .� ;is ..`,: "':t.Xa- - _ .,a;'y:7� ..�. - _:;q,.,�` 1r/ _ «-:u�`"''`""�� •.�^.'a'�'.i-?',"ti+.,r3�. t^ Y- i�:�d,.t'r�' � � 't 'i:`.' �. }� ��..., y,a�..t„c. _'�•Y_ -i•' ,t s 2 fir,-!" - 'r-':.,t:` ;:�;`._ n "6',�}','. - -eA�� xw.Y.t•� 4•}}°,%2.:•,F'/1.+•w-' c K✓'?•v.. „�"' *c_ .a. - c°:s:. -1J' [,�� 9.,s',�{' j�i^'`��T tom'-,.: 4� - .��- ,`�:iv�•• .�p.,,.;r.- iH°:;fur �_� :!•:.��' -:�-•- ,'•�,'.�-.• �••,ire l�. ��,' ••�._. y. I".� -r,,�s. '� f `.,f. •` p -,: .s � �{�r..:Lt,,,., ae:.e-re- ,nz r' � ..a - :r.-�N,''�.-'•,s., er=Y'' -.•a;(y'?B 'JT�ai'•,J i t; [+" _ ��I';' `!:a''#�.�,-�� - •�'•�,:: ".,�.k-:-.?yr r`� n.�-- •�a, •� �- r.Y. - - � U-M `` �f•.. " �• - _ i�>Q -;,i'�r,'.i' �`y'?,v� -X�` 7'fi- r-"7+,i1� F.R;irt?°,•, ��' i .vco --•T,. 3J' t�• i ,�- — �t u l:, } 4 i' v ,,�. rz� �`t.,�: rti i v>� , , �', i.: `Bf .{�Ji r�" r: a��1; t^� t i �� :• ., Z- Y' - � n,•> . ,�` :�� `€'` -- l+' sJ:�4'�10.>��.:nr+�`�a�J;d>3 - ny,� -=.z:�'.'-S'`. ._�"•au... �� , a r k.. Y r _ -f ,�u�� ,. '— ' F�� i. .H•' r r,,. 1 d �� .�^!, f�7r,4{R q �� ' _��. 1 _ � ..N•,:L.. r�� ,., t,' `:Jy .qs.7��e+t+>' ;+�.: ;..�.'� ,S-.: .crr•-_ r'f"yy:n � ( !!.• �V '"w„�.''•Rr?°. -- -sr - f �.s: r,' Y �.y;-i• r ;>, -'�• .-. -i�C.,.:c,j' l.sa. +s•��t �: N' `IU �`'- j,. '°-?-+a+ �•iy- ,.i.;YT ;y, •y"1••:, ,1+�•` �iY:. � dh _ f r 4' Tn•� t �t t._`E„ €-�:1i-r. J A•,'9 "SS i r .ti- _ _ ', :•A: '.:'.�,"� gJ <, 1'3t•7 -.=.f,':., 'k'"`'', ;, _ p `d- x .i. ?-rk �� 3',r-,�{,t{ 3 `•r,ki-�' _ "a,_`+-,: '" `• ,Ef$z� ^� �7. .•�( ..ems-r-. '.Y�y �av .r�F,-�ril ?L; „c,i_1, � ac } -• 4 �,cfc.-,�.y ... -.,+~?Sx•s�•� (�,V - - i :"'e+ •ei- - �.;;' � X-.,,,,x, a,�; ty['.'`. Ala- - � �.� '� ;.r, ^,��. L'—� :Y �.4 rt, .s...�,a''t«"..4 r,> +.:: s ,,:. c' - .:�+. _J awz;"`-vim• -•G� r .yt``t .-' s^ '-,� :X�__ «S lit P`""� y�c•� r1�r,; y "r .^k't^,r�,r�r- t.y.;ss3 - �y,. _. m � �� v� >.,{'f.•,.,. )�yt - ,•„�'' - mac•-ti_....v w] �`.-.,-i,<;,, s .� p _ �'"'�_ .t�-,-,_.,�, se �,�a• t: y ! 4 ^�i � }x'. � `?,°'i,t° �lti� ,,;.=� '� I',,'>-.�s•. }� #'- .k•- ••�t, ..�_�i.tk'Ski <• ' �� t a er.wa _`� .sic^ xr? t�„ e..PY- {. K'`'x y�,Ko 1.' }-r;:..:,,._ k3,,...n•,,, •�,��,._. . Q a r h >-`,+ti T*p1:�k "' V�?z:�,?� �Frr� 3w 't_'•-i \4�. �;�J�aCk.•-:,...-,..y a-1',.,�''a`n:,s,. - _- '� �":"- 'k� - - - �� _ c. '`'` 'flr {c-�S;�aY.3•. �s+"-rsL- �`ri-! ",. .1 ft >.- o �� v� .� � ..._irv-.... - 7 r k'N��. '7�� F�h,Sa,y �r M r ,_r sue}9t��,1'�lsr��j�k"`'',�',tY�-;s,:l'.";� 1 k�;. .�. .c:;411b i- � µ,••me•,�,�,., '1 ,_F a�'�tt,� .i `j. _'t��a tyF ��G ��' i-- a y-�� '..s.�s�',1r�ih:.r,�,s}X�.,,��,�,� „�j. ?1�.,�'S^ �- _.?LL'•},IY "'2w. 4 '+�,ri •�,x`,,yT:s n=.`t-i�$,'�*'a.-s� _�,C�J4'�',�'��F`�'" �{4� ��+..-,,. }�„'�t, � b, � sc�'3a�.�� ' .-;�P''- -+" - - � ....,,5�.. -".-°5;_._ : ,-.. , z -,+•�1-c w'ar�.?�'�`.r':ti`.+x?�' F� � r..� >^ .� , - .Ss.t�,rn',�� :..- _ 1.� �• p 1 l 1 •' :1 1 1 I 1 h AGENDA • DESIGN REVIEW BOARD UPSTAIRS CONFERENCE ROOM, ALFRED STIFF PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, 20 EAST OLIVE STREET WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2005 3:30 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE ITEM 2. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2005 ITEM 3. DISCUSSION ITEM A. * Planning Staff liaison to the DRB—Jami Morris. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW A. Bozeman-G—ateway-PUD Prel=Plan#Z=052L7_(Skelton/Mur--ray). _ —. Southwest of the intersection of College Street and Huffine Lane * A Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan Application to allow a 72.2 acre, mixed-use development with BP (Business Park District) and B-2 (Community Business District) zoning designations. (First of a two week review.) ITEM 5. PUBLIC COMMENT—(15 —20 minutes) (Limited to any public matter,within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board,not on this agenda. Three-minute.time limit per speaker.} ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance,please contact ADA Coordinator,Ron Brey,at 582-2306(voice)or 582-2301 (TDD). CIT*F BOZEMAN • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260 �! 20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263 P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozeman.net REVISED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR A MAJOR SUBDIVISION AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT A Preliminary Plat application has been submitted for a Major Subdivision and a Conditional Use Permit application has been submitted for a Planned Unit Development that would approve a unified development plan for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.pursuant to Chapters 18.04 and 18.36 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance on propertylocated on property situated south of Huffine 191/West Main Street, east of South Fowler Avenue and north of West Garfield Street. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider said applications as requested by the property owner Mitchell Development Group,Inc., P.O. Box 738, Great Falls,MT 59403, represented by Morrison-Maierle,Inc.,P.O. Box 1113, Bozeman, MT 59771. The proposed Preliminary Plat application would allow the subdivision of 72.22 acres into 60 commercial lots for development as commercial,retail services,and professional offices. The property owner has further requested a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development that would allow development of a Master Plan under an approved Development Manual for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision Planned Unit Development and to allow relaxations to the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance from Section 18.20.030.B "Lot Coverage and Floor Area," to eliminate the 60 percent restriction on impervious surfaces and allow for development of the entire site, exclusive of required yard setbacks; Section 18.36.060.B "Duration of Final Plan Approval" to undertake and complete the development in ten years; Section 18.42.040.B "Block Length" to allow the block lengths to exceed 400 feet;Section 18.42.040.0"Block Width" to allow the block widths to be more than 400 feet; Section 18.42.100.B.3.c - "Setbacks" to encroach into the 50-foot minimum setback required along watercourses; Section 18.42.100.B.4.b - "Watercourse Setback" to allow the required watercourse setback to not include adjacent wetlands; Section 18.44.030.A.1 "Intersections" to allow streets to intersect at angles less than 90 degrees; Section 18.44.090.D.3 "Spacing Standards for Drive Access" to allow the average spacing of intersections on Fowler Avenue to be reduced from 660 feet to 420 feet;Section 18.42.150.D.1"Parking Lot Lighting"to allow horizontal illuminnace to be less than 0.1 foot-candles as required by the U.D.O.;Section 18.42.150.F"Lighting Specifications"to allow light fixtures and standards that do not comply the U.D.O. (i.e., direct light and glare down and away from adjoining streets and properties; Section 18.44.030.A.1 "Intersections" to relax the streets to intersection at angles less than 90 degrees (City Engineer decision); Section 18.44.080 "Sidewalks" to allow soft trails in place of concrete boulevard sidewalks along streets fronting open space/pedestrian corridors;Section 18.44.090 "Access" to relax the average spacing requirements for public streets (City Engineer decision); Section 18.44.090.B.2 "Drive Access from Public Streets" to exclude the requirement of all subdivision lots having 25 feet of frontage on all improved public or private street,or improved alley; Section !8.46.020.D "Backing into Public Rights-of-Way" to allow diagonal parking along Technology Boulevard and Chronicle Lane;Section 18.18.020"Building Height" to increase the allowable building height in the "B-2 district from 44 feet to 146 feet; Section 18.18.050 "Yards" to encroach into the yard setbacks with off-street parking in the "B-2" District; Section 18.20.060" "Building Height" to increase the allowable building height in the "BP" district from 44 feet to 146 feet; Section 18.20.050 "Yards" to encroach into the yard setbacks with off-street parking in the "BP" District; Section 18.42.030.1 "Frontage" to not have access for all subdivision lots from an improved pubic street, approved private street or alley,Section 18.18.040"Lot Area and Width" -to allow newly created lots zoned"B-2" with a minimum lot width less than 100 feet;and Section 18.20.030"Lot Area and Width"-to allow newly created lots zoned "BP"with a minimum lot width less than 150 feet. The subject property is legally described as Tract 2A of the Amended Plat of West College Minor Subdivision No. 195A,and situated in the NW'/4 of Section 14 and the NE '/4 of Section 15,T2S,R5E,P.M.M.,City of Bozeman,Gallatin County, Montana. The zoning designation for said property is "BP" (Business Park District) and "B-2" (Community Business District). planning • zoning • subdivision review 9 annexation • historic preservation . housing • grant administration • neighborhood coordination PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION Tuesday, November 15, 2005 Monday, December 5, 2005 7:00 pm 7:00 pm Commission Room Community Room City Hall Gallatin County Courthouse 411 East Main Street 311 West Main Street Bozeman, Montana Bozeman, Montana The City invites the public to comment in writing and to attend the public hearing.Written comments may be directed to the City of Bozeman, Department of Planning and Community Development, P. O. Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771-1230. Maps and related data regarding this application may be reviewed in the City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development, Alfred Ni Stiff Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street, 582-2260. For those who require accommodations for disabilities, please contact Ron Brey, City of Bozeman ADA Coordinator, 582-2306 (voice), 582-2301 (TDD). Bozeman Gateway MaSub Preliminary Plat#P-05049 and Bozeman Gateway PUD Preliminary Plan#Z-05217 SUBMITTED THURSDAY, 11/03/05 FOR TWO SUNDAYS,11/6/05 AND 11/13/05 DISPLAY AD PUBLICATION. PLEASE PRINT WITH NORTH ARROW UP, BOLD WHERE INDICATED, AND SEND AFFIDAVIT TO BOZEMAN DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING&COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. -j R�3 I2`3 — y' % 3 a` .PLI. A: N- B-2 TBp— n4l. . i a HUF,FINE CbL'EGE 1. Subject BP Froze R PLI NO Page 2 CITY& BOZEMAN DEPA MENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260 20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263 " P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozeman.net REVISED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR A MAJOR SUBDIVISION AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT A Preliminary Plat application has been submitted for a Major Subdivision and a Conditional Use Permit application has been submitted for a Planned Unit Development that would approve a unified development plan for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.pursuant to Chapters 18.04 and 18.36 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance on property located south of Huffine 191/West Main Street,east of South Fowler Avenue and north of West Garfield Street. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider said applications as requested by the property owner Mitchell Development Group, Inc., P.O. Box 738, Great Falls,MT 59403, represented by Morrison-Maierle, Inc., P.O. Box 1113, Bozeman, MT 59771. The proposed Preliminary Plat application would allow the subdivision of 72.22 acres into 60 commercial lots for development as commercial,retail services,and professional offices. The property owner has further requested a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development that would allow development of a Master Plan under an approved Development Manual for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision Planned Unit Development and to allow relaxations to the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance from Section 18.20.030.B "Lot Coverage and Floor Area," to eliminate the 60 percent restriction on impervious surfaces and allow for development of the entire site, exclusive of required yard setbacks; Section 18.36.060.B "Duration of Final Plan Approval" to undertake and complete the development in ten years; Section 18.42.040.B "Block Length" to allow the block lengths to exceed 400 feet;Section 18.42.040.0`Block Width" to allow the block widths to be more than 400 feet; Section 18.42.100.B.3.c - "Setbacks" to encroach into the 50-foot minimum setback required along watercourses; Section 18.42.100.B.4.b - "Watercourse Setback" to allow the required watercourse setback to not include adjacent wetlands; Section 18.44.030.A.1 "Intersections" to allow streets to intersect at angles less than 90 degrees; Section 18.44.090.D.3 "Spacing Standards for Drive Access" to allow the average spacing of intersections on Fowler Avenue to be reduced from 660 feet to 420 feet;Section 18.42.150.D.1"Parking Lot Lighting" to allow horizontal illuminnace to be less than 0.1 foot-candles as required by the U.D.O.;Section 18.42.150.F"Lighting Specifications"to allow light fixtures and standards that do not comply the U.D.O. (i.e., direct light and glare down and away from adjoining streets and properties;Section 18.44.030.A.1 "Intersections" to relax the streets to intersection at angles less than 90 degrees (City Engineer decision); Section 18.44.080 "Sidewalks" to allow soft trails in place of concrete boulevard sidewalks along streets fronting open space/pedestrian corridors;Section 18.44.090"Access" to relax the average spacing requirements for public streets (City Engineer decision); Section 18.44.090.B.2 "Drive Access from Public Streets" to exclude the requirement of all subdivision lots having 25 feet of frontage on all improved public or private street,or improved alley; Section 18.46.020.D "Backing into Public Rights-of-Way" to allow diagonal parking along Technology Boulevard and Chronicle Lane;Section 18.18.020 `Building Height" to increase the allowable building height in the "B-2 district from 44 feet to 146 feet; Section 18.18.050 "Yards" to encroach into the yard setbacks with off-street parking in the "B-2" District; Section 18.20.060" `Building Height" to increase the allowable building height in the "BP" district from 44 feet to 146 feet; Section 18.20.050 "Yards" to encroach into the yard setbacks with off-street parking in the "BP" District; Section 18.42.030.I "Frontage" to not have access for all subdivision lots from an improved pubic street, approved private street or alley;Section 18.18.040"Lot Area and Width" -to allow newly created lots zoned"B-2"with a minimum lot width less than 100 feet;and Section 18.20.030"Lot Area and Width" -to allow newly created lots zoned "BP" with a minimum lot width less than 150 feet. The subject property is legally described as Tract 2A of the Amended Plat of West College Minor Subdivision No. 195A,and situated in the NW'/4 of Section 14 and the NE 1/4 of Section 15,T2S,R5E,P.M.M.,City of Bozeman,Gallatin County, Montana. The zoning designation for said propertyy is "BP" (Business Park District) and "B-2" (Community Business District). planning • zoning • subdivision review . annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration • neighborhood coordination PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION Tuesday, November 15, 2005 Monday, December 5, 2005 7:00 pm 7:00 pm Commission Room Community Room City Hall Gallatin County Courthouse 411 East Main Street 311 West Main Street Bozeman, Montana Bozeman, Montana The City invites the public to comment in writing and to attend the public hearing. Written comments may be directed to the City of Bozeman, Department of Planning and Community Development, P. O. Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771-1230. Maps and related data regarding this application may be reviewed in the Ciry of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development, Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street, 582-2260. For those who require accommodations for disabilities, please contact Ron Brey, City of Bozeman ADA Coordinator, 582-2306 (voice), 582-2301 (TDD). Bozeman Gateway MaSub Preliminary Plat#P-05049 and Bozeman Gateway PUD Preliminary Plan#Z-05217 r . ,n SUBMITTED THURSDAY, 11/03/05 FOR TWO SUNDAYS, 11/6/05 AND 11/13/05 DISPLAY AD PUBLICATION. PLEASE PRINT WITH NORTH ARROW UP, BOLD WHERE INDICATED, AND SEND AFFIDAVIT TO BOZEMAN DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING&COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. ELI y.iL':l:lL�l_I1:1LL M�'Ihi'1 F � z . l �-N HUFFWE 'lCOL'L'EGE.�.»I 17 i PLII Page 2 AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW BOARD UPSTAIRS CONFERENCE ROOM, ALFRED STIFF PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, 20 EAST OLIVE STREET WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2005 3:30 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE ITEM 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12, 2005 ITEM 3. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 2005 ITEM 4. DISCUSSION ITEM A. * Planning Staff liaison to the DRB—Jami Morris. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW A. Bozeman Gateway PUD Prel. Plan #Z-05217 (Skelton) ` Southwest of the intersection of College Street and Huffine Lane * A Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan Application to allow a 72.2 acre, mixed-use development with BP (Business Park District) and B-2 (Community Business District) zoning designations. Third of a three week review.) B. Northside PUD Prel. Plan #Z-05253 (Kozub) 1237 North Rouse Avenue * A Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan Application with relaxations to allow the adaptive reuse of the existing structures, the development of a new structure, and related site improvements on property zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing District). C. Cardinal Distributing SP/COA#Z-05232 (Groth) 1750 Evergreen Drive * A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a 42,857 square foot addition to a 41,000 square foot existing warehouse structure and related site improvements. ITEM 6. PUBLIC COMMENT—(15 —20 minutes) {Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance,please contact ADA Coordinator,Ron Brey,at 582-2306(voice)or 582-2301 (TDD). . r ENGINEERS ® MORMSON SCIENTISTS SURVEYORS �®iMMEIIE,INC. PLANNERS 9011ECHNOLOGYBLVD. BOZEMAN,MT 59715 406-667-0721 FAX 406-567-1176 An Employee-Owned Company November 8, 2005 Dave Skelton, Sr. Planner D V City of Bozeman NOV 0 9 2005 Department of Planning and Community Development P.O. Box 1230 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision Planned Unit Development MMI#3638.003 The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision Planned Unit Development P.U.D. Preliminary Plan Review Response to Design Review Board Staff Report The Applicant has reviewed the Design Review Board Staff Report for this project and is providing the following questions/comments for review at the regularly scheduled Design Review Board meeting to be held on Wednesday, November 9, 2005. The topics identified on the staff report are identified in bold text followed by the Applicants response. Project Description: Applicant agrees. Proposal: Applicant agrees. Chapter 18.36—Planned Unit Development Applicant agrees. Relaxations to the Unified Relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance: All relaxations have been properly noticed. ZoningDesi�ation and Land Uses Land Uses The Applicant suggests adding the following to this section: Page 1 of 8 "Providing resources in partnership with clients to achieve their goals" T • • M M ® 0 SON ®® MAIERLE,INC. The City of Bozeman 2020 Community Plan Future Land Use AnCmployee-OnmedCompwy Map designates the Bozeman Gateway area for Community Commercial development. Appendix G identifies the B-2 zoning district as appropriate within the Community Commercial Land Use Designation. According to the UDO, "The intent of the B-2 community business district is to provide for a broad range of mutually supportive retail and service functions located in clustered areas bordered on one or more sides by limited access streets." The plan identifies a "broad range of functions including retail, education, professional and personal services, offices, residences, and general service activities" as being typical uses within this designation. These uses are typical of the B-2 zoning district. The Applicant feels that the site should be developed in a nature that is consistent with the underlying community commercial land use designation. These uses and the nature of the development are consistent with the B-2 zoning district. During a meeting with Andy Epple, Dave Skelton and Chris Saunders on October 26, 2005, staff suggested, so as to be compatible with the 2020 Community Plan, that the Applicant file for a zone change for the subdivision that is currently zoned BP. Applicant has done so on November 1, 2005. Adopted Growth Policy Designation The Applicant suggests adding the following to this section: The Bozeman 2020 Community Plan does not designate any of the site for "Business Park" land use. The land use designation for the entire site is community commercial. The City of Bozeman 2020 Community Plan designates the community commercial land use designation as being appropriate for development consistent with the proposed B-2 zone. By developing the property in accordance with City of Bozeman 2020 Community Plan and UDO, the appropriate use of land, on this site, will be encouraged and appropriate for the municipality as a whole. The Applicant feels that the site should be developed in a nature that is consistent with the underlying community commercial land use designation. These uses and the nature of the development are consistent with the B-2 zoning district. As mentioned above, City staff recommended and fully supports that Applicant files for a zone change for the BP portion of the subdivision in order to comply with the City of Bozeman's 2020 Community Plan. Applicant has adhered to said City staffs suggestion and filed for zone change on 1111105 —which should clear-up a number of issues concerning this subdivision. Review Criteria Applicant agrees. Design Obiectives Plan 1. Neighborhood Design Page 2 of 8 "Providing resources in partnership with clients to achieve their goals" � M® ORRISON ®® MMRLE,INC. An Employee-Owned Company The Applicant suggests adding the following: A. Green Space - The requested relaxation to Section 18.20.030.B is supported by the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. The underlying land use designation identified by the plan is community commercial which encourages development consistent with the B-2 district. The Bozeman 2020 Plan does not designate a business park land use for any of the site. The Bozeman 2020 Community Plan does support the request for development consistent with B-2 zoning. As mentioned above, the Applicant has made application for a zone change to change the existing B-P zoning to B-2. Staff has indicated complete support for this modification. B. Auto Connections—Applicant agrees. C. Pedestrian &Bicycle Connections—Applicant agrees. D. Street Character—Applicant agrees. 2. Site Design The Applicant suggests adding or modifying as follows: A. Natural Features— The Applicant is proposing the open space corridors as illustrated on the site plan and preliminary plat to protect existing watercourses. These corridors have been reviewed and enthusiastically supported by the Wetland Review Board. Please reference the WRB comments and recommendations from Mr. LeCains's email to Dave Skelton on October 17, 2005. These areas will need to be landscaped to emphasize effective landscape features as discussed previously. B. Views—The Applicant is willing to revise the relaxation to limit buildings to a maximum height matching the highest building in the downtown area either presently or in the future. C. Cultural Resources—The cultural resource inventory is included with the submittal materials. D. Topography—Applicant agrees. E. Site Drainage—The Applicant proposed to complete the final landscape plan providing details for open space areas prior to submitting for final plat approval. Landscape plans for individual sites or lots will be submitted as part of the site plan review process. F. Building Placement—Applicant agrees. G. Outdoor Public Spaces—Conceptual details of the plaza areas can be provided with the final landscape plan. H. Pedestrian &Bicycle Circulation Systems—Applicant agrees. I. Internal Automobile Circulations Systems—Applicant agrees. J. Parking Lots—Applicant agrees. K. Site Lighting—The Applicant agrees if this paragraph can be supported by City Code. Page 3 of 8 "Providing resources in partnership with clients to achieve their goals" � M® ORRISON ®® MMRLE,INC. An Employee-Owned Compmy L. Utilities & Service Areas—The Applicant is currently preparing renderings and elevations illustrating these areas for review by the DRB, Planning Board, and City Commission. These details will be added to the Development Manual as part of the Final PUD Plan. M. Landscape Design—The Development Manual to be submitted with the Final PUD Plan will include illustrations of the West Main Street entryway corridor and Fowler Avenue corridor. The Applicant believes that adequate detail has been provided for all other areas to illustrate the landscaping concept for the entire site. A detailed landscape plan including final details for each area, landscape species and quantity to be installed will be submitted for each phase of the project prior to submitting for final plat approval. N. Buffers—Applicant Agrees. 3. Building Design The Applicant suggests adding or modifying as follows: A. Building &Topography—Applicant agrees. B. Building Character—The Building Design Standards in the Development Manual address this issue and provides numerous architectural artist renderings to help explain and illustrate the theme and quality the Applicant will require. The Gateway Review Board has been established to review the development guidelines. The Applicant believes the material provided is sufficient for the design process. C. Primary Building Entrance—Drawings illustrating the streetscape along Fowler Avenue, the back of the Lifestyle Center, and the Fowler Avenue/West Main St. intersection are currently being prepared by the Applicant for review by the DRB, Planning Board, and City Commission. They will be added to the Development Manual for the Final PUD to meet the intent of this section. D. Street Level Interest - Drawings illustrating the streetscape along Fowler Avenue, the back of the Lifestyle Center, and the Fowler Avenue/West Main St. intersection are currently being prepared by the Applicant for review by the DRB, Planning Board, and City Commission. They will be added to the Development Manual for the Final PUD to meet the intent of this section. E. Building Mass & Scale—Building Mass & Scale are covered in the Development Manual under Section IV. "Building Design Standards". The Applicant believes that these standards adequately describe and establish a human scale along the fagade and meet the requirements of the Design Objectives Plan. The Applicant agrees to add the referenced guidelines to the Development Manual that are consistent with the City of Bozeman Design Guidelines. The Applicant does not believe there are illustrations relating to these issues that need modification. F. Roof Form—This item is covered adequately in the Development Manual. G. Building Materials—The Development Manual states that Stucco/EIFS are approved exterior fagade materials in limited areas less than 25% of the front fagade and 65%on all other facades. This requirement is consistent with the Page 4 of 8 "Providing resources in partnership with clients to achieve their goals" RRIM N ® 0 SO EWA MMRLE,INC. An Employee-Owned Compwy Design Objectives Plan and therefore should be acceptable. The Applicant does not agree to limit the use of these materials to 25%of any building fagade. H. Building Complex—Applicant agrees. I. Service Canopies - There may be service canopies incorporated into the site, specifically for the bank drive-thru. They will, however, comply with the Design Objectives Plan and City of Bozeman Design Guidelines. J. Color—Applicant objects to the reference in this section of the staff report that "muted colors and earth tones will be used"—unless staff can support this mandate in City ordinances. Colors will be in accordance with the Development Manual as stated so as not to limit the creative variation of buildings within the development. K. Utilities & Mechanical Equipment—Applicant agrees. 4. Sign Design A. Sign Context &Position—Which two sign illustrations do no comply with the sign Ordinance? The Applicant agrees that the signage plan needs to comply with the sign ordinance in the Final PUD Plan and will make the necessary adjustments. A graphic component will be added to the master sign plan for the development. Signs for individual sites and tenets, however, will need to be reviewed with individual site plans as they are submitted. B. Sign Type—Applicant agrees. C. Sign Materials—Applicant agrees. D. Sign Lighting—Illuminated signs will follow the design guidelines in the Design Objectives Plan and other city code provisions. The Applicant objects to the reference in this section of the staff report prohibiting "light color background on internally illuminated signs"—unless there is a City ordinance in place for such criteria. E. Sign Content—Applicant agrees. F. Wall Murals—Applicant agrees. 5. Corridor Specific Guidelines: C. West Main Street Entryway Corridor 1. Applicant agrees. 2. Applicant agrees. 3. Applicant agrees. 4. Applicant agrees. 5. Applicant agrees. Considerations Page 5 of 8 "Providing resources in partnership with clients to achieve their goals" ® � M RRI N 0 SO 5I5 MMRLE,INC. An Employee-Owned Compmry The Applicant suggests adding to or modifying as follows: 1. Applicant agrees. 2. Applicant agrees. 3. Subject to the site plan and materials provided in this Application, all buildings will be finished on all four sides so as not to allow a perception of a"Back Side" of a structure. 4. Applicant agrees. 5. Architectural renderings of the Fowler Avenue and the West Main/Fowler Avenue intersections will be presented for review by the DRB, Planning Board, and City Commission. Consideration can also be given to the building entrances. The Applicant can also provide a discussion of the treatment of Building Entrances along Technology Blvd. and the treatment of entryways into the project. The Applicant does believe that this consideration needs to be better defined prior to preparation of the Final PUD Plan. 6. Drainage facilities are covered in the Development Manual under Site Development Standards—Utilities, Grading and Drainage (pages 54, 55, and 56). They include the provision that stormwater treatment facilities shall be incorporated as landscaped features, effectively screened by the use of landscaping, or provided by the use of underground detention and stormwater management treatment systems. 7. Additional landscape detail will be provided along the West Main St. corridor as part of the Final PUD Plan. This detail will include provisions for the treatment of the landscape ponds. It needs to be stated that during extreme flooding events the level of the ponds will naturally increase. The fluctuations will be natural, temporary in nature, and short term as runoff drains from the site. Landscape features will be placed to effectively minimize impacts resulting from stormwater runoff. The Applicant does not agree to financially guarantee the improvements for twenty- four months or two construction seasons and believes this requirement onerous and unnecessary. The City will have ample opportunity as the site develops to monitor the improvements. 8. A final landscape plan will be provided prior to final plat approval. 9. The Applicant agrees to add a discussion relating the referenced elements identified by the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan. We do believe that the illustrations provided in the Development Manual reflect these guidelines and no revisions are necessary and no additional illustrations are necessary. 10. The building design standards in the Development Manual address each of the specific uses to be incorporated into the site; Lifestyle Center, Convenience Center, and Office-Professional. The Applicant feels that the concerns raised in consideration 10 have been adequately addressed. We wonder if the consideration needs to be more specifically defined. Page 6 of 8 "Providing resources in partnership with clients to achieve their goals" M RRI N ® 0 SO (�® MAIERLE,INC. AnCmployee-Owned Compmy Additional drawings are being provided for the lifestyle center, convenience center, and West Main/Fowler intersection. It is our understanding that these additional drawings will fulfill this consideration. 11. The Development Manual states that Stucco/EIFS are approved exterior fagade materials in limited areas less than 25% of the front fagade and 65%on all other facades. This requirement is consistent with the Design Objectives Plan and therefore should be acceptable. The Applicant does not agree to limit the use of these materials to 25%of any building fagade. 12. The Applicant can provide a discussion relating to the presentation onto streets surrounding the development. We believe internal street presentation is covered adequately as currently presented in the Development Manual and the Pre-application submittal. Additional drawings are being provided for the lifestyle center, convenience center, and West Main/Fowler intersection for review by the DRB, Planning Board, and City Commission. Additional landscape detail will be provided for the West Main Street corridor as part of the Final PUD Plan. It is our understanding that this will fulfill this consideration. 13. The Applicant strongly disagrees with the consideration that detailed elevations, floor plan, landscape plan, site plan and a color palette and materials sample board be submitted for each building as part of the Final PUD Plan. This level of detail is a site plan issue and needs to be provided and reviewed as part of the site plan process. It is not fair or even feasible to expect this level of detail at this stage of the project. 14. Applicant agrees. 15. We assume that this will be addressed during the site plan review process. 16. The Applicant believes the use of a colonnade too restrictive. There are other entry treatments such as awnings, canopies or other architectural treatments that will meet the intent of this consideration. The Applicant suggests the second front oriented to the street be held to the same design criteria as the store fronts. 17. Applicant agrees. 18. Applicant disagrees. This is an architect feature that should be addressed with each individual building review and not placed on the entire development. Unless staff can support this mandate in City ordinances, Applicant will not agree. Colors of aluminum or steel framed store fronts should be allowed and approved in accordance with the Development Manual so as not to limit the creative variation of buildings within the development. 19. Applicant Agrees. 20. Again, Applicant feels this requirement is subjective and is taking into account of one's personal preference. Applicant strongly disagrees. Placing arbitrary preferences on this project would place limits on creative architecture. Applicant can envision a situation where a very glamorous building is designed and the architect wants to incorporate an elegant glass awning into the storefront. 21. Applicant agrees. 22. Applicant agrees. 23. Applicant agrees. 24. The Applicant does not believe this consideration was intended for this project. 25. Applicant agrees. Page 7 of 8 "Providing resources in partnership with clients to achieve their goals" '-i M RM ® 0 SON �� MAIERLE,INC. An Employee-Owned Company 26. Applicant agrees. 27. Applicant agrees. 28. Applicant agrees. 29. Applicant agrees. 30. Applicant agrees. The Applicant is presenting these comments for discussion at regularly scheduled Design Review Board meeting to be held at 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 9, 2005. The Applicant requests the opportunity to meet with City Staff to discuss the final wording for some of the conditions/considerations following this meeting. Sincerely, Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Greg Strao6n, P.E. Project Engineer Cc: Ted Mitchell; Mitchell Development Group John Davison; Mitchell Development Group Randy Stone; Carter-Burgess, Inc. Eric Bell; Carter-Burgess, Inc. Jolene Rieck; Peaks to Plains Design, P.C. H:\3638\003\DOCS\REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE Response to DRB Staff Report.doc Page 8 of 8 "Providing resources in partnership with clients to achieve their goals" Page 1 of 3 . Z • Z Mitchell Development From: Bell, Eric A. [Eric.Bell@c-b.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 10:13 AM To: dskelton@BOZEMAN.NET Cc: mitchell_dev@sofast.net; Jim Ullman;jolene@peakstoplains.com Subject: Bozeman Gateway Dave, Ted has directed me to incorporate as much of the exact text from the conditions as feasible. There are only 4 out of 37 conditions that we have concerns with. It will take only a short discussion with someone from the planning department to get things moving forward. I hope you will be the one to help. Listed below, you will find exact verbiage of the condition in question, followed by my comments in bold. I am currently updating the development manual with the changes so we can provide you and the DRB a black and white version by tomorrow night. Your quick response would be appreciated. However, if I do not hear from you, I will not be able to address the following issues within the development manual. Condition 10. The Final PUD Plan and Development Manual shall discuss the treatment of street intersections that are enhanced by pedestrian-friendly entrances, plazas or design features such as benches and landscape planters. Building entrances near the sidewalk edge that contain an entry plaza should also be considered at the intersections of local streets with Technology Boulevard and not only in the commercial area, but also along the business park/professional office corridors. This would also apply at the corner of Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street. I am having considerable trouble understanding the intent of this condition. I am confused as to the definition of "building entrances that contain an entry plaza". The only way I feel comfortable incorporating this verbiage is if I understand what you are looking for. A specific response on this issue, from you,is necessary. Also in Condition 10. If it is the decision to locate the grocery store at the southeast corner of West Main Street and Fowler Avenue,a building entrance and plaza must occur along the entryway corridor, preferably at the northwest corner of the building. A grocery store entrance and plaza occurs along the entry way corridor and that requirement is in the development manual.. Due to the interior layout of the grocery store it is not feasible for this entrance to be located at the northwest corner of the building. Since this element is only preferred and is not possible per reasonable grocery store design,the exact verbiage has been left out of the manual. Please let me know if you are in agreement. Condition 17. The Bozeman Design Objectives Plan states that the following elements must be achieved in order to reduce the perceived mass of a building: a change in color or change in material shall be used in each building module;a 20%change in vertical height between each module; change roof form; change in articulation. The current Bozeman Design Objective Plan reads as follows: 1. Divide a building into modules that express dimensions of structures seen traditionally. -In general,a primary facade plane should not exceed 100 feet in length. 2. Buildings shall employ all of the following design techniques: -Change the height of a wall plane or building module. The change in height shall be at least 20% of the vertical height. 2/21/2006 �- Page 2 of 3 i � • The definition of a building module is not exactly clear. If a building module is every 1.00' then a 20% change in vertical height is appropriate. If a building module is a "traditional" storefront, not longer then say 20 or 30 feet,then a 20% change is extreme and will result in a strange,ill proportioned building. We need to define the term "building module" and make sure all facades are as aesthetically pleasing as possible. A quick discussion about this topic should create a solution that is far more beneficial for the city and the developer. Condition 25. All of the buildings on the perimeter of the development shall have a second store front(double fronted design)that is oriented towards the streetscape and shall include a colonnade and a sidewalk connection to the perimeter sidewalk/trail system. Buildings will have store front design along the rear that is oriented towards the street. While clear vision store front and/or a second public entrance is encouraged, it is by no means required. The typical tenant occupying these spaces will require storage and "back of house" type operations in the rear of their space. The public will not want a view of these spaces and therefore spandrel glass and service entrances will be used along most of the rear of buildings. To require public entrances in the back of the convenience center will leave it unleasable and abandoned. It is my recommendation that we require the use of the "double fronted " design as it is shown by the diagram on page 40 of the Bozeman Design Objective Plan. Using it at the corner of the buildings where the parking lot meets the street seems much more appropriate. Please let me know your thoughts on this issue. The current wording suggests that a colonnade and a sidewalk are to connect to the perimeter sidewalk/trail system. This seems irrational so I assume the condition is trying to suggest that a colonnade be provided along the back facades of buildings. The presence of a colonnade was never suggested by the back of building study elevations presented to the DRB on November 9th, 2005 at 3:30PM. Besides being of significant expense,these colonnades would seldom be used by the public,would darken the back facade, and would provide an area for garbage and vagrant collection. Colonnades along the rear of building will not enhance the project and should not be required by the development manual. Condition 34. A common master signage plan depicting the actual location,dimensions, height, illumination and use of materials for all freestanding signs shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Final PUD Plan approval. Both the pylon signs and monument signs shall be constructed of materials compatible with the overall building design theme for the development and illustrated accordingly in the Development Manual. All signs shall obtain a sign permit prior to construction and installation,and shall comply with the required regulatory standards set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance. The Development Manual will need to include a graphic component of the master sign plan for the entire property that reflects the theme desired with this PUD This includes discussion on the position of signs as part of the overall building composition; avoid obscuring architectural details, materials, and use of color and relief,three-dimensional signage,placement of freestanding signs along street frontages,entrances into the development, and addressing required setbacks and street vision triangles The team is currently sorting out the beginnings of a environmental graphics package for the project. When completed, this should accurately depict the design of the monument and pylon signs. The process will take some time but will be completed for final plat. Unfortunately there is no way to get an accurate design for signage into the development manual in this week. I suggest we leave that section as is, and the DRB review the rest of the document knowing it will be updated in the near future. I need to know if this strategy will work for you. Please help me make the last finishing touches to the development manual so that things can move forward. My client has spent an incredible,almost unjustifiable,amount of time and money trying to perfect this document. Sincerely, Eric Bell 214-920-8198 This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee 2/21/2006 AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW BOARD UPSTAIRS CONFERENCE ROOM, ALFRED STIFF PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, 20 EAST OLIVE STREET WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2006 5:30 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE ,ITEM 2. MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 2005 ITEM 3. DISCUSSION ITEM A. * Planning Staff liaison to the DRB—Susan Kozub. ITEM 4. CONSENT ITEM A. Rib Crib CUP/COA #Z-05295 (Morris) 1921 West Oak Street * A Conditional Use Permit with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the construction of a restaurant with on-premise sale and consumption of alcohol within Stoneridge Square PUD. ITEM,5._ _PROJECT—REVIEW r- A.�Bozeman-Gateway PUIYPrel:Plan`#Z-05217-(Skelton) Southwest of the intersection of College Street and Huffine Lane * A Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan Application to allow a 72.2 acre, mixed-use development with BP (Business Park District) and B-2 (Community Business District) zoning designations. ITEM 6. PUBLIC COMMENT—(15 —20 minutes) {Limited to any public matter,within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.) ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance,please contact ADA Coordinator,Ron Brey,at 582-2306(voice)or 582-2301 (TDD). C tv "' ven, first step- for outdoor m 11 By CAMDEN EASTERUNG Chronicle Staff Writer The Bozeman City Commission on Monday night approved the first step for a major outdoor mall,the Bozeman Gateway. The commission approved the 72-acre subdivision south of West Main Street near Fowler Avenue. But when the meeting stretched past midnight,the commission postponed dis- cussion on the project's master plan until Dec.12. "I think it would do the ap- plicant a disservice to try to make that decision tonight," Commissioner Marcia r Youngman said. "I think we're flummoxed on the design issues and the rest of it,"Commissioner Jeff Krauss agreed."I don't think we're going to get much fur- ther than this." The commission didn't be- gin reviewing the project until after 11:15 p.m.due to a lengthy agenda. Developer Ted Mitchell of the Mitchell Development Group of Great Falls agreed to wait until next week for the commission to consider the master plan for the outdoor mall,which Mitchell calls a "lifestyle center." (More on Mall, page C2) 0 r-'-Mall jfrom page C1 ` _ --- --• -- — _.---._._....._ ._ .� f That plan calls for full build- Montana's standards,City would allow his project and other,Brian Caldwell of _z ! out in 10 years with 61 com- Manager Chris Kukulski. downtown to coexist. Bozeman,who works in builds. mercial lots,about 700,000 But Commissioner Steve Although the commissioners ing and development design, square feet of retail space and Kirchhoff asked Mitchell a didn't debate the project's mer- said he was concerned the mas- amenities such as two-plus pointed question related to the its,many of their comments ter plan spans 10 years of devel-? miles of trails. project's scope. were positive. opment. The largest building would "What do you say to some- "It's great.It's a very The master plan,or planned e be a grocery store,which would one who says,`You're going to thoughtful plan,"Kirchhoff unit development,includes pro-7 be approximately 60,000 square destroy downtown?"'he said. said. visions such as allowing some 3 feet. "I gotta say that I disagree Only two members of the diagonal parking and building . The project's scale is an indi- with that,"Mitchell said. public spoke about the heights of 146 feet. cator that Bozeman is on its way • The developer said the Gateway.One man discussed Camden Easterling is at ceast-1 to becoming a large city by amount of growth in Bozeman wetland impact mitigation.The erling@dailychronicicle.com Commission approves outdoor mall;- requests residential units sider relaxing building-height ■ HRDC to receive federal funding though,didn't think it was fair and he's willing to work on the By CAMDEN EASTERLING restrictions as individual sites to require Mitchell to add resi- residential component. Chronicle Staff Writer come back to the city for ap- for city transit system page C2 dential uses without having giv- "The way I look at it is this is proval. en him more time to plan. their town and we're just visi- The Bozeman City "That was quite a surprise;' Consequently he voted tors,"Mitchell said."And we're j Commission on Monday night Mitchell said of the residential space and accommodate at least hasri t studied the residential against the project and was the going to try to accommodate approved an outdoor mall— aspect in an interview Tuesday. 300 residential units,Kirchhoff market. lone dissenter. them.' but added a requirement that During a Dec.5 meeting, said. "It might be 500,it might be Krauss also objected to using ' Mitchell has only a few lease- the developer include a residen- Commissioner Steve Kirchhoff The gateway calls for 700,000 20,"he said."I just can't commit the number of residential units agreements with potential ten- t tial component. told Mitchell he would like to feet of commercial space on 72 to that because that's not where as an incentive for height relax- ants for Gateway because he' The commission told Great see residential units,but didn't acres and includes retail and of- we were headed:' ations. wanted to hold off on recruiting Falls developer Ted Mitchell his give a number. fice space as well as a bank,gro- The project needs residential "It's about good design,not a until the commission approved Bozeman Gateway project, Kirchhoff said Monday he cery store and hotel. units in order to be a mixed-use carrot on a stick,"he said the project.However,he said south of West Main Street near would like to see 300 residen- Mitchell was open to a resi- development,Kirchhoff said. Tuesday. he's hoping to attract retailers Fowler Avenue,must include 70 tial units included in the dential component,but un- "It's the difference between a Mitchell said despite his be- such as Talbots,Coldwater to 200 residential units. Gateway. comfortable agreeing to a num- strip mall and a neighborhood," ing caught off guard,he's thank- Creek or Chico's. In exchange for residential The developer could add ber because his company, he said Tuesday. ful the commission is letting Camden Easterling is at ceast- units,the commission will con- floors above some of the retail Mitchell Development Group, Commissioner Jeff Krauss, him do business in Bozeman erling@dailychronicle.com I' goo PU:B�L' ICI j Sunday, D ' I� Sun. Real Monday, i 0 Tuesday, Wednesd 1 0 f� . ' f CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ZONING FILE NO.Z--09217 THE BOZEMAN GATEWAY SUBDIVISION CUP/PUD ITEM: Zoning Application No. Z-05217 — An Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed-use commercial/professional office/retail Planned Unit Development on approximately 72.2± acres of land located south of Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 and east of Fowler Avenue zoned "B-2", Community Commercial District, and "BP", Business Park District. APPLICANT: Mitchell Development Group, L.L.C. %Ted Mitchell P.O. Box 738, Great Falls, MT 59403 OWNER: Mitchell Development Group, I.L.C. %Ted Mitchell P.O. Box 738, Great Falls,MT 59403 REPRESENTATIVE: Morrison-Maielre, Inc. Carter-Burgess., Inc. Greg Stratton Randall Stone 901 Technology Blvd. 1420 Mockingbird Lane, Suite 800 Bozeman, MT 59718 Dallas,TX 75247 DATE/TIME: Before the City Commission on Monday, December 5, 2005, at 7:00 pm, in the Community Room, Gallatin County Courthouse, 311 West Main Street, Bozeman, Montana. REPORT BY: Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROJECT LOCATION: The subject property is legally described as being Tract 2A of the Amended Plat of West College Minor Subdivision No. 195A located in the NW 1/4 of Section 15, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, and is further identified as property situated south of Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 and Gallatin Valley Mall, and west of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle facility. The site is approximately 72.2 acres in size and fronts Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 along the north boundary, extension of Fowler Avenue on the west and extension of Garfield Street on the south boundary. Please refer to the vicinity map and exhibits provided in the applicant's submittal. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision C.U.P.M.U.D. Staff Report 1 0 0 61 commercial/business park lots zoned `B-2" and `BP". The proposal is also undergoing a concurrent preliminary plat review of the 72+ acre site as a major subdivision. The six-phased mixed-use planned unit development is located in the West Main Street entryway corridor overlay district along its north boundary and is bound on the north by the major arterial street, Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 and Gallatin Valley Mall. The Advanced Technology Park and Bozeman Daily Chronicle are to the east and partially developed lands under Gallatin County jurisdiction are to the west. The placement of mixed land uses within the development focuses on a mix of professional offices, retail services and hotel/conference facility on the east one-third and a mixed of retail service and commercial uses on the west two-thirds. The Development Manual contains architectural and landscape guidelines that illustrate the concept of a "lifestyle" center and methods by which the developer will implement the image of the planned unit development. The Bozeman Gateway consists of several different building types that are discussed in the Manual: 1) Lifestyle Center along the interior main street for the development, 2) Convenience Center and Outparcels along Fowler Avenue and West Main Street, and 3) Office Professional area along the east adjacent to the Advanced Technology Center and the extreme west at the southwest corner of Huffine Lane and Fowler Avenue. Chapter 18.36—Planned Unit Development The intent of the planned unit development concept is to promote maximum flexibility and innovation in the development of land and the design of development projects within the city. As a result, the developer has requested multiple relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance with this application for P.U.D. review. With regard to the improvement and protection of the public health, safety and welfare,it shall be the intent of the Ordinance to promote the city's pursuit of community objectives as outlined in Chapter 18.36 of the Unified Development Ordinance. The Development Review Committee, Design Review Board, Planning Board and City Commission participated in the Concept P.U.D. Plan Review process in January and February of 2005. Please refer to the attached copies of the meeting of the D.R.B. in January of 2005. The purpose of these meetings was for discussion of the applicant's proposal with the designated review committees in order to identify any requirements and applicable standards and policies, as well as offering the applicant the opportunity to identify major problems that may exist and identify solutions prior to making formal application. Relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance. The following relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance have been identified with the application for subdivision preliminary plat review and P.U.D. preliminary plan review: Requested Relaxations: • Section 18.20.030.B "Lot Coverage and Floor Area" to eliminate the 60 percent restriction on impervious surfaces and development the entire site, exclusive of the required yard setbacks. • Section 18.36.060.B "Duration of Final Plan Approval" to undertake and complete the development in ten years. • Section 18.42.040.B "Block Length" to allow the block lengths to exceed 400 feet. • Section 18.42.040.0 "Block Width" to allow the block widths to be more than 400 feet. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Preliminary PUD Plan Review 2 0 0 • Section 18.42.100.B.3.c — "Setbacks" to encroach into the 50-foot minimum setback required along watercourses. • Section 18.42.100.B.4.b — "Watercourse Setback" to allow the required watercourse setback to not include adjacent wetlands. • Section 18.44.030.A.1 "Intersections" to allow streets to intersect at angles less than 90 degrees. • Section 18.44.090.D.3 "Spacing Standards for Drive Access" to allow the average spacing of intersections on Fowler Avenue to be reduced from 660 feet to 420 feet. • Section 18.42.150.D.1 "Parking Lot Lighting" to allow horizontal illuminnace to be less than 0.1 foot-candles as required by the U.D.O. • Section 18.42.1501 "Lighting Specifications" to allow light fixtures and standards that do not comply the U.D.O. (i.e., distract light and glare down and aware from adjoining streets and properties. • Section 18.44.030.A.1 "Intersections" to relax the streets to intersection at angles less than 90 degrees (City Engineer decision). • Section 18.44.080 "Sidewalks" to allow soft trials in place of concrete boulevard sidewalks along streets fronting open space/pedestrian corridors. • Section 18.44.090 "Access" to relax the average spacing requirements for public streets (City Engineer decision). • Section 18.44.090.B.2 "Drive Access from Public Streets" to exclude the requirement of all subdivision lots having 25 feet of frontage on all improved public or private street, or improved alley. • Section !8.46.020.D `Backing into Public Rights-of-Way" to allow diagonal parking along Technology Boulevard and Chronicle Lane. Identified Relaxations not Requested: • Section 18.18.020 "Building Height" to increase the allowable building height in the `B-2 district from 44 feet to 146 feet. • Section 18.18.050 "Yards" to encroach into the yard setbacks with off-street parking in the B'2" District. • Section 18.20.060" `Building Height" to increase the allowable building height in the `BP" district from 44 feet to 146 feet. • Section 18.20.050 "Yards" to encroach into the yard setbacks with off-street parking in the "BP" District. • Section 18.42.030.I "Frontage" to not have access for all subdivision lots from an improved pubic street, approved private street or alley. ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES The subject property is zoned `B-2", Community Business District and `BP," Business Park District. The "B-2", Community Business District, allows for a broad range of mutually supportive retail and service functions located in clustered areas bordered on one of more sides by limited access arterial streets. Principal permitted uses range from banks and hospitals to offices and hotels/motels. Conditional uses permitted in the district range from automobile fuel sales to technical or vocational schools to light goods repair and light manufacturing. The "BP", Business Park District, provides for high quality settings and The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Preliminary PUD Plan Review 3 0 ! facilities for the development of a wide range of compatible employment opportunities. These areas should be developed so as to recognize the impact on surrounding or adjacent development and contribute to the overall image of the community. Compatibility with adjacent land uses and zoning is required. Permitted uses range from hospitals and professional offices to research laboratories and public buildings. Conditional uses that may be considered in the `BP" district range from banks and day care centers to type II essential services. The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property: North: US Highway 101/Huffine Lane/West Main Street and Gallatin Valley Mall zoned `B-2", Community Business District. South: Undeveloped agricultural land under Gallatin County jurisdiction and owned by the State of Montana Endowment and Research Foundation. East: Advanced Technology Park and Bozeman Daily Chronicle zoned `BP", Business Park District. West: Partially developed agricultural lands under Gallatin County jurisdiction. ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION The development proposal is in general conformance with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan including the "Community Commercial" and `Business Park" land use designations with the recommendations to be considered by the Planning Board and City Commission. The "Community Commercial" classification provides areas for basic employment and services necessary for a vibrant community. Establishments located within this category draw from a community as a whole for their employee and customer base and are sized accordingly. A broad range of functions include retail, education, professional and personal services, offices,residences and general service activities typify this designation. The "Business Park"classification provides for areas typified by office uses and technology-oriented light industrial uses, although retail, services, or industrial uses may also be included in an accessory or local service role. Additional uses may be approved as part of a planned unit development if they are found to be compatible with and subordinate to the uses described above, and are consistent with the intent of the underlying Business Park land use classification. REVIEW CRITERIA The Design Review Board is established to evaluate aesthetic considerations of larger and more complex proposals which are likely to produce significant community impact and to provide recommendations regarding such proposals to the City Commission. The Board is empowered to recommend approval or conditional approval of the project with support of some or all of the requested relaxations or to forward a recommendation of denial. The Design Review Board provided the following comments with the Concept Plan: :• The DRB recommended a reduction in parking from the minimum required (as a relaxation through the PUD). The proposal for shared, reduced off-street parking spaces was supportive but concern was also expressed with the demand with maximum parking with retail establishments. D.R.B. recommended that consideration should be given to residential development as part of the mixed-use planned unit development. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Preliminary PUD Plan Review 4 0 0 Expressed concern with the potential for storm water runoff impacting the landscape features and ponds along the entryway corridor. o� Questioned the level of retail uses allowed in the `BP" component of the P.U.D. :• Fewer off-street parking provided with additional landscape features incorporated into the mixed— use development that people could mingle in. Stated that the location of the grocery store on the corner of the entryway corridor was problematic and suggested relocating the grocery store to the central core of the development, or provide extensive screening. :• Expressed concern with the presentation of drive-thru facilities along the entryway corridor and the potential conflict with making the project pedestrian and bicycle friendly . Would like to see the use of natural materials throughout the development. :• Supported the preservation of the watercourses and associated wetlands to enhance the area. Recommended a conscious effort of keeping and enhancing the character of Bozeman. Expressed concern with crossings and connections between vehicular movement with pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Need for adequate connections to Babcock Street and components of the Farmer's Canal trail to the east. Suggested placement of nodes and a place where cars cannot go to avoid conflict with bicycles. Protect as many of the large trees and mature vegetation preserved. :• Carry out materials and architectural elements on all sides of the buildings. Do not present a "backside" of a building, especially on the unloading side and refuse areas. There should be more building frontage onto the Entryway instead of parking. This may be accomplished by including additional pad site in front of the larger buildings and/or more landscape features. Design Objectives Plan 1. Neighborhood Design (pages 9-14): A. Green Space- Provisions for achieving the minimum open space requirements have been met with the overall master plan for the PUD. This includes the preservation of the existing watercourses and associated vegetation and wetlands. Those areas designated as open space must be identified accordingly on the final subdivision plat and final PUD plan. The preliminary plan identifies six key areas of green space for both visually and functionally open space; 1) entryway corridor along US 191/West Main Street, 2) west most watercourse along Fowler Avenue, 3) watercourse along Harmon Stream Boulevard, 4) watercourse along the eastern half of the PUD, 5) public plaza along Technology Boulevard, and 6) two watercourses in the The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Preliminary PUD Plan Review 5 north parking lot . All of theses areas contain existing physical features that are being preserved and should be further complimented with landscape features that will embrace the importance of urban open space. The applicant requests a relaxation to Section 18.20.030.B "Lot Coverage and Floor Area" to eliminate the 60 percent restriction on impervious surfaces and development for the entire site, exclusive of the required yard setbacks for lots in the `BP" District. Staff is recommending denial finding that the request does not encourage the campus like setting of open space that is sought in the BP District and importance of urban open space and green spaces throughout the BP District. B. Auto Connections- Construction of Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street by the developer, as well as the installation of the interior local streets and signalization improvements at the intersection of Fowler Avenue and US 191/West Main Street will provide direct automobile access to the development, abutting property, and surrounding areas. C. Pedestrian & Bicycle Connections- The application illustrates a pedestrian and bicycle trail system for the development that stems from recommendations by City Staff, Planning Office, Recreation and Parks Advisory Board, and G.V.L.T. The proposal calls for a Type I asphalt trail along the frontage of US 191/West Main Street that continues linkage with the called for Farmer's Canal trail and a series of interior Type II trails throughout the site. Trails constructed in the watercourse setback shall be constructed in Zone 2 of the setback. Staff is further recommending that all pedestrian/bicycle crossings with streets should be given greater emphasis by using similar pavers that reflect the surface treatment of public plazas and areas of outdoor social activities. Connections of between streets, off-street parking lots, public areas should also be given attention in terms of raised walkways, pavers, pedestrian lighting and landscape features. D. Street Character- A landscaped streetscape along all public and private streets that contain a compliment of formal boulevard trees with placement of informal landscape features is necessary to provide continuity and sense of place at a pedestrian scale. Informal landscape features should provide a mix of type, texture and seasonal color throughout and are important in coordinating landscape design along that establishes a unified identity for the area.. A regular spacing of boulevard trees along all streets in concert with landscape features and screening of off-street parking lots is necessary; primarily, areas along West Garfield Street and US Highway 191/West Main Street. Street character along the West Main Street entryway corridor should call for architectural features that suggest a presence of store fronts, plazas, fenestration treatment and architectural details that reflect the "lifestyle center" concept. Commercial and retail drive-thrus and associated apprentices (speaker phones, signage, ATM, canopies, etc.) shall not front onto the entryway corridor and will not impact the building facade of the satellite structures along the streetscape. 2. Site Design (pages 15-36): A. Natural Features- The described watercourses with associated vegetation and wetlands will be maintained as public open space with exception to the necessary street crossings. The 50-foot The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Preliminary PUD Plan Review 6 wide watercourses will need to be landscaped to emphasize effective landscape features as discussed previously. B. Views- View sheds of the mountains to the northeast and south should not be significantly obscured, unless the applicant elects to move forward with a request to relax the building heights in the `B-2" and `BP" of up to 146 feet. A relaxation to exceed the maximum building height of 44 feet in the `B-2" and `BP" would be inconsistent with surrounding land uses. However, the "BP" district allows the maximum building height to be increased by 30 percent when the additional height is specifically identified as being the purpose of the review (example: downtown business district). C. Cultural Resources- There are no existing structures on the site. A cultural resource inventory study is required with the preliminary plat for review by the State Historic Preservation Office. Any cultural resources uncovered during construction and earthwork will need to be inventoried by the Planning Office and State Historic Preservation Office. D. Topography- The site slopes from south to north with an approximate change in grade of 18± feet. The amount of cut and fill required with the project during construction activity will influence the existing amenities of the existing topography. As a result, encroachments into the watercourse setbacks and areas of mature vegetation should be limited. Any change in grade that will encroach into these areas should be limited to a 1:4 or 25% slope to minimize the visual impact of cut and fill on the site. E. Site Drainage- The storm drainage master plan for the development will direct storm water runoff generally to the north and will be treated with underground facilities designated throughout the site. The applicant's consultants note that the surface water ponds along the entryway corridor and along Technology Boulevard are not part of the storm water runoff facilities. However, the master plan identifies at least fourth drainage basins that are either located in the open space corridors for have outlets draining into the corridor. These facilities must be properly landscaped and prevent any impact on the landscape features along these corridors. Specific landscape details will be required with the final landscape plan to demonstrate proper landscape of the facilities. F. Building Placement- The mixed-use development focuses on a "lifestyle center" concrete that centers on an interior street (i.e.., Technology Boulevard), which faces the primary building entrances to a common interior route that features pedestrian friendly open-air squares and plazas. Thus, producing active outdoor public spaces. In addition, there are at least three of the five street intersections that are considered major intersections and should give consideration to a strong building presence (i.e., intersection of US 191/West Main Street with Fowler Avenue, Harmon Stream Boulevard with US 191/West Main Street, West Garfield with Fowler Avenue, and Chronicle Drive with West College Street). These intersections should be enhanced with a pedestrian-friendly entrance plaza or human scaled design features., such as benches and landscape planters. Building entrances near the sidewalk edge that contain an entry plaza should also be considered at the intersections of local streets with Technology Boulevard and should be considered not only in the commercial area, but also along the business park/professional office corridors. G. Outdoor Public Spaces- The plan notes a number of outdoor public spaces for the enjoyment of pedestrians. Two plazas along Technology Boulevard serve as focal points shared by adjoining The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Preliminary PUD Plan Review 7 buildings and visually connect at least one of the watercourse/open space corridors. The plan also suggests the opportunity for a number of smaller public spaces along the watercourses that preserve the natural amenities of the site. Both public plazas along Technology Boulevard will contain decorative surface materials, landscape features, and plaza furniture. These areas should illustrate the heart of the development and be carried throughout the entire regions of the project. Detail to these areas is critical and should be specifically addressed in the master landscape plan. The principle public plaza extends north through the "life style' center, continues to the off-street parking lot, ending at the West Main Street entryway corridor. Detail for this section is limited and must be described in the landscape plan. Those pedestrian/bicycle pathway sections through the parking lot must be carefully considered and offer at least one public space along each watercourse corridor within the parking lot. This would involve the conversation of at least two off-street parking spaces (i.e., 18' by 18') that abut the corridor being converted to a green space with a bench, pavers and landscape features. Public spaces along the identified watercourses should also be given attention with smaller pads that reflect similar pavers,benches,lighting and landscape features as the larger plazas. H. Pedestrian & Bicycle Circulation Systems- The Master Plan provides connections for pedestrians and bicyclists throughout the development while also implementing the Farmer's Canal trail system called for in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. This includes connections from parking lots,into buildings, as well as a network of pedestrian/bicycle trails throughout the project. Emphasis should be given to transitions between parking lots, driveways, street crossings and connections with pubic boulevard sidewalks that include the typical "life style" center landscape theme. Transitions through the parking lots, primarily the larger north most parking lot, must be given specific attention to providing an adequate width through the parking lot. Principle and secondary entries (i.e.., US 191/West Main Street, Fowler Avenue, Garfield Street and West College Street) , should be given the same attention with developments landscape theme. I. Internal Automobile Circulation Systems- The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision PUD contains a transportation network that includes implementation of the greater Bozeman Transportation Plan with construction of Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street. A network of interior local streets completes the transportation network for the development. Diagonal parking along Technology Boulevard is proposed to compliment the "lifestyle" center and reduce conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular movement. A higher degree of landscape materials along major circulation routes is sought by the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan. In particular, the US 191/West Main Street entryway corridor should convey a higher degree of urban open space and importance intensive pedestrian/bicycle use. This should include decorative elements and furnishing that provide interest and a sense of human scale. This would also apply to both sides of Fowler Avenue and north side of West Garfield Street. J. Parking Lots- The application includes a parking plan that minimizes the number of off-street parking spaces as allowed under the Unified Development Ordinance by using the reduction table in 18.46.040. This is implemented with a combination of privately owned or common parking areas throughout the development. A parking analysis by the developer calculates the required off- street parking at 2,907 spaces. With the allowable reduction the parking plan may be adjusted to 2,556 spaces. The applicant is proposing 2,557 off-street parking spaces. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Preliminary PUD Plan Review 8 0 0 K. Site Lighting- The Preliminary Light Plan identifies three architectural light fixtures proposed throughout the development and off-street parking lots. Only of one the three fixtures (i.e.., Domus Series) complies with the U.D.O. and would prevent off-site glare and distraction to vehicular movement along adjoining pubic streets. It is recommended that the Domus Series fixture be allowed throughout the development and the other two fixtures be allowed with a retrofitted "louvered cover" along Technology Boulevard with a transition to the compliant fixture along private streets prior to intersecting with adjoining public streets. Street lights will be required along Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street and must comply with the U.D.O. Neon and L.E.D. lighting will not be permitted unless used as a backlight architectural feature that is not directly visible from the public streetscape, sidewalks or streets. L. Utilities & Service Areas- The application is not clear on the placement, treatment and screening of waste disposal areas, unloading/loading and access to utilities. Because the development does not propose alleys and or backs to the buildings, provisions for utility and service areas is not clearly addressed in the application. The Development Manual discusses guidelines that suggests solutions to the issue (i.e., page 31) but does not demonstrate a desired solution that is consistent with architectural theme of the project. This is more of an issue when store fronts and public access will occur at the rear of the buildings, creating obtrusive noise, offensive sounds and odors, as well as conflict with servicing vehicles and the general vehicular circulation system.. As a result, the Development Manual must clearly demonstrate graphically how the conflict between utility service areas and the general public will be resolved. M. Landscape Design- Existing physical features, wetlands and mature vegetation are protected with the preservation of the existing watercourses identified on the site. These areas should be incorporated into new development site design with public trails and pubic spaces as illustrated on the preliminary plan. Drought-tolerate plant species, native to the area, have been introduced and included in the plant palette. High maintenance, or highly decorative landscape is reserved for the public plazas and public spaces along the watercourse corridors. The landscape plan will need to identify the landscape palette to be implemented throughout the property and should include lighting structures, paving material, plantings and outdoor furniture. The plan should also include typical illustrations of a consistent plant palette throughout the property. The landscape guidelines of the Development Manual include illustrations for the two principle north/south watercourse corridors. The same illustrations are necessary for the West Main Street entryway corridor and Fowler Avenue corridor, as well as the pubic spaces identified along all of the watercourses. The landscape plan for the Final PUD Plan will need to include the final details for each area, landscape species and quantity to be installed and reviewed by the Planning Office and Design Review Board prior to submitting for final subdivision plat approval. It is further recommended based on the number of relaxations being requested with this application that all trees will be installed with a minimum caliber of 2 inches in diameter. The application suggests that a significant amount of the West Main Street entryway corridor will feature a series of ponds as landscape features for the development. The landscape guidelines have not specially addressed the landscape elements along the corridor with respect to landscape features and landscape furniture, not an emphasis on trail connections leading into the development. As a result, these details will need to be addressed and will require review of the Final Plan and Landscape Plan by the Planning Office and Design Review Board. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Preliminary PUD Plan Review 9 N. Buffers- Landscape buffers should be provided adjacent to the off-street parking lots, between incompatible uses and for ground mounted mechanical equipment and service/storage areas. Special attention must be given to landscape buffers along the West Main Street entryway corridor and West Garfield Street based on the expansive imperious parking lots 3. Building Design (pages 37-48): A. Building & Topography- The site does not contain significant outcroppings or topographical features and has a gradual drop in grade of approximately 18 feet from south to north. Provisions to avoid the potential of exposed building foundations resulting from significant changes in grade should not be an issue. B. Building Character- Standardized "franchise" style architecture is strongly discouraged. If the developer chooses to use franchise style architecture it is necessary to establish a reasonable argument of how the franchise style is an innovative design that draws upon regional design traditions. The application does not specifically address. As a result, it is assumed that the development will not accept structures that suggest standardized "franchise" style architecture and so note it in the Development Manual. The architectural guidelines for the development suggest that the Convenience Center, Outparcels and Office-Professional areas will incorporate the architectural vocabulary of the lifestyle center. However, modifications will be required due to the significant variation in building type and scale. The Development Manual goes on to state that an exact determination of which entities will be responsible for which elements of design and construction will be determined by individual lease or sales agreements. In-lieu of this, the Development Manual should give specific attention to each of these areas of the mixed-use development and identify what must be achieved in each of these areas to maintain the architectural integrity of the overall development theme. C. Primary Building Entrance- The majority of the buildings orientate their entrance onto the "lifestyle" center main street, Technology Boulevard. The Development Manual discusses the treatment of the main entrance, but does not address a primary objective of the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan to orient the primary entrances of a building to face a street, plaza or pedestrian way for those structures that do not front onto Technology Boulevard. In particular, those structures that will back onto the West Main entryway corridor, Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street. This needs to be addressed in the Development Manual. The Manual should go on to state a need for sheltering elements such as a canopy, awning, arcade or portico to signify the primary entrance to a building, as well as the secondary entrance if it serves an entrance along another facade. D. Street Level Interest- All sides of a building should include interesting details and materials to avoid presenting a "back side" to neighboring properties, public streets and the West Main Street entryway corridor. The treatment of materials and architectural detail will be consistent along all sides of the buildings and storefronts or display cases should be incorporated over at least one third of the facade area. Darker anodized window fronts should also be recommended in-lieu of brushed aluminum store fronts. E. Building Mass & Scale- The Bozeman Design Objectives Plan state that the following elements must be achieved in order to reduce the perceived mass of a building: a change in color or change The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Preliminary PUD Plan Review 10 in material shall be used in each building module; a 20% change in vertical height between each module; change roof form; change in articulation. The architectural guidelines should discuss components that help to establish a human scale along the facade, store fronts, primary entrances (i.e., one-story elements). Expression of the each floor in the external skin and use of materials should also be noted. The Development Manual must contain these provisions and any illustrations proposed in the application that does not reflect the guidelines should be modified accordingly. F. Roof Form- The principle roof form for the mixed-use development is a flat roof with parapet walls, pediments, and articulate hip or shed roofs. Gable roof details either as a principle or secondary feature, or at the primary entrance points should be included to reduce the perceived scale of the building. This should be a primary architectural feature throughout the development but primarily on structures fronting onto the entryway corridor and public streets. G. Building Materials- The architectural guidelines discuss building materials that vary and create visual interest, while exhibiting an overall coordination of color materials and are generally consistent with the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan. However, the guidelines state 65% of all facades exclusive of the front fagade may be covered with stucco or EIFS synthetic surfaces,which is consistent with the design objectives plan. Because this proposal stands on a `lifestyle' center concept and a high quality setting that does not have the rear or back to a building, not more than 25% of any building fagade will be covered by synthetic surfaces. H. Building Complex- The architectural guidelines reinforce the desire to create a development that exhibits a unity in design while providing a variety in the architectural vocabulary. I. Service Canopies- these criteria is not applicable as it is specific to gas stations and convenience store canopy design. J. Color- The architectural guidelines shall include language that specifically states that muted colors and earth tones will be used, including roof materials. A minimum of 75% of the exterior walls seen from the public way shall have muted colors. K. Utilities & Mechanical Equipment- The Development Manual will need to include language stating that all mechanical, electrical, HVAC, and utility services will be properly screened with an opaque screening device,which may include landscape screening features. The guidelines must go on to state that all utility equipment associated with storm water facilities or landscape irrigation system (i.e., irrigation wells, pumps, etc.) shall be located outside of the common open space areas and properly screened. 4. Sign Design (pages 49-56): A. Sign Context & Position- The design guidelines call for a common signage theme that generally focuses on building signage, not freestanding signs. Illustrations in the Development Manual suggest placement of monument signs at principle and secondary access points into the development, which are generally consistent with the quality and character of the project. The illustrations are intended to demonstrate the character of the signage and no so much compliance with the sign ordinance. However, two of the illustrations would not comply with the sign The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Preliminary PUD Plan Review 11 0 0 ordinance. As a result, the common signage plan submitted with the Final PUD Plan will need to comply with the sign ordinance, unless deviations to the ordinance are requested by the applicant. The signage plan focuses on project identification signs as key entrance into the project, but does not identify freestanding type (i.e., pylon or monument). Only one pylon-style sign is permitted per street frontage with the remainder freestanding However, the Final PUD Plan will need to contain a common signage plan that illustrates the actual design standards for the project identification signs. The Development Manual will need to include a graphic component of the master sign plan for the entire property. This includes discussion on the position of signs as part of the overall building composition; avoid obscuring architectural details, materials, and use of color and relief, three-dimensional signage. B. Sign Type- The signage guidelines for buildings contain a mix of halo type reverse channel letters, internally illuminated cabinet signs, blade signs, and window graphics. Cabinet type "box" signage will not be permitted unless a three-dimensional component creates a sense of architectural relief with no plastic, translucent face allowed. These standards will need to be included in the Development Manual. C. Sign Materials- The signs discussed in the Development Manual contain a broad range of signs that exhibit high standards and quality of style, permanence and compatibility with the natural and building environment. Changeable copy reader boards are discouraged and should be noted in.the guidelines D. Sign Lighting- The guidelines indicate that the majority of the illuminated signs will be.internally illuminated. Light color backgrounds on internally illuminated signs are discouraged and a white background is inappropriate. The guidelines will need to address these restrictions E. Sign Content- The guidelines establish parameters for the letter styles and sizes that are compatible with the building design. F. Wall Murals- Not applicable. 5. Corridor Specific Guidelines: C. North 19`h Avenue & Oak Street Corridor (pages 69-79)- 1. Existing agricultural site features and/or resources should be integrated into a newer development when feasible. Not applicable. 2. A building should fit within existing topography when feasible. The topography from south to north is generally gradual enough whereby a stepped foundations area necessary. The proposal does not give consideration parking underneath the structures. Double-fronted buildings are proposed to avoid the presence of the back of buildings onto the public streets and West Main Street entryway corridor. This was discussed in detail previously in the staff report. 3. Provide an infill building adjacent to the sidewalk in new and established developments. The application discusses the presence of satellite commercial pads along the The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Preliminary PUD Plan Review 12 9 • West Main Street entryway corridor. With exception to the corridor, no building fronts are proposed to be built adjacent to the public right-of-way along Fowler Avenue or West Garfield Street. 4. A pedestrian and bicycle boulevard trail shall be provided on the furthest reaches of West Main Street. This has been addressed as part of a trail network that includes an asphalt pedestrian/bicycle trail along the entire entryway corridor frontage. 5. The applicable streetscape elements appropriate in the corridor must be addressed. The application has addressed the treatment of street trees, landscape accents, furnishings, and bicycle facilities. The applicant should consider a shelter map and map display along what will serve as a regional boulevard trail connection that fronts along West Main Street. Provisions for a transit stop should also be considered. CONSIDERATIONS 1. That all pedestrian/bicycle crossings with streets be given greater emphasis by using similar pavers that reflect the surface treatment of public plazas and areas of outdoor social activities. Connections of between streets, off-street parking lots, public areas should also be given attention in terms of raised walkways, pavers, pedestrian lighting and landscape features. The Final PUD Plan will contain a detail whereby the development provides a public shelter and map display along what will serve as a regional boulevard trail connection that fronts along West Main Street. 2. Provisions for a transit stop within the interior of the PUD should be incorporated into site plan for review and approval with the Final PUD Plan. 3. The public streetscape shall contain a regular spacing of boulevard trees along all streets, both public and private, in concert with landscape features and screening of off-street parking lots; primarily, areas along West Garfield Street and US Highway 191/West Main Street. All trees to be installed in the boulevards, off-street parking lots, common open space areas, and individual subdivision lots will be installed at 2-inch caliber in diameter. Street character along the West Main Street entryway corridor Fowler Avenue and Garfield Street shall call for architectural features that suggest a presence of store fronts, plazas, fenestration treatment and architectural details that reflect the "lifestyle center" concept. .The Development Manual shall contain said language to insure implementation of said streetscape features. 4. Commercial and retail drive-thrus and associated apprentices (speaker phones, signage, ATM, canopies, etc.) shall not front onto the entryway corridor or corner-side of the building and will not impact the building facade of the satellite structures along the streetscape. The Development Manual will provide a typical illustration that speaks to this provision prior to Final PUD Plan approval. 5. The Final PUD Plan and Development Manual will need to discus the treatment of street intersections that will be enhanced with a pedestrian-friendly entrance plaza or human scaled design features. such as benches and landscape planters. Building entrances near the sidewalk edge that contain an entry plaza should also be considered at the intersections of local streets with Technology Boulevard and should be considered not only in the commercial area, but also along the business park/professional office corridors. This would also apply at the corner of Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street. If it is the decision to locate the grocery store at the southeast corner of West Main Street and Fowler The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Preliminary PUD Plan Review 13 0 • Avenue, a building entrance and plaza must occur along the entryway corridor, preferably at the northwest corner of the building. 6. The Development Manual and Landscape Plan shall address the treatment of drainage basins in the open space corridors with regard to placement of said facilities and outlet structures. These facilities must be properly landscaped and prevent any impact on the landscape features along these corridors. Specific landscape details will be required with the final landscape plan to demonstrate proper landscape of the facilities. The landscape guidelines shall state that drainage basins will not eliminate the installation of landscape and landscape features as depicted on the Preliminary PUD Plan; and if so, will be replaced outside of the open space corridors. A landscape architect shall certify on the Landscape Plan that landscape features installed over or around areas that contain a drainage basin in the open space corridor will not be impacted. 7. That the landscape guidelines of the Development Manual state that the surface ponds along West Main Street are not be part of the storm water facilities and will be maintained as landscape feature along the entryway corridor. Provisions will be discussed in the protective covenants and Development Manual that will limit the fluctuation of said ponds to ensure that they remain a landscape feature along the entryway corridor. Said improvements will be financially guarantee for a minimum of twenty-four mouths, or to construction seasons, to ensure that said improvements are an effective element of the entryway corridor. 8. The final Landscape Plan shall specifically address landscape details for the three corridors, two public trails within the off-street parking lot, West Main Street entryway corridor. Detailed landscape plans shall also be included for the two public plazas within in the interior of lifestyle center and the small public spaces along the north/south water courses. 9. The Bozeman Design Objectives Plan states that the following elements must be achieved in order to reduce the perceived mass of a building: a change in color or change in material shall be used in each building module; a 20% change in vertical height between each module; change roof form; change in articulation. The architectural guidelines should discuss components that help to establish a human scale along the facade, store fronts, primary entrances (i.e., one-story elements). Expression of the each floor in the external skin and use of materials should also be noted. The Development Manual will need to provide illustrations for each of these guidelines as discussed and revise any illustrations proposed in the application that do not reflect said criteria. 10. The architectural guidelines for the development suggest that the Convenience Center, Outparcels and Office-Professional areas will incorporate the architectural vocabulary of the lifestyle center. However, modifications will be required due to the significant variation in building type and scale. The Development Manual goes on to state that an exact determination of which entities will be responsible for which elements of design and construction will be determined by individual lease or sales agreements. In-lieu of this, the Development Manual should give specific attention to each of these areas of the mixed-use development and identify what must be achieved in each of these areas to maintain the architectural integrity of the overall development theme. The Development Manual shall graphically address the presentation of building facades that face onto the pubic streets (i.e., West Main Street entryway corridor, Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street) and through the use of illustrations illustrate the architectural theme sought with the "lifestyle center of the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision. This also applies as well to the professional office, business park The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Preliminary PUD Plan Review 14 and convenience components of the development, as well as the rear facades of both sides of the "lifestyle" center situated along Technology Boulevard. 11. The architectural guidelines of the Development Manual will be modified to state that not more than 25% of any of the building facades shall be covered with a synthetic surface. 12. The Development Manual will discuss presentation onto a street regardless if it's the main street for the lifestyle center, private street or a public street with respect to a formal entrance, store fronts, covered entrances, and public spaces. 13. Detailed elevations, floor plan, landscape plan, site plan and a color palette and materials sample board shall be submitted for each building prior to Final PUD Plan or Final Site Plan approval and issuance of a building permit. 14. No franchise style architecture shall be permitted in the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision and noted accordingly in the protective covenants and restrictions and Development Manual. 15. The general materials theme shall be continued throughout the development but there needs to be more variety in design. 16. All of the buildings on the perimeter of the development shall have a second front (double fronted design) oriented towards the streetscape and include a colonnade and a sidewalk connection to the perimeter sidewalk/trail system and all corner buildings shall include some type of design feature oriented towards the corner (a concave area or a bump-out constructed of transparent materials). 17. The backside of the buildings shall be addressed by the continuation of materials on all sides and the addition of awnings over the doors on the rear elevations. 18. The development guidelines shall indicate that all store fronts shall be dark bronze anodized, or similar,versus the brushed stainless f rush. 19. Sconce lights and goose neck lights (down lights only) shall be added to the larger retail buildings (over 15,000 square feet). 20. No translucent awnings. Building awnings shall be fabric or metal only. 21. Those areas to be finished in a synthetic finish shall place a strong emphasis on joint detail, relief and architectural detail, and noted accordingly in the Development Manual. 22. All crossings within the Planned Unit Development shall be constructed with scored concrete or pavers similar to the surface materials installed throughout the public outdoor public areas. The crossings shall be noted as such on the Final PUD Plan and details for the pattern shall be provided in the final development guidelines. 23. Larger seating areas with planters shall be installed throughout the plazas and public areas and a typical detail of the planters included in the Development Manual. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Preliminary PUD Plan Review 15 24. Shelter areas with a transit stop and appropriate waiting zones shall be installed within the interior of one of the off-street parking lots of the project. 25. The development guidelines shall indicate that no backlit cabinet signs will be permitted in the phase. A comprehensive sign plan shall be submitted to the Planning Office prior to Final PUD approval that depicts a sign package that exhibits qualities of style,relief and compatibility. 26. The development guidelines shall indicate that exposed neon is prohibited and can only be used as a subtle lighting element under the soffits,behind the fascia or in the sign package (i.e.,backlit feature). 27. A common signage plan depicting the location, dimensions, height, illumination and use of materials for all freestanding stings shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Final PUD Plan approval. Both the pylon sign and monument signs shall be constructed of materials compatible with the overall building design theme for the complex, and illustrated accordingly in the Development Manual. 28. The north off-street parking lot shall exclude two off-street parking spaces along each of the two watercourse corridors for the placement of an 18' x 18' public space with benches, pavers and landscape features, and illustrated accordingly in the landscape guidelines and landscape plan. The watercourse corridors shall have a minimum width of not less than thirty feet, exclusive of the public space. 29. The storm water ponds shall be designed as open, landscaped features that are organic in shape and lined with native grasses and indigenous plants. Code Requirements: 30. All building mounted and pole mounted lights shall meet the cut off shield requirements outlined in the UDO. unless a relaxation is granted by the City Commission. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION The applicant must comply with all other provisions of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance, which are applicable to this project prior to receiving Final PUD Plan, Final Plat or Building Permit approval. 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. NOTE: The Design Review Board and Development Review Committee will forward a formal recommendation to the City Commission on this matter who will in turn consider an action on this application tentatively scheduled for Monday, December 5, 2005. Attachments: Applicant's Submittal Materials Mailed To: Mitchell Development Group, L.L.C., 1315 8`h Avenue N., Great Falls, MT 59401 Carter &Burgess Consultants, Inc., 1420 W. Mockingbird Lane, Suite 800, Dallas, TX 75247 Morrison-Maierle, Inc., P.O. Box 1113, Bozeman, MT 59771 The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Preliminary PUD Plan Review 16 Response to DRB Comments: October 12, 2005 Meeting 1. Water Features; how they will be protected, maintained during the winter, and safety issues. Water features will be protected within the open space corridors provided by the plat. These corridors have been reviewed and approved by the Wetlands Review Board. A copy of the approval letter is attached. Maintenance during the winter will be to leave the water featured in their natural state. The majority of the features are existing natural streams that will remain in their natural state. Where streams or channels are relocated it will simply be to accommodate street crossings or to reestablish the natural channel. Any modifications will be designed by wetlands professionals and naturally integrated into the existing wetland features. The proposed ponds will be shallow wetland features. Banks will be gradually sloped to the water edge and the depth of the ponds will be limited. The pond bottom will also gradually slope from the bank to the middle of the pond. These features should not pose a significant risk to children or other individuals frequenting the area. 2. Screening of the backs of the buildings, specifically along Fowler Ave. and the view from Huffine Lane. Illustrations of the treatments for the backs of buildings including garbage enclosures are attached. 3. Trail connection to the grocery store from the trail along Huffine Lane. This connection will be added to trail and landscaping plans during design. 4. Phasing and the installation of landscaping amenities The phasing plan provides a preliminary schedule for the project. It is likely as the project unfolds that minor adjustments will be made. Phase boundaries and the order of construction may be modified to account for fluctuations in the demand to the different types of uses or locations. Generally landscaping and open space improvements will be completed with the individual phases as identified on "The Bozeman Gateway Phasing Exhibit"with the exception of the paved trail in the open space corridor along Huffine Lane, which will be completed during the summer of 2006. The remainder of the open space improvements will be installed concurrently with the adjacent portions of the development. 5. Building Heights The development guidelines now call for building heights up to 146 ft. for a 10 story building. This will require a relaxation of Section 18.18.060.b. of the Uniform Development Ordinance. 6. Parking Lot Lighting Three options are provided for street and parking lot lighting in the submittal. The applicant understands that two of the options will require relaxation of UDO Section 18.42.150. It is our understanding that the Lumec Domus Series DMS50 meets the requirements of this section. 7. Setbacks and lot coverage in the BP zone The Applicant requests a relaxation of 18.20.30.B. through the PUD process. The relaxation requested would allow the distribution of open space/landscaped areas to be based on the overall project area and site plan, not the artificial boundaries created by the underlying zoning. B-P zoning requires 40 percent landscaped areas whereas B-2 zoning requires none, other than that required for yards and setbacks. Justification: In simplified terms, the justification is that if provision of landscaped open space within the project can be determined based on the entire project, rather than the strict standards of the underlying zoning and their artificial boundaries, there can be a more uniform and functional distribution of open space. Provision of landscaped areas based on the underlying zoning inhibits the implementation of a cohesive and functional site plan. The redistribution of landscaped areas based on the site plan integrates the protection of wetlands and stream corridors with open space buffers while enhancing pedestrian circulation and creation of a compact and efficient use of the land. This redistribution is consistent with the concept of providing an overall site plan and the Community Commercial designation for the entire project area shown in the 2020 Plan. 8. Sidewalks vs. Soft Trails The relaxation of UDO 18.44.080 will apply only to sidewalks in open space areas. Specifically the following open space areas: O.S. 3, O.S. 4, O.S. 5, O.S. 7, O.S. 8, O.S. 9, O.S. 10, and the trail along the east boundary of the property. Sidewalks will be installed by the applicant in all other areas. 9. Technology Boulevard Under the current phasing plan Technology Boulevard will likely be the final street constructed within in the subdivision. As discussed previously phase boundaries and the project schedule will be modified to account for fluctuations in demand for the various • uses and locations provided by the project. At this time the demand for the lifestyle center does not seem as high as other areas. The Applicant anticipates this will change as the project unfolds. The Applicant is committed to the lifestyle center portion of the proj ect. 10. Residential Component The applicant continues to consider a residential component to the project, specifically in the lifestyle center portion of the project. There are issues such as parking that need careful consideration before residential units can be added. Thus the applicant is not ready to commit to a residential component and is not including it with the PUD. The PUD will need to be updated at a later date to include residential units. 11. Parking The parking plan calls for 2576 parking sites on the project. The allowable reductions the adjusted parking requirement is 2556 parking sites. Getting too specific with parking numbers at this time is not advisable. The parking requirements for will be reviewed in more detail with individual site plans as they are proposed to City Staff. The applicant suggests that the submittal illustrates that the planned site meets the parking requirements of the UDO. Slight modifications are to be expected as individual site plans are developed. 12. Access off of Fowler to Lots The proposed layout provides for in excess of 70 feet from the curb line to the buildings along Fowler Avenue, and 30 feet to the access lane behind the buildings. The left out turn movement at the approach will be eliminated and as the access lane will be used only to service the buildings; storage at the approach will be adequate to provide a safe approach. The separation to the buildings is more than adequate to provide a safe approach with respect to the visual triangle. � N : 9 b 'l r t Y IILA V✓ � � r I � l • r� ' J i yl y. + MOFES11 4 ENGINEERSS tt SCIENTISTS SURVEYORS PLANNERS �JJ MMERLE, INC. 901 TECHNOLOGY BLVD • P.O.BOX 1113 • BOZEMAN,MT 59771 •406-587.0721 •'FAX:406-587-176 An Employee-Owned Company DRB Meeting 11/9/2005 Response to questions from Dave Skelton dated 11/8/2005 • Is the water feature along the entryway corridor designed to be a part of the storm water runoff facilities or not? The water feature along the entryway corridor designed to operate in concert with the natural drainage along the south side of Huffine Lane. The features will be located directly adjacent to an existing natural drainage that naturally drains the site. During major flooding events as the water rises in the natural drainage it will naturally rise in the water features. There is no way to avoid this if they are to operate naturally. These fluctuations will be natural, temporary in nature, and short term as runoff drains from the site. If the City wants the water features they need to be designed to operate as part of the overall natural site drainage or they will not function properly. These drainages are not in any way part of the storm water detention ponds or treatment system for the subdivision. They are designed as part of the natural drainage through the site. Please refer to our extensive discussions with Bob Murray at the DRC Meeting on October 26, 2005. Bob agreed that the drainage plan worked and met the requirements of City Code. • The grading plan shows the water feature not continuing west bevond Harmon Stream Boulevard, but all of the site plans indicate so. Which is correct? The water feature will continue across Harmon Stream Boulevard as indicated on the site plan. • Is there a storm water drainage Swale in the entryway corridor that is receiving credit for the open space points required for the planned unit development? There is a natural stream drainage through the entryway corridor that is being enhanced by incorporating the water features as shown. • What are you expecting the building setbacks for buildings from the right-of- way to be along the "lifestyle center" (i.e., Technology Boulevard, Harmon Stream Boulevard, and Chronicle Lane) where there is diagonal parking? "Providing resources in partnership with clients to achieve their goals" I'.., MORRISON MERLE,INC. As outlined in our request of October 27, 2005 the building setback along Technology Blvd. is requested at 15 feet. The thought behind it is to provide a minimum 12 foot sidewalk outside of the parked car overhang. • How do you intend to install the landscape features along the entryway corridor where there is sanitary sewer and storm drainage mains installed underground in Open Space#2 and Open Space#6? Open Space#2—The sewer is to be located generally under the walking paved trail to provide access for maintenance. This will minimize the landscaped area to be disrupted. The storm drain main is shown on the drainage plan for schematic purposes only with the final location to be determined during design. It can be placed under the parking lot asphalt within a drainage easement if necessary. Keep in mind there is 75' of green space between the parking lot and the West Main Street curb line— plenty of room for landscaping. Open Space#6—The sewer main is to be located directly behind the curb to provide easy access for maintenance. The open space area ranges from between 50 feet and.120 feet wide providing more than enough room for both the sewer main and the landscaping. • Could you explain how do you intend to install the boulevard landscape and yard landscape features along Fowler Avenue with an underground storm water main in the front yard? There is 35 feet between the service drive and Fowler Avenue curb lines. The pipe zone will occupy 15 feet and will be on the property side of the right-of-way. Boulevard Trees will not be affected. There will be more than enough space for additional landscaping. As an after thought we may consider placing the sidewalk directly over the storm drain pipe as a sort of boulevard trial providing even more space for landscaping. • If there is a sanitary sewer main in the front yard of Lot#10 - #13 how do you plan to install all of the landscape features shown in the illustration provided the DRB when the larger vegetation is not allowed to be installed over utilities? The sanitary sewer main will be located under the service drive to provide access for maintenance. • How can you justify the trade off of reducing setbacks for off-street parking in-lieu of encroaching into the open space area along the entry way corridor MORRISON Mia MAIERLE,INC. when required yard setbacks along interior street frontages are not part of the open space calculations? What physical features are controlling the proposed street alignment and location for Technology Boulevard? If we reduce the setback along West Main St. we will need to provide additional open space somewhere else on the project. Most likely along the west boundary of Lots 2 and 3 where we have a significant green area already for which we are not taking credit. The only physical features controlling the Technology Blvd. street alignment are the connection at Fowler Ave. and keeping the stream crossing just west of Harmon Stream Blvd. perpendicular to minimize disruption to the wetland. IVIINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEET* OF THE CITY COMMISSION BOZEMAN, MONTANA February 14, 2005 The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in work session in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, on Monday, February 14, 2005, at 7:00 p,m. Present were Mayor Andrew Cetraro, Commissioner Jeff Krauss, Commissioner Marcia Youngman, Commissioner Steve Kirchhoff, Commissioner Lee Hietala, City Manager Chris Kukulski, Assistant City Manager Ron Brey, Director of Public Service Debbie Arkell, Planning Director Andy Epple, Acting City Attorney Tim Cooper and Clerk of the Commission Robin Sullivan. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. Public comment Ms. Wren Bade, South 9th Avenue and West Curtiss Street, expressed concern that City crews stopped maintaining the ice at the Bogert pavilion on January 26, and the recent warming trend caused the ice thickness to diminish and the hockey boards to become unstable. She stated that, even if the temperatures reach 50 degrees during the day, the ice can remain viable if it is maintained. She stressed that the community is losing a valuable asset and asked the Commissioners to require that it be maintained. Mr. Farwell Smith, 513 South Third Avenue, noted that he came to Bozeman from Chicago, which was warmer but had 50 days of skating each year, He recognized that Bozeman has two refrigerated ice rinks, however, he cautioned that not everyone can afford to skate at them. He stated it is a shame that the Bogert rink is not being maintained, so that those who cannot afford the fees can still enjoy the opportunity to skate. City Manager Kukulski stated that both he and Director of Public Service Arkell were aware of and supported Superintendent of Facilities and Lands Goehrung's decision to terminate maintenance of the ice due to the warm weather. He noted that on Friday and Saturday, the Bogert ice rink was full of water because of the high temperatures and acknowledged that today it is once again frozen. He recognized that if the cold weather continues, then ice could possibly be retained. Review of Proposal for CTEP Project-College Street to Huffine Lane Bicycle/Pedestrian Pathway(2.08 miles of 10-foot wide concrete shared-use pathway) Included in the Commissioners' packets was a memo from Grants Administrator Sara Folger forwarding information on the Community Transportation Enhancement Program and identifying the College to Huff ine bicycle/pedestrian pathway as the next project to be funded. Grants Administrator Sara Folger gave an overview of the proposed project, which is a 10-foot- wide shared use off-street pathway along the south side of West College Street from South 11 th 02-14-05 work Senior Planner Dave"on gave an overview of the pros for The Bozeman Gateway Major Subdivision, a mixed use commercial, retail and professional office development along the south side of Huffine Lane/West Main Street across the street from the Gallatin Valley Mall. He noted that the Development Review Committee, Design Review Board and City Planning Board have reviewed this pre-application; and their comments have been included in the packet. He stated that these comments, as well as the feedback received from the City Commission, will be taken into consideration as the applicant prepares formal applications for this project. Senior Planner Skelton identified possible points of discussion, including multiple variances to the unified development ordinance, the arrangement of subdivision lots that results in no street frontage, the orientation of buildings, and proposed encroachments into the watercourse setbacks and wetlands setbacks. The Senior Planner noted that Farmers'Canal divides the property in half; and the applicant is proposing to pipe the canal through a portion of the project. He drew attention to the trail systems proposed in the interior of this subdivision, noting that adequate pedestrian crossings must be provided. He also noted that safe pedestrian crossings on Huffine Lane at Fowler Avenue and possibly Harmon Street have been identified as essential. He then identified other issues of discussion before the advisory bodies, including the orientation of buildings and ensuring that adequate buffering is provided to ensure that this project is a contributing element to the entryway. Responding to Commissioner Kirchhoff, Senior Planner Skelton stated that a very rough approximation of the parking needed for this development indicates that the conceptual plan provides the proper amount, falling well within the minimum and maximum number of spaces required by code. He noted that one point of discussion might be the parking provided under common ownership versus the parking owned by specific tenants. Mr. Mark Masek, architect representing the applicant, stated that the design team has paid high attention to detail in this project in light of the site's location in the western entryway corridor to the community. He then noted that, in conjunction with the development,the applicant proposes to extend West Garfield Avenue and Huffine Lane and indicated that the traffic signal at the intersection of Huffine Lane and Fowler Avenue has been approved. He noted that West Garfield Street is to be constructed as a collector, with bicycle lanes on both sides of the streets. He stated that the slip lane is to be eliminated at the intersection of West College Street and West Main Street/Huffine Lane. Mr. Masek drew attention to the significant amount of open space provided, landscaping, berming, water features and trail system. He also drew attention to the alignment of Fowler Avenue, noting that at the south end it has been moved to the east to avoid the wetlands as much as possible. Under this project, the perennial streams are to be enhanced with plazas and benches, ponds are to be added, and the wetlands are to be left in their natural states to the greatest extent possible. Mr. Greg Stratton, Morrison-Maierle, stated the developer's team is comfortable with virtually every comment that has been submitted to date. He requested Commission comment on the request for relaxation from the watercourse and wetlands setback requirements, to allow for a 35-foot setback from the high water mark rather than 50 feet from the edge of the watercourse as required by the code, and to allow for a 10-foot setback from watercourses and wetlands that are created as a result of this development, He noted that the requested reductions would provide the flexibility needed to shift the watercourse within the overall setbacks for the watercourse, He noted that there are many areas on the site that are not high quality wetlands, but provide drinking holes for the cattle 02-14-05 work Commissioner Hietcoated he supports the proposed d*opment, Mayor Cetraro indicated he echos the other Commissioners' comments. Responding to Commissioner Kirchhoff, Mr. Ted Mitchell, applicant, stated he is interested in attracting both national restaurants and local restaurants to this site. He then stressed his desire to promote uniqueness within this development. Further responding to Commissioner Kirchhoff, Mr. Mitchell stated it is his intent to provide one- story development along West Main Street and to possibly increase the height of structures further back in the site. He then indicated that the site of the proposed convention center/hotel is what has been determined the best site, given its proximity to the demand generators, Also, it is further from the street and the traffic noises, which the hotel franchisers counsel is preferable. He estimated the project will take seven to nine years to build out, and cautioned that the project will not lay out well if he is required to strictly adhere to the setback requirements set forth in the code. The Commission thanked Mr. Mitchell for the opportunity to review this project. Informal Review- StoneRidge Square PUD Concept Plan -allow construction of one large-scale retail building within the 181,743 square foot retail complex at the northwest corner of West Oak Street/North 19th Avenue - Springer Group Architects (Z-04264) Included in the Commissioners' packets was a memo forwarding the concept plan for one large scale retail building within a 181,743-square-foot retail complex located in StoneRidge Square. The subject property is located at the northwest corner-of the intersection of North 19th Avenue and West Oak Street. Associate Planner Jami Morris briefly introduced this concept plan and reminded the Commission that this property has been zoned to allow regional, community and neighborhood commercial development. Mr. Lowell Springer noted that the first concept plan he submitted for this project worked very well for his clients but met with pretty strong criticism before the Commission. He distributed a packet of plans reflecting some of the changes that have occurred as a result of that first review, noting that the plan submitted for consideration at this time addresses the issues previously raised, He noted that the revisions include creating more of a downtown feel in the"13-1"zoned area at the southern portion of the site and proposing smaller structures that meet the guidelines for the StoneRidge Planned Unit Development, He highlighted the main entrance to the development, noting it is to be flanked by two rather large retail structures and provide vehicular access, ending at a plaza that provides pedestrian access to the green space along the eastern boundary of the site. He then noted that several building envelopes have been moved closer to North 19th Avenue, and the larger structures have been moved outside the "B-1" zoning boundary. Mr, Springer noted that he has been working with the potential clients as he has attempted to address the City's concerns and has been able to get them to compromise on a variety of issues. He has also worked with Planning staff as the plan has progressed, Mr. Springer posted some architectural renderings, stressing that these are simply conceptual and not detailed or final, 02-14-05 work • DESIGN REVIEW BOARD • WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2005 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Pro Tempore Randy Carpenter called the meeting to order at 3:37 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Scott Hedglin David Skelton, Senior Planner Randy Carpenter Jami Morris, Associate Planner Brian Krueger Susan Kozub, Planner I Michael Pentecost Erin Groth, Planner Mel Howe Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Bill Rea Visitors Present Ted Mitchell Greg Stratton John Davidson Ashley Ogle Doug Minarik Steve Henderson Scott Dehlendorf ITEM 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12,2005 Chairperson Pro Tempore Randy Carpenter called for corrections or additions to the minutes of October 12, 2005. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Krueger seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 2005 Chairperson Pro Tempore Randy Carpenter called for corrections or additions to the minutes of October 26, 2005. Mr. Krueger stated that on page 5, roughly half way down the page, Frank Lloyd Wright was spelled incorrectly. MOTION: Hedglin moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to approve the minutes with corrections. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 4. DISCUSSION ITEM A. * Planning Staff liaison to the DRB—Jami Morris. Associate Planner Jami Morris stated that Stoneridge Square had been continued at City City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—November 9,2005 1 Commission due to designL�Cs and the DRB would be reviewing a roject at a later date. Mr. Hedglin asked if the City Commission minutes would be furnished for the DRB. Planner Morris responded there were no minutes available as the project was immediately continued. ITEM 5. PROJECT REVIEW A. Bozeman Gateway PUD Prel. Plan#Z-05217 (Skelton) Southwest of the intersection of College Street and Huffine Lane * A Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan Application to allow a 72.2 acre, mixed-use development with BP (Business Park District) and B- 2 (Community Business District) zoning designations. (Third of a three week review.) Ted Mitchell, John Davidson, and Greg Stratton joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton noted Mr. Stratton had responded to the conditions of approval and he had sent an e-mail version of the responses to the DRB. He stated there would need to be a formal recommendation from the DRB provided at the end of the meeting. Mr. Mitchell presented the DRB with color renderings regarding Planner Skelton's e-mailed conditions. Mr. Stratton explained how each concern had been addressed. Mr. Mitchell stated the delivery area in the north part of the Lifestyle Center had been perspective drawn to depict the landscaped areas and sidewalks housing the delivery and trash enclosure areas. Planner Skelton added that Staff was satisfied with the proposed design. Mr. Mitchell presented the elevations of the grocery store structure on the corner of Fowler Avenue and Huffine Lane and stated the entrance had been incorporated into a deli/seating area with a fireplace within the establishment. He stated there would be a delivery window, but did not expect any vehicle stacking problems as there was a backup plan (beepers) in place to accommodate an excess of vehicles. He stated the design of the building (large windows) gave it an open affect and a tower had been instituted on the site. He stated the second entrance included a delivery door with true glass, spandrel glass with aluminum for a storefront appearance, and that the pharmacy would have a drive-up window including architectural design features. He added that he thought he was presenting what the DRB had in mind from the last meeting. He stated the rendering of the convenience center would still need a little tweaking, but the DRB would get a good idea of the design. He stated the rendering depicted the view from Fowler Avenue and the majority of the items had been addressed. Planner Skelton added that the illustrations helped tremendously and he thought the recommended conditions needed to be instituted into the Design Guidelines. Mr. Mitchell stated he had brought a rendering depicting the quality the applicant would be maintaining throughout the development. Mr. Krueger asked if the majority of the elevations shown would have true windows or if they would have false glass. Mr. Mitchell illustrated where real windows would be located and stated that on the west side of the building there would be false windows, but he would try to talk the tenant into the installation of real glass with a darker tint. He stated the treatment of the masonry recessed some of the window areas and the spandrel windows would be on the second floor and in the pharmacy area. He stated the true storefront may include larger glass doors, but he thought it would be a decorative wrought iron gate. Planner Skelton suggested the window treatment and wrought iron gate should be addressed in the Design Guidelines. Mr. Howe asked what type of material would be used on the facades. Mr. Mitchell responded it would be a masonry product (veneer) that looked like sandstone; adding that it weathered well City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—November 9,2005 2 and looked nice. He stated�le wanted to use a lot of the cultured st e that looked like slate. Mr. Hedglin asked Mr. Skelton if the drive-thru near the corner of the structure near Huffine Lane would be problematic. Planner Skelton responded that it would be reviewed during Site Plan review more thoroughly, but at this time there did not appear to be any issues. Mr. Hedglin suggested integrating the drive-thru into the structure on the site. Mr. Mitchell stated that there would be no vehicle stacking on that site as it would present an inferior entrance. Mr. Pentecost stated that the DRB had asked for a lot from the applicant and they had made a valiant effort regarding the massing and blocking of the structures. He asked if the height issue had been resolved. Planner Skelton responded the recommendation for height relaxations was not favorable, but would be site specific and reviewed at the Site Plan review stage of the development. Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Stratton added that in the responses to the conditions of approval, the applicant had agreed to adhere to the maximum height of the downtown area. Planner Skelton stated the points that had been disagreed on by Staff and the applicant should be discussed. Mr. Stratton stated the two natural drainages on the site would function only as natural drainage, and there was no way to design the site without running water through those drainages after it had been treated. Planner Skelton responded there would need to be a provision in place to prevent drainage problems with the fluctuation of the water level. Mr. Stratton stated the drainage report had a flood route analysis to provide accurate water levels in relation to the structures on the site. He stated there could be a maintenance agreement instituted on the site to accommodate the use of aquatic landscaping to prevent silt build up. Mr. Mitchell stated he did not ever want to see dirt at the entrance to the water elements and reminded the DRB that there was no agreement or rule stating that the natural water features would need to be preserved but the applicant would do what they had agreed to. Chairperson Pro Tempore Carpenter asked the plan for detention. Mr. Stratton responded it was subsurface detention areas treated underground and released as a normal pond with a discharge structure and piping. Chairperson Pro Tempore Carpenter asked if any of the surface pavement would be pervious. Mr. Stratton responded a storm drain would route the water to the underground detention area. Planner Skelton suggested discussing the design, approval, and enforcement for the aquatic features. Mr. Mitchell stated he agreed. Mr. Stratton stated the storm-water drainage swell was a natural stream drainage that may enhance the existing stream drainage or move it slightly and the building setbacks had been addressed by allowing 12 feet for pedestrians with no structures right up to the diagonal parking stalls. He stated the sewer main and storm-drain main would be located underneath the all-weather surface and suggested they could move the mains into the driveway or under the asphalt within the easement; he added that there would still be adequate space for landscaping. Planner Skelton stated Staff did not want the open space corridor reduced to allow for a relaxation from the setback requirement along Technology Boulevard and that Staff agreed with the setback relaxation request along portions of the street. Mr. Mitchell stated the bank had relocated their drive-up area to lessen the likelihood of vehicle stacking and the presentation of a drive-thru to the Entryway Corridor. Mr. Stratton stated the landscaping along Fowler Avenue would not be at risk as the sewer main would be located under a driveway. Mr. Howe stated the applicant had done a fine job responding to the DRB's request for graphic representations and he was excited to see the end result. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—November 9,2005 3 0 ft Mr. Hedglin agreed with Mr. Howe. Mr. Pentecost suggested the applicant be sure the Design Guidelines include all the items discussed to ensure the quality of the development. Planner Skelton stated Staff was not providing comments that should be taken personally, but recommended they not use translucent or transparent awnings. He added that the Design Objectives Plan suggested materials that were not necessarily in keeping with the development. He stated the use of stucco and E.F.I.S. would be within the threshold of the general guideline and the key would be to lessen the amount of synthetic materials used for the treatment of the facades. He stated there had been a disagreement regarding the use of muted colors. Mr. Hedglin stated the storefront recommendation#18,#11, and#20 were subjective and suggested the design team should have the freedom to use aluminum storefront, the translucent material, and synthetic materials. He suggested no use of synthetic materials (with exceptions for the quality of the material) within six feet of the ground. MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Bozeman Gateway PUD Prel. Plan #Z-05217 with Staff conditions. The motion died. AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Howe moved,Mr. Pentecost seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Bozeman Gateway PUD Prel. Plan#Z- 05217 with Staff conditions and the modification of conditions#11,#18, and#20 to allow the applicant discretion when choosing materials. The motion carried 5-0. B. Northside PUD Prel. Plan#Z-05253 (Kozub) 1237 North Rouse Avenue * A Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan Application with relaxations to allow the adaptive reuse of the existing structures, the development of a new structure, and related site improvements on property zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing District). Clint Litle, Doug Minarik, Barry Brown, Dax Simek, and Scott Dehlendorf joined the DRB. Mr. Pentecost stated he would abstain from voting on the project as it would present a conflict of interest. Planner I Susan Kozub presented the Staff Report noting the proposed uses of the site. She stated the DRB reviewed the Concept PUD (Wiessman) and the major issues had been addressed. She stated there were ten relaxations proposed for the PUD and reiterated the requests. She stated Staff was supportive of some cash-in-lieu of open-space save for one location that Staff disagreed was actual open space. She stated there would be a possible dedication of park land and Staff would recommend the cash-in-lieu be used for that park or elsewhere if the dedication was not completed. She stated most of the proposed trees were two inch in caliper and a condition was in place to ensure the caliper of the trees was not reduced. She stated the development guidelines required clarification on the orientation of the primary entrances and the development guidelines did not address roof materials; Staff would require clarification. She stated the comprehensive sign plan should depict the allowable amount of signage for each tenant. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—November 9,2005 4 05232 with Staff conditio the modification of conditions 2C af* to allow the applicant the use of fenestration, articulation, awnings, gables, or some other architectural feature that will be consistent with the color pallet instead of the institution of awnings. ITEM 5. PUBLIC COMMENT—(15 —20 minutes) {Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} There was no public available for comment at this time. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m. Randy Carpenter, Chairperson Pro Tempore City of Bozeman Design Review Board City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—November 9,2005 8 0 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2005 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:42 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Scott Hedglin David Skelton, Senior Planner Dawn Smith Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Mel Howe Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Michael Pentecost Lee Hietala Visitors Present Ted Mitchell Greg Stratton John Davidson ITEM 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12, 2005 Continued until next meeting. ITEM 3. DISCUSSION ITEM A. * Planning Staff liaison to the DRB—Jami Morris. Chairperson Dawn Smith stated that two more appointments to the DRB would occur the next City Commission meeting. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW A. Bozeman Gateway PUD Prel. Plan#Z-05217 (Skelton/Murray) Southwest of the intersection of College Street and Huffine Lane * A Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan Application to allow a 72.2 acre, mixed-use development with BP (Business Park District) and B- 2 (Community Business District) zoning designations. (Second of a two week review.) Greg Stratton, John Davidson, and Ted Mitchell joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report noting Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders would be standing in as ADR Staff(if necessary) and U.D.O. expert. He stated he apologized for the length of the Staff Report and suggested that more detail was necessary for the proposal as it will have a significant impact on the image of the West Main Street Entryway Corridor. He stated if the DRB was uncomfortable forwarding a recommendation of approval after this meeting, a third DRB meeting would be required and subsequent meetings before the City Commission could remain scheduled as planned. He stated there had been fifteen initial relaxations requested, which had been included in the Staff Report, and added that five more relaxations had been recently identified. He stated the open space calculations had discrepancies as it was difficult to City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—October 26,2005 1 figure out in this early stage proposal and distributed his calcul'�t�Sns for open space within the project. He stated the request to encroach into the watercourse setback had been reviewed by the Wetlands Review Board and they had forwarded a favorable recommendation for a blanket encroachment based on the defined areas of the plat. He stated Staff had asked that, before any construction activity, the developer institute a silt screen to provide safety for the wetlands areas. He stated that the Gallatin Valley Land Trust and the Park and Recreation Advisory Board confirmed the proposed trail system would be sufficient. He stated the street character along Huffine Lane would require a condition to install one tree for every 50 feet of boulevard frontage and Staff would need to see the landscaping details with the final submittal of the PUD. He stated Staff recommended drive-thru's only on the interior of the site and not fronts or corner sides onto the entryway corridor and added that Staff also recommended additional detail on the proposed treatment of surfaces. He stated Staff recommended the elimination of parking spaces to accommodate a larger landscaped feature in the parking lots along the two watercourses that could institute seating and lighting which would provide more of an open space area within the corridor. He stated vehicular circulation on the site had been addressed, but Staff would require more landscaped features along Huffine Lane and Garfield Street. He stated the applicant had requested a reduction in the number of parking stalls and added that the applicant was down to the minimum requirement as proposed. Planner Skelton asked Assistant Director Saunders how the reduced parking request would be addressed. Assistant Director Saunders responded that Staff could approve the request for a reduction in parking and described the scenario's that would involve City Commission approval of the parking reduction. Chairperson Smith asked if the DRB could review the parking as they had done on Lowe's (100% parking requirements for the primary structure and 75% parking requirements for the remainder of the PUD). Assistant Director Saunders responded it would be a type of shared parking arrangement. Planner Skelton responded he was uncertain about the shared parking arrangements as they would be on a case-to-case basis depending on whether or not the parking is on individual subdivision lots or common areas shared by the tenants. Mr. Stratton stated that there would be 287 sites in one proposal and his concern was that there would not be enough parking for each site once the details of the structures were figured out. Planner Skelton stated there would need to be proper screening for the mechanical equipment and storm water facilities. He stated that based on the number of relaxations being requested by the applicant that all open space areas, individual site and the along the Entryway Corridor would be required to institute 2 inch caliper trees in the boulevard instead of 1 1/2 inch caliper. He stated the architectural guidelines would need to demonstrate an architectural theme carried throughout the PUD include the areas for professional offices and the retail commercial buildings that are not part of the lifestyle center. He stated another key issue was the presence of public plazas off of the Entryway Corridor; aside from those located internally on the site. He stated the need to present storefronts and pubic plazas along the exterior streetscape as well as on corners without destroying the functions of the buildings themselves and Staff would need illustrations regarding the building mass and scale adding that the presentation of the rear of structures would need to be addressed further. He stated DRC recommended approval of all requested relaxations except for building height, 60% lot coverage limitation, and encroachment into required yards for parking. Mr. Hedglin asked the intent of conditions#18 and#20. Planner Skelton responded Staff would require dark anodized storefront framing instead of steel brushed stainless steel aluminum and cited Hastings Shopping Center as an example. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—October 26,2005 2 0 0 Mr. Pentecost asked Planner Skelton if item C on page 12 was a typo. Planner Skelton responded it was a typo. Mr. Howe asked Mr. Skelton if the proposed soft trails had attributes comparable to paved trails. Planner Skelton responded that the Gallatin Valley Land Trust and Recreation and Parks Advisory Broad has slowly made a transition for trails from gravel to have a more.impervious surface due to deterioration when the trails were not being unused and added that good connectivity and conservation to the natural environs of the watercourse would be attributes. Mr. Howe asked the regular method for maintenance of the amenities in large commercial developments. Planner Skelton responded that the city could assess the maintenance with property taxes, but there were too many instances in which it could not be enforced. As a result, it is necessary the covenants more teeth to maintenance and upkeep of open space, landscape features, street boulevards, trails, etc. Mr. Howe asked if safety features on the internal drain structures would be installed on the site. Mr. Stratton responded there would be safety features in place. Mr. Howe suggested the trash enclosures be located within the building envelope. Planner Skelton responded that B.F.I. would be responding to that request before the next meeting. Mr. Pentecost asked if Staff suggested the applicant provide elevations for the structures for DRB review. Planner Skelton responded there were areas where Staff would need a typical elevations that would generally, not specifically, outline the proposed architecture for each phase of the development in addition to the lifestyle center. Mr. Pentecost asked if the elevations would dictate the design of the buildings. Planner Skelton responded that it would in terms of architectural treatment, fenestration, surface, etc.; the burden would fall on the architect to maintain the overall architectural features of the development based on what was approved in the Development Manual. Chairperson Smith asked if Staff was requesting "typical elevations" in the preliminary stages and "detailed elevations" afterward. Planner Skelton responded they were asking for more defined details with Final PUD Plan Review as part of the Development Manual with specific elevations submitted as part of the site plan review application for each site. Chairperson Smith asked Planner Skelton if DRC supported the requested height relaxation. Planner Skelton responded that DRC did not support the proposed height. Chairperson Smith asked if anything was discussed regarding front plane modulation on the 100 foot long facades. Planner Skelton responded the offsets were addressed in the Design Objectives Plan, but they were very insignificant and did not suggest a substantial offset. Chairperson Smith stated she did not understand the height restrictions for the proposed retail structures and did not know if it would be proportional to the massing. Planner Skelton explained the height restrictions appeared to be specific more to the buildings around the perimeter that are not part of the lifestyle center. Chairperson Smith asked if there was a Staff recommendation for landscape performance points. Planner Skelton responded there they just make the points based on the open space calculations distributed by staff, but needed to have better detail with landscaping at a scale that discusses more that trees and trails for him to determine his recommendations for landscaping. Mr. Stratton stated that 40% of the lot needed to be covered by green-space and the applicant had requested the requirement be waived for the eastern third of the development. He stated the U.D.O. stated the terms of the preliminary plan required that it had to be completed within two years time and the applicant had requested longer due to the size of the development. He stated the proposed blocks were longer than 400 feet and the applicant had provided pedestrian City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—October 26,2005 3 corridors within the blockloaccommodate the length. He stated t�etlands Review Board had reviewed and approved the open space corridors and determined the applicant had generally met the setback requirements with the exception of a few areas. He stated the drive access spacing along Fowler Avenue had been addressed with the Engineering Department as a hardship because the access was as far from Huffine Lane as they could possibly get it. He stated the requested lighting relaxation was generally for the corners of parking lots where the lighting was virtually unnecessary and the lighting fixtures would be approved by the City but a relaxation for lighting may still need to be addressed. He stated the sidewalk relaxation request for soft trails was to minimize the impact to the wetlands corridor. He stated the applicant wanted an easement to act as an alleyway to provide access to some structures and the "backing" on Technology Boulevard request was to provide for the proposed diagonal parking. He stated the building height relaxation was to allow a 146 foot tall building instead of the maximum 44 feet allowable. He stated the requested relaxation for the parking was to allow encroachment into the required yard setback in the B-2 zoning areas and added that the BP zoning section along Chronicle Lane. They would need a relaxation for the loading areas to encroach, as well. He stated one relaxation was being requested for the parking areas to meet the 10 foot building setback; that along Chronicle Lane the applicant would like the loading area setbacks to be the same as the building setbacks. Mr. Pentecost asked that, in the event there was an underlying zoning, what regulations would govern. Assistant Planner Saunders responded that, in an ideal world, one would comply with both. Planner Skelton responded that the regulatory standard would be the U.D.O. whether or not the land-use designation provided for the development and added that it would be become a subjective issue unless the zoning and/or land use designation were modified to mirror one another . Mr. Pentecost asked if the BP areas would be zoned B-2 if the proposal went through a zoning change. Planner Skelton responded that Staff would support the rezoning of the property from BP to B-2 based on the present adopted growth policy for the community. Mr. Stratton responded their concern was that the City Commission would not be in support of the zone change. Mr. Pentecost asked if the applicant's request for a time extension (10 years) was due to the possibility that sites in the PUD would not be purchased or if it was the overall length of time that it would take to completely build out the development. Mr. Stratton responded that the applicant was concerned that the architectural design guidelines would need to be redone after a two year period. Mr. Pentecost asked if a section of sidewalk would be allowed to encroach into a setback. Mr. Stratton responded that a portion of it would. Mr. Pentecost asked which street some of the structures would be addressed on. Mr. Stratton added there were special conditions addressing corner side yards with only one front yard. Mr. Mitchell stated the urgent thing right now would be the design guidelines and how to handle garbage collection, screening, and presentation of the backs of structures. He stated Carter- Burgesse had addressed areas of concern (i.e. the grocery store, the lifestyle center). He cited the Southgate Mall in Missoula which had instituted roofed, screening walls around the entirety of the mall to screen unsightly loading and garbage collection areas. He stated this method would be used to avoid presenting the backs of buildings to the Entryway Corridor and vegetation would be maintained. He gave a description of what would occur with the use of landscaping and a 12 or 14 foot retaining wall and a berm for the screening of the loading area of the grocery store to prevent anyone from seeing more than the very top of a delivery truck. Mr. Stratton City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—October 26,2005 4 added the loading dock hal*en relocated to the farthest south end%e lot as possible. Mr. Mitchell stated the trash enclosures would require the garbage people to physically roll out the dumpsters to make their pickup and the applicant would heat the sidewalks at those locations to prevent any accidents. He stated there would not be straight parapets for any length on the facades as the Southgate Mall has done. Mr. Stratton stated the overall package that would be approved at DRB today would allow the DRB to disapprove of an individual site plan at a later date if it wasn't in keeping with the approved design guidelines for the development. Chairperson Smith stated it would not be fair to the applicant during individual site plan reviews if the full presentation of the DRB, with regard to the details of the PUD design, was not represented. Mr. Stratton suggested that building elevations for 9 or 10 buildings was not a problem, but the whole development would be difficult. Chairperson Smith responded a typical set of elevations would be sensible at this early stage of the proposal. Mr. Hedglin stated the screening of the trash and loading areas would become an issue later and he was not comfortable approving the project with 40 conditions of approval outlined in the proposal. Mr. Pentecost agreed with Mr. Hedglin. Mr. Howe stated he supported the project. Chairperson Smith stated she did not see specific examples in the design guidelines addressing treatment of facades and screening. She suggested good examples from the Stoneridge PUD. Mr. Hedglin added the Kenyon Noble Mr. Pentecost stated he was struggling with the fronts of structures being located in a certain direction and the rear of the structures only being screened; citing Frank Lloyd Write's comments regarding growing vines to cover bad designs (no backs of buildings). Chairperson Smith stated that the approval of the requested relaxations for the PUD would require a development above and beyond the U.D.O. requirements. Mr. Davidson stated they knew the supermarket would want the corner site due to its location being near the Entryway Corridor and he thought the nicest concept would not be a parking lot presented to the Entryway, but a nicely designed rear fagade on the supermarket. He added there would need to be a large amount of parking for the market and the bank. Chairperson Smith responded that the City Commission's opinion would be that the market's corner should be "alive" (i.e. pedestrian friendly with an entrance or false entrance). Mr. Davidson asked if better architectural features would allow for the proposed orientation of the grocery store. Chairperson Smith and Mr. Pentecost responded that they thought the orientation of the structure was fine, but the City Commission might not see it as such. Chairperson Smith stated the crux of the issue was not to be the screening of the structures, but the treatment of the facades of the structures to allow for less screening. Mr. Howe stated the loading areas and trash bins could be located inside the building envelope. Mr. Hedglin stated his concern was with the height of the structures and the view from Technology Boulevard. He added the sun would never hit the street in the winter months. Chairperson Smith suggested continuing the project until the next meeting of the DRB with this City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—October 26,2005 5 project being first on the a The DRB and the applicant concu" ITEM 5. PUBLIC COMMENT— (15 —20 minutes) {Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.} A gentleman from the audience made the overall conclusion that the size of parking lots needed considered, due to the urban effect, with proliferation so that trees can survive within the parking areas. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Dawn Smith, Chairperson City of Bozeman Design Review Board City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—October 26,2005 6 • DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 9 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2005 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Scott Hedglin David Skelton, Senior Planner Dawn Smith Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Mel Howe Brian Krueger Michael Pentecost Visitors Present Ted Mitchell Greg Stratton ITEM 2. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2005 Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of September 28, 2005. MOTION: Mr. Hedglin moved, Mr. Krueger seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. DISCUSSION ITEM A. * Planning Staff liaison to the DRB —Jami Morris. Chairperson Smith stated that, since there would be no recommendation made today on the Bozeman Gateway project, Mr. Pentecost would be participating in the meeting. She asked if Michelin from Greenspace Landscaping had been appointed to the DRB. I explained the process of appointing a new member to the DRB and stated that she had not yet been appointed as the City Commission had not formally reviewed and approved her application. ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW A. Bozeman Gateway PUD Prel. Plan#Z-05217 (Skelton/Murray) Southwest of the intersection of College Street and Huffine Lane * A Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan Application to allow a 72.2 acre, mixed-use development with BP (Business Park District) and B- 2 (Community Business District) zoning designations. (First of a two week review.) Greg Stratton and Ted Mitchell joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff memo noting that the DRB would be reviewing the application twice; with the formal Staff report being given to them the second meeting. He noted the location of the proposed development and listed the types of uses proposed within the development. He stated the City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—September 14,2005 I Farmers Canal flows from"o east through the site and would be piped underground and the design of the project is such to protect the three existing watercourses and wetlands on-site. He stated the open space areas would remain in the present state and improved to city standards and maintained by the property owners and there would be a landscape/water feature along Huffine Lane in the Entryway Corridor. He stated there was a request to reduce a portion of the required watercourse setback established by the wetlands boundary and outlined the other relaxations from the U.D.O. requested by the applicant. He stated that the WRB has recommended approval to encroach into the wetlands setback associated with the watercourses. He stated if the streets were deemed as private streets within the PUD, there would be no relaxations needed for the proposed lighting and diagonal parking. He stated there was an Ice Tea grant that the applicant has agreed to participate in and allow for an easement to continue the trail across Huffine Lane and further west on the north side. He stated the applicant had attempted to address the backs of structures facing the Entryway Corridor and they felt the problem had been alleviated. He stated Staff had asked for more detail and illustrations with implementation of the Development Manual, and the applicant has provided better detail with the manual, but they would need certified landscape plans in the future. Mr. Hedglin asked if Garfield Street was being constructed. Planner Skelton responded that Garfield Street has being constructed as a collector street. Mr. Hedglin asked if the construction of the road was at the cost of the developer or the city. Mr. Stratton responded that the construction cost was wholly the developers. Mr. Hedglin asked how the intersection would work. Mr. Stratton responded it was a right turn only intersection with signalization. Mr. Krueger asked if the discrepancy over the calculated open space had been addressed. Planner Skelton responded it had and added that a landscape information distributed to the DRB1 would provide clarification. Mr. Krueger asked if the Entryway Corridor guidelines had been met. Planner Skelton responded that he had not looked at the new Design Objectives Plan yet with regard to this project, but would discuss them in the DRB staff report for the next meeting. Mr. Krueger asked if the DRB would see specific sites for review at future meetings. Planner Skelton responded that the development would be done site specific in phases and the DRB would review each specific site if it meets the threshold in the UDO for DRB review, adding that Staff was generally supportive of the proposal if more information and detail to implement the project is provided. Mr. Krueger stated the development manual furnished by the applicant was very important as a guideline for the design of individual sites within the overall proposal. Planner Skelton responded that it was important to be careful that the manual did not contain less restrictive development guidelines, but also noted that what was ever approved the City would be party to any modifications proposed by the developer Mr. Mitchell stated he would have no problem with DRB review for each site if there were contradictions between the proposed structures and the design guidelines in the development manual. Chairperson Smith stated that her concern was with proposed franchise structures. Planner Skelton responded that there was a question as to whether or not the DRB would review the smaller buildings; his thought was that if there was a proposal that did not follow the development manual, then the DRB would review the proposal to ensure complaince. Planner Skelton stated a directive from the Board of Regents that had the college looking for agricultural lands further outside of city limits and that further development of the university lands may occur in the future. Chairperson Smith asked the layout of Fowler Lane and how many lanes it would contain once completed. Mr. Stratton responded Fowler Lane would have City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—September 14,2005 2 four lanes near the interse4n and have signalization. 0 Mr. Mitchell stated the applicant wanted a higher-end development in Bozeman; with a lot of money going to preserving the existing wetlands, being pedestrian and vehicle friendly, having great open space areas, and water features. He stated the back sides of structures would not appear as backsides; there would be screening walls 12 feet tall. He noted the development would be done in phases and listed in which order the proposal would be completed. He noted the applicant was very fussy about quality and added that he thought the DRB would be very happy with the end result. Chairperson Smith asked if anything had changed from the Informal DRB review. Mr. Mitchell responded that the open space had been widened, a structure had been added, and a structure had been slightly altered. Mr. Stratton added that the streets had been slightly tweaked to meet Engineering Department guidelines. Mr. Pentecost asked if a view of a large dirt field would be visible to the public throughout the construction of the project. Mr. Mitchell responded that many of the parking lots and some of the buildings would be completed, but there might be a short time when there would be pieces of undeveloped land. Mr. Pentecost asked if there would be leases or if tenants would own their buildings. Mr. Mitchell responded the applicant would prefer to lease buildings and have control over the proposed structures, but there would be tenants that would insist on buying the pads outright. He added that the applicant would still be responsible for the parking lots and landscaping. Mr. Pentecost asked how the parking would be addressed for a proposed five-story structure that the design guidelines allowed for. Mr. Mitchell responded the only way it could be done would be to institute a parking structure on the.site. Mr. Pentecost stated the parking structure would allow for a lot more parking and less structures. Mr. Mitchell agreed with Mr. Pentecost. Mr. Pentecost asked if there was a vehicle in place to protect the development from the institution of parking structures that would overrun the site with asphalt. Chairperson Smith suggested considering the parking structure element seriously at this early stage to prevent future difficulties. Mr. Mitchell responded that the cost of the structure pretty much ruled out its use in this proposal. Mr. Hedglin asked what would prevent a private individual from purchasing property within the development and sitting on a dirt field for five years awaiting the property value to increase. Mr. Mitchell responded that sitting on the property to await an increase in property value would not be allowed and added that the time limit on developing a site purchased within the PUD would be one year. Mr. Hedglin asked if the time frame for the proposal to be built out would still be 5- 7 years. Mr. Mitchell responded they were anticipating 8-9 years to completely build out the site. Mr. Howe asked how the proposed water features could be called water features in the winter and if there were safety characteristics in place so the water features did not become a danger to people. Mr. Mitchell responded the more formal ponds, falls, and fountains would have a heating and cooling system that was borrowed from the surrounding structures and would prevent the water from freezing and the informal water features would be subject to nature taking its course. He stated the wetland plantings and shallow ponds with sloping banks would help prevent hazards to people. Chairperson Smith asked if the Farmers Canal would be day-lighted (above ground) or piped. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—September 14,2005 3 Mr. Mitchell responded Applicant would be piping the portion Re canal through the development, but there was an existing culvert along the western edge of the site. Mr. Stratton added that a section-line ditch crossed from the site over Huffine Lane to the east side of Fowler Avenue and was already piped in conjunction with the extension of Fowler Lane. Chairperson Smith asked if the grocery store had been considered in the bank pad location as a "gateway" from the west. Mr. Mitchell responded he did not want a grocery store immediately in view of the Entryway Corridor and added the trees would screen much of the view. Chairperson Smith stated she did not see any trail connections from Fowler Avenue to the grocery store. Mr. Mitchell responded that they had forgotten that connection and it would be a great feature to institute. Chairperson Smith asked if the construction phasing had been firmly decided. Mr. Mitchell responded that he did not know for sure if Phases 2 & 3 would be simultaneous until he saw how Phase I would play out. Mr. Stratton added that the interest in Phase 3 was greater than the interest in Phase 2. Chairperson Smith stated she was concerned that the landscaping would not be completed in a timely manner and suggested the locations along the Entryway Corridor be landscaped and paths instituted first, within a certain number of feet from the corridor. Planner Skelton responded that the Entryway Corridor would be one of the first locations to be addressed. Planner Skelton asked if the lighting had been discussed. Mr. Stratton responded there were only a few areas where the lighting requirements would be low and there would be minimal traffic in those locations. Mr. Stratton added that the applicant was requesting the open space requirement of 40% be reduced and soft trails replace a portion of the required sidewalk. Mr. Pentecost asked the thought process behind the installation of the streets and the phasing of the development; whether it was financially organized. Mr. Mitchell responded he wanted to ease the town into the development. Mr. Pentecost asked at which point Technology Boulevard would connect the east and west nodes. Planner Skelton responded that the Fire Department and Engineering Department may require a secondary access with the construction of Technology Boulevard. Mr. Pentecost added he thought he was being teased by the synergy, energy, and potential as he did not get to visit the site for five years and asked why there were no residential, live/work units proposed for the site. Mr. Mitchell responded that the applicant would love to install some two- and three-story residential segments to the development, but the combination of residential and retail development made the parking allocations difficult; he stated they were discussing the option. Mr. Pentecost cited downtown Bozeman where residential spaces were above business spaces and the parking stalls were used in turns (before 5:00 p.m. for business and after 5:00 p.m. for residential). Chairperson Smith asked about the parking calculations. Planner Skelton responded he was uncertain until they were able to determine which lots or common areas would receive credit for a reduction based on shared parking. Mr. Stratton responded that the applicant had proposed 20 parking spaces over the required amount. Mr. Skelton stated there may be parking issues with the hotel conference center. Chairperson Smith stated the hotel would not see as much use as a hotel along the interstate. Mr. Mitchell responded that minimizing the amount of parking surface shown could be done by shared parking arrangements between structures. Chairperson Smith asked how many people the conference rooms would hold. Mr. Mitchell responded that the original plan considered 5,000 square feet of convention, but this proposal had been reduced to around 3,000 square feet. Chairperson Smith asked the reason for the pavement around the retail structures in Phase 1. Mr. Mitchell responded it would be for maintenance, delivery, and traffic flow purposes. Chairperson Smith stated the DRB would need to see the two retail and the City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—September 14,2005 4 anchor structures to be cer a presentation of the backsides of "es ctures were addressed. Chairperson Smith asked if there was enough distance between a delivery location and a turn for the right amount of vehicle stacking to accommodate traffic flow. Mr. Stratton responded that semi templates would be installed to insure enough distance for maneuvering of larger vehicles. Planner Skelton stated that there was a lot of difficult with overlaying architectural and infrastructural plans with 100% accuracy. Mr. Mitchell added there would have to be some larger vehicle circulation to service the site (i.e. trash removal and deliveries). Chairperson Smith suggested a sidewalk cut or widening at certain locations. Planner Skelton stated the DRB needed to be concerned with the presentation of the structures and trash enclosures to the Entryway Corridor. Mr. Mitchell responded there would be screening and architectural features integrating the trash enclosures into the buildings. Mr. Pentecost asked how the integration would work when using trash enclosure walls to integrate with structure walls. Mr. Mitchell responded they would use relief, cultured stone, and a cornice (or similar feature) with an enclosed roof. Chairperson Smith asked if the proposed false wall would have any openings. Mr. Mitchell responded there would be no openings and the false walls would be treated. Chairperson Smith requested building heights, elevations, cross sections of water features and streams, landscape guidelines, and lighting specifications. Planner Skelton stated the majority of the proposal would be reviewed by ADR Staff; the specific sites would be reviewed by DRB as needed if the meet the threshold in the UDO for DRB review. Mr. Krueger asked if the applicant was anticipating deviation requests. Mr. Mitchell responded they were not. Mr. Pentecost suggested the grocery store address Huffine Lane instead of addressing the parking lot. Mr. Hedglin asked if Mr. Mitchell had any examples of the "lifestyle center" design. Mr. Mitchell responded that there were many design examples and they would acquire those for the DRB. Chairperson Smith responded the closest comparison in Bozeman was the Stoneridge development. Mr. Pentecost asked for clarification regarding seeing the back of the entire development, as it had street frontage interior to the site, and the rear of the structures would be addressing the public outside of the development. Mr. Mitchell reiterated how the rear of the structures would be treated. ITEM 5. PUBLIC COMMENT—(15 —20 minutes) {Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.) There were no members of the public to comment at this time. ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—September 14,2005 5 • ENGINEERS MOMSON SCIENTISTS SURVEYORS XZ iMMERLE, ix. PLANNERS 901 TECHNOLOGY BLVD. BOZEMAN,MT 59715 406.587-0721 FAX 406.567.1176 An Employee-Owned Company The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision Planned Unit Development P.U.D. Preliminary Plan Review Response to Design Review Board Staff Report The Applicant has reviewed the Design Review Board Staff Report for this project and is providing the following questions/comments for review at the regularly scheduled Design Review Board meeting to be held on Wednesday, November 9, 2005. The topics identified on the staff report are identified in bold text followed by the Applicants response. Project Description: Applicant agrees. Proposal: Applicant agrees. Chapter 18.36—Planned Unit Development Applicant agrees. Relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance: All relaxations have been properly noticed. Zoning Designation and Land Uses The Applicant suggests adding the following to this section: The City of Bozeman 2020 Community Plan Future Land Use Map designates the Bozeman Gateway area for Community Commercial development. Appendix G identifies the B-2 zoning district as appropriate within the Community Commercial Land Use Designation. According to the UDO, "The intent of the B-2 community business district is to provide for a broad range of mutually supportive retail and service functions located in clustered areas bordered on one or more sides by limited access streets." The plan identifies a "broad range of functions including retail, education, professional and personal services, offices, residences, and general service activities" as being typical uses within this designation. These uses are typical of the B-2 zoning district. The Applicant feels that the site should be developed in a nature that is consistent with the underlying community commercial land use designation. These uses and the nature of the development are consistent with the B-2 zoning district. Page 1 of 8 "Providing resources in partnership with clients to achieve their goals" ® MOMSON M MMERLE,Svc. An Employee-Owned Company During a meeting with Andy Epple, Dave Skelton and Chris Saunders on October 26, 2005, staff suggested, so as to be compatible with the 2020 Community Plan, that the Applicant file for a zone change for the subdivision that is currently zoned BP. Applicant has done so on November 1, 2005. Adopted Growth Policy Designation The Applicant suggests adding the following to this section: The Bozeman 2020 Community Plan does not designate any of the site for "Business Park" land use. The land use designation for the entire site is community commercial. The City of Bozeman 2020 Community Plan designates the community commercial land use designation as being appropriate for development consistent with the proposed B-2 zone. By developing the property in accordance with City of Bozeman 2020 Community Plan and UDO, the appropriate use of land, on this site, will be encouraged and appropriate for the municipality as a whole. The Applicant feels that the site should be developed in a nature that is consistent with the underlying community commercial land use designation. These uses and the nature of the development are consistent with the B-2 zoning district. As mentioned above, City staff recommended and fully supports that Applicant files for a zone change for the BP portion of the subdivision in order to comply with the City of Bozeman's 2020 Community Plan. Applicant has adhered to said City staffs suggestion and filed for zone change on 11/1/05 — which should clear-up a number of issues concerning this subdivision. Review Criteria Applicant agrees. Design Objectives Plan 1. Neighborhood Design The Applicant suggests adding the following: A. Green Space -The requested relaxation to Section 18.20.030.B is supported by the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. The underlying land use designation identified by the plan is community commercial which encourages development consistent with the B-2 district. The Bozeman 2020 Plan does not designate a business park land use for any of the site. The Bozeman 2020 Community Plan does support the request for development consistent with B-2 zoning. As mentioned above, the Applicant has made application for a zone change to change the existing B-P zoning to B-2. Staff has indicated complete support for this modification. Page 2 of 8 "Providing resources in partnership with clients to achieve their goals" ry MORRISON ONE MERLE,INC. An Employee-Owned Company 3. Building Design The Applicant suggests adding or modifying as follows: A. Building &Topography-Applicant agrees. B. Building Character-The Building Design Standards in the Development Manual address this issue and provides numerous architectural artist renderings to help explain and illustrate the theme and quality the Applicant will require. The Gateway Review Board has been established to review the development guidelines. The Applicantabelieyes the material provided-is sufficent•for'te design process. C Primary Building Entrance-Drawings illustrating the streetscape along Fowler Avenue, the back of the Lifestyle Center, and the Fowler Avenue/West Main St. intersection are currently being prepared by the Applicant for review by the DRB, Planning Board, and City Commission. They will be added to the Development Manual for the Final PUD to meet the intent of this section. D. Street Level Interest - Drawings illustrating the streetscape along Fowler Avenue, the back of the Lifestyle Center, and the Fowler Avenue/West Main St. intersection are currently being prepared by the Applicant for review by the DRB, Planning Board, and City Commission. They will be added to the Development Manual for the Final PUD to meet the intent of this section. E. Building Mass & Scale-Building Mass & Scale are covered in the Development Manual under Section IV. "Building Design Standards". The Applicant believes that these standards adequately describe and establish a human scale along the fagade and meet the requirements of the Design Objectives Plan. The Applicant agrees to add the referenced guidelines to the Development Manual that are consistent with the City of Bozeman Design Guidelines. The Applicant does, no �beliieve7there-are to these issues that need modificati—n. F. Roof Form-This item is covered adequately in the Development Manual. G. Building Materials-The Development Manual states that Stucco/EIFS are approved exterior fagade materials in limited areas less than 25% of the front fagade and 65% on all other facades. This requirement is consistent with the Design Objectives Plan and therefore should be acceptable.JThe Appli nt does not agree-to-limit-the use of-these,materials to 25%of any buildingfagade. jr- H. Building Complex—Applicant agrees. f1G �" l► S ►'► �5 I. Service Canopies - There may be service canopies incorporated into the site, TZ-1 specifically for the bank drive-thru. They will, however, comply with the Design Objectives Plan and City of Bozeman Design Guidelines. K J. Color-Applicant objects to the reference in this section of the staff report that "muted colors and earth tones will be used" -unless staff can support this mandate in City ordinances ColorsTw=ill=be in accordance with the Development Man a=s stated so as not�to-limit'tif c ative variation of buildings within the development. K. Utilities & Mechanical Equipment-Applicant agrees. Page 4 of 8 "Providing resources in partnership with clients to achieve their goals" NNIMOMSON MMERLE,ix. An Employee-Owned Company B. Auto Connections—Applicant agrees. C. Pedestrian &Bicycle Connections—Applicant agrees. D. Street Character—Applicant agrees. 2. Site Design The Applicant suggests adding or modifying as follows: A. Natural Features — The Applicant is proposing the open space corridors as illustrated on the site plan and preliminary plat to protect existing watercourses. These corridors have been reviewed and enthusiastically supported by the Wetland Review Board. Please reference the WRB comments and recommendations from Mr. LeCains's email to Dave Skelton on October 17, 2005. These areas will need to be landscaped to emphasize effective landscape features as discussed previously. B. Views—The Applicant is willing to revise the relaxation to limit buildings to a maximum height matching the highest building in the downtown area either presently or in the future. C. Cultural Resources —The cultural resource inventory is included with the submittal materials. D. Topography—Applicant agrees. E. Site Drainage—The Applicant proposed to complete the final landscape plan providing details for open space areas prior to submitting for final plat approval. Landscape plans for individual sites or lots will be submitted as part of the site plan review process. F. Building Placement—Applicant agrees. G. Outdoor Public Spaces —Conceptual details of the plaza areas can be provided with the final landscape plan. H. Pedestrian & Bicycle Circulation Systems—Applicant agrees. I. Internal Automobile Circulations Systems—Applicant agrees. I Parking Lots— Applicant agrees. K. Site Lighting—The Applicant agrees if this paragraph can be supported by City Code. L. Utilities & Service Areas—The Applicant is currently preparing renderings and elevations illustrating these areas for review by the DRB, Planning Board, and ,ty Commission. These details will be added to the Development Manual as part o the Final PUD Plan. M. andscape Design —The Development Manual to be submitted with the Final UD Plan will include illustrations of the West Main Street entryway corridor and Fowler Avenue corridor. The Applicant believes that adequate detail h� a�been provided for all of er areas to illustrate the landscaping concept for the entire site. A detailed landscape plan including final details for each area, landscape species and quantity to be installed will be submitted for each phase of the project prior to submitting for final plat approval. N. Buffers—Applicant Agrees. Page 3of8 "Providing resources in partnership with clients to achieve their goals" MOMSON 115i MAIERLE,INC. An Employee-Owned Company 4. Sign Design A.' Sign Context &Position —Which two sign illustrations do no comply with the sign Ordinance? IrAc -.J' l.J�—1 �v.—��1—� „Acl� 171 The Applicant agrees that the signage plan needs to comply with the sign ordinance in the Final PUD Plan and will make the necessary adjustments. A graphic component will be added to the master sign plan for the development. Signs for individual sites and tenets, however, will need to be reviewed with individual site plans as they are submitted. B. Sign Type—Applicant agrees. C. Sign Materials— Applicant agrees. D. Sign Lighting—Illuminated signs will follow the design guidelines in the Design Objectives Plan and other city code provisions..The Applicant objects to the reference in this section of the staff report prohibiting "light color background on internally illuminated signs"— unless there is a City ordinance in place for such criteria. E. Sign Content—Applicant agrees. F. Wall Murals—Applicant agrees. 5. Corridor Specific Guidelines: C. West Main Street Entryway Corridor 1. Applicant agrees. 2. Applicant agrees. 3. Applicant agrees. 4. Applicant agrees. 5. Applicant agrees. Considerations The Applicant suggests adding to or modifying as follows: 1. Applicant agrees. 2. Applicant agrees. 3. Subject to the site plan and materials provided in this Application, all buildings will be finished on all four sides so as not to allow a perception of a "Back Side" of a structure. 4. Applicant agrees. 5. Architectural renderings of the Fowler Avenue and the West Main/Fowler Avenue intersections will be presented for review by the DRB, Planning Board, and City Commission. Consideration can also be given to the building entrances. The Page 5 of 8 "Providing resources in partnership with clients to achieve their goals" r r MORRISON MAIERLE,INC. An Employee-Owned Company Applicant can also provide a discussion of the treatment of Building Entrances along Technology Blvd. and the treatment of entryways into the project. The Applicant does believe that this consideration needs to be better defined prior to preparation of the Final PUD Plan. 6.' Drainage facilities are covered in the Development Manual under Site Development Standards-Utilities, Grading and Drainage (pages 54, 55, and 56). They include the provision that stormwater treatment facilities shall be incorporated as landscaped features, effectively screened by the use of landscaping, or provided by the use of underground detention and,-stormwater management treatment syst ms. be pro iv d 7. Additional landscape detail willJed along the West Main St. corridor as part of the Final PUD Plan. This detail will include provisions for the treatment of the landscape ponds. It needs to be stated that during extreme flooding events the level of the ponds will naturally increase; The fl tuations will be natural, temporary in nature, and short term as runoff drains from the site. Landscape features will be placed to effectively minimize impacts resulting from stormwater runoff. The Applicant does-no t agree to financially guarantee the improvements for twenty- four months or two construction seasons and believes this requirement onerous and unnecessary. The City will have ample opportunity as the site develops to monitor the improvements. 8. A final landscape plan will be provided prior to final plat approval. 9. The Applicant agrees to add a discussion relating hgreferenced elements identified by the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan. We o believe that'the illustrations provided in the Development Manual reflect these guidelines and no revisions are necessary an�ic no additiona1-i11ustrations;are:necT es—'sary1 10. The building design standards in the DevetopmenfManual address each of the specific uses to be incorporated into the site; Lifestyle Center, Convenience Center, and Office-Professional. The Applicant feels that the concerns raised in `-/� i consideration 10 have been adequately addressed. We wonder if the consideration needs to be more specifically defined. Additional drawings are being provided for the lifestyle center, convenience center, and West Main/Fowler intersection. It is our understanding that these additional drawings will fulfill this consideration. 11. The Development Manual states that Stucco/EIFS are approved exterior fagade materials in limited areas less than 25% of the front fagade and 65% on all other facades. This requirement is consistent with the Design Objectives Plan and therefore should be acceptable. The Applicant-does-not-agree-tc lirnit-the-use-of•these materials 12. [to;25°Io of any building faVade3 The-Applicant can provde`a`discussion relating to the presentation onto streets surrounding the development. We believe internal street presentation is covered adequately as currently presented in the Development Manual and the Pre-application submittal. Additional drawings are being provided for the lifestyle center, Page 6 of 8 "Providing resources in partnership with clients to achieve their goals" r t . IMOMSON MMERLE,mc. An Employee-Owned Company convenience center, and West Main/Fowler intersection for review by the DRB, Planning Board, and City Commission. Additional landscape detail will be provided for the West Main Street corridor as part of the Final PUD Plan. It is our understanding that this will fulfill this consideration. 13. The Applicant strongly disagrees with the consideration that detailed elevations, floor plan, landscape plan, site plan and a color palette and materials sample board be submitted for each buildip—g as part of the Final'PUD`Pla This level of detail is a site plan issue and needs to be provided and reviewed as part..of the,site-plan-process. fIt is not fair or even feasible to expect this level of detail.at this.stage-of-the-project? 14. Applicant agrees. 15. We assume that this will be addressed during the site plan review process. 16. The Applicant believes the use of-a-colonnade-too restricti Te. There are other entry treatments such as awnings, anopies`or�other`ardhitectual treatments that will meet the intent of this consideration. The Applicant suggests the second front oriented to the street be held to the same design criteria as the store fronts. 17. Applicant agrees. 18. Applicant disagrees. This is an architect feature that should be addressed with each individual building review and not placed on the entire development. Unless staff can sup rrt•tliis�matidate ,A in-City_ordinancespplicant will"n t agr ee•,Colors of 2minum or'steel-framed-store-fronts-should-be-allowed"and approved in accordance with the Development Man t l-so as not to lirnit`the creativevariati-on-of-buildings within the development. 19. Applicant Agrees. 20. Again, Applicant feels this requirement is subjective and is taking into account of one's personal preference. Applicant strongly disagrees. Placing arbitrary preferences on this project would place limits on creative architecture. Applicant can envision a situation where a very glamorous building is designed and the architect wants to incorporate an elegant glass awning into the storefront. 21. Applicant agrees. 22. Applicant agrees. 23. Applicant agrees. 24. The Applicant does not believe this consideration was intended for this project. 25. Applicant agrees. 26. Applicant agrees. 27. Applicant agrees. 28. Applicant agrees. 29. Applicant agrees. 30. Applicant agrees. The Applicant is presenting these comments for discussion at regularly scheduled Design Review Board meeting to be held at 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 9, 2005. The Applicant requests the opportunity to meet with City Staff to discuss the final wording for some of the conditions/considerations following this meeting. Sincerely, Page 7of8 "Providing resources in partnership with clients to achieve their goals" iMORMSON ' MidMMERLE,INC. An Employee-Owned Company Morrison-Maierle, Inc. Greg Stratton, P.E. Project Engineer Cc: Ted Mitchell; Mitchell Development Group John Davison; Mitchell Development Group Randy Stone; Carter-Burgess, Inc. Eric Bell; Carter-Burgess, Inc. Jolene Rieck; Peaks to Plains Design,P.C. H:\3638\003\DOCS\REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE\Response to DRB Staff Report.doc Page 8 of 8 "Providing resources in partnership with clients to achieve their goals" The Bozeman Gateway Request for Additional Relaxations Additional UDO relaxation requests are summarized below: 1. UDO18.18.050 and 18.20.050 provide for the following yard setbacks: Minimum Yards in the B-2 district: Building: Front yard—7 feet, except along arterials where minimum is 25' Rear yard— 10 feet Side yards— 5 feet, except where zero lot lines allowed) Parking and Loading Areas: Front Yard—25 feet Rear Yard— 10 feet Side yard— 8 feet Minimum Yards in the B-P district: Front yard—25 feet Rear yard-20 feet Side yard— 15 feet(except where zero lot lines allowed) Request: The Applicant will request a relaxation of Sections 18.18.050 and 18.20.050 to allow reductions of setbacks as follows. All encroachments will be on privately maintained streets internal to the site: Setbacks to buildings and parking and loading areas shall be provided as follows: Huffine Lane— Buildings 60 feet Parking and Loading Areas 50 feet Fowler Avenue— Buildings 30 feet Parking and Loading Areas 20 feet (encroaches 5 feet into 25 foot setback) Technology Blvd— Buildings 15 feet Parking and Loading Areas 10 feet(encroaches 15 feet into 25 foot setback) Harmon Stream Blvd— Buildings 10 feet Parking and Loading Areas 10 feet (encroaches 15 feet into 25 foot setback) Garfield St.- Buildings 25 feet Parking and Loading Areas 25 feet Chronicle Lane— Buildings 15 feet Parking and Loading Areas 15 feet (encroaches 10 feet into 25 foot setback) Justifications: The relaxation will generally establish building and parking setbacks to the same setback line and allow the flexibility to meet parking requirements throughout the subdivision. The cases where the parking/loading area setbacks are reduced to less than the building setbacks are generally to accommodate circulation of traffic to the rear or sides of the buildings. In the Case of Chronicle Lane the setbacks are the remnants of the underlying B-P zoning. As discussed in the submittal the land use designation for the property supports B-2 zoning in this portion of the site. The Applicant is proposing to use the PUD process to allow B-2 uses in this area in lieu of a zone change. The proposed setbacks are consistent with the B- 2 zone district. 2. UDO 18.18.040 and 18.20.040 provides for minimum lot widths in the B-2 of 100 feet and in the B-P zone of 150 feet. Request: The Applicant requests a relaxation of Section 18.18.040 and 18.20.040 to allow lot widths less than those required. Lot widths less than the required will be requested in the lifestyle center portion of the project. Justification: These lots will be in areas where common wall buildings will be constructed. The resulting buildings will be in excess of the 100 foot requirement, however, individual tenant widths will be less than the requirements. Other reduced width lots are identified as plaza areas in the lifestyle center portion of the project. 3. UDO 18.20.060 provides for an allowable building height in the B-2 district of 44 feet. Request: The Applicant requests a relaxation to increase the allowable building height from 44 feet to 146 feet. Justification: The building height relaxation provides an element of flexibility and uniqueness to the project. Any multi-story buildings will still be controlled by the restraints of the site. The availability of parking space to the overall plan will control the size of any buildings. As the height of buildings increases the footprint of the building will decrease if the same amount of space is provided. This will allow for additional green space and landscaped areas on the site. f � � The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. Open Space Requirements - Total Gross Acres: 72.20 acres Dedications: 11.09 acres 18.36.090.E.2.a(7) "Open Space Performance" 20 Performance Points Required 20% Open Space, exclusive of dedications: 12.222 Acres 72.20— 11.09 = 61.11 Acres 12.222 Acres, for 20 Performance Points Open Space#1 3.43 Acres Open Space#2 1.24 Acres Open Space#3 0.47 Acres Open Space#4 1.00 Acres Open Space#5 0.85 Acres Open Space#6 1.49 Acres Open Space#7 0.54 Acres Open Space#8 0.42 Acres Open Space#9 0.66 Acres Total 10.10 Acres 10.10 Acres = 16.528%, or16.528 Points x 1.25 = 20.66 Points Provided with P.U.D. THE BOZEMAN 1GATEWAY CONCEPT P.U.D. ZONING FILE NO.,Z-04313 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT ITEM: ZONING APPLICATION NO. Z-04313 -- AN APPLICATION FOR CONCEPT P.U.D. PLAN REVIEW FOR A MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL/PROFESSIONAL OFFICE/RETAIL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON APPROXIMATELY 72.2± ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF HUFFINE LANE/US HIGHWAY 191, ZONED "B-299, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND "BP", BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT. APPLICANT: MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, I.L.C. %TED MITCHELL P.O. BOX 738, GREAT FALLS, MT 59403 OWNER: MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, I.L.C. %TED MITCHELL P.O. BOX 738, GREAT FALLS, MT 59403 DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2004, AT 3:30 P.M., IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM, ALFRED M. STIFF PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, 20 EAST OLIVE STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANA REPORT BY: DAVE SKELTON SENIOR PLANNER --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Description: The subject property is legally described as being Tract 2A of the Amended Plat of West College Minor Subdivision No. 195A located in the NW 1/4 of Section 15, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, and is further identified as property situated south of Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 and Gallatin Valley Mall, and west of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle facility. The site is approximately 72.2 acres in size and fronts Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 along the north boundary, extension of Fowler Avenue on the west and extension of Garfield Street on the south boundary. Please refer to the vicinity map and exhibits provided in the applicant's submittal. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 1 i i � • • Section 18.42.040.0 "Block Width" to allow the block widths to be more than 400 feet. • Section 18.42.100.B.3.c — "Setbacks" to encroach into the 50-foot minimum setback required along watercourses. • Section 18.42.100.B.4.b — "Watercourse Setback" to allow the required watercourse setback to not include adjacent wetlands. Section 18.44.030.A.1 "Intersections" to allow streets to intersect at angles less than 90 degrees. • Section 18.44.090.D.3 "Spacing Standards for Drive Access" to allow the average spacing of intersections on Fowler Avenue to be reduced from 660 feet to 420 feet. Natural Features: The application identifies four watercourses existing on the site and has delineated these features in the submittal. Three of the watercourses establish the crux of existing physical features on the site. The Fish, Wildlife & Parks has identified these as either a stream or intermediate streams. Therefore there are associated jurisdictional wetlands and the applicable watercourse setbacks. A Section 404 Permit has been granted by the Army Corp of Engineers to mitigate any related impacts to distributing existing wetlands with the construction of Fowler Lane. The wetlands identified with the two interior intermediate streams will remain generally undistributed. However, the applicant is requesting to encroach into the required 50-foot watercourse setback and from the wetlands boundary associated with the watercourses. There are basically three general points of conflict between the required watercourse setback and development of the property; 1) Lot #14 and #15 in Phase One, 2) Lot #24 in Phase Four , and 3) Lot #49 in Phase Two., The applicant's basis for requesting a relaxation to reduce these watercourse setbacks based on hardship and/or evidence of conflicting physical features lends itself to an unfavorable recommendation by staff. Oven Space: Under section 18.36.090.E.2.7.b of the U.D.O. at least twenty performance points must be earned through a combination of affordable housing or additional open space. The applicant has elected to meet the performance points by providing additional open space at: 1) one point for each percent of the project that provides non-public area, or 2) one and one-quarter points for each percent of provided as publicly accessible open space. The portion of the project to be used in determining the size of the area for open space is the gross area less dedicated land.transferred to the public. The area provided for open space shall be exclusive of yard setbacks and interior off-street parking lot landscape. Approximately 16.84% (16 points) of open space, including 1.25% credit for the pubic access to the corridors, was calculated by staff. This is a discrepancy compared to the submittal information of 21.5% (21 points) in the application,which may be in part be due the application using required yard setbacks along the west side of Fowler Avenue and south side of Huffine Lane in the open space calculations. This will need to be confirmed with the preliminary plan and preliminary subdivision plat applications. Ponds: The concept plan proposes a series of ponds as public landscape features within the context of the development. The two ponds in proximity of Gateway Boulevard serve as exceptional elements of the public plazas and social interaction, while the ponds along Huffine Lane are aesthetic landscape features along the entryway corridor. Ample space between building, streets and water features along Gateway Boulevard must be provided as an effective place for public activities. The water features along the Huffine Lane will also serve to accommodate storm water runoff from The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 3 4 • impervious surfaces. As a result, the ponds along Huffine Lane will fluctuate substantially based upon the time of the year, and degree of spring showers and runoff. As open space features along the entryway corridor, pre-treatment of garbage and refuse, as well as grease, oil and silt will need to occur "prior" to discharging into these ponds. The ponds may not serve as the principle treatment facility for grease, oil, silt, and refuse. These ponds must be designed to necessitate a principle landscape feature as their principle function and as a storm water runoff facility secondly in order to receive the needed credit for open space. Pedestrian Circulation: A hierarchy for pedestrian circulation for this area includes: 1) development of Fowler Avenue and Garfield Street as the area's major transportation network with associated bike lanes and boulevard sidewalks, 2), developing a major linkage in this part of the community for a public trail system currently identified along the Farmer's Canal, 3) implementing the "lifestyle center" along Gateway Boulevard that recognizes pedestrian circulation, 4) interior public streetscape and sidewalks for pedestrian circulation, and 5) a public trail system within the interior of the mixed-use commercial development. Because the pedestrian circulation system will aid in producing an efficient, functionally organized, and cohesive planned unit development, consideration should be given to stronger connections between areas of useable open space, through off-street parking lots, as well as connections with public areas. Fewer accentuated crossings across the collector street, Fowler Avenue, should be considered to limit the potential conflict between vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Greater attention should be given to the intersections with Huffine Lane and West Garfield Street. Emphasis on raised walkways, pavers, and landscape features should be given to any pedestrian crossings along the major street system, perimeter streets, and interior streets within the development. If it is the wish of the developer to reroute the planned "future trail corridor" along the Farmer's Canal ditch that is designated in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, it is imperative that the trail system provide users with the ability to: 1) interact with the mixed-use commercial development, 2) experience the physical features of the open space areas, or 3) continue along the public trail system as part of the community's trail system with the least amount of resistance from vehicular movement, off-street parking lots and related engineered facilities (i.e., storm water runoff facilities, drainage swales,irrigation wells, etc. The Gallatin Valley Land Trust and Bozeman Recreation Parks Advisory Board generally supported the concept of the trail system with the understanding to address the points discussed in the previous phase. Until a detailed master plan is provided the advisory bodies recommended an impervious surface along Huffine Lane and throughout the parking lots, and a more natural, Class II type, trail system along the open space stream corridors. Landscape: At the concept level the application does not delineate in detail the amount of landscape features that are intended. However, the submittal does suggest substantial areas of green space and public landscape features. In all aspects of the development proposal emphasis on common landscape furniture and landscape features should be noted. Landscape irrigation is imperative and placement of irrigation system is crucial. All irrigation wells will be properly screened from the streetscape, public buildings,public plazas and open space areas. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 4 1 • Public Streetscape - Boulevard trees at a regular spacing of one (1) tree per fifty (50) lineal feet of street frontage will be installed along all pubic street frontages for both local and perimeter streets. • Off-street Parking Lot — In addition to the required interior parking lot landscape, parking areas that adjoin the public streetscape should contain meandering low-profile berms and foliage, as well as well as landscape features designed in clustered arrangements of season types and color. • Key access Points — The principle access points from Fowler Avenue, Garfield Street, Huffine Lane/US Highway 191, and West College Street should contain expansive landscape features that emphasize the importance of the natural landscape and how it plays a major role in the form and character of the entryway corridor and community. A strong emphasis with the access from Huffine Lane is encouraged as the formal entrance from entrance along the entryway corridor. • Public Areas and Plaza—Not only does the public plaza within the core of the development, serve as a place for social interaction, the entire Gateway Boulevard lends itself to both landscape features and furniture. These should generate a common theme through the development as part of a unified planned unit development. • Open Space/Watercourse Corridors — Landscape features in these areas should be informal and consistent with the natural setting of the area. Ample width for the watercourses that bisect the off-street parking lots must be provided (i.e., minimum of 60 feet). • Entryway Corridor — The Design Objectives Plan for entryway corridors encourages the West Main Street corridor to a create a "green edge" over time on both sides of the street and that street frontage landscaping should be strongly emphasized. Therefore, the streetscape along this corridor should include both a formal setting of boulevard trees, designed in concert with a more informal setting to emphasize the importance of urban open space and the quality of urban lifestyles in the community. Lighting As with landscape features and furniture, lighting of public areas, open space and major entrances into the development should implement a common theme that supports the "life style" concept of the commercial planned unit development. Off-street parking lots should be properly illuminated but not become an intrusive element along the entryway corridor during the evening hours. ParkinP Off-street parking calculations are conceptual at this stage of the process. The approximate project breakdown of land uses is outlined in the applicant's submittal, totaling approximately 800,000± square feet. Based on the formal of 1 parking space/300 square feet of retail store and service establishments, approximately 2,267 parking spaces would be required. Using the 125% maximum threshold that is allowable, 2,834 spaces are permitted as a parking ceiling by the U.D.O. A rough count of off-street parking proposed with the development is estimated at 3,059 space,which exceeds the 125% allowable maximum. Due to the scale of the project, it is recommended that the minimum width for parking lot drive aisles should exceed the minimum required width of 26 feet. Fronting off-street parking facilities directly onto Huffine Lane and the entryway corridor is not recommended. Si a e: Signs should be an integral part of the overall architectural design and should be part of the Development Manual. A common signage program that specifies location, size, lighting, materials, and unified graphic design for both shared and individual signs should be expected. Low profile signs should be strongly encouraged along Huffine Lane and Fowler Avenue and should be limited to only project identification signage. A larger project identification sign may be considered based on location, placement and need. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 5 Public Areas and Plazas: Consideration should be given to identifying a general theme for the public outdoor plaza area(s) with landscape furniture and features, as well as lighting. The areas between the building and Gateway Boulevard should remain wider than expected for the protection of pedestrians from vehicular movement, as well as providing an adequate area of drop-off and pick-up of the patrons. A 20-30 foot wide sidewalk storefront should not be unreasonable. Accenting key pedestrian crossings and connections is an important element of these public areas. Landscape features, outdoor furniture, lighting, seating areas, outdoor vendor areas should be integral elements of these areas. Consideration of a possible location for a transit system should also be investigated. Building D--s The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. is located in the West Main Street entryway corridor; and as a result, said guidelines should be applied using a "sliding scale" approach with the attitude of the greater the degree of change proposed, the greater and more elaborate the degree of review. In this case, the design expectations must be applied with the intent of achieving high quality design that reflects the local community character, climate, history and natural environment. As this is a multi-phased project, the Development Manual that will include the architectural and landscape guidelines will play an integral role in maintaining the quality of the project and the "lifestyle" concept that the developers intend to exploit. Variety in architectural design with dramatic architectural forms is encouraged. However, not at the cost of losing a unified theme or encourage franchise architecture. The guidelines should develop a vocabulary of acceptable materials, treatment and use of materials, patterns, fenestration, scale and directional expression. Use of offsets, fenestration treatment, proportions, and emphasis of main entrances should be included. The following building orientations should be considered. • All buildings requiring a service area must avoid the impression of not having a rear to the building. • The presentation of the rear of the grocery store fronting the corridor must be responsible to the West Main Street entryway corridor, Fowler Avenue and development patterns within the context of the proposal. The current location makes it difficult to address. • The office building at the west end of the development should be closer to the entryway corridor with a majority of the off-street parking to the south of the structure. • If the development is proposing future building pads along the West Garfield Street frontage, they should be included as part of the discussion for this concept plan review. • A larger satellite building fronting onto Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 should be situated in the central area of the development to reduce the visual impact of the parking area. • Careful scrutiny will be given to any land use that contains a drivethru facility. The covenants will specifically restrict any drive thru facility from facing onto the West Main Street entryway corridor. • Franchise architecture is not recommended as part of the Design Objectives Plan for entryway corridors. These land uses must also exemplify the sprit of the "lifestyle" center. Protective Covenants and Architectural&Landscape Guidelines: The ability of the mixed-use planned unit development to ensure compatibility with, and sensitivity to, the immediate environment of the site will fall substantially on the aptitude of the applicant to prepare The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 6 `a v a Development Manual, which will implement the architectural and landscape guidelines for the project. Consideration must be given to scale, mass, neighborhood identity, landscape, orientation of buildings, use of materials,,color palette, and specific architectural character-giving features that will define the architectural parameters of the planned unit development. The Manual should clearly outline the concept of a "lifestyle center" and illustrate the methods by which to implement the concept. The mixed-use commercial development will have the most immediate and greatest impact on adjoining properties to the north, which includes the West Main Street entryway corridor, and should have the highest degree of review. Landscape, buffering features, open space, fencing and orientation of buildings adjoining the future development to the west, south, and east must be considered. Provisions for the maintenance and upkeep of open space, public areas, trail system, streetscape, ponds, and other related areas should be clearly outlined. All common areas should be maintained and kept in good condition under a single contract with a landscape maintenance company. Landscape irrigation and placement of irrigation wells must be addressed. No irrigation wells and related facilities will be situated in the yard setbacks, but instead immediately adjacent to said improvements and properly screened. Attachments: Applicant's Submittal for Concept P.U.D. Plan Review Mailed To: Mitchell Development Group,L.L.C., 1315 81h Avenue N., Great Falls, MT 59401 Carter &Burgess Consultants,Inc., 201 North Charles St., 91h Floor, Baltimore, MY 21201 Morrison-Maierle, Inc., P.O. Box 1113, Bozeman; MT 59771 The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 7 r CITY OF BOZEMAN i DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260 20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263 P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozeman.net MEMORANDUM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE FROM: DAVE SKELTON, SENIOR PLANNER , k.. ., RE: THE BOZEMAN GATEWAY SUBDIVISION PX.D. ` ......::s PRELIMINARY PUD PLAN REVIEW ' PLANNING FILE NO. Z-05217 ' DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2005 ---------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------.... The Planning Office has reviewed thePreliminary PUD`P1an;,Review application plan for The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D., to subdivide 72.2± acres of`la d.between West Main Street/US 191, Fowler Avenue, and Garfield Street, being west)of,!the Bozeman`Daily Chronicle; and as a result, recommends approval of the mixed-used plannedkunit dev lopme �' nt withlhe following conditions: ''" fi pA r, Recommended Conditions4e roval: r 1. The applicant shall comp y with all.provisions of tQi Bozeman Municipal Code, which are applicable to this project. The applicant is advised that unmet Fdde provisions, or code provisions that are not {� .L �ti.^ [f3 friY specifically listed, does not m;any,,way;+?create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman 1Vluruaipal Code;orrstate 2. The subdivision shall comply widrZ,01 ,approved conditions of the Planned Unit Development and the subdivision shall complyWith the approved Master Plan and Development Manual Guidelines for the PlannedtiUnit Development,4,4 3. That no less..*a thirty (30)f'days prior to submitting an application for final plat review and approval for the initial phases) of the'$ozeman Gateway Subdivision, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Office a revised dra`ftiof,,,the.By-Laws and Declaration of Protective Covenants and Restrictions of the property owner's associatron addressing said items outlined by the staff report. 4. That prior to the filing of the final plat(s) and development of Lot #17420 of Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase S (i.e.., all properties east of open space corridors #749) the subject properties will be rezoned to B-2, or an amended to the adopted growth policy from "Business Park" to "Community Commercial". It is further recommended that the Planning Office be directed to address the conflict between the planning • zoning • subdivision review . annexation • historic preservation • housing - grant administration • neighborhood coordination • , 1 current land use designation of"Community Commercial" and `BP", Business Park District, along the east half of the subject property, during update of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan in 2006. 5. The Planning Office recommends approval of the proposed hotel/conference center in Phase 5 with the stipulation that it is permitted at such time that at least 60% of the of the lots designated for professional offices are developed and that at least 65% of the motel units are designated for extended stay tenants, and that said provisions be noted accordingly in the protective covenants and restrictions. Said restriction will not apply if the subject property is rezoned to `B-2", Community Business District. 6. That all pedestrian/bicycle crossings.with streets be given greater emphasis by using similar pavers that reflect the surface treatment of public plazas and areas of outdoor social activities. Connections of between streets, off-street parking lots, and public areas should also be given attention in terms of raised walkways, pavers, pedestrian lighting and landscape features. THi Final PUD�Plan will contain a detail whereby the development provides a public shelter and map display along wli twill serve as a regional boulevard trail connection that fronts along West Main Street. 4&e;!7r-,MRUD 7. Provisions for a transit sto within the interior of sho d be incor orated ift site plan for review and approval with the Final PUD Plan. r � P 8. The public streetscape shall contain a regular spacing of boulevard trees along all streets, both public and private, in concert with landscape f6tures and screening of off street parking lots; primarily, areas along West Garfield Street and US HighwayI19.1r/West Main Stree ?trees to be installed in the boulevards, off-street parking lots, common�opemVace,arreas, and dividual subdivision lots will be installed at 2-inch caliber in diameter. Streetcharacter§alongthe West Main Street entryway corridor Fowler Avenue and Garfield Street shall call for archi�tectur'ali feats that suggest a presence of store fronts, plazas, fenestration,streatment and architaural details tha reflect the "lifestyle center" concept. 4670-The Development Manual shall}contain said language to insure implementation of said streetscape features. ,; :'fir `•.;. 9. Commercial and retail drive=thrus==aridi2sociated apprentices (speaker phones, signage, ATM, canopies, 00 etc.) shall nof`ft'orit:onto the entiyway coriidor:or cornet-side of the building pad(s) and will not impact the building facacie.y{q.`�µof_�;}�{ythe satellite structures along the streetscape. The Development Manual will provide a typical illustrati6n,that speaks to this provision prior to Final PUD Plan approval. A4 10. The Final PUD Plan and Development Manual will need to discus the treatment of street intersections that will be enhanced with a pedestrian-friendly entrance plaza or human scaled design features such as benches and landscape planters. Building entrances near the sidewalk edge that contain an entry plaza should also be considered at the intersections of local streets with Technology Boulevard and should be considered not only in the commercial area, but also along the business park/professional office corridors. This would also apply at the corner of Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street. If it is the decision to locate the grocery store at the southeast corner of West Main Street and Fowler Avenue,.a building entrance and plaza must occur along the entryway corridor, preferably at the northwest corner of the building. 11. The Development Manual and Landscape Plan shall address the treatment of drainage basins in the open space corridors with regard to placement of said facilities and outlet structures. These facilities must be properly landscaped and prevent any impact on the landscape features along these corridors. Specific landscape details will be requited with the final landscape plan to demonstrate proper landscape Page 2 of the facilities. The landscape guidelines shall state that drainage basins will not eliminate the installation of landscape and landscape features as depicted on the Preliminary PUD Plan; and if so,will be replaced outside of the open space corridors. A landscape architect shall certify on the Landscape Plan that landscape features installed over or around areas that contain a drainage basin in the open space corridor will not be impacted. 12. That the landscape guidelines of the Development Manual state that the surface ponds along West Main Street are not be part of the storm water facilities and will be maintained as landscape features along the entryway corridor. Provisions will be discussed in the protective covenantsiand Development Manual that will limit the fluctuation of said ponds to ensure that they remaui'a landscape feature along the entryway corridor. Said improvements will be financially guarantee%or a minimum of twenty-four -, .,)E mouths, or two construction seasons, to ensure that said improvements7arezan effective element of the entryway corridor. T s pal N, XMN 13. The final Landscape Plan shall specifically address landscape details for the three corridors, two public trails within the off-street parking lot, West Main Street entryway corridor. DettiAed'landscape plans An �,.. shall also be included for the two public plazas with An the intenor of lifestyle cent,er:and the small : public spaces along the north/south water courses. t�., ,�. 14. The Bozeman Design Objectives Plan states that the followin"I lements must be achieved in order to reduce the perceived mass of a building�"a change in color or change in material shall be used in each building module; a 20% change in vertical, each module;.change roof form; change in articulation. The architectural guidelines should discuss components lthat help to establish a human scale along the facade, store fronts, primary ntr nces..7(i e" a-o-pnee`LstoryAelements). Expression of the each floor in the external skin and use of materials sliould.also be rioted: -The Development Manual will need .v`rf' to provide illustrations'hfo4ea_ch,>,bf these guidelines as discussed4and revise any illustrations proposed in the application that do not reflect;satd criteria. 15. The architectural g 'deEe�es:,for the�r>development suggest that the Convenience Center, Outparcels and Office-Professional areas[ iU;.incorporate;the.architectural vocabulary of the lifestyle center. However, modifications will be requtred due to the signtficant variation ' building type and scale. The Development 1Vlanualigbes on to estate that an exact determination of which entities will be responsible for which elements of42eTign and construction will be determined by individual lease or sales agreements. In-lieu of tlurysathe Development Manual should give specific attention to each of these X,1AIN areas of,the mixed-use development 4and identify what must be achieved in each of these areas to maintain th`6e architectural integrity of the overall development theme. The Development Manual shall graphically address the presentation of building facades that face onto the pubic streets (ie WespIVlain Street entryway corridor, Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street) and through the use of illustrations that illustrate the architectural theme sought with the "lifestyle center of 3 the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision. This also applies as well to the professional office, business park and convenience components of the development, as well as the rear facades of both sides of the "lifestyle" center situated along Technology Boulevard. 16. The architectural guidelines of the Development Manual will be modified to state that not more than 25% of any of the building facades shall be covered with a synthetic surface. Page 3 17. The Development Manual will discuss presentation onto a street regardless if it's the main street for the lifestyle center, private street or a public street with respect to a formal entrance, store fronts, covered entrances, and public spaces. 18. Detailed elevations, floor plan, landscape plan, site plan and a color palette and materials sample board shall be submitted for each building prior to Final PUD Plan or Final Site Plan approval and issuance of a building permit. 19. No franchise style architecture shall be permitted in the Bozeman Gat way, Subdivision and noted accordingly in the protective covenants and restrictions and Development Manual. 20. The general materials theme shall be'continued throughout the development-),but there needs to be more variety in design. r . 21. All of the buildings on the perimeter of the development shall have a second front (double fronted design) oriented towards the streetscape and includela colonnade and a sidewalk connection to the perimeter sidewalk/trail system and all corner bil-dMgs shall include some type of design feature oriented towards the corner (a concave area or a bump-out, transparent materials). MN , 22. The backside of the buildings shaU.be addressed by the continuation of materials on all sides and the addition of awnings over the doors on the earfelevations. ter* 23. The development guidelines shall indicate that,all storey fronts shall bedark bronze anodized, or similar, versus the brushed stainless finish. 24. No translucent awnings. B.Lu d g awnings shall besfabric or metal only. �;Mi.t Y 25. Those areas to be e;111l1ske�d in aMsynetic finish AaMft,�place a strong emphasis on joint detail, relief and 4Y architectural detail, and'<rioted accordingly in the Development Manual. 26. All crossings�'w-"'Nthe Planned+Unit Development shall be constructed with scored concrete or pavers similar.-to-the surfaceamaterials installed throughout the public outdoor public areas. The crossings shall F�Y+ISv •''ted as such on �.nif�;+�, be no `,theFinal PUD Plan,and details for the pattern shall be provided in the final 1. ek de elopment guidelines t, sY 27. Larger seatuig,areas with planters shall be installed throughout the plazas and public areas and a typical detail of the plan ers included,i z the Development Manual. 28. Shelter areas with-I-�11�nsit''stop shall be added to the circle in and waiting zones shall be installed at the Tschacl e`/19`h and Oak/19`h intersections. F j:�s ,r• 29. The developmentgwdelines shall indicate that no backlit cabinet signs will be permitted in the phase. A comprehensive sign plan shall be submitted to the Planning Office prior to Final PUD approval that depicts a sign package that exhibits qualities of style, relief and compatibility. 30. The development guidelines shall indicate that exposed neon is prohibited and can only be used as a subtle lighting element under the soffits,behind the fascia or in the sign package (i.e., backlit feature). Page 4 31. A common signage plan depicting the location, dimensions, height, illumination and use of materials for all freestanding stings shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Final PUD Plan approval. Both the pylon sign and monument signs shall be constructed of materials compatible with the overall building design theme for the complex, and illustrated accordingly in the Development Manual. 32. The north off-street parking lot shall exclude two off-street parking spaces along each of the two watercourse corridors for the placement of an 18' x 18' public space with benches, pavers and landscape features, and illustrated accordingly in the landscape guidelines and landscape plan. The watercourse corridors shall have a minimum width of not less than thirty feet, exclusivelBUthe public space. 33. The storm water ponds shall be designed as open, landscaped featu IW! at are organic in shape and lined with native grasses and indigenous plants. ` IN _ 34. A reciprocal access and parking easement shall be provided:fot.�,all shared acce sestand parking facilities. The easement shall state that the drive accesses and paar .:ng area's are permitted reciprocal use by all of the lots of the subdivision. 54 y' #,fY4 35. Construction silt fencing shall be installed along the regt&ed streama''s'etbacks to pro.tect water quality and the adjacent vegetation during construction. Said fencin`:shall be properly staked and field verified l g g g p P Y by the Planning Office prior to final platiapproval of the first phaseiand prior to proceeding with surface preparation and/or site construction actAit 36. (18.44.110) The trail identified'in the Tran affit on"iPlan along thdN&`fisting Farmer's Canal, to be relocated to the US 191/West Main Street frontage,`shall be'_construct d to a width acceptable to the y �..-..�._: zr Recreation and Parks AdvisoryBoard and G.V?) .T.(8 or 10`'fe et):'All interior trails will be of Type II % ' 'i .,$ CAW cr classification constructed'Jf,' �i riNj#a 25 foot public trail easement. All trail types and construction specifications shall b'e noted accordingly on the landscape guidelines and protective covenants and restrictions. 37. The recorded covenants shall:�iriclicate; thattheproperty owners association is responsible for the maintenance o�thercommon open,space,wetlands, watercourse setback and trails. Noxious weeds shall �,t . be controlled as drsected,by theCoqunty Weed Control District and in accordance with the Montana County Noxious Weed:�C.ontrol Acf:�M The property owners association shall be responsible for the x ti< continued control of the weeds and Ofillment of the revegetation plan. N% 38. That the applicant submit N-,th the application for Final PUD Plan review and approval of Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D, a written narrative stating how each of the conditions of Preliminary PUD Plan Review approvaR ave been met or satisfactorily addressed. 39. The Planning Officerecommends approval of the following relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance. • Section 18.36.0603 "Duration of Final Plan Approval" to undertake and complete the development in ten years. • Section 18.42.040.B "Block Length" to allow the block lengths to exceed 400 feet. • Section 18.42.040.0 "Block Width" to allow the block widths to be more than 400 feet. Page 5 • Section 18.42.100.B.3.c —=`Setbacks" to encroach into the 50-foot minimum setback required along watercourses. • Section 18.42.100.B.4.b — `Watercourse Setback" to allow the required watercourse setback to not include adjacent wetlands. • Section 18.44.030.A.1 "Intersections" to allow streets to intersect at angles less than 90 degrees. • Section 18.44.090.D.3 "Spacing Standards for Drive Access" to allow the average spacing of intersections on Fowler Avenue to be reduced from 660 feet to 420 feet. • Section 18.42.150.D.1 "Parking Lot Lighting" to allow horizontal ill1immnnace to be less than 0.1 foot-candles as required by the U.D.O. `"e. • Section 18.42.150.F "Lighting Specifications" to allow light, fixltures and standards that do not comply the U.D.O. (i.e., distract light and glare down sand aware: from adjoining streets and properties. IV' ': • Section 18.44.030.A.1 "Intersections" to relax the� eets to intersectlon�at angles less than 90 de ees (CityEngineer decision). 2' a ; • Section 18.44.080 "Sidewalks" to allow soft trials in place,of concrete boulevard,sidewalks along 3?•F streets fronting open space/pedestrian corridors ,, = • Section 18.44.090 "Access" to relax the avera e�Zs acin f-eaq6uirements for pijbhc streets (City Engineer decision). • Section 18.44.090.B.2 "Drive Access from Public Streets" to exclude the requirement of all subdivision lots having 25 feet of'`,frontage on all improve public or private street, or improved alley. • Section !8.46.020.D "Backing into RublicRigl%ts-,of-Way" too; allow diagonal parking along Technology Boulevard and Chronicle Lane. . �' 40. The Planning Office recommends denial of t,Yre following`r`elaxations to the Unified Development ro t s Ordinance: �, x • Section 18.20.030 B4e'Lot.;,,ZVerage and Floor`Area" to eliminate the 60 percent restriction on impervious surfaces'andi. veloprnen t1ie.entire site, exclusive of the required yard setbacks. • -SKc �8181020 "B�iuldu g Height" to increase the allowable building height in the "B-2 4.1 district fromti44,feet to 1�46'feet. srSection 18.18.050 �`I'�a�rds" to encroach into the yard setbacks with off-street parking in the B'2" Mistrict. • Section 18.20.060" ; uilding Height" to increase the allowable building height in the "BP" distfkVfrom 44 feet t5�146 feet. • Section,18'20.050 "Maids" to encroach into the yard setbacks with off-street parking in the "BP" District. � k'* • Section 18.42 b0.I "Frontage" to not have access for all subdivision lots from an improved pubic street,'approved private street or alley. Note: Further comments and/or recommendations will be included in the staff report once all of the comments solicited of local, county and state agencies have been provided to the Planning Office. Written comments from the Park and Recreation Advisory Board, G.V.L.T., and Bicycle Advisory Board will be included in the Planning Board Staff Report. Additional comments may be identified prior to the City Commission hearing. Page 6 e 0 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 9 WEDNESDAY,JANUARY 12, 2005 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:32 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Bill Hanson Chris Saunders, Associate Planner Dawn Smith Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner Brian Krueger David Skelton, Senior Planner Scott Hedglin Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Randy Carpenter Visitors Present Ted Mitchell John Davidson Mark Mitchell Greg Stratton Bill Ogle James Nickelson Jamie Lenon ITEM 2. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 2004 (Continued from 12/22/04.) Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of November 10, 2004. MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved,Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2004 (Continued from 12/22/04.) Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of December 8, 2004. MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 4. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 22, 2004 Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of December 22, 2004. MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved,Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—January 12,2005 1 ITEM 5. Presentatio0y Chris Kukulski, City Manager—four. Chris Kukulski, City Manager, introduced himself to the DRB and explained the City's long- term goals. ITEM 6. U.D.O.Edits Discussion A. * Discussion of the U.D.O. text amendments pertinent to the DRB. Continued to the meeting of January 26, 2005. ITEM 7. The Bozeman Gateway Concept PUD#Z-04313 (Skelton) A. Southwest of the intersection of West College Street and Huffine Lane * A Concept Planned Unit Development Application to allow the construction of a mixed-use commercial development on 72.2 acres with related site improvements. Ted Mitchell,Mark Mitchell,John Davidson, and Greg Stratton joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the project noting that the DRB was informally reviewing the project so the advisory board could have a dialog with the applicant before the project was formally reviewed by the DRB in two weeks. He stated the project started as an extension of the Advanced Technology Park and had been modified with the sale of the property, identifying commercial development north of Huffine Lane, and development of the recently adopted Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. He added that the applicants and he had invited City Commission members to attend the next meeting of the DRB. Mr. Mark Mitchell noted the background of the Mitchell Group; who has been working on the Gateway project for the past year. He stated the applicants wanted to keep and enhance the wetlands on the site and added they had offered to install Garfield Street from South 19th Avenue to Fowler Lane and Fowler Lane to Huffine Lane, at their expense. He stated there would be a traffic signal installed at their expense as well. He stated the easements were negotiated in favor of the City of Bozeman, but the applicant would be responsible for curb and gutter on one side of the road with a gravel shoulder on the other side. He stated there would be major redesigns of intersections to make the project's accesses work. He stated they had taken special care in keeping with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan and they had enhanced the frontage on Huffine Lane using the placement of retention ponds. He stated there would be a plaza with a pond in the center of the development. He stated the hotel component fit well with the lodging demand generators on the west side of town. He stated the applicant had taken special care to design a project that would be an asset to Bozeman and had been working with the Army Corp of Engineers and the Department of Transportation from the project's inception. Mr. Davidson stated he and the developers had an on-site charette regarding what would fit on the site and how it would be arranged. He stated some of the wetland areas posed difficulties given the limited developable area. He stated he came to the conclusion that the Farmer's Canal was bisecting the site and had decided to incorporate the canal into the development. He presented a color rendering depicting the types of uses (hotel,club,community center, shopping center, etc.) and their arrangement on the proposed development, as well as potential views from various proposed structures on the site. He noted the proposed enhancement of the natural streams and the addition of ponds throughout the development. He stated they developed City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—January 12,2005 2 2 specific architectural char*for areas of the development and presented a color rendering of the proposed entrance from Huffine Lane, of the interior streetscape, and the central plaza. He stated there would be natural stone up to 10 feet. He stated there would be a fireplace, an ice rink/water feature, and audio equipment in the plaza for public gatherings. He added that the formal water features would be blended with the natural water features and there were significant pedestrian connections proposed throughout the development; promoting pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Mr. Hanson asked how the number of parking stalls compared to the number of parking stalls required by the U.D.O. Mr. Davidson responded that the project would meet the requirements when compact spaces were calculated in. Mr. Hanson asked if Staff had given the applicant options for parking calculations. Mr. Saunders responded that shared parking was allowed as long as there was an obvious agreement. Mr. Davidson responded that the site, as a whole, had met the requirements. Mr. Hanson stated the DRB was supportive of parking reductions`but-tfie kproblem,with-retail-development was,they pushed the envelope on the number of stalls.�Mr. Davidson added that grocery stores were often adamant about the arrangement and number of parking stalls. Mr. Hanson asked if the City would allow storm water retention into an active waterway. Mr. Stratton responded that the retention ponds were not connected to the active waterways and they would use an old canal that has been dry. Mr. Hanson stated that the pollutants needed to be filtered from the retention ponds. Mr. Stratton responded they would be filtered by City engineering standards. Mr. Hanson asked if the open space requirements had been met. Mr. Saunders responded that it was a point system with a variety of ways to meet those points, and publicly accessible spaces would be worth more points. Mr. Hanson stated the project was in a stream corridor, and asked if there would be difficulties meeting open space requirements because part of the open space was unusable as it was in a waterway. Mr. Stratton stated the calculation of open space was based on the net area multiplied by 0.25. Mr. Hanson suggested Staff review the usable space next to the stream corridors. Mr. Hanson asked why there,was.no,residential-development'proposed with so many pedestrian connections on the site. Mr. Davidson replied there was no market for residential development in that location. Mr. Ted Mitchell stated the parking requirements would become an issue if there were residential development due to the tremendous cost of ramping driveways to residences. Mr. Carpenter suggested residential structures with below-grade parking. Mr.Ted Mitchell responded the water level was too high to incorporate below-grade parking. Mr. Carpenter asked if they had met the impervious surface requirements. Mr. Stratton responded they had not calculated those requirements yet. Mr. Carpenter asked where the retention ponds, outlets, and filtration areas would be located. Mr. Stratton responded that the water would be released from the detention ponds into the discharge pipes or canals and then to the outlets; which had not been formally located in the proposal yet. Mr..Carpenter,suggested.being cautious in the design'of the retention,ponds-so that-the projectwould-remain attractive. Mr.-Carpenter asked if the pedestrian and bike trails were more for internal Mr. Davidson responded that the connection to the east (the college)and the residential development across Huffine Lane would likely be using the pedestrian and bike trails. Mr. Carpenter asked how the pedestrians would be moved safely across Huffine Lane. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that there would be a signal installed on Huffine Lane as it was no longer a highway and inside corporate city limits. Mr. Carpenter asked if there would be screening along Huffine Lane. Mr. Davidson and Mr. Ted Mitchell indicated where screening was proposed. Mr. Carpenter stated that not many of the views would have terminal vistas from the boulevards and the plaza. Mr. Carpenter asked how the phases of City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—January 12,2005 3 development would be conReted and how the circulation would be maintained. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that Garfield Street and the intersection of South 19th Avenue and Fowler Lane would be constructed in the first phase, the second phase would be the development of the east side of the project. Mr. Hedglin asked the projected fill-out for the retail space; was there enough of an attraction to the site to occupy the retail spaces. Mr. Stratton responded there would be 216 retail spaces. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded the development would be filled-out within 7 or 8 years. Mr. Krueger stated that, with a PUD, an applicant could design their project with more flexibility and asked what the applicant was proposing that would be above and beyond the zoning requirements for a PUD. Mr. Davidson responded that the project would,be.more,upscale;,iie-� many of the:wall;coverings;would'.be upgraded, outdoor fireplaces;a plaza,—etc,-Mr.-Davidson responded that the applicant had not looked upon the prof ct as an upgrade o the normal PUD. Mr. Stratton responded that the PUD development was a method by which to request variances, for example; the width of the streets, diagonal parking, longer blocks, and other irregularities. Mr..Stratton•added•that none of th_e'requested variances wer oe to far from code requirements. Mr.Krueger asked lVlr:Ted&Mitchell to explain why they would retain the curviness of the street through the development. Mr.Ted Mitchell responded that the curved street served the purpose of slowing traffic and it added a unique quality to the site. Mr. Krueger asked if the diagonal parking would be on a two lane street. Mr. Davidson responded that it would be a two lane, two way street with diagonal parking. Mr. Krueger asked which of the page of design images in the submittal materials and the proposed design images on the renderings were being proposed. Mr. Davidson responded that they would like to see varied architectural designs with multiple architects working on the project and there would be overall design standards for the development. Chairperson Smith asked what level"of retail"BP"zoning allowed. Mr. Saunders responded re w theas mainly "B-2" zoning in the proposal, an& . Ted Mitchell illustrated where there was a small area of"BP". Planner Saunders explained the differences between "BP" and "B-2" zoning with regard to allowable retail space. Chairperson Smith asked-if a drive-thru was Wl��able_ in the"B-2",zoning. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that driv`e=thru's were o able and indicated their locations on the color rendering. Chairperson Smith asked if the City would be reviewing the final submittal of the project. Planner Saunders responded that individual final site plans would be reviewed. Chairperson Smith asked what made this a"lifestyle" development when pedestrian pathways were dominant. Mr. Davidson responded it was an open-air shopping center; not like a mall with parking along the outside of the structures, and there were many entertainment opportunities located within the "lifestyle" development. Mr. Hanson stated he appreciated that the project was presented with good graphics and site plan analysis. He stated the project had interesting character with expansion prospects and suggested reducing the number of parking stalls and adding green.spaces.that peopl ce ould mingle in. -He stated the location of the=grocery store on the corner of the entryway corridor was.problematic and suggested relocating the grocery store or adding extensive screening. He stated he felt that, comparatively, the proposal had a wonderful character and he applauded the applicant's efforts. He suggested the drive-thru be closely examined and cited the Taco Bell drive-thru as a bad example. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—January 12,2005 4 ,! Mr. Carpenter stated he agreed with Mr. Hanson's comments regarding the presentation of the project to the DRB. He stated he was excited about the concept of"lifestyle centers" and appreciated the thoughtfulness and thoroughness of the site design. He suggested they know the percentage of impervious surfaces and what efforts could be made to keep the number of impervious surfaces down. He stated he was surprised to hear that the applicants did not think residential development would work, despite the parking issues. ,He-stdt6d'he thought the €reduced.opportunities for-vistas-could-improve with-a-less curved streef% He stated it would be a conflict for the applicant's to make the project pedestrian and bike friendly while maintaining the proposed drive-thru's. Mr. Hedglin stated he would be curious to see the project in ten to twenty years. He stated developments were moving away from the enclosed_shopping atmosphere. Hevated he'"would like to seethe use of natural eaterials throughout the.development., Mr. Krueger stated he appreciated the irony of rebuilding another main street in a town with a great main street. He stated he liked the preservation of the watercourse and wetlands to enhance the area. He suggested keeping and enhancing the character of Bozeman within the development. Chairperson Smith stated she agreed with previous DRB comments. She stated she would be the person riding her bike to the development and she would like to know where the connections between the sidewalks and the bike trails would be. Mr. Davidson responded there would be a bike lane throughout the development and along Huffine Lane. Chairperson Smith suggested the placement of nodes`and.a.place where cars cannot-go so that bicyclers could-go'there7 She stated she would=like to`see a�connection.to.Babcock-Street:"She stated she would like to see as many large trees as possible preserved on the site She stated she was concerned with the parking lot (between-Huffine-L-ane and Gateway Boulevard, and the parking lot on Garfield Street, which was proposed abutting the street. She stated she was concerned with the Chronicle Lane access because people turn left into the bank drive-thru and congestion is common. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that the access was a right-in, right-out only. Mr. Stratton responded the traffic study showed there would be 3,000 cars per day eliminated from that intersection with the extension of Garfield Street and Fowler Lane. Mr. Carpenter added that he did not think a Main Street sort of thoroughfare was exclusive of vehicular travel. ITEM 8. INFORMAL REVIEW A. The Garage At City Center Informal#I-04037 (Windemaker) 26 East Mendenhall Street * An Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of a parking garage consisting of three phases; Phase 1 - 2-level parking garage with 354 parking stalls and 11,000+/- square feet of retail space on street level; Phase 2 - the addition of a 3rd level of parking containing 104 parking stalls; and Phase 3 - the addition of two additional levels of parking containing 142 parking stalls. Historic Preservation Planner Allyson Bristor, Dick Clotfelter, and Jamie Lenon joined the DRB. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—January 12,2005 5 MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEEPG OF THE CITY COMMISSION BOZEMAN, MONTANA February 14, 2005 The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in work session in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, on Monday, February 14, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Andrew Cetraro, Commissioner Jeff Krauss, Commissioner Marcia Youngman, Commissioner Steve Kirchhoff, Commissioner Lee Hietala, City Manager Chris Kukulski, Assistant City Manager Ron Brey, Director of Public Service Debbie Arkell, Planning Director Andy Epple, Acting City Attorney Tim Cooper and Clerk of the Commission Robin Sullivan. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. Public comment Ms. Wren Bade, South 9th Avenue and West Curtiss Street, expressed concern that City crews stopped maintaining the ice at the Bogert pavilion on January 26, and the recent warming trend caused the ice thickness to diminish and the hockey boards to become unstable, She stated that, even if the temperatures reach 50 degrees during the day, the ice can remain viable if it is maintained. She stressed that the community is losing a valuable asset and asked the Commissioners to require that it be maintained. Mr. Farwell Smith, 513 South Third Avenue, noted that he came to Bozeman from Chicago, which was warmer but had 50 days of skating each year. He recognized that Bozeman has two refrigerated ice rinks, however, he cautioned that not everyone can afford to skate at them. He stated.it is a shame that the Bogert rink is not being maintained, so that those who cannot afford the fees can still enjoy the opportunity to skate. City Manager Kukulski stated that both he and Director of Public Service Arkell were aware of and supported Superintendent of Facilities and Lands Goehrung's decision to terminate maintenance of the ice due to the warm weather. He noted that on Friday and Saturday, the Bogert ice rink was full of water because of the high temperatures and acknowledged that today it is once again frozen. He recognized that if the cold weather continues, then ice could possibly be retained. Review of Proposal for CTEP Proiect-College Street to Huff ine Lane Bicycle/Pedestrian Pathway(2.08 miles of 10-foot wide concrete shared-use pathway) Included in the Commissioners' packets was a memo from Grants Administrator Sara Folger forwarding information on the Community Transportation Enhancement Program and identifying the College to Huff ine bicycle/pedestrian pathway as the next project to be funded. Grants Administrator Sara Folger gave an overview of the proposed project, which is a 10-foot- wide shared use off-street pathway along the south side of West College Street from South 11 th 02-14-05 work north side of Huff ine Lane to Ferguson Avenue. She noted a maj ity of the costs would be funded through the Community Tr�ortation Enhancement Project(CTLWnonies,which have been under- utilized to date. She noted the City currently has a large reserve in this fund, and the Montana,. Department of Transportation has indicated that it may rescind the funding if it is not expended. The Grants Administrator stated that the steering committee identified this project as its top priority last fall, and work has been undertaken between that time and now to identify the various elements needed to complete the project, including areas where there are no sidewalks and areas where existing sidewalks simply need to be widened. She then indicated that, based on the plans that she was shown by the Mitchell Group this afternoon,there is a potential that the walkway can be located along the south side of Huff ine Lane through that project, with crossings to be provided at Fowler Avenue and possibly at the west entrance to the Gallatin Valley Mall; and that revision could significantly reduce the costs of the project. She observed that as development continues in this western entrance to the community, traffic will naturally slow. The Grants Administrator concluded her presentation by noting that a public hearing on the formal application for this project is scheduled for March 7. At Commissioner Youngman's request, Grants Administrator Folger identified the six active CTEP projects, which include the bicycle infrastructure project on which work was done this past summer; roof reconstruction on the East Willson School, which is scheduled for this year; the Emerson Cultural Center lighting project, which is currently being bid; and improvements to Soroptimist Park,which are scheduled for this year. In addition, she will be soliciting bids for a consultant to identify the location and parameters for the Milwaukee rail/trail project, which will assist in identifying impacts on any additional development on the parcel that was purchased for the new library site. She indicated that two additional projects are still active but could be dropped. One is the historic signals on Main Street, which are now to be included in the Montana Department of Transportation's resurfacing project, and the other is the ADA ramps, which are currently being incorporated into sidewalk projects. She suggested that the$150,000 currently set aside for these two projects could be put back into the CTEP reserve fund and used for other projects. Responding to Commissioner Krauss, the Grants Administrator indicated that no CTEP monies have been earmarked for the library project itself; however, she suggested that some of the monies budgeted for the Milwaukee rail/trail project could be used for landscaping of the plaza. Further responding to Commissioner Krauss, Grants Administrator Folger indicated that CTEP monies could be used for the installation of an historic signal at the intersection of West College Street and South Willson Avenue; however, she cautioned that signal will probably be installed before a CTEP project could be approved and funded. Mayor Cetraro thanked Grants Administrator Folger for the update. Pre-Application Plan and PUD Concept Plan Review - The Bozeman Gateway Mayor Subdivision- proposal to subdivide +72 acres of undeveloped agricultural land lying along the south side of US Highway 191/West Main Street into 61 commercial lots for mixed-use commercial/retail/professional office development - Morrison-Maierele, Inc. for Mitchell Development Group, LLC (Z-04313) Included in the Commissioners'packets was a memo forwarding the pre-application plan and zoning planned unit development concept plan for The Bozeman Gateway Major Subdivision, along with comments from the reviews conducted by the Development Review Committee and the Design Review Board. 02-14-05 work Senior Planner DaAelton gave an overview of the prolisal for The Bozeman Gateway Major Subdivision, a mixed use commercial, retail and professional office development along the south side of Huffine Lane/West Main Street across the street from the Gallatin Valley Mall. He noted that the Development Review Committee, Design Review Board and City Planning Board have reviewed this pre-application; and their comments have been included in the packet. He stated that these comments, as well as the feedback received from the City Commission, will be taken into consideration as the applicant prepares formal applications for this project. Senior Planner Skelton identified possible points of discussion, including multiple variances to the unified development ordinance, the arrangement of subdivision lots that results in no street frontage, the orientation of buildings, and proposed encroachments into the watercourse setbacks and wetlands setbacks. The Senior Planner noted that Farmers'Canal divides the property in half; and the applicant is proposing to pipe the canal through a portion of the project. He drew attention to the trail systems proposed in the interior of this subdivision, noting that adequate pedestrian crossings must be provided. He also noted that safe pedestrian crossings on Huffine Lane at Fowler Avenue and possibly Harmon Street have been identified as essential. He then identified other issues of discussion before the advisory bodies, including the orientation of buildings and ensuring that adequate buffering is provided to ensure that this project is a contributing element to the entryway. Responding to Commissioner Kirchhoff, Senior Planner Skelton stated that a very rough approximation of the parking needed for this development indicates that the conceptual plan provides the proper amount, falling well within the minimum and maximum number of spaces required by code. He noted that one point of discussion might be the parking provided under common ownership versus the parking owned by specific tenants. Mr. Mark Masek, architect representing the applicant, stated that the design team has paid high attention to detail in this project in light of the site's location in the western entryway corridor to the community. He then noted that, in conjunction with the development,the applicant proposes to extend West Garfield Avenue and Huffine Lane and indicated that the traffic signal at the intersection of Huffine Lane and Fowler Avenue has been approved. He noted that West Garfield Street is to be constructed as a collector, with bicycle lanes on both sides of the streets. He stated that the slip lane is to be eliminated at the intersection of West College Street and West Main Street/Huffine Lane. Mr. Masek drew attention to the significant amount of open space provided, landscaping, berming, water features and trail system. He also drew attention to the alignment of Fowler Avenue, noting that at the south end it has been moved to the east to avoid the wetlands as much as possible. Under this project, the perennial streams are to be enhanced with plazas and benches, ponds are to be added, and the wetlands are to be left in their natural states to the greatest extent possible. Mr. Greg Stratton, Morrison-Maierle, stated the developer's team is comfortable with virtually every comment that has been submitted to date. He requested Commission comment on the request for relaxation from the watercourse and wetlands setback requirements, to allow for a 35-foot setback from the high water mark rather than 50 feet from the edge of the watercourse as required by the code, and to allow for a 10-foot setback from watercourses and wetlands that are created as a result of this development. He noted that the requested reductions would provide the flexibility needed to shift the watercourse within the overall setbacks for the watercourse. He noted that there are many areas on the site that are not high quality wetlands, but provide drinking holes for the cattle 02-14-05 work that are currently pastureatere. He indicated that the setbac s will be undisturbed, except for, possible trails; and all streets and parking lots that may encroach into the setbacks will be curbed and the run-off will go through treatment ponds before entering the waterways. He then noted that outlets are needed to circulate the ponds, and their proposal is to develop streams through the parking lots with those outlets. Mr. Stratton stated the applicant proposes to do a lot of off-site mitigation work to address the wetlands issues, and is currently working with the Montana Wetlands Legacy to determine what would be acceptable. Commissioner Youngman stated that, given the size of the property, she cannot find any topographical justification to reduce the setbacks from the watercourses and jurisdictional wetlands, although she has no problem with relaxing the standards for those wetlands that are artificially created in conjunction with this project. Senior Planner Dave Skelton noted that the Wetlands Review Board will have an opportunity to provide comment on any proposals to modify or enhance the wetlands areas. He then suggested that if the wetlands on this site are not determined to be an asset to the community, the further enhancement of a significant contributing wetland located off-site may be determined preferable. Commissioner Youngman noted that if the wetlands are, indeed, caused by the cows then they would be deemed artificial and may need to be reclassified. She expressed her appreciation for the imaginative design of the project and her interest in being responsive to that design whenever possible. She expressed strong concern about relaxing setback requirements on the natural waterways, although she might give consideration to a general 50-foot setback that narrows because of the watercourse wiggling within the setback, and expressed a willingness to be flexible on those water amenities that are created, She also thanked the applicant for providing a plan that avoids impacts on the natural features through the realignment of Fowler.Avenue, which protects both the waterway and the grove of cottonwood trees. Senior Planner Skelton stated that, some time ago, someone trenched the ditches, which caused the wetlands to deteriorate. In recent years, however,the vegetation and riparian area have come back, with the result being a possible amenity for the community that should be protected. He further noted that the two middle watercourses are beginning to rejuvenate themselves; and the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks has indicated it may wish to protect those fisheries and not allow any relocations. Commissioner Krauss characterized this proposal as raising the bar for other developers. He recognized that,while a majority of Fowler Avenue may be realigned to protect the watercourse, at the north end it must align with the existing street; and that will result in encroachment into the setback. He then identified two issues raised at the Planning Board meeting but not included in the minutes. The Planning Board encouraged the applicant to widen the setback along the watercourse to the east as it moves northward through the site to provide as much protection as possible. The Board also talked about the design of the big anchor store at the northwest corner of the development and the possible need to double front it, to possibly dogleg the building to reduce its massive appearance, and to move the loading dock to the corner and provide berming to minimize its visual impacts. The Board also encouraged multiple heights for the retail development to the south. He expressed appreciation for the bike lanes along Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street, noting that they further expand the corridor system the City is trying to develop. He concluded by indicating he is a little concerned about the streambank setbacks and indicated interest in protecting the viable fishery through the site. 02-14-05 work Commissioner Hietala stated he supports the proposed development. Mayor Cetraro indicated he echos the other Commissioners' comments. Responding to Commissioner Kirchhoff, Mr. Ted Mitchell, applicant, stated he is interested in attracting both national restaurants and local restaurants to this site. He then stressed his desire to promote uniqueness within this development. Further responding to Commissioner Kirchhoff, Mr, Mitchell stated it is his intent to provide one- story development along West Main Street and to possibly increase the height of structures further back in the site. He then indicated that the site of the proposed convention center/hotel is what has been determined the best site, given its proximity to the demand generators. Also, it is further from the street and the traffic noises, which the hotel franchisers counsel is preferable. He estimated the project will take seven to nine years to build out, and cautioned that the project will not lay out well if he is required to strictly adhere to the setback requirements set forth in the code. The Commission thanked Mr. Mitchell for the opportunity to review this project. Informal Review-StoneRidge Square PUD Concept Plan -allow construction of one large-scale retail building within the 181,743 square foot retail complex at the northwest corner of West Oak Street/North 19th Avenue - Springer Group Architects (Z-04264) Included in the Commissioners' packets was a memo forwarding the concept plan for one large scale retail building within a 181,743-square-foot retail complex located in StoneRidge Square. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of North 19th Avenue and West Oak Street. Associate Planner Jami Morris briefly introduced this concept plan and reminded the Commission that this property has been zoned to allow regional, community and neighborhood commercial development, Mr. Lowell Springer noted that the first concept plan he submitted for this project worked very well for his clients but met with pretty strong criticism before the Commission. He distributed a packet of plans reflecting some of the changes that have occurred as a result of that first review, noting that the plan submitted for consideration at this time addresses the issues previously raised. He noted that the revisions include creating more of a downtown feel in the"B-1"zoned area at the southern portion of the site and proposing smaller structures that meet the guidelines for the StoneRidge Planned Unit Development. He highlighted the main entrance to the development, noting it is to be flanked by two rather large retail structures and provide vehicular access, ending at a plaza that provides pedestrian access to the green space along the eastern boundary of the site. He then noted that several building envelopes have been moved closer to North 19th Avenue, and the larger structures have been moved outside the "B-1" zoning boundary. Mr.Springer noted that he has been working with the potential clients as he has attempted to address the City's concerns and has been able to get them to compromise on a variety of issues. He has also worked with Planning staff as the plan has progressed. Mr. Springer posted some architectural renderings, stressing that these are simply conceptual and not detailed or final. 02-14-05 work The Bozeman Gateway Request for Additional Relaxations Additional UDO relaxation requests are summarized below: 1. UDO18.18.050 and 18.20.050 provide for the following yard setbacks: Minimum Yards in the B-2 district: Building: Front yard—7 feet, except along arterials where minimum is 25' Rear yard— 10 feet Side yards— 5 feet, except where zero lot lines allowed) Parking and Loading Areas: Front Yard— 25 feet Rear Yard— 10 feet Side yard= 8 feet Minimum Yards in the B-P district: Front yard—25 feet Rear yard—20 feet Side yard— 15 feet (except where zero lot lines allowed) Request: The Applicant will request a relaxation of Sections 18.18.050 and 18.20.050 to allow reductions of setbacks as follows. All encroachments will be on privately maintained streets internal to the site: Setbacks to buildings and parking and loading areas shall be provided as follows: Huffine Lane— Buildings 60 feet Parking and Loading Areas 50 feet Fowler Avenue— Buildings 30 feet Parking and Loading Areas 20 feet (encroaches 5 feet into 25 foot setback) Technology Blvd— Buildings 15 feet ✓Parking and Loading Areas 10 feet (encroaches 15 feet into 25 foot setback) Harmon Stream Blvd— Buildings 10 feet Parking and Loading Areas 10 feet (encroaches 15 feet into 25 foot setback) Garfield St.- Buildings 25 feet Parking and Loading Areas 25 feet Chronicle Lane— 0 Buildings 15 feet Parking and Loading Areas 15 feet (encroaches 10 feet into 25 foot setback) Justifications: The relaxation will generally establish building and parking setbacks to the same setback line and allow the flexibility to meet parking requirements throughout the subdivision. The cases where the parking/loading area setbacks are reduced to less than the building setbacks are generally to accommodate circulation of traffic to the rear or sides of the buildings. In the Case of Chronicle Lane the setbacks are the remnants of the underlying B-P zoning. As discussed in the submittal the land use designation for the property supports B-2 zoning in this portion of the site. The Applicant is proposing to use the PUD process to allow B-2 uses in this area in lieu of a zone change. The proposed setbacks are consistent with the B- 2 zone district. 2. UDO 18.18.040 and 18.20.040 provides for minimum lot widths in the B-2 of 100 feet and in the B-P zone of 150 feet. Request: The Applicant requests a relaxation of Section 18.18.040 and 18.20.040 to allow lot widths less than those required. Lot widths less than the required will be requested in the lifestyle center portion of the project. Justification: These lots will be in areas where common wall buildings will be constructed. The resulting buildings will be in excess of the 100 foot requirement, however, individual tenant widths will be less than the requirements. Other reduced width lots are identified as plaza areas in the lifestyle center portion of the project. 3. UDO 18.20.060 provides for an allowable building height in the B-2 district of 44 feet. Request: The Applicant requests a relaxation to increase the allowable building height from 44 feet to 146 feet. Justification: The building height relaxation provides an element of flexibility and uniqueness to the project. Any multi-story buildings will still be controlled by the restraints of the site. The availability of parking space to the overall plan will control the size of any buildings. As the height of buildings increases the footprint of the building will decrease if the same amount of space is provided. This will allow for additional green space and landscaped areas on the site. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. Open Space Requirements - Total Gross Acres: 72.20 acres Dedications: 11.09 acres 18.36.090.E.2.a(7) "Open Space Performance" 20 Performance Points Required 20% Open Space, exclusive of dedications: 12.222 Acres 72.20— 11.09 = 61.11 Acres 12.222 Acres, for 20 Performance Points Open Space#1 3.43 Acres Open Space#2 1.24 Acres Open Space#3 0.47 Acres Open Space#4 1.00 Acres Open Space#5 0.85 Acres Open Space#6 1.49 Acres Open Space#7 0.54 Acres Open Space#8 0.42 Acres Open Space#9 0.66 Acres Total 10.10 Acres 10.10 Acres = 16.528%, or16.528 Points x 1.25 = 20.66 Points Provided with P.U.D. Response to DRB Comments: October 12, 2005 Meeting 1. Water Features; how they will be protected, maintained during the winter, and safety issues. Water features will be protected within the open space corridors provided by the plat. These corridors have been reviewed and approved by the Wetlands Review Board. A copy of the approval letter is attached. Maintenance during the winter will be to leave the water featured in their natural state. The majority of the features are existing natural streams that will remain in their natural state. Where streams or channels are relocated it will simply be to accommodate street crossings or to reestablish the natural channel. Any modifications will be designed by wetlands professionals and naturally integrated into the existing wetland features. The proposed ponds will be shallow wetland features. Banks will be gradually sloped to ' the water edge and the depth of the ponds will be limited. The pond bottom will also gradually slope from the bank to the middle of the pond. These features should not pose a significant risk to children or other individuals frequenting the area. 2. Screening of the backs of the buildings, specifically along Fowler Ave. and the view from Huffine Lane. Illustrations of the treatments for the backs of buildings including garbage enclosures are attached. 3. Trail connection to the grocery store from the trail along Huffine Lane. This connection will be added to trail and landscaping plans during design. 4. Phasing and the installation of landscaping amenities The phasing plan provides a preliminary schedule for the project. It is likely as the project unfolds that minor adjustments will be made. Phase boundaries and the order of construction may be modified to account for fluctuations in the demand to the different types of uses or locations. Generally landscaping and open space improvements will be completed with the individual phases as identified on"The Bozeman Gateway Phasing Exhibit"with the exception of the paved trail in the open space corridor along Huffine Lane, which will be completed during the summer of 2006. The remainder of the open space improvements will be installed concurrently with the adjacent portions of the development. 5.. Building Heights The development guidelines now call for building heights up to 146 ft. for a 10 story building. This will require a relaxation of Section 18.18.060.b. of the Uniform Development Ordinance. 6. Parking Lot Lighting Three options are provided for street and parking lot lighting in the submittal. The applicant understands that two of the options will require relaxation of UDO Section 18.42.150. It is our understanding that the Lumec Domus Series DMS50 meets the requirements of this section. 7. Setbacks and lot coverage in the BP zone The Applicant requests a relaxation of 18.20.30.B. through the PUD process. The relaxation requested would allow the distribution of open space/landscaped areas to be based on the overall project area and site plan, not the artificial boundaries created by the underlying zoning. B-P zoning requires 40 percent landscaped areas whereas B-2 zoning requires none, other than that required for yards and setbacks. Justification: In simplified terms, the justification is that if provision of landscaped open space within the project can be determined based on the entire project, rather than the strict standards of the underlying zoning and their artificial boundaries, there can be a more uniform and functional distribution of open space. Provision of landscaped areas based on the underlying zoning inhibits the implementation of a cohesive and functional site plan. The redistribution of landscaped areas based on the site plan integrates the protection of wetlands and stream corridors with open space buffers while enhancing pedestrian circulation and creation of a compact and efficient use of the land. This redistribution is consistent .with the concept of providing an overall site plan and the Community Commercial designation for the entire project area shown in the 2020 Plan. 8. Sidewalks vs. Soft Trails The relaxation of UDO 18.44.080 will apply only to sidewalks in open space areas. Specifically the following open space areas: O.S. 3, O.S. 4, O.S. 5, O.S. 7, O.S. 8, O.S. 9, O.S. 10, and the trail along the east boundary of the property. Sidewalks will be installed by the applicant in all other areas. 9. - Technology Boulevard Under the current phasing plan Technology Boulevard will likely be the final street constructed within in the subdivision. As discussed previously phase boundaries and the project schedule will be modified to account for fluctuations in demand for the various uses and locations provided by the project. At this time the demand for the lifestyle, center does not seem as high as other areas. The Applicant anticipates this will change as the project unfolds. The Applicant is committed to the lifestyle center portion of the proj ect. 10. Residential Component The applicant continues to consider a residential component to the project, specifically in the lifestyle center portion of the project: There are issues such as parking that need careful consideration before residential units can be added. Thus the applicant is not ready to commit to a residential component and is not including it with the PUD. The PUD will need to be updated at a later date to include residential units. 11. Parking The parking plan calls for 2576 parking sites on the project. The allowable reductions the adjusted parking requirement is 2556 parking sites. Getting too specific with parking numbers at this time is not advisable. The parking requirements for will be reviewed-in more detail with individual site plans as they are proposed to City Staff. The applicant suggests that the submittal illustrates that the planned site meets the parking requirements of the UDO. Slight modifications are to be expected as individual site plans are developed. 12. Access off of Fowler to Lots The proposed layout provides for in excess of 70 feet from the curb line to the buildings along Fowler Avenue, and 30 feet to the access lane behind the buildings. The left out turn movement at the approach will be eliminated and as the access lane will be used only to service the buildings; storage at the approach will be adequate to provide a safe approach. The separation to the buildings is more than adequate to provide a safe approach with respect to the visual triangle. r�� 1 4 S ..a. ivi ...vi vv ii.v� .<u� ..iz �vv vv.�v vu.v u.. ... uwwu.... y.... .. .... i F V �� ,,� ._ rd �� 1 ,,, °� � `. .. . , . � i.� ., w � �' � �� •r "' � � �� `fi�'. /'� . ' � + y � r� Y .� � .• ' t �.,P�►!'�i. � ti 1 1 Y � C, � :�.r �w � ,� �� A �V1 �. /y/�► � a 7 � r � Y ,. .. ..�` ., y,�. • �" - � � � �� -� �-� ; .�, r ,, ��' � J �� l u u ENGINEERS Ol-(uF{u�1JO SURVEYORS" PLANICI ERS MMERLE, INC. 901 TECHNOLOGY BLVD • P.O.BOX 1113 • BOZEMAN,MT 59771 . 406-587-0721 • FAX:4 6-587N 176 An Employee-Owned Company DRB Meeting 11/9/2005 Response to questions from Dave Skelton dated 11/8/2005 • Is the water feature along the entryway corridor designed to be a part of the storm water runoff facilities or not? The water feature along the entryway corridor designed to operate in concert with the natural drainage along the south side of Huffine Lane. The features will be located directly adjacent to an existing natural drainage that naturally drains the site. During major flooding events as the water rises in the natural drainage it will naturally rise in the water features. There is no way to avoid this if they are to operate naturally. These fluctuations will be natural, temporary in nature, and short term as runoff drains from the site. If the City wants the water features they need to be designed to operate as part of the overall natural site drainage or they will not function properly. These drainages are not in any way part of the storm water detention ponds or treatment system for the subdivision. They are designed as part of the natural drainage through the site. Please refer to our extensive discussions with Bob Murray at the DRC Meeting on October 26, 2005. Bob agreed that the drainage plan worked and met the requirements of City Code. • The grading plan shows the water feature not continuing west beyond Harmon Stream Boulevard,but all of the site plans indicate so. Which is correct? The water feature will continue across Harmon Stream Boulevard as indicated on the site plan. • Is there a storm water drainage Swale in the entryway corridor that is receiving credit for the open space points required for the planned unit development? There is a natural stream drainage through the entryway corridor that is being enhanced by incorporating the water features as shown. • What are you expecting the building setbacks Tor buildings from the right-of- way to be along the "lifestyle center" (i.e., Technology Boulevard, Harmon Stream Boulevard, and Chronicle Lane) where there is diagonal parking? "Providing resources in partnership with clients to achieve their goals" MOMSON min MAIERLE,INC. As outlined in our request of October 27, 2005 the building setback along Technology Blvd. is requested at 15 feet. The thought behind it is to provide a minimum 12 foot sidewalk outside of the parked car overhang. • How do you intend to install the landscape features along the entryway corridor where there is sanitary sewer and storm drainage mains installed underground in Open Space#2 and Open Space#6? Open Space#2—The sewer is to be located generally under the walking paved trail to provide access for maintenance. This will minimize the landscaped area to be disrupted. The storm drain main is shown on the drainage plan for schematic purposes only with the final location to be determined during design. It can be placed under the parking lot asphalt within a drainage easement if necessary. Keep in mind there is 75' of green space between the parking lot and the West Main Street curb line — plenty of room for landscaping. Open Space#6—The sewer main is to be located directly behind the curb to provide easy access for maintenance. The open space area ranges from between 50 feet and.120 feet wide providing more than enough room for both the sewer main and the landscaping. • Could you explain how do you intend to install the boulevard landscape and yard landscape features along Fowler Avenue with an underground storm water main in the front yard? There is 35 feet between the service drive and Fowler Avenue curb lines. The pipe zone will occupy 15 feet and will be on the property side of the right-of-way. Boulevard Trees will not be affected. There will be more than enough space for additional landscaping. As an after thought we may consider placing the sidewalk directly over the storm drain pipe as a sort of boulevard trial providing even more space for landscaping. • If there is a sanitary sewer main in the front yard of Lot#10 - #13 how do you plan to install all of the landscape features shown in the illustration provided the DRB when the larger vegetation is not allowed to be installed over utilities? The sanitary sewer main will be located under the service drive to provide access for maintenance. • How can you justify the trade off of reducing setbacks for off-street parking in-lieu of encroaching into the open space area along the entry way corridor MORMON MAIERLE,INC. when required yard setbacks along interior street frontages are not part of the open space calculations? What physical features are controlling the proposed street alignment and location for Technology Boulevard? If we reduce the setback along West Main St. we will need to provide additional open space somewhere else on the project. Most likely along the west boundary of Lots 2 and 3 where we have a significant green area already for which we are not taking credit. The only physical features controlling the Technology Blvd. street alignment are the connection at Fowler Ave. and keeping the stream crossing just west of Harmon Stream Blvd. perpendicular to minimize disruption to the wetland. Response to DRB Comments: October 12, 2005 Meeting 1. Water Features; how they will be protected, maintained during the winter, and safety issues. Water features will be protected within the open space corridors provided by the plat. These corridors have been reviewed and approved by the Wetlands Review Board. A copy of the approval letter is attached. Maintenance during the winter will be to leave the water featured in their natural state. The majority of the features are existing natural streams that will remain in their natural state. Where streams or channels are relocated it will simply be to accommodate street crossings or to reestablish the natural channel. Any modifications will be designed by wetlands professionals and naturally integrated into the existing wetland features. The proposed ponds will be shallow wetland features. Banks will be gradually sloped to the water edge and the depth of the ponds will be limited. The pond bottom will also gradually slope from the bank to the middle of the.pond. These features should not pose a significant risk to children or other individuals frequenting the area. 2. Screening of the backs of the buildings, specifically along Fowler Ave. and the view from Huffine Lane. Illustrations of the treatments for the backs of buildings including garbage enclosures are attached. 3. Trail connection to the grocery store from the trail along Huffine Lane. This connection will be added to trail and landscaping plans during design. 4. Phasing and the installation of landscaping amenities The phasing plan provides a preliminary schedule for the project. It is likely as the project unfolds that minor adjustments will be made. Phase boundaries and the order of construction may be modified to account for fluctuations in the demand to the different types of uses or locations. Generally landscaping and open space improvements will be completed with the individual phases as identified on"The Bozeman Gateway Phasing Exhibit"with the exception of the paved trail in the open space corridor along Huffine Lane, which will be completed during the summer of 2006. The remainder of the open space improvements will be installed concurrently with the adjacent portions of the development. 5. Building Heights The development guidelines now call for building heights up to 146 ft. for a 10 story building. This will require a relaxation of Section 18.18.060.b. of the Uniform Development Ordinance. 6. Parking Lot Lighting Three options are provided for street and parking lot lighting in the submittal. The applicant understands that two of the options will require relaxation of UDO Section 18.42.150. It is our understanding that the Lumec Domus Series DMS50 meets the requirements of this section. 7. Setbacks and lot coverage in the BP zone The Applicant requests a relaxation of 18.20.30.B. through the PUD process. The relaxation requested would allow the distribution of open space/landscaped areas to be based on the overall project area and site plan, not the artificial boundaries created by the underlying zoning. B-P zoning requires 40 percent landscaped areas whereas B-2 zoning requires none, other than that required for yards and setbacks. Justification: In simplified terms, the justification is that if provision of landscaped open space within the project can be determined based on the entire project, rather than the strict standards of the underlying zoning and their artificial boundaries, there can be a more uniform and functional distribution of open space. Provision of landscaped areas based on the underlying zoning inhibits the implementation of a cohesive and functional site plan. The redistribution of landscaped areas based on the site plan integrates the protection of wetlands and stream corridors with open space buffers while enhancing pedestrian circulation and creation of a compact and efficient use of the land. This redistribution is consistent with the concept of providing an overall site plan and the Community Commercial designation for the entire project area shown in the 2020 Plan. 8. Sidewalks vs. Soft Trails The relaxation of UDO 18.44.080 will apply only to sidewalks in open space areas. Specifically the following open space areas: O.S. 3, O.S. 4, O.S. 5, O.S. 7, O.S. 8, O.S. 9, O.S. 10, and the trail along the east boundary of the property. Sidewalks will be installed by the applicant in all other areas. 9. Technology Boulevard Under the current phasing plan Technology Boulevard will likely be the final street constructed within in the subdivision. As discussed previously phase boundaries and the project schedule will be modified to account for fluctuations in demand for the various uses and locations provided by the project. At this time the demand for the lifestyle center does not seem as high as other areas. The Applicant anticipates this will change as the project unfolds. The Applicant is committed to the lifestyle center portion of the proj ect. 10. Residential Component The applicant continues to consider a residential component to the project, specifically in the lifestyle center portion of the project. There are issues such as parking that need careful consideration before residential units can be added. Thus the applicant is not ready to commit to a residential component and is not including it with the PUD. The PUD will need to be updated at a later date to include residential units. 11. Parking The parking plan calls for 2576 parking sites on the project. The allowable reductions the adjusted parking requirement is 2556 parking sites. Getting too specific with parking numbers at this time is not advisable. The parking requirements for will be reviewed in more detail with individual site plans as they are proposed to City Staff. The applicant suggests that the submittal illustrates that the planned site meets the parking requirements of the UDO. Slight modifications are to be expected as individual site plans are developed. 12. Access off of Fowler to Lots The proposed layout provides for in excess of 70 feet from the curb line to the buildings along Fowler Avenue, and 30 feet to the access lane behind the buildings. The left out turn movement at the approach will be eliminated and as the access lane will be used only to service the buildings; storage at the approach will be adequate to provide a safe approach. The separation to the buildings is more than adequate to provide a safe approach with respect to the visual triangle. , E ram. lb r� -t • S y ..a O " If s`� �� btu � ...--+ THE BOZEMAN GATEWAY SUBDIVISION ZONING FILE NO.Z-092171. P.U.D. PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT i i ITEM: ZONING APPLICATION NO. Z-05217 -- AN APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY P.U.D. PLAN REVIEW FOR A MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL/PROFESSIONAL OFFICE/RETAIL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON APPROXIMATELY 72.2± ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF HUFFINE LANE/US HIGHWAY 191, ZONED "B-2", COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND "BP", BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT. APPLICANT: MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, I.L.C. %TED MITCHELL P.O. BOX 738, GREAT FALLS, MT 59403 OWNER: MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, I.L.C. %TED MITCHELL P.O. BOX 738, GREAT FALLS, MT 59403 DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2005, AT 3:30 P.M., IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM, ALFRED M. STIFF PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, 20 EAST OLIVE STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANA REPORT BY: DAVE SKELTON SENIOR PLANNER ----------------7---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Description: The subject property is legally described as being Tract 2A of the Amended Plat of West College Minor Subdivision No. 195A located in the NW 'A of Section 15, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, and is further identified as property situated south of Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 and Gallatin Valley Mall, and west of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle facility. The site is approximately 72.2 acres in size and fronts Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 along the north boundary, extension of Fowler Avenue on the west and extension of Garfield Street on the south boundary. Please refer to the vicinity map and exhibits provided in the applicant's submittal. Proposal: The applicant, Mitchell Development Group, L.L.C., has made application for Preliminary P.U.D. Plan Review of a mixed-use commercial, professional office, and retail planned unit development consisting of The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 1 1 • • 61 commercial/business park lots zoned `B-2" and `BP". The proposal is also undergoing a concurrent preliminary plat review of the 72+ acre site as a major subdivision. The six-phased mixed-use planned unit development is located in the West Main Street entryway corridor overlay district along its north boundary and is bound on the north by the major arterial street, Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 and Gallatin Valley Mall. The Advanced Technology Park and Bozeman Daily Chronicle are to the east and partially developed lands under Gallatin County jurisdiction are to the west. The placement of mixed land uses within the development focuses on a mix of professional offices, retail services and hotel/conference facility on the east one-third and a mixed of retail service and commercial uses on the west two-thirds. The Development Manual contains architectural and landscape guidelines that illustrate the concept of a "lifestyle" center and methods by which the developer will implement the image of the planned unit development. The Bozeman Gateway consists of several different building types that are discussed in the Manual: 1) Lifestyle Center along the interior main street for the development, 2) Convenience Center and Outparcels along Fowler Avenue and West Main Street, and 3) Office Professional area along the east adjacent to the Advanced Technology Center and the extreme west at the southwest corner of Huffine Lane and Fowler Avenue. Chapter 18.36—Planned Unit Development The intent of the planned unit development concept is to promote maximum flexibility and innovation in the development of land and the design of development projects within the city. As a result, the developer has requested multiple relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance with this application for P.U.D. review. With regard to the improvement and protection of the public health, safety and welfare,it shall be the intent of the Ordinance to promote the city's pursuit of community objectives as outlined in Chapter 18.36 of the Unified Development Ordinance. The Development Review Committee, Design Review Board, Planning Board and City Commission participated in the Concept P.U.D. Plan Review process in January and February of 2005. Please refer to the attached copies of the meeting of the D.R.B. in January of 2005. The purpose of these meetings was for discussion of the applicant's proposal with the designated review committees in order to identify any requirements and applicable standards and policies, as well as offering the applicant the opportunity to identify major problems that may exist and identify solutions prior to making formal application. Relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance: The following relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance have been identified with the application for subdivision preliminary plat review and P.U.D. preliminary plan review: Requested Relaxations: • Section 18.20.030.B "Lot Coverage and Floor Area" to eliminate the 60 percent restriction on impervious surfaces and development the entire site, exclusive of the required yard setbacks. • Section 18.36.060.B "Duration of Final Plan Approval" to undertake and complete the development in ten years. • Section 18.42.040.B "Block Length" to allow the block lengths to exceed 400 feet. • - Section 18.42.040.0 "Block Width" to allow the block widths to be more than 400 feet. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 2 4 • Section 18.42.100.B.3.c — "Setbacks" to encroach into the 50-foot minimum setback required along watercourses. • Section 18.42.100.B.4.b — "Watercourse Setback" to allow the required watercourse setback to not include adjacent wetlands. • Section 18.44.030.A.1 "Intersections" to allow streets to intersect at angles less than 90 degrees. • Section 18.44.090.D.3 "Spacing Standards for Drive Access" to allow the average spacing of intersections on Fowler Avenue to be reduced from 660 feet to 420 feet. • Section 18.42.150.D.1 "Parking Lot Lighting" to allow horizontal illuminnace to be less than 0.1 foot-candles as required by the U.D.O. • Section 18.42.1501 "Lighting Specifications" to allow light fixtures and standards that do not comply the U.D.O. (i.e., distract light and glare down and aware from adjoining streets and properties. • Section 18.44.030.A.1 "Intersections" to relax the streets to intersection at angles less than 90 degrees (City Engineer decision). • Section 18.44.080 "Sidewalks" to allow soft trials in place of concrete boulevard sidewalks along streets fronting open space/pedestrian corridors. • Section 18.44.090 "Access" to relax the average spacing requirements for public streets (City Engineer decision). • Section 18.44.090.B.2 "Drive Access from Public Streets" to exclude the requirement of all subdivision lots having 25 feet of frontage on all improved public or private street, or improved alley. • Section !8.46.020.D "Backing into Public Rights-of-Way" to allow diagonal parking along Technology Boulevard and Chronicle Lane. Identified Relaxations not Requested: • Section 18.18.020 `Building Height" to increase the allowable building height in the `B-2 district from 44 feet to 146 feet. • Section 18.18.050 "Yards" to encroach into the yard setbacks with off-street parking in the B'2" District. • Section 18.20.060" `Building Height" to increase the allowable building height in the "BP" district from 44 feet to 146 feet. • Section 18.20.050 "Yards" to encroach into the yard setbacks with off-street parking in the "BP" District. • Section 18.42.030.I "Frontage" to not have access for all subdivision lots from an improved pubic street, approved private street or alley. ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES The subject property is zoned "B-2", Community Business District and `BP," Business Park District. The "B-2", Community Business District, allows for a broad range of mutually supportive retail and service functions located in clustered areas bordered on one of more sides by limited access arterial streets. Principal permitted uses range from banks and hospitals to offices and hotels/motels. Conditional uses permitted in the district range from automobile fuel sales to technical or vocational schools to light goods repair and light manufacturing. The "BP", Business Park District, provides for high quality settings and The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 3 • 1 • � facilities for the development of a wide range of compatible employment opportunities. These areas should be developed so as to recognize the impact on surrounding or adjacent development and contribute to the overall image of the community. Compatibility with adjacent land uses and zoning is required. Permitted uses range from hospitals and professional offices to research laboratories and public .buildings. Conditional uses that may be considered in the `BP" district range from banks and day care centers to type II essential services. The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property: North: US Highway 101/Huffine Lane/West Main Street and Gallatin Valley Mall zoned `B-2", Community Business District. South: Undeveloped agricultural land under Gallatin County jurisdiction and owned by the State of Montana Endowment and Research Foundation. East: Advanced Technology Park and Bozeman Daily Chronicle zoned `BP", Business Park District. West: Partially developed agricultural lands under Gallatin County jurisdiction. ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION The development proposal is in general conformance with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan including the "Community Commercial" and `Business Park" land use designations with the recommendations to be considered by the Planning Board and City Commission. The "Community Commercial" classification provides areas for basic employment and services necessary for a vibrant community. Establishments located within this category draw from a community as a whole for their employee and customer base and are sized accordingly. A broad range of functions include retail, education, professional and personal services, offices, residences and general service activities typify this designation. The"Business Park"classification provides for areas typified by office uses and technology-oriented light industrial uses, although retail, services, or industrial uses may also be included in an accessory or local service role. Additional uses may be approved as part of a planned unit development if they are found to be compatible with and subordinate to the uses described above, and are consistent with the intent of the underlying Business Park land use classification. REVIEW.CRITERIA The Design Review Board is established to evaluate aesthetic considerations of larger and more complex proposals which are likely to produce significant community impact and to provide recommendations regarding such proposals to the City Commission. The Board is empowered to recommend approval or conditional approval of the project with support of some or all of the requested relaxations or to forward a recommendation of denial. The Design Review Board provided the following comments with the Concept Plan: The DRB recommended a reduction in parking from the minimum required (as a relaxation through the PUD). The proposal for shared, reduced off-street parking spaces was supportive but concern was also expressed with the demand with maximum parking with retail establishments. :• D.R-.B. recommended that consideration should be given to residential development as part of the mixed-use planned unit development. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 4 :• Expressed concern with the potential for storm water runoff impacting the landscape features and ponds along the entryway corridor. Questioned the level of retail uses allowed in the `BP" component of the P.U.D. Fewer off-street parking provided with additional landscape features incorporated into the mixed— use development that people could mingle in. Stated that the location of the grocery store on the corner of the entryway corridor was problematic and suggested relocating the grocery store to the central core of the development, or provide extensive screening. Expressed concern with the presentation of drive-thru facilities along the entryway corridor and the potential conflict with making the pro)ect pedestrian and bicycle friendly . :• Would like to see the use of natural materials throughout the development. Supported the preservation of the watercourses and associated wetlands to enhance the area. o Recommended a conscious effort of keeping and enhancing the character of Bozeman. Expressed concern with crossings and connections between vehicular movement with pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Need for adequate connections to Babcock Street and components of the Farmer's Canal trail to the east. Suggested placement of nodes and a place where cars cannot go to avoid conflict with bicycles. :• Protect as many of the large trees and mature vegetation preserved. Carry out materials and architectural elements on all sides of the buildings. Do not present a "backside" of a building, especially on the unloading side and refuse areas. There should be more building frontage onto the Entryway instead of parking. This may be accomplished by including additional pad site in front of the larger buildings and/or more landscape features. Design Objectives Plan 1. Neighborhood Design (pages 9-14): A. Green Space- Provisions for achieving the minimum open space requirements have been met with the overall master plan for the PUD. This includes the preservation of the existing watercourses and associated vegetation and wetlands. Those areas designated as open space must be identified accordingly on the final subdivision plat and final PUD plan. The preliminary plan identifies six key areas of green space for both visually and functionally open space; 1) entryway corridor along US 191/West Main Street, 2) west most watercourse along Fowler Avenue, 3) watercourse along Harmon Stream Boulevard, 4) watercourse along the eastern half of the PUD, 5) public plaza along Technology Boulevard, and 6) two watercourses in the The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 5 north parking lot . All of theses areas contain existing physical features that are being preserved and should be further complimented with landscape features that will embrace the importance of urban open space. The applicant requests a relaxation to Section 18.20.030.B "Lot Coverage and Floor Area" to eliminate the 60 percent restriction on impervious surfaces and development for the entire site, exclusive of the required yard setbacks for lots in the `BP" District. Staff is recommending denial finding that the request does not encourage the campus like setting of open space that is sought in the BP District and importance of urban open space and green spaces throughout the BP District. B. Auto Connections- Construction of Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street by the developer, as well as the installation of the interior local streets and signalization improvements at the intersection of Fowler Avenue and US 191/West Main Street will provide direct automobile access to the development, abutting property, and surrounding areas. C. Pedestrian & Bicycle Connections- The application illustrates a pedestrian and bicycle trail system for the development that stems from recommendations by City Staff, Planning Office, Recreation and Parks Advisory Board, and GY.L.T. The proposal calls for a Type I asphalt trail along the frontage of US 191/West Main Street that continues linkage with the called for Farmer's Canal trail and a series of interior Type II trails throughout the site. Trails constructed in the watercourse setback shall be constructed in Zone 2 of the setback. Staff is further recommending that all pedestrian/bicycle crossings with streets should be given greater emphasis by using similar pavers that reflect the surface treatment of public plazas and areas of outdoor social activities. Connections of between streets, off-street parking lots, public areas should also be given attention in terms of raised walkways, pavers, pedestrian lighting and landscape features. D. Street Character- A landscaped streetscape along all public and private streets that contain a compliment of formal boulevard trees with placement of informal landscape features is necessary to provide continuity and sense of place at a pedestrian scale. Informal landscape features should provide a mix of type, texture and seasonal color throughout and are important in coordinating landscape design along that establishes a unified identity for the area.. A regular spacing of boulevard trees along all streets in concert with landscape features and screening of off-street parking lots is necessary; primarily, areas along West Garfield Street and US Highway 191/West Main Street. Street character along the West Main Street entryway corridor should call for architectural features that suggest a presence of store fronts, plazas, fenestration treatment and architectural details that reflect the "lifestyle center" concept. Commercial and retail drive-thrus and associated apprentices (speaker phones, signage, ATM, canopies, etc.) shall not front onto the entryway corridor and will not impact the building facade of the satellite structures along the streetscape. 2. Site Design (pages 15-36): A. Natural Features- The described watercourses with associated vegetation and wetlands will be maintained as public open space with exception to the necessary street crossings. The 50-foot The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 6 • i wide watercourses will need to be landscaped to emphasize effective landscape features as discussed previously. B. Views- View sheds of the mountains to the northeast and south should not be significantly obscured, unless the applicant elects to move forward with a request to relax the building heights in the `B-2" and "BP" of up to 146 feet. A relaxation to exceed the maximum building height of 44 feet in the `B-2" and `BP" would be inconsistent with surrounding land uses. However, the "BP" district allows the maximum building height to be increased by 30 percent when the additional height is specifically identified as being the purpose of the review (example: downtown business district). C. Cultural Resources- There are no existing structures on the site. A cultural resource inventory study is required with the preliminary plat for review by the State Historic Preservation Office. Any cultural resources uncovered during construction and earthwork will need to be inventoried by the Planning Office and State Historic Preservation Office. D. Topography- The site slopes from south to north with an approximate change in grade of 18± feet. The amount of cut and fill required with the project during construction activity will influence the existing amenities of the existing topography. As a result, encroachments into the watercourse setbacks and areas of mature vegetation should be limited. Any change in grade that will encroach into these areas should be limited to a 1:4 or 25% slope to minimize the visual impact of cut and fill on the site. E. Site Drainage- The storm drainage master plan for the development will direct storm water runoff generally to the north and will be treated with underground facilities designated throughout the site. The applicant's consultants note that the surface water ponds along the entryway corridor and along Technology Boulevard are not part of the storm water runoff facilities. However, the master plan identifies at least fourth drainage basins that are either located in the open space corridors for have outlets draining into the corridor. These facilities must be properly landscaped and prevent any impact on the landscape features along these corridors. Specific landscape details will be required with the final landscape plan to demonstrate proper landscape of the facilities. F. Building Placement- The mixed-use development focuses on a "lifestyle center" concrete that centers on an interior street (i.e.., Technology Boulevard), which faces the primary building entrances to a common interior route that features pedestrian friendly open-air squares and plazas. Thus,producing active outdoor public spaces. In addition, there are at least three of the five street intersections that are considered major intersections and should give consideration to a strong building presence (i.e., intersection of US 191/West Main Street with Fowler Avenue, Harmon Stream Boulevard with US 191/West Main Street, West Garfield with Fowler Avenue, and Chronicle Drive with West College Street). These intersections should be enhanced with a pedestrian-friendly entrance plaza or human scaled design features., such as benches and landscape planters. Building entrances near the sidewalk edge that contain an entry plaza should also be considered at the intersections of local streets with Technology Boulevard and should be considered not only in the commercial area, but also along the business park/professional office corridors. G. Outdoor Public Spaces- The plan notes a number of outdoor public spaces for the enjoyment of pedestrians. Two plazas along Technology Boulevard serve as focal points shared by adjoining The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 7 buildings and visually connect at least one of the watercourse/open space corridors. The plan also suggests the opportunity for a number of smaller public spaces along the watercourses that preserve the natural amenities of the site. Both public plazas along Technology Boulevard will contain decorative surface materials, landscape features, and plaza furniture. These areas should illustrate the heart of the development and be carried throughout the entire regions of the project. Detail to these areas is critical and should be specifically addressed in the master landscape plan. The principle public plaza extends north through the "life style' center, continues to the off-street parking lot, ending at the West Main Street entryway corridor. Detail for this section is limited and must be described in the landscape plan. Those pedestrian/bicycle pathway sections through the parking lot must be carefully considered and offer at least one public space along each watercourse corridor within the parking lot. This would involve the conversation of at least two off-street parking spaces (i.e., 18' by 18') that abut the corridor being converted to a green space with a bench, pavers and landscape features. Public spaces along the identified watercourses should also be given attention with smaller pads that reflect similar pavers, benches, lighting and landscape features as the larger plazas. H. Pedestrian & Bicycle Circulation Systems- The Master Plan provides connections for pedestrians and bicyclists throughout the development while also implementing the Farmer's Canal trail system called for in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. This includes connections from parking lots,into buildings, as well as a network of pedestrian/bicycle trails throughout the project. Emphasis should be given to transitions between parking lots, driveways, street crossings and connections with pubic boulevard sidewalks that include the typical "life style" center landscape theme. Transitions through the parking lots, primarily the larger north most parking lot, must be given specific attention to providing an adequate width through the parking lot. Principle and secondary entries (i.e.., US 191/West Main Street, Fowler Avenue, Garfield Street and West College Street) , should be given the same attention with developments landscape theme. I. Internal Automobile Circulation Systems- The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision PUD contains a transportation network that includes implementation of the greater Bozeman Transportation Plan with construction of Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street. A network of interior local streets completes the transportation network for the development. Diagonal parking. along Technology Boulevard is proposed to compliment the "lifestyle" center and reduce conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular movement. A higher degree of landscape materials along major circulation routes is sought by the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan. In particular, the US 191/West Main Street entryway corridor should convey a higher degree of urban open space and importance intensive pedestrian/bicycle use. This should include decorative elements and furnishing that provide interest and a sense of human scale. This would also apply to both sides of Fowler Avenue and north side of West Garfield Street. J. Parking Lots- The application includes a parking plan that minimizes the number of off-street parking spaces as allowed under the Unified Development Ordinance by using the reduction table in 18.46.040. This is implemented with a combination of privately owned or common parking areas throughout the development. A parking analysis by the developer calculates the required off- street parking at 2,907 spaces. With the allowable reduction the parking plan may be adjusted to 2,556 spaces. The applicant is proposing 2,557 off-street parking spaces. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 8 K. Site Lighting- The Preliminary Light Plan identifies three architectural light fixtures proposed throughout the development and off-street parking lots. Only of one the three fixtures (i.e.., Domus Series) complies with the U.D.O. and would prevent off-site glare and distraction to vehicular movement along adjoining pubic streets. It is recommended that the Domus Series fixture be allowed throughout the development and the other two fixtures be allowed with a retrofitted "louvered cover" along Technology Boulevard with a transition to the compliant fixture along private streets prior to intersecting with adjoining public streets. Street lights will be required along Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street and must comply with the U.D.O. Neon and L.E.D. lighting will not be permitted unless used as a backlight architectural feature that is not directly visible from the public streetscape, sidewalks or streets. L. Utilities & Service Areas- The application is not clear on the placement, treatment and screening of waste disposal areas, unloading/loading and access to utilities. Because the development does not propose alleys and or backs to the buildings, provisions for utility and service areas is not clearly addressed in the application. The Development Manual discusses guidelines that suggests solutions to the issue (i.e., page 31) but does not demonstrate a desired solution that is consistent with architectural theme of the project. This is more of an issue when store fronts and public access will occur at the rear of the buildings, creating obtrusive noise, offensive sounds and odors, as well as conflict with servicing vehicles and the general vehicular circulation system.. As a result, the Development Manual must clearly demonstrate graphically how the conflict between utility service areas and the general public will be resolved. M. Landscape Design- Existing physical features, wetlands and mature vegetation are protected with the preservation of the existing watercourses identified on the site. These areas should be incorporated into new development site design with public trails and pubic spaces as illustrated on the preliminary plan. Drought-tolerate plant species, native to the area, have been introduced and included in the plant palette. High maintenance, or highly decorative landscape is reserved for the public plazas and public spaces along the watercourse corridors. The landscape plan will need to identify the landscape palette to be implemented throughout the property and should include lighting structures, paving material, plantings and outdoor furniture. The plan should also include typical illustrations of a consistent plant palette throughout the property. The landscape guidelines of the Development Manual include illustrations for the two principle north/south watercourse corridors. The same illustrations are necessary for the West Main Street entryway corridor and Fowler Avenue corridor, as well as the pubic spaces identified along all of the watercourses. The landscape plan for the Final PUD Plan will need to include the final details for each area, landscape species and quantity to be installed and reviewed by the Planning Office and Design Review Board prior to submitting for final subdivision plat approval. It is further recommended based on the number of relaxations being requested with this application that all trees will be installed with a minimum caliber of 2 inches in diameter. The application suggests that a significant amount of the West Main Street entryway corridor will feature a series of ponds as landscape features for the development. The landscape guidelines have not specially addressed the landscape elements along the corridor with respect to landscape features and landscape furniture, nor an emphasis on trail connections leading into the development. As a result, these details will need to be addressed and will require review of the Final Plan and Landscape Plan by the Planning Office and Design Review Board. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 9 0 • ' N. Buffers- Landscape buffers should be provided adjacent to the off-street parking lots, between incompatible uses and for ground mounted mechanical equipment and service/storage areas. Special attention must be given to landscape buffers along the West Main Street entryway corridor and West Garfield Street based on the expansive imperious parking lots 3. Building Design (pages 37-48): A. Building & Topography- The site does not contain significant outcroppings or topographical features and has a gradual drop in grade of approximately 18 feet from south to north. Provisions to avoid the potential of exposed building foundations resulting from significant changes in grade should not be an issue. B. Building Character- Standardized "franchise" style architecture is strongly discouraged. If the developer chooses to use franchise style architecture it is necessary to establish a reasonable argument of how the franchise style is an innovative design that draws upon regional design traditions. The application does not specifically address. As a result, it is assumed that the development will not accept structures that suggest standardized "franchise" style architecture and so note it in the Development Manual. The architectural guidelines for the development suggest that the Convenience Center, Outparcels and Office-Professional areas will incorporate the architectural vocabulary of the lifestyle center. However, modifications will be required due to the significant variation in building type and scale. The Development Manual goes on to state that an exact determination of which entities will be responsible for which elements of design and construction will be determined by individual lease or sales agreements. In-lieu of this, the Development Manual should give specific attention to each of these areas of the mixed-use development and identify what must be achieved in each of these areas to maintain the architectural integrity of the overall development theme. C. Primary Building Entrance- The majority of the buildings orientate their entrance onto the "lifestyle" center main street, Technology Boulevard. The Development Manual discusses the treatment of the main entrance, but does not address a primary objective of the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan to orient the primary entrances of a building to face a street, plaza or pedestrian way for those structures that do not front onto Technology Boulevard. In particular, those structures that will back onto the West Main entryway corridor, Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street. This needs to be addressed in the Development Manual. The Manual should goon to state a need for sheltering elements such as a canopy, awning, arcade or portico to signify the primary entrance to a building, as well as the secondary entrance if it serves an entrance along another facade. D.. Street Level Interest- All sides of a building should include interesting details and materials to avoid presenting a "back side" to neighboring properties, public streets and the West Main Street entryway corridor. The treatment of materials and architectural detail will be consistent along all sides of the buildings and storefronts or display cases should be incorporated over at least one third of the facade area. Darker anodized window fronts should also be recommended in-lieu of brushed aluminum store fronts. E. Building Mass & Scale- The Bozeman Design Objectives Plan state that the following elements must be achieved in order to reduce the perceived mass of a building: a change in color or change The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 10 in material shall be used in each building module; a 20% change in vertical height between each module; change roof form; change in articulation. The architectural guidelines should discuss components that help to establish a human scale along the facade, store fronts, primary entrances (i.e., one-story elements). Expression of the each floor in the external skin and use of materials should also be noted. The Development Manual must contain these provisions and any illustrations proposed in the application that does not reflect the guidelines should be modified accordingly. F. Roof Form- The principle roof form for the mixed-use development is a flat roof with parapet walls, pediments, and articulate hip or shed roofs. Gable roof details either as a principle or secondary feature, or at the primary entrance points should be included to reduce the perceived scale of the building. This should be a primary architectural feature throughout the development but primarily on structures fronting onto the entryway corridor and public streets. G. Building Materials- The architectural guidelines discuss building materials that vary and create visual interest, while exhibiting an overall coordination of color materials and are generally consistent with the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan. However, the guidelines state 65% of all facades exclusive of the front facade may be covered with stucco or EIFS synthetic surfaces,which is consistent with the design objectives plan. Because this proposal stands on a `lifestyle' center concept and a high quality setting that does not have the rear or back to a building, not more than 25% of any building facade will be covered by synthetic surfaces. H. Building Complex- The architectural guidelines reinforce the desire to create a development that exhibits a unity in design while providing a variety in the architectural vocabulary. I. Service Canopies- these criteria is not applicable as it is specific to gas stations and convenience store canopy design. J. Color- The architectural guidelines shall include language that specifically states that muted colors and earth tones will be used, including roof materials. A minimum of 75% of the exterior walls seen from the public way shall have muted colors. K. Utilities & Mechanical Equipment- The Development Manual will need to include language stating that all mechanical, electrical, HVAC, and utility services will be properly screened with an opaque screening device,which may include landscape screening features. The guidelines must go on to state that all utility equipment associated with storm water facilities or landscape irrigation system (i.e., irrigation wells, pumps, etc.) shall be located outside of the common open space areas and properly screened. 4. Sign Design (pages 49-56): A. Sign Context & Position- The design guidelines call for a common signage theme that generally focuses on building signage, not freestanding signs. Illustrations in the Development Manual suggest placement of monument signs at principle and secondary access points into the development, which are generally consistent with the quality and character of the project. The illustrations are intended to demonstrate the character of the signage and no so much compliance with the sign ordinance. However, two of the illustrations would not comply with the sign The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 11 • • ordinance. As a result, the common signage plan submitted with the Final PUD Plan will need to comply with the sign ordinance,unless deviations to the ordinance are requested by the applicant. The signage plan focuses on project identification signs as key entrance into the project, but does not identify freestanding type (i.e., pylon or monument). Only one pylon-style sign is permitted per street frontage with the remainder freestanding However, the Final PUD Plan will need to contain a common signage plan that illustrates the actual design standards for the project identification signs. The Development Manual will need to include a graphic component of the master sign plan for the entire property. This includes discussion on the position of signs as part of the overall building composition; avoid obscuring architectural details, materials, and use of color and relief, three-dimensional signage. B. Sign Type- The signage guidelines for buildings contain a mix of halo type reverse channel letters, internally illuminated cabinet signs, blade signs, and window graphics. Cabinet type "box" signage will not be permitted unless a three-dimensional component creates a sense of architectural relief with no plastic, translucent face allowed. These standards will need to be included in the Development Manual. C. Sign Materials- The signs discussed in the Development Manual contain a broad range of signs that exhibit high standards and quality of style, permanence and compatibility with the natural and building environment. Changeable copy reader boards are discouraged and should be noted in the guidelines D. Sign Lighting- The guidelines indicate that the majority of the illuminated signs will be internally illuminated. Light color backgrounds on internally illuminated signs are discouraged and a white background is inappropriate. The guidelines will need to address these restrictions E. Sign Content- The guidelines establish parameters for the letter styles and sizes that are compatible with the building design. F. Wall Murals- Not applicable. 5. Corridor Specific Guidelines: C. North 19`h Avenue & Oak Street Corridor (pages 69-79)- 1. Existing agricultural site features and/or resources should be integrated into a newer development when feasible. Not applicable. 2. A building should fit within existing topography when feasible. The topography from south to north is generally gradual enough whereby a stepped foundations area necessary. The proposal does not give consideration parking underneath the structures. Double-fronted buildings are proposed to avoid the presence of the back of buildings onto the public streets and West Main Street entryway corridor. This was discussed in detail previously in the staff report. 3. Provide ' an infill building adjacent to the sidewalk in new and established developments. The application discusses the presence of satellite commercial pads along the The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 12 West Main Street entryway corridor. With exception to the corridor, no building fronts are proposed to be built adjacent to the public right-of-way along Fowler Avenue or West Garfield Street. 4. A pedestrian and bicycle boulevard trail shall be provided on the furthest reaches of West Main Street. This has been addressed as part of a trail network that includes an asphalt pedestrian/bicycle trail along the entire entryway corridor frontage. 5. The applicable streetscape elements appropriate in the corridor must be addressed. The application has addressed the treatment of street trees, landscape accents, furnishings, and bicycle facilities. The applicant should consider a shelter map and map display along what will serve as a regional boulevard trail connection that fronts along West Main Street. Provisions for a transit stop should also be considered. CONSIDERATIONS 1. That all pedestrian/bicycle crossings with streets be given greater emphasis by using similar pavers that reflect the surface treatment of public plazas and areas of outdoor social activities. Connections of between streets, off-street parking lots, public areas should also be given attention in terms of raised walkways, pavers, pedestrian lighting and landscape features. The Final PUD Plan will contain a detail whereby the development provides a public shelter and map display along what will serve as a regional boulevard trail connection that fronts along West Main Street. 2. Provisions for a transit stop within the interior of the PUD should be incorporated into site plan for review and approval with the Final PUD Plan. 3. The public streetscape shall contain a regular spacing of boulevard trees along all streets, both public and private, in concert with landscape features and screening of off-street parking lots; primarily, areas along West Garfield Street and US Highway 191/West Main Street. All trees to be installed in the boulevards, off-street parking lots, common open space areas, and individual subdivision lots will be installed at 2-inch caliber in diameter. Street character along the West Main Street entryway corridor Fowler Avenue and Garfield Street shall call for architectural features that suggest a presence of store fronts, plazas, fenestration treatment and architectural details that reflect the "lifestyle center" concept. The Development Manual shall contain said language to insure implementation of said streetscape features. 4. Commercial and retail drive-thrus and associated apprentices (speaker phones, signage, ATM, canopies, etc.) shall not front onto the entryway corridor or corner-side of the building and will not impact the building facade of the satellite structures along the streetscape. The Development Manual will provide a typical illustration that speaks to this provision prior to Final PUD Plan approval. 5. The Final PUD Plan and Development Manual will need to discus the treatment of street intersections that will be enhanced with a pedestrian-friendly entrance plaza or human scaled design features. such as benches and landscape planters. Building entrances near the sidewalk edge that contain an entry plaza should also be considered at the intersections of local streets with Technology Boulevard and should be considered not only in the commercial area, but also along the business park/professional office corridors. This would also apply at the corner of Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street. If it is the decision to locate the grocery store at the southeast corner of West Main Street and Fowler The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 13 0 0 Avenue, a building entrance and plaza must occur along the entryway corridor, preferably at the northwest corner of the building. 6. The Development Manual and Landscape Plan shall address the treatment of drainage basins in the open space corridors with regard to placement of said facilities and outlet structures. These facilities must be properly landscaped and prevent any impact on the landscape features along these corridors. Specific landscape details will be required with the final landscape plan to demonstrate proper landscape of the facilities. The landscape guidelines shall state that drainage basins will not eliminate the installation of landscape and landscape features as depicted on the Preliminary PUD Plan; and if so, will be replaced outside of the open space corridors. A landscape architect shall certify on the Landscape Plan that landscape features installed over or around areas that contain a drainage basin in the open space corridor will not be impacted. 7. That the landscape guidelines of the Development Manual state that the surface ponds along West Main Street are not be part of the storm water facilities and will be maintained as landscape feature along the entryway corridor. Provisions will be discussed in the protective covenants and Development Manual that will limit the fluctuation of said ponds to ensure that they remain a landscape feature along the entryway corridor. Said improvements will be financially guarantee for a minimum of twenty-four mouths, or to construction seasons, to ensure that said improvements are an effective element of the entryway corridor. 8. The final Landscape Plan shall specifically address landscape details for the three corridors, two public trails within the off-street parking lot, West Main Street entryway corridor. Detailed landscape plans shall also be included for the two public plazas within in the interior of lifestyle center and the small public spaces along the north/south water courses. 9. The Bozeman Design Objectives Plan states that the following elements must be achieved in order to reduce the perceived mass of a building: a change in color or change in material shall be used in each building module; a 20% change in vertical height between each module; change roof form; change in articulation. The architectural guidelines should discuss components that help to establish a human scale along the fagade, store fronts, primary entrances (i.e., one-story elements). Expression of the each floor in the external skin and use of materials should also be noted. The Development Manual will need to provide illustrations for each of these guidelines as discussed and revise any illustrations proposed in the application that do not reflect said criteria. 10. The architectural guidelines for the development suggest that the Convenience Center, Outparcels and Office-Professional areas will incorporate the architectural vocabulary of the lifestyle center. However, modifications will be required due to the significant variation in building type and scale. The Development Manual goes on to state that an exact determination of which entities will be responsible for which elements of design and construction will be determined by individual lease or sales agreements. In-lieu of this, the Development Manual should give specific attention to each of these areas of the mixed-use development and identify what must be achieved in each of these areas to maintain the architectural integrity of the overall development theme. The Development Manual shall graphically address the presentation of building facades that face onto the pubic streets (i.e., West Main Street entryway corridor, Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street) and through the use of illustrations illustrate the architectural theme sought with the "lifestyle center of the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision. This also applies as well to the professional office, business park The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 14 and convenience components of the development, as well as the rear facades of both sides of the "lifestyle" center situated along Technology Boulevard. 11. The architectural guidelines of the Development Manual will be modified to state that not more than 25%of any of the building facades shall be covered with a synthetic surface. 12. The Development Manual will discuss presentation onto a street regardless if it's the main street for the lifestyle center, private street or a public street with respect to a formal entrance, store fronts, covered entrances, and public spaces. 13. Detailed elevations, floor plan, landscape plan, site plan and a color palette and materials sample board shall be submitted for each building prior to Final PUD Plan or Final Site Plan approval and issuance of a building permit. 14. No franchise style architecture shall be permitted in the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision and noted accordingly in the protective covenants and restrictions and Development Manual. 15. The general materials theme shall be continued throughout the development but there needs to be more variety in design. 16. All of the buildings on the perimeter of the development shall have a second front (double fronted design) oriented towards the streetscape and include a colonnade and a sidewalk connection to the perimeter sidewalk/trail system and all corner buildings shall include some type of design feature oriented towards the corner (a concave area or a bump-out constructed of transparent materials). 17. The backside of the buildings shall be addressed by the continuation of materials on all sides and the addition of awnings over the doors on the rear elevations. 18. The development guidelines shall indicate that all store fronts shall be dark bronze anodized, or similar,versus the brushed stainless finish. 19. Sconce lights and goose neck lights (down lights only) shall be added to the larger retail buildings (over 15,000 square feet). 20. No translucent awnings. Building awnings shall be fabric or metal only. 21. Those areas to be finished in a synthetic finish shall place a strong emphasis on joint detail, relief and architectural detail, and noted accordingly in the Development Manual. 22. All crossings within the Planned Unit Development shall be constructed with scored concrete or pavers similar to the surface materials installed throughout the public outdoor public areas. The crossings shall be noted as such on the Final PUD Plan and details for the pattern shall be provided in the final development guidelines. 23. Larger seating areas with planters shall be installed throughout the plazas and public areas and a typical detail of the planters included in the Development Manual. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 15 24. Shelter areas with a transit stop shall be added to the circle intersection and waiting zones shall be installed at the Tschache/19`h and Oak/19's intersections. 25. The development guidelines shall indicate that no backlit cabinet signs will be permitted in the phase. A comprehensive sign plan shall be submitted to the Planning Office prior to Final PUD approval that depicts a sign package that exhibits qualities of style, relief and compatibility. 26. The development guidelines shall indicate that exposed neon is prohibited and can only be used as a subtle lighting element under the soffits,behind the fascia or in the sign package (i.e., backlit feature). 27. A common signage plan depicting the location, dimensions, height, illumination and use of materials for all freestanding stings shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Final PUD Plan approval. Both the pylon sign and monument signs shall be constructed of materials compatible with the overall building design theme for the complex, and illustrated accordingly in the Development Manual. 28. The north off-street parking lot shall exclude two off-street parking spaces along each of the two watercourse corridors for the placement of an 18' x 18' public space with benches, pavers and landscape features, and illustrated accordingly in the landscape guidelines and landscape plan. The watercourse corridors shall have a minimum width of not less than thirty feet, exclusive of the public space. 29. The storm water ponds shall be designed as open, landscaped features that are organic in shape and lined with native grasses and indigenous plants. Code Requirements: 30. All building mounted and pole mounted lights shall meet the cut off shield requirements outlined in the UDO. unless a relaxation is granted by the City Commission. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION The applicant must comply with all other provisions of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance, which are applicable to this project prior to receiving Final PUD Plan, Final Plat or Building Permit approval. 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. NOTE: The Design Review Board and Development Review Committee will forward a formal recommendation to the City Commission on this matter who will in turn consider an action on this application tentatively scheduled for Monday, December 5, 2005. Attachments: Applicant's Submittal Materials Mailed To: Mitchell Development Group, L.L.C., 1315 8`" Avenue N., Great Falls, MT 59401 Carter&Burgess Consultants, Inc., 1420 W. Mockingbird Lane, Suite 800, Dallas, TX 75247 Morrison-Maierle, Inc.,P.O. Box 1113, Bozeman, MT 59771 The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 16 A r, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY,JANUARY 12, 2005 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:32 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Bill Hanson Chris Saunders, Associate Planner Dawn Smith Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner Brian Krueger David Skelton, Senior Planner Scott Hedglin Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Randy Carpenter Visitors Present Ted Mitchell John Davidson Mark Mitchell Greg Stratton Bill Ogle James Nickelson Jamie Lenon ITEM 2. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 2004 (Continued from 12/22/04.) Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of November 10, 2004. MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2004 (Continued from 12/22/04.) Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of December 8, 2004. MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 4. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 22, 2004 Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of December 22, 2004. MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—January 12,2005 1 ITEM 5. Presentation by Chris Kukulski, City Manager—1/2 hour. Chris Kukulski, City Manager, introduced himself to the DRB and explained the City's long- term goals. ITEM 6. U.D.O. Edits Discussion A. * Discussion of the U.D.O.- text amendments pertinent to the DRB. Continued to the meeting of January 26, 2005. ITEM 7. The Bozeman Gateway Concept PUD#Z-04313 (Skelton) A. Southwest of the intersection of West College Street and Huffine Lane * A Concept Planned Unit Development Application to allow the construction of a mixed-use commercial development on 72.2 acres with related site improvements. Ted Mitchell, Mark Mitchell, John Davidson, and Greg Stratton joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the project noting that the DRB was informally reviewing the project so the advisory board could have a dialog with the applicant before the project was formally reviewed by the DRB in two weeks. He stated the project started as an extension of the Advanced Technology Park and had been modified with the sale of the property, identifying commercial development north of Huffine Lane, and development of the recently adopted Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. He added that the applicants and he had invited City Commission members to attend the next meeting of the DRB. Mr. Mark Mitchell noted the background of the Mitchell Group; who has been working on the Gateway project for the past year. He stated the applicants wanted to keep and enhance the wetlands on the site and added they had offered to install Garfield Street from South 19th Avenue to Fowler Lane and Fowler Lane to Huffine Lane, at their expense. He stated there would be a traffic signal installed at their expense as well. He stated the easements were negotiated in favor of the City of Bozeman, but the applicant would be responsible for curb and gutter on one side of the road with a gravel shoulder on the other side. He stated there would be major redesigns of intersections to make the project's accesses work. He stated they had taken special care in keeping with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan and they had enhanced the frontage on Huffine Lane using the placement of retention ponds. He stated there would be a plaza with a pond in the center of the development. He stated the hotel component fit well with the lodging demand generators on the west side of town. He stated the applicant had taken special care to design a project that would be an asset to Bozeman and had been working with the Army Corp of Engineers and the Department of Transportation from the project's inception. Mr. Davidson stated he and the developers had'an on-site charette regarding what would fit on the site and how it would be arranged. He stated some of the wetland areas posed difficulties given the limited developable area. He stated he came to the conclusion that the Farmer's Canal wag bisecting the site and had decided to incorporate the canal into the development. He presented a color rendering depicting the types of uses (hotel, club, community center, shopping center, etc.) and their arrangement on the proposed development, as well as potential views from various proposed structures on the site. He noted the proposed enhancement of the natural streams and the addition of ponds throughout the development. He stated they developed City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—January 12,2005 2 specific architectural character for areas of the development and presented a color rendering of the proposed entrance from Huffine Lane, of the interior streetscape, and the central plaza. He stated there would be natural stone up to 10 feet. He stated there would be a fireplace, an ice rink/water feature, and audio equipment in the plaza for public gatherings. He added that the formal water features would be blended with the natural water features and there were significant pedestrian connections proposed throughout the development; promoting pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Mr. Hanson asked how the number of parking stalls compared to the number of parking stalls required by the U.D.O. Mr. Davidson responded that the project would meet the requirements when compact spaces were calculated in. Mr. Hanson asked if Staff had given the applicant options for parking calculations. Mr. Saunders responded that shared parking was allowed as long as there was an obvious agreement. Mr. Davidson responded that the site, as a whole, had met the requirements. Mr. Hanson stated the DRB was supportive of parking reductions but the problem with retail development was they pushed the envelope on the number of stalls. Mr. Davidson added that grocery stores were often adamant about the arrangement and number of parking stalls. Mr. Hanson asked if the City would allow storm water retention into an active waterway. Mr. Stratton responded that the retention ponds were not connected to the active waterways and they would use an old canal that has been dry. Mr. Hanson stated that the pollutants needed to be filtered from the retention ponds. Mr. Stratton responded they would be filtered by City engineering standards. Mr. Hanson asked if the open space requirements had been met. Mr. Saunders responded that it was a point system with a variety of ways to meet those points, and publicly accessible spaces would be worth more points. Mr. Hanson stated the project was in a stream corridor, and asked if there would be difficulties meeting open space requirements because part of the open space was unusable as it was in a waterway. Mr. Stratton stated the calculation of open space was based on the net area multiplied by 0.25. Mr. Hanson suggested Staff review the usable space next to the stream corridors. Mr. Hanson asked why there was no residential development proposed with so many pedestrian connections on the site. Mr. Davidson replied there was no market for residential development in that location. Mr. Ted Mitchell stated the parking requirements would become an issue if there were residential development due to the tremendous cost of ramping driveways to residences. Mr. Carpenter suggested residential structures with below-grade parking. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded the water level was too high to incorporate below-grade parking. Mr. Carpenter asked if they had met the impervious surface requirements. Mr. Stratton responded they had not calculated those requirements yet. Mr. Carpenter asked where the retention ponds, outlets, and filtration areas would be located. Mr. Stratton responded that the water would be released from the detention ponds into the discharge pipes or canals and then to the outlets; which had not been formally located in the proposal yet. Mr. Carpenter suggested being cautious in the design of the retention ponds so that the project would remain attractive. Mr. Carpenter asked if the pedestrian and bike trails were more for internal. Mr. Davidson responded that the connection to the east (the college) and the residential development across Huffine Lane would likely be using the pedestrian.and bike trails. Mr. Carpenter asked how the pedestrians would be moved safely across Huffine Lane. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that there would be a signal installed on Huffine Lane as it was no longer a highway and inside corporate city limits. Mr. Carpenter asked if there would be screening along Huffine Lane. Mr. Davidson and Mr. Ted Mitchell indicated where screening was proposed. Mr. Carpenter stated that not many of the views would have terminal vistas from the boulevards and the plaza. Mr. Carpenter asked how the phases of City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—January 12,2005 3 development would be completed and how the circulation would be maintained. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that Garfield Street and the intersection of South 191h Avenue and Fowler Lane would be constructed in the first phase, the second phase would be the development of the east side of the project. Mr. Hedglin asked the projected fill-out for the retail space; was there enough of an attraction to the site to occupy the retail spaces. Mr. Stratton responded there would be 216 retail spaces. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded the development would be filled-out within 7 or 8 years. Mr. Krueger stated that, with a PUD, an applicant could design their project with more flexibility and asked what the applicant was proposing that would be above and beyond the zoning requirements for a PUD. Mr.Davidson responded that the project would be more upscale; i.e. many of the wall coverings would be upgraded, outdoor fireplaces, a plaza, etc. Mr. Davidson responded that the applicant had not looked upon the project as an upgrade to the normal PUD. Mr. Stratton responded that the PUD development was a method by which to request variances, for example; the width of the streets, diagonal parking, longer blocks, and other irregularities. Mr. Stratton added that none of the requested variances were too far from code requirements. Mr. Krueger asked Mr. Ted Mitchell to explain why they would retain the curviness of the street through the development. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that the curved street served the purpose of slowing traffic and it added a unique quality to the site. Mr. Krueger asked if the diagonal parking would be on a two lane street. Mr. Davidson responded that it would be a two lane, two way street with diagonal parking. Mr. Krueger asked which of the page of design images in the submittal materials and the proposed design images on the renderings were being proposed. Mr. Davidson responded that they would like to see varied architectural designs with multiple architects working on the project and there would be overall design standards for the development. Chairperson Smith asked what level of retail `BP" zoning allowed. Mr. Saunders responded there was mainly `B-2" zoning in the proposal, and Mr. Ted Mitchell illustrated where there was a small area of`BP". Planner Saunders explained the differences between `BP" and `B-2 zoning with regard to allowable retail space. Chairperson Smith asked if a drive-thru was allowable in the `B-2" zoning. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that drive-thru's were allowable and indicated their locations on the color rendering. Chairperson Smith asked if the City would be reviewing the final submittal of the project. Planner Saunders responded that individual final site plans would be reviewed. Chairperson Smith asked what made this a"lifestyle" development when pedestrian pathways were dominant. Mr. Davidson responded it was an open-air shopping center; not like a mall with parking along the outside of the structures, and there were many entertainment opportunities located within the"lifestyle"development. Mr. Hanson stated he appreciated that the project was presented with good graphics and site plan analysis. He stated the project had interesting character with expansion prospects and suggested reducing the number of parking stalls and adding green spaces that people could mingle in. He stated the location of the grocery store on the corner of the entryway corridor was problematic and suggested relocating the grocery store or adding extensive screening. He stated he felt that, comparatively, the proposal had a wonderful character and he applauded the applicant's efforts. He suggested the drive-thru be closely examined and cited the Taco Bell drive-thru as a bad example. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—January 12,2005 4 J • • Mr. Carpenter stated he agreed with Mr. Hanson's comments regarding the presentation of the project to the DRB. He stated he was excited about the concept of"lifestyle centers" and appreciated the thoughtfulness and thoroughness of the site design. He suggested they know the percentage of impervious surfaces and what efforts could be made to keep the number of impervious surfaces down. He stated he was surprised to hear that the applicants did not think residential development would work, despite the parking issues. He stated he thought the reduced opportunities for vistas could improve with a less curved street. He stated it would be a conflict for the applicant's to make the project pedestrian and bike friendly while maintaining the proposed drive-thru's. Mr. Hedglin stated he would be curious to see the project in ten to twenty years. He stated developments were moving away from the enclosed shopping atmosphere. He stated he would like to see the use of natural materials throughout the development. Mr. Krueger stated he appreciated the irony of rebuilding another main street in a town with a great main street. He stated he liked the preservation of the watercourse and wetlands to enhance the area. He suggested keeping and enhancing the character of Bozeman within the development. Chairperson Smith stated she agreed with previous DRB comments. She stated she would be the person riding her bike to the development and she would like to know where the connections between the sidewalks and the bike trails would be. Mr. Davidson responded there would be a bike lane throughout the development and along Huffine Lane. Chairperson Smith suggested the placement of nodes and a place where cars cannot go so that bicyclers could go there. She stated she would like to see a connection to Babcock Street. She stated she would like to see as many large trees as possible preserved on the site. She stated she was concerned with the parking lot between Huffine Lane and Gateway Boulevard, and the parking lot on Garfield Street, which was proposed abutting the street. She stated she was concerned with the Chronicle Lane access because people turn left into the bank drive-thru and congestion is common. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that the access was a right-in, right-out only. Mr. Stratton responded the traffic study showed there would be 3,000 cars per day eliminated from that intersection with the extension of Garfield Street and Fowler Lane. Mr. Carpenter added that he did not think a Main Street sort of thoroughfare was exclusive of vehicular travel. ITEM 8. INFORMAL REVIEW A. The Garage At City Center Informal#I-04037 (Windemaker) 26 East Mendenhall Street * An Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of a parking garage consisting of three phases; Phase 1 - 2-level parking garage with 354 parking stalls and 11,000 +/- square feet of retail space on street level; Phase 2 - the addition of a 3rd level of parking containing 104 parking stalls; and Phase 3 - the addition of two additional levels of parking containing 142 parking stalls. Historic Preservation Planner Allyson Bristor, Dick Clotfelter, and Jamie Lenon joined the DRB. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—January 12,2005 5 THE-BOZEMAN,GATEWAY CONCEPT R.U.D. -ZONINGFILENO.Z-04313 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT ITEM: ZONING APPLICATION NO. Z-04313 -- AN APPLICATION FOR CONCEPT P.U.D. PLAN REVIEW FOR A MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL/PROFESSIONAL OFFICE/RETAIL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON APPROXIMATELY 72.2± ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF HUFFINE LANE/US HIGHWAY 191, ZONED "B-2", COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND "BP", BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT. APPLICANT: MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, I.L.C. % TED MITCHELL P.O. BOX 738, GREAT FALLS, MT 59403 OWNER: MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, I.L.C. %TED MITCHELL P.O. BOX 738, GREAT FALLS, MT 59403 DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2004, AT 3:30 P.M., IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM, ALFRED M. STIFF PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, 20 EAST OLIVE STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANA REPORT BY: DAVE SKELTON SENIOR PLANNER --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Description: The subject property is legally described as being Tract 2A of the Amended Plat of West College Minor Subdivision No. 195A located in the NW 1/4 of Section 15, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, and is further identified as property situated south of Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 and Gallatin Valley Mall, and west of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle facility. The site is approximately 72.2 acres in size and fronts Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 along the north boundary, extension of Fowler Avenue on the west and extension of Garfield Street on the south boundary. Please refer to the vicinity map and exhibits provided in the applicant's submittal. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 1 Proposal: The applicant, Mitchell Development Group, L.L.C., has made application for Concept P.U.D. Plan Review of a mixed-use commercial, professional office, and retail planned unit development consisting of 61 commercial/business park lots zoned `B-2" and `BP". The proposal is also undergoing a concurrent pre-application subdivision plan review of the 72+ acre site as a major subdivision. The five-phased mixed-use planned unit development is located in the West Main Street entryway corridor overlay district along its north boundary and is bound on the north by the major arterial street, Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 and Gallatin Valley Mall. The Advanced Technology Park and Bozeman Daily Chronicle are to the east and partially developed lands under Gallatin County jurisdiction are to the west. The placement of mixed land uses within the development focuses on a mix of professional offices, retail services and hotel/conference facility on the east one-third and a mixed of retail service and commercial uses on the west two-thirds. The `B-2", Community Business District, allows for a broad range of mutually supportive retail and service functions located in clustered areas bordered on one of more sides by limited access arterial streets. Principal permitted uses range from banks and hospitals to offices and hotels/motels. Conditional uses permitted in the district range from automobile fuel sales to technical or vocational schools to light goods repair and light manufacturing. The `BP", Business Park District, provides for high quality settings and facilities for the development of a wide range of compatible employment opportunities. These areas should be developed so as to recognize the impact on surrounding or adjacent development and contribute to the overall image of the community. Compatibility with adjacent land uses and zoning is required. Permitted uses range from hospitals and professional offices to research laboratories and public buildings. Conditional uses that may be considered in the `BP" district range from banks and day care centers to type II essential services. Chapter 18.36—Planned Unit Development The intent of the planned unit development concept is to promote maximum flexibility and innovation in the development of land and the design of development projects within the city. As a result, the developer has requested multiple relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance with this application for P.U.D. review. With regard to the improvement and protection of the public health, safety and welfare, it shall be the intent of the Ordinance to promote the city's pursuit of community objectives as outlined in Chapter 18.36 of the Unified Development Ordinance. The purpose of the Concept P.U.D. Plan Review is for discussion of the applicant's proposal with the designated review committees in order to identify any requirements and applicable standards and policies, as well as offering the applicant the opportunity to identify major problems that may exist and identify solutions prior to making formal application. Relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance: The following relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance have been identified with the application for subdivision pre-application plan review and P.U.D. concept plan review: • Section 18.42.030.I "Frontage" and Section 18.44.090.B.2 "Drive Access" to not have access for all subdivision lots from an improved pubic street, approved private street or alley. • Section 18.42.040.B "Block Length" to allow the block lengths to exceed 400 feet. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 2 • • Y • Section 18.42.040.0 "Block Width" to allow the block widths to be more than 400 feet. • Section 18.42.100.B.3.c — "Setbacks" to encroach into the 50-foot minimum setback required along watercourses. • Section 18.42.100.B.4.b — "Watercourse Setback" to allow the required watercourse setback to not include adjacent wetlands. • Section 18.44.030.A.1 "Intersections" to allow streets to intersect at angles less than 90 degrees. • Section 18.44.090.D.3 "Spacing Standards for Drive Access" to allow the average spacing of intersections on Fowler Avenue to be reduced from 660 feet to 420 feet. Natural Features: The application identifies four watercourses existing on the site and has delineated these features in the submittal. Three of the watercourses establish the crux of existing physical features on the site. The Fish, Wildlife & Parks has identified these as either a stream or intermediate streams. Therefore there are associated jurisdictional wetlands and the applicable watercourse setbacks. A Section 404 Permit has been granted by the Army Corp of Engineers to mitigate any related impacts to distributing existing wetlands with the construction of Fowler Lane. The wetlands identified with the two interior intermediate streams will remain generally undistributed. However, the applicant is requesting to encroach into the required 50-foot watercourse setback and from the wetlands boundary associated with the watercourses. There are basically three general points of conflict between the required watercourse setback and development of the property; 1) Lot #14 and #15 in Phase One, 2) Lot #24 in Phase Four , and 3) Lot #49 in Phase Two. The applicant's basis for requesting a relaxation to reduce these watercourse setbacks based on hardship and/or evidence of conflicting physical features lends itself to an unfavorable recommendation by staff. Open Space: Under section 18.36.090.E.2.7.b of the U.D.O. at least twenty performance points must be earned through a combination of affordable housing or additional open space. The applicant has elected to meet the performance points by providing additional open space at: 1) one point for each percent of the project that provides non-public area, or 2) one and one-quarter points for each percent of provided as publicly accessible open space. The portion of the project to be used in determining the size of the area for open space is the gross area less dedicated land transferred to the public. The area provided for open space shall be exclusive of yard setbacks and interior off-street parking lot landscape. Approximately 16.84% (16 points) of open space, including 1.25% credit for the pubic access to the corridors, was calculated by staff. This is a discrepancy compared to the submittal information of 21.5% (21 points) in the application,which may be in part be due the application using required yard setbacks along the west side of Fowler Avenue and south side of Huffine Lane in the open space calculations. This will need to be confirmed with the preliminary plan and preliminary subdivision plat applications. Ponds: The concept plan proposes a series of ponds as public landscape features within the context of the development. The two ponds in proximity of Gateway Boulevard serve as exceptional elements of the public plazas and social interaction, while the ponds along Huffine Lane are aesthetic landscape features along the entryway corridor. Ample space between building, streets and water features along Gateway Boulevard must be provided as an effective place for public activities. The water features along the Huffine Lane will also serve to accommodate storm water runoff from The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 3 impervious surfaces. As a result, the ponds along Huffine Lane will fluctuate substantially based upon the time of the year, and degree of spring showers and runoff. As open space features along the entryway corridor, pre-treatment of garbage and refuse, as well as grease, oil and silt will need to occur "prior" to discharging into these ponds. The ponds may not serve as the principle treatment facility for grease, oil, silt, and refuse. These ponds must be designed to necessitate a principle landscape feature as their principle function and as a storm water runoff facility secondly in order to receive the needed credit for open space. Pedestrian Circulation: A hierarchy for pedestrian circulation for this area includes: 1) development of Fowler Avenue and Garfield Street as the area's major transportation network with associated bike lanes and boulevard sidewalks, 2), developing a major linkage in this part of the community for a public trail system currently identified along the Farmer's Canal, 3) irnplementing the "lifestyle center" along Gateway Boulevard that recognizes pedestrian circulation, 4) interior public streetscape and sidewalks for pedestrian circulation, and 5) a public trail system within the interior of the mixed-use commercial development. Because the pedestrian circulation system will aid in producing an efficient, functionally organized, and cohesive planned unit development, consideration should be given to stronger connections between areas of useable open space, through off-street parking lots, as well as connections with public areas. Fewer accentuated crossings across the collector street, Fowler Avenue, should be considered to limit the potential conflict between vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Greater attention should be given to the intersections with Huffine Lane and West Garfield Street. Emphasis on raised walkways, pavers, and landscape features should be given to any pedestrian crossings along the major street system,perimeter streets, and interior streets within the development. If it is the wish of the developer to reroute the planned"future trail corridor" along the Farmer's Canal ditch that is designated in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, it is imperative that the trail system provide users with the ability to: 1) interact with the mixed-use commercial development, 2) experience the physical features of the open space areas, or 3) continue along the public trail system as part of the community's trail system with the least amount of resistance from vehicular movement, off-street parking lots and related engineered facilities (i.e., storm water runoff facilities, drainage swales,irrigation wells, etc. The Gallatin Valley Land Trust and Bozeman Recreation Parks Advisory Board generally supported the concept of the trail system with the understanding to address the points discussed in the previous phase. Until a detailed master plan is provided the advisory bodies recommended an impervious surface along Huffine Lane and throughout the parking lots, and a more natural, Class II type, trail system along the open space stream corridors. Landscape: At the concept level the application does not delineate in detail the amount of landscape features that are intended. However, the submittal does suggest substantial areas of green space and public landscape features. In all aspects of the development proposal emphasis on common landscape furniture and landscape features should be noted. Landscape irrigation is imperative and placement of irrigation system is crucial. All irrigation wells will be properly screened from the streetscape,public buildings,public plazas and open space areas. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 4 • Public Streetscape - Boulevard trees at a regular spacing of one (1) tree per fifty (50) lineal feet of street frontage will be installed along all pubic street frontages for both local and perimeter streets. • Off-street Parking Lot — In addition to the required interior parking lot landscape, parking areas that adjoin the public streetscape should contain meandering low-profile berms and foliage, as well as well as landscape features designed in clustered arrangements of season types and color. • Key access Points — The principle access points from Fowler Avenue, Garfield Street, Huffine Lane/US Highway 191, and West College Street should contain expansive landscape features that emphasize the importance of the natural landscape and how it plays a major role in the form and character of the entryway corridor and community. A strong emphasis with the access from Huffine Lane is encouraged as the formal entrance from entrance along the entryway corridor. • Public Areas and Plaza—Not only does the public plaza within the core of the development, serve as a place for social interaction, the entire Gateway Boulevard lends itself to both landscape features and furniture. These should generate a common theme through the development as part of a unified planned unit development. • Open Space/Watercourse Corridors — Landscape features in these areas should be informal and consistent with the natural setting of the area. Ample width for the watercourses that bisect the off-street parking lots must be provided (i.e., minimum of 60 feet). • Entryway Corridor — The Design Objectives Plan for entryway corridors encourages the West Main Street corridor to a create a "green edge" over time on both sides of the street and that street frontage landscaping should be strongly emphasized. Therefore, the streetscape along this corridor should include both a formal setting of boulevard trees, designed in concert with a more informal setting to emphasize the importance of urban open space and the quality of urban lifestyles in the community. Li ,bdu . As with landscape features and furniture, lighting of public areas, open space and major entrances into the development should implement a common theme that supports the "life style" concept of the commercial planned unit development. Off-street parking lots should be properly illuminated but not become an intrusive element along the entryway corridor during the evening hours. Pam Off-street parking calculations are conceptual at this stage of the process. The approximate project breakdown of land uses is outlined in the applicant's submittal, totaling approximately 800,000± square feet. Based on the formal of 1 parking space/300 square feet of retail store and service establishments, approximately 2,267 parking spaces would be required. Using the 125% maximum threshold that is allowable, 2,834 spaces are permitted as a parking ceiling by the U.D.O. A rough count of off-street parking proposed with the development is estimated at 3,059 space,which exceeds the 125% allowable maximum. Due to the scale of the project,it is recommended that the minimum width for parking lot drive aisles should exceed the minimum required width of 26 feet. Fronting off-street parking facilities directly onto Huffine Lane and the entryway corridor is not recommended. Si nage• Signs should be an integral part of the overall architectural design and should be part of the Development Manual. A common signage program that specifies location, size, lighting, materials, and unified graphic design for both shared and individual signs should be expected. Low profile signs should be strongly encouraged along Huffine Lane and Fowler Avenue and should be limited to only project identification signage. A larger project identification sign may be considered based on location, placement and need. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 5 Public Areas and Plazas: Consideration should be given to identifying a general theme for the public outdoor plaza area(s) with landscape furniture and features, as well as lighting. The areas between the building and Gateway Boulevard should remain wider than expected for the protection of pedestrians from vehicular movement, as well as providing an adequate area of drop-off and pick-up of the patrons. A 20-30 foot wide sidewalk storefront should not be unreasonable. Accenting key pedestrian crossings and connections is an important element of these public areas. Landscape features, outdoor furniture, lighting, seating areas, outdoor vendor areas should be integral elements of these areas. Consideration of a possible location for a transit system should also be investigated. Building Design The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. is located in the West Main Street entryway corridor; and as a result, said guidelines should be applied using a "sliding scale" approach with the attitude of the greater the degree of change proposed, the greater and more elaborate the degree of review. In this case, the design expectations must be applied with the intent of achieving high quality design that reflects the local community character, climate, history and natural environment. As this is a multi-phased project, the Development Manual that will include the architectural and landscape guidelines will play an integral role in maintaining the quality of the project and the "lifestyle" concept that the developers intend to exploit. Variety in architectural design with dramatic architectural forms is encouraged. However, not at the cost of losing a unified theme or encourage franchise architecture. The guidelines should develop a vocabulary of acceptable materials, treatment and use of materials, patterns, fenestration, scale and directional expression. Use of offsets, fenestration treatment, proportions, and emphasis of main entrances should be included. The following building orientations should be considered. • All buildings requiring a service area must avoid the impression of not having a rear to the building. • The presentation of the rear of the grocery store fronting the corridor must be responsible to the West Main Street entryway corridor, Fowler Avenue and development patterns within the context of the proposal. The current location makes it difficult to address. • The office building at the west end of the development should be closer to the entryway corridor with a majority of the off-street parking to the south of the structure. • If the development is proposing future building pads along the West Garfield Street frontage, they should be included as part of the discussion for this concept plan review. • A larger satellite building fronting onto Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 should be situated in the central area of the development to reduce the visual impact of the parking area. • Careful scrutiny will be given to any land use that contains a drivethru facility. The covenants will specifically restrict any drive thru facility from facing onto the West Main Street entryway corridor. • Franchise architecture is not recommended as part of the Design Objectives Plan for entryway corridors. These land uses must also exemplify the sprit of the "lifestyle" center. Protective Covenants and Architectural&Landscape Guidelines: The ability of the mixed-use planned unit development to ensure compatibility with, and sensitivity to, the immediate environment of the site will fall substantially on the aptitude of the applicant to prepare The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 6 a Development Manual, which will implement the architectural and landscape guidelines for the project. Consideration must be given to scale, mass, neighborhood identity, landscape, orientation of buildings, use of materials, color palette, and specific architectural character-giving features that will define the architectural parameters of the planned unit development. 4 The Manual should clearly outline the concept of a "lifestyle center" and illustrate the methods by which to implement the concept. The mixed-use commercial development will have the most immediate and greatest impact on adjoining properties to the north, which includes the West Main Street entryway corridor, and should have the highest degree of review. Landscape, buffering features, open space, fencing and orientation of buildings adjoining the future development to the west, south, and east must be considered. Provisions for the maintenance and upkeep of open space, public areas, trail system, streetscape, ponds, and other related areas should be clearly outlined. All common areas should be maintained and kept in good condition under a single contract with a landscape maintenance company. Landscape irrigation and placement of irrigation wells must be addressed. No irrigation wells and related facilities will be situated in the yard setbacks, but instead immediately adjacent to said improvements and properly screened. Attachments: Applicant's Submittal for Concept P.U.D. Plan Review Mailed To: Mitchell Development Group, L.L.C., 1315 8`h Avenue N., Great Falls, MT 59401 Carter &Burgess Consultants, Inc., 201 North Charles St., 9`h Floor, Baltimore, MY 21201 Morrison-Maierle, Inc., P.O. Box 1113, Bozeman, MT 59771 The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 7 THE BOZEMAN GATEWAY CONCEPT P.U.D. ZONING FILE NO.Z-04313 . DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT ITEM: ZONING APPLICATION NO. Z-04313 -- AN APPLICATION FOR CONCEPT P.U.D. PLAN REVIEW FOR A MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL/PROFESSIONAL OFFICE/RETAIL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON APPROXIMATELY 72.2± ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF HUFFINE LANE/US HIGHWAY 191, ZONED "B-2", COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND "BP", BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT. APPLICANT: MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, I.L.C. %TED MITCHELL P.O. BOX 738, GREAT FALLS, MT 59403 OWNER: MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, I.L.C. %TED MITCHELL P.O. BOX 738, GREAT FALLS,MT 59403 DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2004, AT 3:30 P.M., IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM, ALFRED M. STIFF PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, 20 EAST OLIVE STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANA REPORT BY: DAVE SKELTON SENIOR PLANNER --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Description: The subject property is legally described as being Tract 2A of the Amended Plat of West College Minor Subdivision No. 195A located in the NW '/4 of Section 15, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, and is further identified as property situated south of Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 and Gallatin Valley Mall, and west of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle facility. The site is approximately 72.2 acres in size and fronts Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 along the north boundary, extension of Fowler Avenue on the west and extension of Garfield Street on the south boundary. Please refer to the vicinity map and exhibits provided in the applicant's submittal. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 1 t • Proposal: The applicant, Mitchell Development Group, L.L.C., has made application for Concept P.U.D. Plan Review of a mixed-use commercial, professional office, and retail planned unit development consisting of 61 commercial/business park lots zoned `B-2" and `BP". The proposal is also undergoing a concurrent pre-application subdivision plan review of the 72+ acre site as a major subdivision. The five-phased mixed-use planned unit development is located in the West Main Street entryway corridor overlay district along its north boundary and is bound on the north by the major arterial street, Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 and Gallatin Valley Mall. The Advanced Technology Park and Bozeman Daily Chronicle are to the east and partially developed lands under Gallatin County jurisdiction are to the west. The placement of mixed land uses within the development focuses on a mix of professional offices, retail services and hotel/conference facility on the east one-third and a mixed of retail service and commercial uses on the west two-thirds. The `B-2", Community Business District, allows for a broad range of mutually supportive retail and service functions located in clustered areas bordered on one of more sides by limited access arterial streets. Principal permitted uses range from banks and hospitals to offices and hotels/motels. Conditional uses permitted in the district range from automobile fuel sales to technical or vocational schools to light goods repair and light manufacturing. The `BP", Business Park District, provides for high quality settings and facilities for the development of a wide range of compatible employment opportunities. These areas should be developed so as to recognize the impact on surrounding or adjacent development and contribute to the overall image of the community. Compatibility with adjacent land uses and zoning is required. Permitted uses range from hospitals and professional offices to research laboratories and public buildings. Conditional uses that may be considered in the `BP" district range from banks and day care centers to type II essential services. Chapter 18.36—Planned Unit Development The intent of the planned unit development concept is to promote maximum flexibility and innovation in the development of land and the design of development projects within the city. As a result, the developer has requested multiple relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance with this application for P.U.D. review. With regard to the improvement and protection of the public health, safety and welfare, it shall be the intent of the Ordinance to promote the city's pursuit of community objectives as outlined in Chapter 18.36 of the Unified Development Ordinance. The purpose of the Concept P.U.D. Plan Review is for discussion of the applicant's proposal with the designated review committees in order to identify any requirements and applicable standards and policies, as well as offering the applicant the opportunity to identify major problems that may exist and identify solutions prior to making formal application. Relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance: The following relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance have been identified with the application for subdivision pre-application plan review and P.U.D. concept plan review: • Section 18.42.030.I "Frontage" and Section 18.44.090.B.2 "Drive Access" to not have access for all subdivision lots from an improved pubic street, approved private street or alley. • Section 18.42.040.B "Block Length" to allow the block lengths to exceed 400 feet. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 2 • Section 18.42.040.0 "Block Width" to allow the block widths to be more than 400 feet. • Section 18.42.100.B.3.c — "Setbacks" to encroach into the 50-foot minimum setback required along watercourses. • Section 18.42.100.B.4.b — "Watercourse Setback" to allow the required watercourse setback to not include adjacent wetlands. • Section 18.44.030.A.1 "Intersections" to allow streets to intersect at angles less than 90 degrees. • Section 18.44.090.D.3 "Spacing Standards for Drive Access" to allow the average spacing of intersections on Fowler Avenue to be reduced from 660 feet to 420 feet. Natural Features: The application identifies four watercourses existing on the site and has delineated these features in the submittal. Three of the watercourses establish the crux of existing physical features on the site. The Fish, Wildlife & Parks has identified these as either a stream or intermediate streams. Therefore there are associated jurisdictional wetlands and the applicable watercourse setbacks. A Section 404 Permit has been granted by the Army Corp of Engineers to mitigate any related impacts to distributing existing wetlands with the construction of Fowler Lane. The wetlands identified with the two interior intermediate streams will remain generally undistributed. However, the applicant is requesting to encroach into the required 50-foot watercourse setback and from the wetlands boundary associated with the watercourses. There are basically three general points of conflict between the required watercourse setback and development of the property; 1) Lot #14 and #15 in Phase One, 2) Lot #24 in Phase Four , and 3) Lot #49 in Phase Two, The applicant's basis for requesting a relaxation to reduce these watercourse setbacks based on hardship and/or evidence of conflicting physical features lends itself to an unfavorable recommendation by staff. Open Space: Under section 18.36.090.E.2.7.b of the U.D.O. at least twenty performance points must be earned through a combination of affordable housing or additional open space. The applicant has elected to meet the performance points by providing additional open space at: 1) one point for each percent of the project that provides non-public area, or 2) one and one-quarter points for each percent of provided as publicly accessible open space. The portion of the project to be used in determining the size of the area for open space is the gross area less dedicated land transferred to the public. The area provided for open space shall be exclusive of yard setbacks and interior off-street parking lot landscape. Approximately 16.84% (16 points) of open space, including 1.25% credit for the pubic access to the corridors, was calculated by staff. This is a discrepancy compared to the submittal information of 21.5% (21 points) in the application,which may be in part be due the application using required yard setbacks along the west side of Fowler Avenue and south side of Huffine Lane in the open space calculations. This will need to be confirmed with the preliminary plan and preliminary subdivision plat applications. Ponds: The concept plan proposes a series of ponds as public landscape features within the context of the development. The two ponds in proximity of Gateway Boulevard serve as exceptional elements of the public plazas and social interaction, while the ponds along Huffine Lane are aesthetic landscape features along the entryway corridor. Ample space between building, streets and water features along Gateway Boulevard must be provided as an effective place for public activities. The water features along the Huffine Lane will also serve to accommodate storm water runoff from The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 3 impervious surfaces. As a result, the ponds along Huffine Lane will fluctuate substantially based upon the time of the year, and degree of spring showers and runoff. As open space features along the entryway corridor, pre-treatment of garbage and refuse, as well as grease, oil and silt will need to occur "prior" to discharging into these ponds. The ponds may not serve as the principle treatment facility for grease, oil, silt, and refuse. These ponds must be designed to necessitate a principle landscape feature as their principle function and as a storm water runoff facility secondly in order to receive the needed credit for open space. Pedestrian Circulation: A hierarchy for pedestrian circulation for this area includes: 1) development of Fowler Avenue and Garfield Street as the area's major transportation network with associated bike lanes and boulevard sidewalks, 2), developing a major linkage in this part of the community for a public trail system currently identified along the Farmer's Canal, 3) implementing the "lifestyle center" along Gateway Boulevard that recognizes pedestrian circulation, 4) interior public streetscape and sidewalks for pedestrian circulation, and 5) a public trail system within the interior of the mixed-use commercial development. Because the pedestrian circulation system will aid in producing an efficient, functionally organized, and cohesive planned unit development, consideration should be given to stronger connections between areas of useable open space, through off-street parking lots, as well as connections with public areas. Fewer accentuated crossings across the collector street, Fowler Avenue, should be considered to limit the potential conflict between vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Greater attention should be given to the intersections with Huffine Lane and West Garfield Street. Emphasis on raised walkways, pavers, and landscape features should be given to any pedestrian crossings along the major street system, perimeter streets, and interior streets within the development. If it is the wish of the developer to reroute the planned "future trail corridor" along the Farmer's Canal ditch that is designated in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, it is imperative that the trail system provide users with the ability to: 1) interact with the mixed-use commercial development, 2) experience the physical features of the open space areas, or 3) continue along the public trail system as part of the community's trail system with the least amount of resistance from vehicular movement, off-street parking lots and related engineered facilities (i.e., storm water runoff facilities, drainage swales,irrigation wells, etc. The Gallatin Valley Land Trust and Bozeman Recreation Parks Advisory Board generally supported the concept of the trail system with the understanding to address the points discussed in the previous phase. Until a detailed master plan is provided the advisory bodies recommended an impervious surface along Huffine Lane and throughout the parking lots, and a more natural, Class II type, trail system along the open space stream corridors. Landscape: At the concept level the application does not delineate in detail the amount of landscape features that are intended. However, the submittal does suggest substantial areas of green space and public landscape features. In all aspects of the development proposal emphasis on common landscape furniture and landscape features should be noted. Landscape irrigation is imperative and placement of irrigation system is crucial. All irrigation wells will be properly screened from the streetscape,public buildings, public plazas and open space areas. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 4 • Public Streetscape - Boulevard trees at a regular spacing of one (1) tree per fifty (50) lineal feet of street frontage will be installed along all pubic street frontages for both local and perimeter streets. • Off-street Parking Lot — In addition to the required interior parking lot landscape, parking areas that adjoin the public streetscape should contain meandering low-profile berms and foliage, as well as well as landscape features designed in clustered arrangements of season types and color. • Key access Points — The principle access points from Fowler Avenue, Garfield Street, Huffine Lane/US Highway 191, and West College Street should contain expansive landscape features that emphasize the importance of the natural landscape and how it plays a major role in the form and character of the entryway corridor and community. A strong emphasis with the access from Huffine Lane is encouraged as the formal entrance from entrance along the entryway corridor. • Public Areas and Plaza—Not only does the public plaza within the core of the development, serve as a place for social interaction, the entire Gateway Boulevard lends itself to both landscape features and furniture. These should generate a common theme through the development as part of a unified planned unit development. • Open Space/Watercourse Corridors — Landscape features in these areas should be informal and consistent with the natural setting of the area. Ample width for the watercourses that bisect the off-street parking lots must be provided (i.e.,minimum of 60 feet). • Entryway Corridor — The Design Objectives Plan for entryway corridors encourages the West Main Street corridor to a create a "green edge" over time on both sides of the street and that street frontage landscaping should be strongly emphasized. Therefore, the streetscape along this corridor should include both a formal setting of boulevard trees, designed in concert with a more informal setting to emphasize the importance of urban open space and the quality of urban lifestyles in the community. Lighting: As with landscape features and furniture, lighting of public areas, open space and major entrances into the development should implement a common theme that supports the "life style" concept of the commercial planned unit development. Off-street parking lots should be properly illuminated but not become an intrusive element along the entryway corridor during the evening hours. Pam• Off-street parking calculations are conceptual at this stage of the process. The approximate project breakdown of land uses is outlined in the applicant's submittal, totaling approximately 800,000± square feet. Based on the formal of 1 parking space/300 square feet of retail store and service establishments, approximately 2,267 parking spaces would be required. Using the 125% maximum threshold that is allowable, 2,834 spaces are permitted as a parking ceiling by the U.D.O. A rough count of off-street parking proposed with the development is estimated at 3,059 space,which exceeds the 125% allowable maximum. Due to the scale of the project, it is recommended that the minimum width for parking lot drive aisles should exceed the minimum required width of 26 feet. Fronting off-street parking facilities directly onto Huffine Lane and the entryway corridor is not recommended. Si a e: Signs should be an integral part of the overall architectural design and should be part of the Development Manual. A common signage program that specifies location, size, lighting, materials, and unified graphic design for both shared and individual signs should be expected. Low profile signs should be strongly encouraged along Huffine Lane and Fowler Avenue and should be limited to only project identification signage. A larger project identification sign may be considered based on location, placement and need. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 5 Public Areas and Plazas: Consideration should be given to identifying a general theme for the public outdoor plaza area(s) with landscape furniture and features, as well as lighting. The areas between the building and Gateway Boulevard should remain wider than expected for the protection of pedestrians from vehicular movement, as well as providing an adequate area of drop-off and pick-up of the patrons. A 20-30 foot wide sidewalk storefront should not be unreasonable. Accenting key pedestrian crossings and connections is an important element of these public areas. Landscape features, outdoor furniture, lighting, seating areas, outdoor vendor areas should be integral elements of these areas. Consideration of a possible location for a transit system should also be investigated. Building Design The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. is located in the West Main Street entryway corridor; and as a result, said guidelines should be applied using a "sliding scale" approach with the attitude of the greater the degree of change proposed, the greater and more elaborate the degree of review. In this case, the design expectations must be applied with the intent of achieving high quality design that reflects the local community character, climate, history and natural environment. As this is a multi-phased project, the Development Manual that will include the architectural and landscape guidelines will play an integral role in maintaining the quality of the project and the "lifestyle" concept that the developers intend to exploit. Variety in architectural design with dramatic architectural forms is encouraged. However, not at the cost of losing a unified theme or encourage franchise architecture. The guidelines should develop a vocabulary of acceptable materials, treatment and use of materials, patterns, fenestration, scale and directional expression. Use of offsets, fenestration treatment, proportions, and emphasis of main entrances should be included. The following building orientations should be considered. • All buildings requiring a service area must avoid the impression of not having a rear to the building. • The presentation of the rear of the grocery store fronting the corridor must be responsible to the West Main Street entryway corridor, Fowler Avenue and development patterns within the context of the proposal. The current location makes it difficult to address. • The office building at the west end of the development should be closer to the entryway corridor with a majority of the off-street parking to the south of the structure. • If the development is proposing future building pads along the West Garfield Street frontage, they should be included as part of the discussion for this concept plan review. • A larger satellite building fronting onto Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 should be situated in the central area of the development to reduce the visual impact of the parking area. • Careful scrutiny will be given to any land use that contains a drivethru facility. The covenants will specifically restrict any drive thru facility from facing onto the West Main Street entryway corridor. • Franchise architecture is not recommended as part of the Design Objectives Plan for entryway corridors. These land uses must also exemplify the sprit of the "lifestyle" center. Protective Covenants and Architectural&Landscape Guidelines: The ability of the mixed-use planned unit development to ensure compatibility with, and sensitivity to, the immediate environment of the site will fall substantially on the aptitude of the applicant to prepare The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 6 a Development Manual, which will implement the architectural and landscape guidelines for the project. Consideration must be given to scale, mass, neighborhood identity, landscape, orientation of buildings, use of materials, color palette, and specific architectural character-giving features that will define the architectural parameters of the planned unit development. The Manual should clearly outline the concept of a "lifestyle center" and illustrate the methods by which to implement the concept. The mixed-use commercial development will have the most immediate and greatest impact on adjoining properties to the north, which includes the West Main Street entryway corridor, and should have the highest degree of review. Landscape, buffering features, open space, fencing and orientation of buildings adjoining the future development to the west, south, and east must be considered. Provisions for the maintenance and upkeep of open space, public areas, trail system, streetscape, ponds, and other related areas should be clearly outlined. All common areas should be maintained and kept in good condition under a single contract with a landscape maintenance company. Landscape irrigation and placement of irrigation wells must be addressed. No irrigation wells and related facilities will be situated in the yard setbacks, but instead immediately adjacent to said improvements and properly screened. Attachments: Applicant's Submittal for Concept P.U.D. Plan Review Mailed To: Mitchell Development Group, L.L.C., 1315 81h Avenue N., Great Falls, MT 59401 Carter &Burgess Consultants, Inc., 201 North Charles St., 9th Floor, Baltimore, MY 21201 Morrison-Maierle, Inc., P.O. Box 1113, Bozeman, MT 59771 The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 7 i MEMORANDUM TO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE FROM: DAVE SKELTON, SENIOR PLANNER RE: THE BOZEMAN GATEWAY SUBDIVISION P.U.D. PRE-APPLICATION SUBDIVISION AND PUD CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 2004 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part I - Subdivision Pre-Application Plan Review Annexation: • Cash in-lieu of water rights will be paid with the filing of the final plat for each phase of the subdivision, based on the calculated amount prepared by the Director of Public Service. Land Uses: • The `13-2" — "BP" zoning boundary generally follows along the alignment of the east most linear open space/trail corridor. This places some retail land uses in the "BP" section of the planned unit development. Hotel/motel uses are also not permitted in the `BP" zoning designation. Any land uses that are not permitted in a specific zoning designation of the Unified Development Ordinance must be identified with the preliminary plat and preliminary plan review applications, and specifically requested to be part of the planned unit development. • Professional offices, business offices and corporate headquarters are allowed in the `BP" district, not medical offices. • All land uses proposed with this project shall be identified in the preliminary plat and preliminary plan applications. Planned Unit Development(18.36) • Review Procedures and Criteria o The preliminary plan will need to address all applicable elements of the planned unit development as it relates to duration of approval, phasing, design objectives plan, and entryway corridor standards. o The Develop Manual, including architectural and landscape guidelines should also discuss specific provisions for lighting, signage, landscape features and furniture, etc. o Prior to submitting for preliminary plat and preliminary plan review, a determination must be made if adequate provisions for open space have been provided under Section 18.36.090.E. o The written narrative responding to Section 18.36.090.E was acceptable. Feel free to expand on the narrative during preliminary plan review. o Typical cross sections of the linear open space/trail corridors that outline trail improvements, slope, grade and typical landscape improvements should be included. o Storm water runoff facilities located in designated areas for open space and/or required yard setbacks shall be designed to serve as landscape features that are irregular in form with varying depths of not more than 1 1/2 to 2 feet and side slopes not exceeding 1:4 (vertical fall to horizon or 25% slope). Development Standards (18.42) • Lots o Will need a relaxation to 18.44.090.13 for no street frontage (i.e., Phase One —Lot #15, #16, Phase Two—Lot#58, #59,#60, #61; Phase Three —Lot#34, #40, #41, Phase Four —Lot#27, #28 etc., etc.) o It is not clear if the tenants will own the parcels of land or if the commercial units will be leased, rented, or condominimized. There is no reason to create lots if they are intended to only accommodate off-street parking facilities. The off-street parking facilities should be common to the multi-tenant structures and should be in common ownership by the property owner's association, unless a specific tenant wants ownership of the parcel. If so the anchor tenant should include both the structure and applicable parking lot under a single parcel. o If the developer intends to have commercial pads along the West Garfield Street frontage, they should appear in the concept plan review as well. It is imperative that the subdivision delineate the footprints of the proposed structures to accurately determine the layout of the subdivision lots and identify the applicable standards for subdivision review. The placement of the cinema suggests that it will occupy up to six or seven lots. There appears to be at least six lots in the north parking lot that are not specific to a major tenant and/or structure. o The current layout of subdivision lots does not appear to mirror the conceptual scheme of the building footprints in relationship to the concept plan prepared by Carter Burgess. Creating individual lots suggest that said lots could be deeded in the future and has the potential to be developed under independent ownership. What will be setbacks fomr each of these individual lots. They will not comply with the U.D.O. as proposed. Keep in mind that you can not build a structure over a property line, unless it aligns with a party wall (i.e., building code). o Odd shaped lots are only permitted if the developer can demonstrate that the irregular shape(s) is necessary due to topography or other physical constraints (18.42.030.A - i.e., Lot#7,#). • Blocks o The application for a subdivision P.U.D. will need a relaxation to 18.42.040.B for block lengths more than 400 feet and to 18.42.040.0 for block widths not less than 200 feet or more than 400 feet. Under Section 18.42.040 the applicant will need to address how adequate rights-of-way for pedestrians have been provided(i.e., 25 feet?). o All subdivision blocks that are created or divided by pubic or private streets shall use block numbers or letters, and each block shall contain its own grouping of lot numbers (18.42.040.E). • Easements o Utility easements must be shown on the preliminary plan, not coded or indexed. o With regard to the layout of subdivision lots that contain only off-street parking. These parking lots should be in common ownership by the property owner's association to avoid disputes in parking availability and maintenance/upkeep, etc. The proposed 30- foot wide access and utility easement for access to the infrastructure will also have to note that is for public and emergency access of vehicles. • Grading and Drainage o An over all grading plan that assures a unified plan for the finish grade of the mixed-use commercial project. Adequate grade elevations must be provided with the preliminary plat demonstrating proper spot elevations in relationship to finish floor elevation, street curb, boulevard sidewalks, off-street parking lots, stormwater facilities, trail .system, and other applicable site improvements. and no impact on streetscape. Each phase must be developed to follow predetermined finish grade elevations to ensure a unified development for the project. The elevation of buildings and off-street parking lots will not have significant change in elevation that could potentially impact the streetscape. • Watercourse Setback o The application will need a request to relax 18.42.100.B.3.c—minimum 50-foot setback and Section 18.42.100.B.4.b—setback begins from adjacent wetlands boundary. • Watercourses and Wetlands o The preliminary plat application shall properly delineate all related jurisdictional wetlands and a copy of the entire Section 404 Permit granted by the Army Corp of Engineers. Does the 404 permit include construction of the parking lot access drives for the south off-street parking lot? Make sure that the preliminary plat application includes the wetlands study. • Lighting o Subdivision lighting shall be provided as required under Section 18.42.150 of the U.D.O. o The preliminary plat must include a separate street lighting, open space and watercourse landscaping plan. Transportation Facilities and Access (18.44) • Subdivision Streets o Street Intersections (18.44.030.A.1) will need a relaxation for streets not at 90 degrees and street names will need to be approved by Gallatin County GIS and City Engineer. Off-site streets and roads providing access to the proposed development shall meet the standards of 18.44.050. City standard sidewalks are required along both sides of all streets. The concept plan suggests that some of the perimeter streets will not have boulevard sidewalks on both sides. Typical street profiles need to be included in the preliminary plat application. o No direct access from individual subdivision lots onto Huffine Lane/US Highway 191, Fowler Avenue, and West Garfield Street. • Street Standards o City street standards for improvements to the immediate transportation system shall be based on the following designations; 1) Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 — Major Arterial, 2) Fowler Avenue — Minor Arterial, 3) West Garfield Street — local street at collector standard, and 4)Local Streets —dedicated 60-foot right-of-way. o A typical detail of how the Farmer's Canal reroute will effect the streetscape for Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street must be included, specifically the impact on boulevard sidewalks, trails and boulevard landscape. Discussion on how proper boulevard trees and landscape will be installed over, or in close proximity to, the underground reroute. • Transportation Pathways o The Bozeman 2020 Community Plan calls for boulevard trails along Fowler Avenue and Huffine Lane/US Highway 191. As a result, Fowler Avenue would include a 10- foot wide pedestrian/bike trail as part of the street improvements. It is recommended that all interior trail improvements be of a Class H standard with the public trail along Huffine Lane constructed to a 10-foot wide impervious surface. Typical trial sections will need to be included in the preliminary plat application and should include a typical profile for each of the linear open space corridors. o Locate trails only in Zone 2 of the watercourse setback, last 40% of setback. • Public Transportation o All interior and exterior development streets that are designated as transit routes shall be designed to accommodate transit vehicles and facilities. The preliminary plat application should address this. Supplementary Documents(18.72) • Draft bylaws and/or covenants, conditions and restrictions must be included with the preliminary plat application. o Said documents must contain provisions for the responsibility of maintenance of streets, centers, landscaping, boulevards, open space, common areas, watercourses, trails, snow removal. Make sure to review the entire chapter on association documents in Chapter 18.72 of the U.D.O. o Stronger covenants and restrictions are applicable for a commercial project of this scale and magnitude. It is recommended that the covenants and restrictions include a provision whereby an annual contract with a qualified landscape maintenance operation be required for maintenance of all common open space and landscape features within the development. • No storm water runoff drainage swales in the required front yards of the individual subdivision lots, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Staff. Variances/Relaxations/Deviations • The following relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance have been identified to date for consideration. 0 18.42.030.I—Street frontage for all lots 0 18.42.040.13 —to exceed block lengths 0 18.42.040.0 —to exceed block widths o 18.42.100.B.3.c—minimum 50-foot setback. 0 18.42.100.13.4.15—setback begins from adjacent wetlands boundary. o Section 18.44.030.A.1 - to allow streets to intersect at angles less than 90 degrees. 0 18.44.090.13.2—access for interior lots not having frontage 0 18.44.090.D.3 —reduce spacing standards for drive access. o Possible Relaxations ■ 18.36.090.E.2.a(7)(b)—Performance points for open space. ■ 18.46.040.B —Allocation of off-street parking. Part II—Concept P.U.D. Plan Review • Design Review Staff Report o Comments related to the Design Objectives Plan for entryway corridors and the All- Development Criteria for Planned Unit Developments are included in the D.R.B. staff report. Note: The comments and advice contained in this D.R.C. memorandum are intended to assist the applicant in preparing the subdivision preliminary plat and P.U.D. preliminary plan applications. However, further comments and/or recommendations on matters not discussed during the informal view may arise based on the information and supplemental data provided with the formal applications and applicable comments provided by local and state agencies. r DESIGN REVIEW BOARD • WEDNESDAY,JANUARY 12, 2005 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:32 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Bill Hanson Chris Saunders, Associate Planner Dawn Smith Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner Brian Krueger David Skelton, Senior Planner Scott Hedglin Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Randy Carpenter Visitors Present Ted Mitchell John Davidson Mark Mitchell Greg Stratton Bill Ogle James Nickelson Jamie Lenon ITEM 2. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 2004 (Continued from 12/22/04.) Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of November 10, 2004. MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8,2004 (Continued from 12/22/04.) Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of December 8,2004. MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 4. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 22, 2004 Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of December 22, 2004. MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—January 12,2005 1 ITEM 5. Presentatiow Chris Kukulski, City Manager— )Our. Chris Kukulski, City Manager, introduced himself to the DRB and explained the City's long- term goals. ITEM 6. U.D.O.Edits Discussion A. * Discussion of the U.D.O. text amendments pertinent to the DRB. Continued to the meeting of January 26, 2005. ITEM 7. The Bozeman Gateway Concept PUD#Z-04313 (Skelton) A. Southwest of the intersection of West College Street and Huffine Lane * A Concept Planned Unit Development Application to allow the construction of a mixed-use commercial development on 72.2 acres with related site improvements. Ted Mitchell, Mark Mitchell, John Davidson, and Greg Stratton joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the project noting that the DRB was informally reviewing the project so the advisory board could have a dialog with the applicant before the project was formally reviewed by the DRB in two weeks. He stated the project started as an extension of the Advanced Technology Park and had been modified with the sale of the property, identifying commercial development north of Huffine Lane, and development of the recently adopted Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. He added that the applicants and he had invited City Commission members to attend the next meeting of the DRB. Mr. Mark Mitchell noted the background of the Mitchell Group; who has been working on the Gateway project for the past year. He stated the applicants wanted to keep and enhance the wetlands on the site and added they had offered to install Garfield Street from South 19th Avenue to Fowler Lane and Fowler Lane to Huffine Lane, at their expense. He stated there would be a traffic signal installed at their expense as well. He stated the easements were negotiated in favor of the City of Bozeman, but the applicant would be responsible for curb and gutter on one side of the road with a gravel shoulder on the other side. He stated there would be major redesigns of intersections to make the project's accesses work. He stated they had taken special care in keeping with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan and they had enhanced the frontage on Huffine Lane using the placement of retention ponds. He stated there would be a plaza with a pond in the center of the development. He stated the hotel component fit well with the lodging demand generators on the west side of town. He stated the applicant had taken special care to design a project that would be an asset to Bozeman and had been working with the Army Corp of Engineers and the Department of Transportation from the project's inception. Mr. Davidson stated he and the developers had an on-site charette regarding what would fit on the site and how it would be arranged. He stated some of the wetland areas posed difficulties given the limited developable area. He stated he came to the conclusion that the Farmer's Canal was bisecting the site and had decided to incorporate the canal into the development. He presented a color rendering depicting the types of uses (hotel, club, community center, shopping center, etc.) and their arrangement on the proposed development, as well as potential views from various proposed structures on the site. He noted the proposed enhancement of the natural streams and the addition of ponds throughout the development. He stated they developed City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—January 12,2005 2 specific architectural charge for areas of the development and preloed a color rendering of the proposed entrance from Huffine Lane, of the interior streetscape, and the central plaza. He stated there would be natural stone up to 10 feet. He stated there would be a fireplace, an ice rink/water feature, and audio equipment in the plaza for public gatherings. He added that the formal water features would be blended with the natural water features and there were significant pedestrian connections proposed throughout the development; promoting pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Mr. Hanson asked how the number of parking stalls compared to the number of parking stalls required by the U.D.O. Mr. Davidson responded that the project would meet the requirements when compact spaces were calculated in. Mr. Hanson asked if Staff had given the applicant options for parking calculations. Mr. Saunders responded that shared parking was allowed as long as there was an obvious agreement. Mr. Davidson responded that the site, as a whole, had met the requirements. Mr. Hanson stated the DRB was supportive of parking reductions but the problem with retail development was they pushed the envelope on the number of stalls. Mr. Davidson added that grocery stores were often adamant about the arrangement and number of parking stalls. Mr. Hanson asked if the City would allow storm water retention into an active waterway. Mr. Stratton responded that the retention ponds were not connected to the active waterways and they would use an old canal that has been dry. Mr. Hanson stated that the pollutants needed to be filtered from the retention ponds. Mr. Stratton responded they would be filtered by City engineering standards. Mr. Hanson asked if the open space requirements had been met. Mr. Saunders responded that it was a point system with a variety of ways to meet those points, and publicly accessible spaces would be worth more points. Mr. Hanson stated the project was in a stream corridor, and asked if there would be difficulties meeting open space requirements because part of the open space was unusable as it was in a waterway. Mr. Stratton stated the calculation of open space was based on the net area multiplied by 0.25. Mr. Hanson suggested Staff review the usable space next to the stream corridors. Mr. Hanson asked why there was no residential development proposed with so many pedestrian connections on the site. Mr. Davidson replied there was no market for residential development in that location. Mr. Ted Mitchell stated the parking requirements would become an issue if there were residential development due to the tremendous cost of ramping driveways to residences. Mr. Carpenter suggested residential structures with below-grade parking. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded the water level was too high to incorporate below-grade parking. Mr. Carpenter asked if they had met the impervious surface requirements. Mr. Stratton responded they had not calculated those requirements yet. Mr. Carpenter asked where the retention ponds, outlets, and filtration areas would be located. Mr. Stratton responded that the water would be released from the detention ponds into the discharge pipes or canals and then to the outlets; which had not been formally located in the proposal yet. Mr. Carpenter suggested being cautious in the design of the retention ponds so that the project would remain attractive. Mr. Carpenter asked if the pedestrian and bike trails were more for internal. Mr. Davidson responded that the connection to the east (the college) and the residential development across Huffine Lane would likely be using the pedestrian and bike trails. Mr. Carpenter asked how the pedestrians would be moved safely across Huffine Lane. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that there would be a signal installed on Huffine Lane as it was no longer a highway and inside corporate city limits. Mr. Carpenter asked if there would be screening along Huffine Lane. Mr. Davidson and Mr. Ted Mitchell indicated where screening was proposed. Mr. Carpenter stated that not many of the views would have terminal vistas from the boulevards and the plaza. Mr. Carpenter asked how the phases of City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—January 12,2005 3 development would be co*ted and how the circulation would beontained. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that Garfield Street and the intersection of South 19th Avenue and Fowler Lane would be constructed in the first phase, the second phase would be the development of the east side of the project. Mr. Hedglin asked the projected fill-out for the retail space; was there enough of an attraction to the site to occupy the retail spaces. Mr. Stratton responded there would be 216 retail spaces. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded the development would be filled-out within 7 or 8 years. Mr. Krueger stated that, with a PUD, an applicant could design their project with more flexibility and asked what the applicant was proposing that would be above and beyond the zoning requirements for a PUD. Mr. Davidson responded that the project would be more upscale; i.e. many of the wall coverings would be upgraded, outdoor fireplaces, a plaza, etc. Mr. Davidson responded that the applicant had not looked upon the project as an upgrade to the normal PUD. Mr. Stratton responded that the PUD development was a method by which to request variances, for example; the width of the streets, diagonal parking, longer blocks, and other irregularities. Mr. Stratton added that none of the requested variances were too far from code requirements. Mr. Krueger asked Mr. Ted Mitchell to explain why they would retain the curviness of the street through the development. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that the curved street served the purpose of slowing traffic and it added a unique quality to the site. Mr. Krueger asked if the diagonal parking would be on a two lane street. Mr. Davidson responded that it would be a two lane, two way street with diagonal parking. Mr. Krueger asked which of the page of design images in the submittal materials and the proposed design images on the renderings were being proposed. Mr. Davidson responded that they would like to see varied architectural designs with multiple architects working on the project and there would be overall design standards for the development. Chairperson Smith asked what level of retail "BP" zoning allowed. Mr. Saunders responded there was mainly `B-2" zoning in the proposal, and Mr. Ted Mitchell illustrated where there was a small area of`BP". Planner Saunders explained the differences between `BP" and `B-2" zoning with regard to allowable retail space. Chairperson Smith asked if a drive-thru was allowable in the "B-2" zoning. Mr.Ted Mitchell responded that drive-thru's were allowable and indicated their locations on the color rendering. Chairperson Smith asked if the City would be reviewing the final submittal of the project. Planner Saunders responded that individual final site plans would be reviewed. Chairperson Smith asked what made this a"lifestyle" development when pedestrian pathways were dominant. Mr. Davidson responded it was an open-air shopping center; not like a mall with parking along the outside of the structures, and there were many entertainment opportunities located within the "lifestyle" development. Mr. Hanson stated he appreciated that the project was presented with good graphics and site plan analysis. He stated the project had interesting character with expansion prospects and suggested reducing the number of parking stalls and adding.green spaces that people could mingle in. He stated the location of the grocery store on the corner of the entryway corridor was problematic and suggested relocating the grocery store or adding extensive screening. Fie stated he felt that, comparatively, the proposal had a wonderful character and he applauded the applicant's efforts. He suggested the drive-thru be closely examined and cited the Taco Bell drive-thru as a bad example. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—January 12,2005 4 R Mr. Carpenter stated he agreed with Mr. Hanson's comments regarding the presentation of the project to the DRB. He stated he was excited about the concept of"lifestyle centers" and appreciated the thoughtfulness and thoroughness of the site design. He suggested they know the percentage of impervious surfaces and what efforts could be made to keep the number of impervious surfaces down. He stated he was surprised to hear that the applicants did not think residential development would work, despite the parking issues. He stated he thought the reduced opportunities for vistas could improve with a less curved street. He stated it would be a conflict for the applicant's to make the project pedestrian and bike friendly while maintaining the proposed drive-thru's. Mr. Hedglin stated he would be curious to see the project in ten to twenty years. He stated developments were moving away from the enclosed shopping atmosphere. He stated he would like to see the use of natural materials throughout the development. Mr. Krueger stated he appreciated the irony of rebuilding another main street in a town with a great main street. He stated he liked the preservation of the watercourse and wetlands to enhance the area. He suggested keeping and enhancing the character of Bozeman within the development. Chairperson Smith stated she agreed with previous DRB comments. She stated she would be the person riding her bike to the development and she would like to know where the connections between the sidewalks and the bike trails would be. Mr. Davidson responded there would be a bike lane throughout the development and along Huffine Lane. Chairperson Smith suggested the placement of nodes and a place where cars cannot go so that bicyclers could go there. She stated she would like to see a connection to Babcock Street. She stated she would like to see as many large trees as possible preserved on the site. She stated she was concerned with the parking lot between Huffine Lane and Gateway Boulevard, and the parking lot on Garfield Street, which was proposed abutting the street. She stated she was concerned with the Chronicle Lane access because people turn left into the bank drive-thru and congestion is common. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that the access was a right-in, right-out only. Mr. Stratton responded the traffic study showed there would be 3,000 cars per day eliminated from that intersection with the extension of Garfield Street and Fowler Lane. Mr. Carpenter added that he did not think a Main Street sort of thoroughfare was exclusive of vehicular travel. ITEM 8. INFORMAL REVIEW A. The Garage At City Center Informal#I-04037 (Windemaker) 26 East Mendenhall Street * An Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of a parking garage consisting of three phases; Phase 1 - 2-level parking garage with 354 parking stalls and 11,000 +/- square feet of retail space on street level; Phase 2 - the addition of a 3rd level of parking containing 104 parking stalls; and Phase 3 - the addition of two additional levels of parking containing 142 parking stalls. Historic Preservation Planner Allyson Bristor,Dick Clotfelter, and Jamie Lenon joined the DRB. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Niinutes—January 12,2005 5 ❑ MORRISO r7D MERLE, INC. L�.TTER OF TRANSMITTAL An Employee-avnD Company n �J (L, 901 Technology Blvd. Date: January 24, 2006'. ��ll �/ U P.O. Box 1113 ( P� rJ m Bozeman, MT 59771 2 4 Job No.: 3638.003 °E°� '^�tiroFP Phone: (406) 587-0721 _ _ aNn ca.;,;,";N;,,pt�i0°�iNG MENT FAX: (406) 587-5238 Attention' Dave Skelton J RE: The Bozeman Gateway— Development Manual TO: _Dave Skelton City of Bozeman Planning Department P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771-1230 We are sending you the following items: E Attached ❑ Under separate cover via ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Copy of Letter ❑ Contract Documents ❑ Pay Request ❑ Addendum ® Other: Copies Date No. Description 15 1-24-06 Zoning Application Condition Response Narrative 15 1-24-06 Bozeman Gateway Development Manual 15 1-24-06 Bozeman Gateway Covenants and Restrictions THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ No exceptions taken ❑ Submit specified item E For your use ❑ Make corrections noted ❑ Prints returned after loan to us E As requested ❑ Revise and resubmit ❑ For your files E For review and comments ❑ Rejected ❑ REMARKS: Dave, here is the information you requested in your email dated 1/20/06 in regards to the Development Manual for the Bozeman Gateway Project. Also included is the response narrative to each of the Zoning conditions of approval you requested. If you should have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. Copy to: File Signed: If enclosures are not as noted, please advise. ` T*zeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.re Zoning Condition Responses 1. The PUD shall comply with all approved conditions of the subdivision.preliminary plat approval. �- J N � 1 Response: Applicant Agrees. 2. Conditional approval of the Preliminary P.U.D. Plan and final approval of the Final P.U.D. Plan for Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. by the Planning Director is limited to the approval of the master plan and development guidelines of the Development Manual only. Approval does not exempt the applicant from compliance with all provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code, which are applicable to this project and site plan review of individual projects within the P.U.D. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. Response: Applicant Agrees. 3. Prior to submitting for Final Plat review and approval of the initial phase(s) for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. the applicant shall obtain Final P.U.D. approval by the Planning Director. A draft of the revised protective covenants and restrictions for the property owner's association, preliminary draft of the Final P.U.D. Plan and Development Manual addressing all of the conditions of approval and outlined in the staff report shall be submitted for review by the City Commission, Planning Office and D.R.B. a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to submitting for final plat review and approval of the initial phase(s) of the subdivision. Response: Applicant shall have received Final P.U.D. approval and shall have submitted a revised draft of the protective covenants to the Planning Office for review and approval thirty (30) days prior to the initial phase Final Plat submittal. 4. The landscape features and trail improvements along the West Main Street entryway corridor that front onto US 191/Huffing Lane and West Garfield Street shall be installed with Phase 1 of The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. Response: Applicant Agrees. Page 1 of 13 4 T ozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.0 Zoning Condition Responses 5. That all pedestrian/bicycle crossings and walkways with streets be given greater emphasis by using similar pavers that reflect the surface treatment of public plazas and areas of outdoor social activities. Connections between streets, off-street parking lots, and public areas should also be given attention in terms of raised walkways, pavers, pedestrian lighting and landscape features. The Final P.U.D. Plan will contain a written narrative and detailed plan in the Development Manual whereby the project provides a public information shelter and map display area along the West Main Street entryway corridor. This area will serve as a regional trail connection point for pedestrians and bicycles along the corridor. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Pages 28 & 29, Section II (Site Development Standards), Item B (Traffic Flow and Parking), Part 4 (Walkways), Paragraph c. and Page 50, Section II (Site Development Standards), Item E (Site Lighting and Signage), Part 2 (Site Signage), Paragraph b. 6. Pathways must be maintained by the developer in conformance with the approved maintenance plan until 50% of the lots are sold. Thereafter, the homeowner's association is responsible for pathway maintenance (Section 18.50.110). Plans and specification for the trail will need to be reviewed by the Parks Department prior to construction. A Type II Class trail is recommended along the watercourse corridor with the placement of appropriate pedestrian crossings at all intersections with interior subdivision streets. A typical cross section of the public trails, both Type I and Type II, shall be included in the landscape guidelines and will include trail specifications, typical landscape guidelines, and site grading plans for review and approval prior to final plat approval. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Pages 71 & 72, Section III (Landscape Design Standards), Item C (Hardscape), Parts 5 (Asphalt Trails) and Part 6 (Gravel Trails). 7. Provisions for a transit stop within the interior of the P.U.D. and an information center along the West Main Street entryway corridor shall be incorporated into site design for review and approval with the Final P.U.D. Plan. A written explanation, illustrations and details shall be included in the Development Manual for review and approval. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Page 44, Section II (Site Development Standards), Item D (Green Space), Part 3 (Pedestrian and Bike Circulation), Paragraph d, and Page 50, Section II (Site Development Standards), Item E (Site Lighting and Signage), Part 2 (Site Signage), Paragraph b. Page 2 of 13 ThOozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U. . Zoning Condition Responses 8. The public streetscape shall contain a regular spacing of boulevard trees along streets, both public and private, in concert with landscape features and screening of off-street parking lots; primarily, areas along West Garfield Street and US Highway 191/West Main Street. All trees to be installed in the boulevards, off-street parking lots, common open space areas,public plazas and individual subdivision lots will be installed at 2-inch caliper in diameter. Street character along the West Main Street entryway corridor, Fowler Avenue and Garfield Street shall call for architectural features that suggest a presence of store fronts, plazas, fenestration treatment and architectural details that reflect the "lifestyle center" concept. The Development Manual shall contain said language to insure implementation of said streetscape features. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Page 63, Section III (Landscape Design Standards), Item B (Vegetation), Part 1 (Tree and Shrub Species), Page 86, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item A (Overview), Convenience Center and Out parcels, and Pages 89-103, Section IV (Building Design Standards) Item B (Building Exterior). 9. Commercial and retail drive-thrus and associated apprentices (speaker phones, signage, ATM, canopies, etc.) shall not front onto the entryway corridor or corner- side of the building and will not impact the building facade of the satellite structures along the streetscape. The Development Manual will provide a typical illustration that speaks to this provision prior to Final P.U.D. Plan approval. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 23, Section II (Site Development Standards), Item B (Traffic Flow and Parking), Part 1 (Site Access), Paragraph d. 10. The Final P.U.D, Plan and Development Manual shall discuss the treatment of streets intersections that are enhanced by pedestrian-friendly entrances, plazas or design features such as benches and landscape planters. Building entrances near the sidewalk edge that contain an entry plaza should also be considered at the intersections of local streets with Technology Boulevard and not only in the commercial area, but also along the business park/professional office corridors. This would also apply at the corner of Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street. If it is the decision to locate the grocery store at the southeast corner of West Main Street and Fowler Avenue, a building entrance and plaza must occur along the entryway corridor, preferably at the northwest corner of the building. Page 3 of 13 T*ozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.U* Zoning Condition Responses Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Page 86, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item A (Overview), Convenience Center and Out parcels, Pages 89-103, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior) and Pages 69,70,72 & 73, Section III (Landscape Design Standards) Item C (Hardscape). 11. The Development Manual and Landscape Plan shall address the treatment of drainage basins in the open space corridors with regard to placement of said facilities and outlet structures. These facilities must be properly landscaped and prevent any impact on the landscape features along these corridors. Specific landscape details will be required with the final landscape plan to demonstrate proper landscape of the facilities. The landscape guidelines shall state that drainage basins will not eliminate the installation of landscape and landscape features as depicted on the Preliminary P.U.D. Plan; and if so, will be replaced outside of the open space corridors. A Landscape Plan that landscape features installed over or around areas that contain a drainage basin in the open space corridor will not be impacted. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 75, Section III (Landscape Design Standards),Item D (Storm Water Facilities). 12. That the landscape guidelines of the Development Manual state that the surface ponds along West Main Street are not part of the storm water facilities and will be maintained as landscape feature along the entryway corridor. Provisions will be discussed in the protective covenants and Development Manual that will limit the fluctuation of said ponds to ensure that they remain an effective landscape feature along the entryway corridor. Should the design and installation of the surface ponds result in problems with fluctuation and are not considered an effective landscape element of the entryway corridor, resolution of the problem shall be resolved prior to the filing of the final plat for the second phase(s) of the major subdivision. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Pages 60-61, Section III (Landscape Design Standards), Item A (Overview) and Page 75 Section III (Landscape Design Standards), Item D (Storm Water Facilities). 13. The water features along the West Main Street entryway corridor shall be designed as open space amenities as organic in shape and form, lined with appropriate aquatic and wetland features, native grasses and indigenous plants. Provisions will be outlined in the Development Manual and/or protective covenants the P.U.D. Landscape Plan shall include landscape plan of the water features for review and approval prior to Final P.U.D. Plan approval. Side slopes for the water features shall not exceed 25% slope. Page 4 of 13 TOkozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.9) Zoning Condition Responses Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Page 60, Section III (Landscape Design Standards), Item A (Overview) and Page 55, Section II Site Development Standards), Item F (Utilities, Grading and Drainage), Part 2 (Grading and Drainage), Paragraph h. 14. The final Landscape Plan shall specifically address landscape details for the three open corridors, two public trails within the north off-street parking lot, and West Main Street entryway corridor. Detailed landscape plans shall also be included for the two public plazas within the interior of the lifestyle center and the small public spaces along the north/south water courses. Prior to Final P.U.D. Plan approval the Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Office and D.R.B. for approval. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Pages 59-82, Section III (Landscape Design Standards). 15. The final Landscape Plan shall expand on the types of vegetation sought within the design standards and should a stronger emphasis on clustered landscape features, low-profile vegetation, native type species, vegetation along the watercourse corridors and West Main Street entryway corridor, flowering and perennial species, and ground cover. The design standards shall specifically discourage the use of "pea" gravel or decorative 1 1/4" to 2" washed rock gravel, or less. All landscape islands that include decorative rock or gravel as a ground cover shall specify "river rock" or equal in the landscape plan. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Pages 63-66, Section III (Landscape Design Standards), Item B (Vegetation), Part 1 (Tree and Shrub Species) and Part 2 (Planting Beds). 16. That the applicant will provide surface finish elevations for all parking lots and building finished floor elevations with respect to associated watercourse features. The Development Manual and protective covenants shall state that all open space areas and associated watercourse setbacks will remain undisturbed unless otherwise approved by the Planning Office. All grade transitions between off-street parking lot areas and abutting watercourse open space areas shall not exceed a maximum slope of 4:1, or 25% slope. Response: Condition is addressed on the Preliminary Site Grading Plan under Tab 34 of the Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat Application and also in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 55, Section II Site Development Standards), Item F (Utilities, Grading and Drainage), Part 2 (Grading and Drainage), Paragraph h. Page 5 of 13 ThQozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.I Zoning Condition Responses 17. The Bozeman Design Objectives Plan states that the following elements must be achieved in order to reduce the perceived mass of a building: a change in color or change in material shall be used in each building module; a 20% change in vertical height between each module; change roof form; change in articulation. The architectural guidelines should discuss components that help to establish a human scale along the facade, store fronts, primary entrances (i.e. one-story elements). Expression of each floor in the external skin and use of material should also be noted. The Development Manual will need to provide illustrations for each of these guidelines as discussed and revise any illustrations proposed in the Development Manual that do not reflect said criteria. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Pages 94-96, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior), Part 3 (Mass and Scale). 18. The architectural guidelines for the development suggest that the Convenience Center, Outparcels and Office-Professional areas will incorporate the architectural vocabulary of the lifestyle center. However, modifications will be required due to the significant variation in building type and scale. The Development Manual goes on to state that an exact determination of which entities will be responsible for which elements of design and construction will be determined by individual lease or sales agreements. In-lieu of this, the Development Manual shall give specific attention to each of these areas of the mixed-use development and identify what must be achieved in each of these areas to maintain the architectural integrity of the overall development theme. The Development Manual shall graphically address the presentation of building facades that face onto the public streets (i.e. West Main Street corridor entryway, Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street) and through the use of illustration illustrate the architectural theme sought with the "lifestyle" center of the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision. This also applies as well to the professional office, business park and convenience components of the development, as well as the rear facades of both sides of the "lifestyle" center situated along Technology Boulevard. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Pages 85-103, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item A (Overview) and Item B (Building Exterior). 19. The architectural guidelines of the Development Manual will be modified to state that not more than 25% of any of the building facades shall be covered with a synthetic surface. Page 6 of 13 ThQozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.be Zoning Condition Responses Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 99, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior), Part 5 (Materials), Paragraph a. 20. The Development Manual will discuss presentation onto a street regardless if it's the main street for the lifestyle center,private street or a public street with respect to a formal entrance, store fronts, covered entrances, and public spaces. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Pages 85-103, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior) and Page 98, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior), Exhibit Shown. 21. Section V of the Development Manual — "Review Procedures of the Development Manual" shall be revised to clarify that the site plan review process for individuals projects within the planned unit development are not an informal review by the City of Bozeman and shall instead follow the prescribed site plan review process outlined in the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. The Manual shall further note that with the site plan review applications for each building project shall include in the submittal detailed elevations, floor plans, landscape plan, site plan, colored rendering, accurate color palette, and materials sample board specific to said project. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 142, Section V (Review Procedures), Item D (Final Review), Part 4 (City of Bozeman Site Plan Review). 22. No corporate or franchise style architecture shall be permitted in the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision and noted accordingly in the Development Manual and the protective covenants and restrictions of the property owner's association documents. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Page 87, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item A (Overview) and Page 97, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior), Part 4 (Architectural Vocabulary), Paragraph i. 23. The general building materials theme and color palette shall be continued throughout all phases of the development. The types of cultural stone to be used throughout the project shall be reviewed and approved by the D.R.B. and A.D.R. staff as part of the Final P.U.D. and noted accordingly in the Development Manual. Page 7of13 r Tozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.00 Zoning Condition Responses Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Page 96, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior), Part 4 (Architectural Vocabulary), Paragraph a, Page 97, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior), Part 5 (Materials) and Page 142, Section V (Review Procedures), Item D. (Final Review), Part 4 (City of Bozeman-Site Plan Review). 24. The Development Manual shall be modified to specifically state that all roof top mechanical equipment will be properly screened through the use of proper architectural screening techniques or with parapet walls that will reach a height that is equal or greater than the top of all mechanical equipment. Any ventilation for plumbing or air exchange that is not mechanical related equipment shall be painted to match the color palette of the roof and/or architectural screening. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 95, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior), Part 3 (Mass and Scale), Paragraph L 25. All of the buildings on the perimeter of the development shall have a second store front (double fronted design) that is oriented towards the streetscape and shall include a type of design feature directed towards the corner (a concave area or a bump-out constructed of transparent materials) and shall be noted accordingly in the Development Manual. Any additional exhibits presented to the D.R.B. and City Commission .that are found acceptable shall be included in the Development Manual. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 98, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior), Exhibit Shown. 26. The backside of the buildings shall be addressed by the continuation of similar materials on all sides of the building(s) with similar architectural features, light fixtures, materials, color palette and awnings over the doors on the rear or back elevations. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 90, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior), Part 1 (Building Planning), Paragraph L Page 8 of 13 T*ozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U. Zoning Condition Responses 27. The development guidelines shall contain language for all store fronts that encourages the use of dark bronze anodized, or similarly darker frames, in-lieu of the brushed stainless steel finish. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 99, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior), Part 5 (Materials), Paragraph c. 28. Sconce lights and goose neck lights (down lights only) shall be added to the larger retail buildings (over 15,000 square feet). Exposed, unshielded neon tube lighting and continuous .L.E.D. string lighting are not permitted in the planned unit development and shall be noted accordingly in the Developments Manual and protective covenants of the property owner's association. The lighting guidelines may indicate that neon lighting and L.E.D. lighting may be used as a subtle lighting element under the soffits, behind the fascia or in the sign package (i.e. backlit feature) as an indirect, obscure lighting detail. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Page 113, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item D (Building Lighting), Part 1 (Exterior Facade Lighting), Paragraph a and Page 113, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item D (Building Lighting), Part 1 (Exterior Fagade Lighting), Paragraph 1. 29. The architectural guidelines of the Development Manual shall contain language that discourages the use of translucent or transparent awnings and shall instead be opaque in material through the use of fabric or metal materials only. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 103, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior), Part 8 (Projecting Design Elements), Paragraph g. 30. Those areas of the building facade to be finished in a synthetic material (i.e. E.F.I.S., dryvit, stucco or similar finish) shall place a strong emphasis on the treatment, color palette and variation in joint detail and pattern, relief and architectural detail, and noted accordingly in the Development Manual. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 97, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior), Part 5 (Materials). Page 9of13 t Th*ozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.V* Zoning Condition Responses 31. All crossings within the Planned Unit Development shall be constructed with scored concrete or pavers similar to the surface materials installed throughout the public outdoor public areas. The crossings shall be noted as such on Final P.U.D. Plan and details for the pattern(s) shall be provided in the final development guidelines. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Pages 28 and 29, Section II (Site Development Standards), Item B (Traffic Flow and Parking), Part 4 (Walkways), Paragraph c, Page 38, Section II (Site Development Standards), Item C (Civic Spaces), Part 3 (Paving Materials), Paragraph g. 32. Larger seating areas with planters shall be installed throughout the plazas and public areas and a typical detail of the planters included in the Development Manual. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 73, Section III (Landscape Design Standards), Item C (Hardscape), Part 8 (Planters). 33. The development guidelines shall indicate that no backlit cabinet type "box" signs will be permitted in each phase of the development unless a three-dimensional component is included that creates a sense of architectural relief and where no plastic, translucent or transparent face are permitted. This shall be addressed in the comprehensive signage plan for the planned unit development and shall be submitted to the Planning Office prior to the Final P.U.D. approval that depicts a sign package that exhibits qualities of style, relief and compatibility. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location:' Page 123, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item E (Building Signage), Part 5 (Signage Not Permitted). 34. A common master signage plan depicting the actual location, dimensions, height, illumination and use of material for all freestanding signs shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Final P.U.D. Plan approval. Both the pylon signs and monument signs shall, be constructed of materials compatible with the overall building design theme for the development and illustrated accordingly in the Development Manual. All signs shall obtain a sign permit prior to construction and installation, and shall comply with the required regulatory standards set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance. The Development Manual will need to include a graphic component of the master sign plan for the entire property that reflects the theme desired with this P.U.D. This includes discussion on the position of signs as past of the overall building Page 10 of 13 ThOozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.O Zoning Condition Responses composition; avoid obscuring architectural details, materials, and use of color and relief, three-dimensional signage, placement of freestanding signs along street frontages, entrances into the development, and addressing required setbacks and street vision triangles. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Pages 50-52, Section II (Site Development Standards), Item E (Lighting and Signage), Part 2 (Site Signage) and Pages 117-124, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item E (Building Signage). 35. The north off-street parking lot in Phase 4 will replace two off-street parking spaces along each of the two watercourse open space corridors for the placement of an 18' by 18' public area with benches, pavers and landscape features. A typical detail of this area shall be illustrated accordingly in the Development Manual as part of the landscape guidelines and the final Landscape Plan for the development. The watercourse corridors shall have a minimum width of not less than thirty feet, exclusive of the 18' by 18' public area. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Page 61, Section III (Landscape Design Standards), Item A(Overview), See Detail. 36. The applicant shall implement an "Off-Street Parking Lot Implementation Plan" for each phase of the planned unit development that ensures adequate parking facilities are available for the general public in each phase of the P.U.D. The gross floor area of buildings in each phase will be determined based on the ability to comply with the required minimum off-street parking standards outlined in the Unified Development Ordinance. This will be further addressed during site plan review of each individual project. The applicant shall further provide a notation on the subdivision plats and in the protective covenants and Development Manual that all off-street parking areas located within the development will be held to a reciprocal shared parking easement and agreement for use by the general public. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 30, Section II (Site Development Standards), Item B (Traffic Flow and Parking), Part 5 (Parking Lots), Paragraph a. 37. All parking lot lights and internally illuminated signs shall be turned off within one hour of closing, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director of City Commission during site plan review of each individual project within The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. Only security lights will be permitted to remain in throughout the night. Page 11 of 13 T*ozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.0 Zoning Condition Responses Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 49, Section II (Site Development Standards), Item E (Site Lighting and Signage), Part 1 (Site Lighting), Paragraph h. 38. The City of Bozeman shall be party to any modifications, changes or amendments to the protective covenants and restrictions and to the Development Manual for The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. as it relates to the conditions of approval for the subdivision Preliminary Plat and zoning P.U.D. Preliminary Plan. Response: Any modifications, changes or amendments to the protective covenants and restrictions and to the Development Manual for The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. as it relates to the conditions of approval for the subdivision Preliminary Plat and zoning P.U.D. Preliminary Plan shall be subject to the prior approval of the City of Bozeman. The Applicant wishes to clarify that the City of Bozeman shall separately approve (rather than be a party/signatory to) any such modifications, changes or amendments to the protective covenants and restrictions and the Development Manual for The Bozeman Gateway. 39. That the applicant submit an implementation plan for a residential component of seventy (70) or more residential dwelling units with a substantial number of dwelling units located in the core of the development prior to review and approval of Phase 2. Response: Applicant— is not in agreement as to the City's interpretation of city commission motion as it relates to restricting the phasing of the Bozeman Gateway until an implementation plan for a residential component is submitted. It was very clear to us that the phasing issue was eliminated from the motion immediately before a vote and was tied to the height relaxation request instead. We hereby decline comment on this issue at this time until we receive the actual transcript of the motion as well as the minutes of the December 12t" City Commission Meeting and further investigation is completed. Be advised, however, that we are excited about the opportunity to include at least 70 residential units in the core of the project and are performing a feasibility studies regarding this issue. Carter Burgess is hard at work to provide us a conceptual design as to how we can include a residential aspect within the Page 12 of 13 0 T*ozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U. . Zoning Condition Responses development. An implementation plan will be submitted as it becomes available. We believe you will be very pleased with our concept. 40. That all site plan review applications within the subdivision will be subject to review by the Design Review Board. Response: Applicant Agrees. 41. That office buildings 3, 4, and 5 in Phase 3 be rotated to front onto Garfield Street. Response: Applicant Agrees. 42. Building heights will be permitted not to exceed a height of sixty-five (65) feet based on the merits of a residential component for the planned unit development. Response: Applicant Agrees. Page 13 of 13 D WordPerfect Document Compare Summary IE JgPI 2 4 2006 Original document: H:\Documents\Curt\WPFILES\Mitchell DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Development\Bozeman\Declaration\Declaration 10-19-05.wpd AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Revised document: @PFDesktop\:MyComputer\H:\Documents\Curt\WPFILES\Mitchell Development\Bozeman\Declaration\Declaration v5 (1-10-06).wpd Deletions are shown with the following attributes and color: Strikeotit, Blue RGB(0,0,255). Deleted text is shown as full text. Insertions are shown with the following attributes and color: Double Underline,Redline, Red RGB(255,0,0). i The document was marked with 32 Deletions, 36 Insertions, 0 Moves. DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND GRANT OF EASEMENTS BOZEMAN.GATEWAY THIS DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND GRANT OF EASEMENTS ('Declaration")is made as of the day of , 20056,by MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT GROUP,LLC, a Montana limited liability company("Declarant"). RECITALS A. Declarant is the owner of the real property located in the City of Bozeman("City"), County of Gallatin("County"), State of Montana("State"),described in Exhibit"A"which is attached to this Declaration("Entire Property") and shown on the map which is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit"B ("Parcel Map"). B. Declarant desires to develop and operate the Entire Property as a mixed use development which may consist of retail, commercial, office,hotel,residential and related facilities ("Project") and,therefore,wishes to establish certain easements, covenants and restrictions on the Entire Property and/or portions of the Entire Property. It is currently anticipated that the Project will be consist of at least sixfive(60 phases("Phase" or"Phases")as shown on the Phasing Exhibit attached hereto as Exhibit"C" ("Phasing Plan"). It is currently anticipated that(a) Phase I will be developed as a convenience shopping center, (b) Phase 2 will be developed as pad sites, (c)Phase 3 will be developed as commercial office, (d)Phase 4 will be developed as a lifestyle center; and(e)Phase 5 will be developed as a hotel, be deveiolied as-mean office complex; all as generally shown on the Site Plan(defined later). In addition to the foregoing Phases,the Project also consists of the roads located within the Project as shown on the Parcel Map ("Project Roads") and the Open Space Parcels shown on the Parcel Map ("Open Space"). Declarant shall have the ability to change the boundaries of the Phases and the property located therein and the layout of improvements thereon and the uses therein in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Declaration. C. In connection with the development of the Project or thereafter,Declarant may further subdivide, sell, convey, lease or hypothecate all or portions of the Entire Property. NOW, THEREFORE,in recognition that for the optimum development and operation of the Project as an integrated project, it is necessary that Declarant establish certain covenants running with the land respecting certain matters, including but not limited to matters relating to the construction and maintenance of facilities on, and the use and restrictions on the use of, the Entire Property. Declarant declares that all Persons who acquire or occupy portions of the Entire Property shall take subject to this Declaration in order that all development on the Entire Property and the operation of the Project will be in conformity with this Declaration. Notwithstanding a conflict between the terms of this Declaration and the provisions of a particular agreement such as a tenant lease or other occupancy agreement between an Owner and its Occupant,(i) as among the Owners and their respective successors and assigns, this Declaration shall control over such an agreement, and(ii) all Occupants shall be bound by the terms of Articles I,III,IV,V,VI and XI of this Declaration and the Rules and Regulations, if any, attached to this Declaration, except to the extent that the provisions contained in such Articles and Rules and Regulations indicate that the terms of an Occupant's lease may control. In all other respects,the terms of an Occupant's lease shall control over any conflicting provision of this Declaration. ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS 1.01 Assessment Lien. "Assessment Lien" is a lien placed on a defaulting Owner's Parcel for sums owing to Declarant under the provisions of this Declaration. 1.02 Benefitted Parcel. "Benefitted Parcel" is any Parcel benefitted by an easement, covenant, condition or restriction made or suffered by an Owner by the terms of this Declaration. Any such benefit shall run with the land in favor of the Owner(s)of the Benefitted Parcel(s), and shall be enforceable as an appurtenant easement, covenant running with the land, and/or as an equitable servitude. 1.03 Building. "Building" or"Buildings" is any building located in an area of the Entire Property designated on the Site Plan as Building Area. 1.04 Building Area. "Building Area" is any portion of the Project within "building limit lines," as shown on the Site Plan. Building Area represents the only area within which Buildings are permitted. The precise location of any Building within its Building Area is subject to Declarant's prior approval. The proposed locations of Buildings within their respective Building Areas are depicted on the Site Plan; however,the precise configuration of the Buildings is subject to change within the pertinent Building Area. Vertical improvements, other than pylon signs,monument signs and trash enclosures,may be located only in a Building Area. Building canopies and other architectural treatments, loading docks and ramps, staging, storage and Outside Sales Areas, and"drive-thru" areas may be located outside Building Areas if approved by Declarant or if shown on the Site Plan as lying outside the Building Area. 1.05 Burdened Parcel. "Burdened Parcel" is any Parcel subject to and burdened by an easement,covenant, condition or restriction made or suffered by an Owner by the terms of this Declaration. Any such burden shall run with the land and bind all Owner(s)of the Burdened Parcel(s) and shall be enforceable as an appurtenant easement, covenant running with the land and/or equitable servitude. 1.06 Common Area. "Common Area" is that portion of the Project intended for the nonexclusive use by all Owners, Occupants and Permittees, and shall include all areas of the Project,together with the Open Space and the Common Area Improvements constructed on the Entire Property,other than(i) any area designated on the Site Plan as Building Area and/or actually occupied by building improvements and(ii) any loading dock,ramp, storage or staging area or"drive-thru" area utilized by a single Occupant. Following the development of a Building 3 �I ,, a �1 ,� y i t �; �N i� i` �� ,� i� �� it j� 1 i I i within its Building Area, the portion of such Building Area not actually used for vertical improvements or for a loading dock, ramp, storage or staging area, or"drive-thru" area approved by Declarant shall be improved as and shall be deemed a part of the Common Area. All non- Building Areas on a Parcel (excluding any loading dock,ramp, storage or staging area,utilized by a single Occupant) shall be improved as, and shall be deemed to be, Common Area for purposes of this Declaration. 1.07 Common Area Maintenance Costs. "Common Area Maintenance Costs" are all expenditures, costs,premiums and expenses incurred by Declarant during any given accounting period for maintenance, lighting and security, repair, or replacement of the Common Area, including,but not limited to, those items listed in Section 7.03. 1.08 Common Area Improvements. "Common Area Improvements" are the improvements depicted on the Site Plan as within the Common Area and the common utility lines and systems to be constructed(or caused to be constructed)by Declarant, all directional signs, Project identification signs including pylon or monument signs (excluding,however, any portion of such signage that relates to a particular Occupant), Parking Areas, streams,ponds, bridges, curbs, sidewalks,bike and walking paths, and any landscaped areas within the Common Area plus any other common facilities in and/or under the Project. 1.09 Declarant. "Declarant" means not only Mitchell Development Group, LLC,but shall also be deemed to include its successors and assigns(as designated by Mitchell Development Group, LLC). 1.10 Default Rate. "Default Rate" is the lower of fifteen percent or a rate equal to six percent(6%)in excess of the base rate on corporate loans posted by at least seventy-five percent of the nation's thirty largest Banks,as published by the Wall Street Journal. 1.11 Development Manual. "Development Manual" means The Development Manual of Bozeman Gateway prepared by Developer and approved by the City in connection with its approval of the Project(as the same may be amended, supplemented or modified by the Developer and the City from time to time). A copy of the Development Manual is available at the offices of Developer and the City Planning Department. 1.1-�2 Entire Property. "Entire Property" is the real property described in Exhibit"A and any real property which may subsequently be made subject to this Declaration by amendment of this Declaration. This term is sometimes used interchangeably with the term"Project." 1.1�3 Environmental Laws. "Environmental Laws" are all present and future federal, state or local laws, ordinances,rules,regulations,decisions and other,requirements of governmental authorities relating to the environment or to any Hazardous Material, including the following federal laws, as they may have been amended from time to time: The Comprehensive ' Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the Superfund Amendment and 4 • i Reauthorization Act of 1986,the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act,the Toxic Substances Control Act,the Safe Drinking Water Act, equivalent Montana statutes, and regulations adopted, published and/or promulgated pursuant to those laws. 1.1i4 Floor Area. "Floor Area" is the aggregate number of square feet of floor space, from time to time, of all floors in any structure,whether roofed or not,whether or not actually occupied, including basement areas, subterranean areas, mezzanines and upper-story floors (except as provided below)measured from the exterior faces or the exterior lines of the exterior walls (including basement walls)or, in those instances where a common wall exists,measured from the mid-point of any such common wall which an Occupant shares with another Occupant. The term "Floor Area" shall not include any of the following: (a)the upper levels of any multi-deck stock areas created for convenience to increase the usability of space for stock purposes; (b)areas,whether physically separated or whether otherwise required by building codes,which are used exclusively to house building operating equipment not belonging to an Occupant and not exclusively serving a specific Occupant's premises such as building mechanical, electrical, telephone, telecommunications, and HVAC equipment; (c)all service areas,truck loading areas,truck parking, turn around and dock areas and ramps and any"drive-thru" areas; (d)all Common Areas; and (e) a Project management office. Within thirty(30) days of opening any business within a Building constructed on its Parcel such Owner's architect shall certify to Declarant the amount of Floor Area applicable to each Building on its Parcel. In addition,before the scheduled opening date of such business within the Owner's Building and within ninety(90) days after the actual date of opening of such business, the Project Architect shall have the right to enter the Building for the purpose of measuring the Floor Area of the Building. A copy of the Floor Area calculation shall be provided to both Declarant and Owner. If the Floor Area measurement obtained by the Owner is more than two percent(2%) less than the Project Architect's measurement,the Owner may elect to dispute the Project Architect's statement of Floor Area by providing Declarant written notice of such deviation and providing Declarant with a copy of the Owner's lower Floor Area measurement certified by the Owner's architect or engineer. If such a dispute arises, Declarant and the Owner or their representatives shall meet and use their good faith efforts to agree on the proper measure of Floor Area for purposes of this Declaration. If such an agreement is not reached within thirty (30) days of the Owner's election to dispute the Project Architect's measurements,this matter shall be subject to arbitration by a neutral architect or engineer selected by the Declarant and the 5 Owner;provided,however, that if either party refuses to reasonably cooperate,with the selection of an arbitrator,or the commencement and the completion of the arbitration,the Floor Area measurement of the other party shall govern"for purposes of this Declaration. All Floor Area measurements shall be made in conformity with the foregoing definition of Floor Area: If.any Owner causes an as-built survey to:be prepared with respect to any portion.of the Project, such Owner:shall furnish a copy of the survey to Declarant. .... During any period of rebuilding;repairing,replacement, or reconstruction of a Building, the Floor Area of that Building shall be deemed to be the same as existed immediately prior to that.period.Upon completion bf the rebuilding,repairing,replacement, or reconstruction, the Owner upon whose Parcel the Building is located shall cause anew determination.of Floor Area for the Building io be made in the manner described above,and the determination shall be provided to Declarant. 1.145 Grantee. "Grantee" is�any Owner(including Declarant)of atenefitted Parcel in which Parcel's favor a Grantor has reserved or granted any easement, covenant, condition, or restriction,whether by a:separate grant or conveyance or by virtue of taking title subject'to this Declaration. : 1.156 Grantor. "Grantor" is any Owner(including Declarant)of a Burdened Parcel that is subject to any.easement; covenant, condition; or restriction reserved or granted, whether.by.a ... separate grant or conveyance or byvirtue of taking title:subject to this Declaration. aw 1.167 Hazardous Material. "Hazardous Material" shall mean materials and substances defined as "hazardous substances " "hazardous materials "hazardous waste "toxic substances " including asbestos,polychlorinated biphenyls,petroleum(or petroleum fuel products), hydrocarbonic substances,and constituents of any of the foregoing;or other similar designations under any Environmental Laws or any regulations promulgated thereunder; and further,any substance or material which because;of toxicity, corrosivity;reactivity, ignitability, carcinogenicity,magnification or concentration within biologic chains presents a denioiistrated threat to biologic processes when discharged into the environment: .1.1-78 Lot. See Section 1.2-23*below. 1.1$9'Mortgage and Mortgagee. The term"Mortgage"means(a) any mortgage,trust indenture, deed of trust, or contract for deed on the interest,.whether fee or leasehold, of an Owner.in a Parcel and, to the extent applicable, a"sale and leaseback" or"assignmentand subleaseback".transaction entered into for financing purposes. "Mortgagee"shall mean a mortgagee under a mortgage, the trustee and the beneficiary under a trust indenture or deed of: trust,or:the.seller under a contract for deed, and to the extent applicable, a fee owner or:lessor or sublessor of any Parcel which is the subject'of a lease under which any Owner becomes a lessee in a so-called"sale and leaseback" or,"assignment and subleaseback"transaction entered into for. financing purposes: 6 H920 Occupant. "Occupant" shall mean any Person from time to time entitled to the use and occupancy of any portion of a Building in the Project under an ownership right or any lease, sublease, license, concession or other similar agreement. 1.201 Outside Sales Area. "Outside Sales Area" means any area used by an Occupant for temporary or permanent sales, display, customer service or seating and/or storage purposes, including but not limited to patio areas,which areas are located outside of the structure of that Occupant's Building. As set forth in Section 6.03, Outside Sales Areas are subject to Declarant's approval. 1.2+2 Owner. "Owner" is the Person who owns the fee interest in a Parcel,unless the Parcel is subject to a contract or contracts for deed, in which case the "Owner" is the buyer under the most recent contract for deed. The identity of the Owner will be determined from the Official Records of the County, as of the date of the exercise of powers or rights or the performance by such Owner of obligations created by this Declaration. Such reference shall include any Person designated in writing by the Owner to act in the manner and at the time provided herein with complete authority and in the place of such Owner in the matter for which action is taken,powers exercised,or performance required,provided such written authority shall be recorded in the Official Records of the County Recorder,and provided further that: (i)If the whole of the interest of any Owner in and to the Parcel in which such Owner has an interest is assigned, transferred, or conveyed,provided such Owner does not retain any beneficial interest other than under the terms of a contract for deed,trust indenture, deed of trust, or mortgage or without simultaneously acquiring a new interest by way of leasehold, life estate or other possessory interest, then the powers conferred upon such Owner shall be deemed assigned, transferred or conveyed and the obligations assumed with its interest; (ii)If the whole of the interest of an Owner in and to the Parcel in which it has a present . interest is assigned, transferred or conveyed,but a new interest is created in such Owner simultaneously with the assignment,transfer or conveyance of such interest by way of leasehold or similar possessory arrangement,or in the event such Owner shall convey its interest in said Parcel or any part thereof by mortgage, trust indenture, deed of trust,or other security instrument as security for indebtedness, then none of the powers or obligations conferred upon such Owner shall be assigned,transferred, conveyed or released,but all of the powers and obligations referred to in this Declaration shall remain in such Owner so long as it retains any possessory interest in and to said Parcel other than as a beneficiary under the terms of a deed of trust or mortgage. In the event the interest of such Owners referred to in this subparagraph(ii) shall cease and terminate, then upon such termination the powers and/or obligations of such Owner shall otherwise vest in accordance with the other provisions of this Section; and (iii)If an Owner transfers its present interest in its Parcel or a portion of that interest in such a manner as to vest its interest in its Parcel in more than one Person,then not less than fifty- one percent(51 %)in interest of the transferees shall designate one of their number to act on 7 • 0 behalf of all of the transferees in the exercise of the powers granted to the Owner under this Declaration. So long as the designation remains in effect,the designee shall be an Owner under this Declaration and shall have the power to bind such Parcel and such transferees, and such transferees shall not be deemed to be Owners. Any such designation must be in writing and served upon the other Owners hereto by registered or certified mail; and must be recorded in the Official Records of the County. In the absence of such written designation with respect to the exercise of the powers vested by this instrument,the acts of the Persons constituting the Owner whose interest is so divided shall be binding upon all Persons having an interest in such Parcel until such time as written notice of such designation is given and recorded in the Official Records of the County. 1.2�3 Parcel. The terms "Parcel' and"Lot" are used interchangeably in this Declaration. A "Parcel' or"Lot" is any of the lots or tracts which comprise the Entire Property until such time as one or more of such lots or tracts are re-subdivided into a different configuration of legal lots, or a new legal lot is added to the Entire Property, or one or more of the existing lots or tracts are modified. Effective upon any such change or addition, "Lot(s)" or"Parcel(s)" shall mean the legal lots comprising the Entire Property. 1.214 Parcel Map. "Parcel Map" is the map of the Entire Property which is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit"B". 1.245 Parking Areas. "Parking Areas" are all vehicular parking spaces, driveways, and loading areas, and includes the areas shown as "Parking Areas" on the Site Plan plus any Building Area not used for Building improvements and designated as Parking Area by Declarant. 12%Permittees. "Permittees" shall mean the Owners and all Occupants and their respective officers, directors, employees, agents, contractors, customers,vendors, supplies, visitors, invitees, licensees and concessionaires insofar as their activities relate to the intended use of the Project. Among others, Persons engaging in the following activities on the Common Area will not be considered to be Permittees, except to the extent such activity is protected under the United States Constitution or the State Constitution as a free speech activity: (i) Exhibiting any placard, sign or notice; (ii) Distributing any circular,handbill,placard, or booklet; (iii) Soliciting membership or contributions in or for any organization; (iv) Parading,picketing or demonstrating; or (v) Failing to follow regulations relating to the use of the Project. 1.267 Person. "Person" or"Persons" is any individual,partnership, firm, association, joint venture, corporation, limited liability company; or any other form of entity. 8 0 " ' • 1.2-78 Project. "Project" shall mean the mixed use development and related Common Area on the Entire Property. This term is sometimes used interchangeably with the term"Entire Property." 1.269 Project Architect. "Project Architect" is the licensed architect designated from time to time by Declarant to render advice and to make judgments respecting the design of the Project.Initially, the Project Architect is [Carter Burgess]. 1.2930 Rules and Regulations. 'Rules and Regulations" are those rules and regulations adopted by Declarant from time to time,pertaining to the operation and use of the Common Area by all Owners, Occupants, and Permittees. 1.391 Site Plan. "Site Plan" is the Site Plan attached to this Declaration as Exhibit"D" and incorporated by this reference, as it may be amended from time to time by Declarant. ARTICLE II CONSTRUCTION OBLIGATIONS 2.01 Construction of Common Area Improvements. Declarant shall construct, or cause to be constructed, the Common Area Improvements on each Phase in conjunction with and as necessary to service the Building construction on such Phase. It is anticipated that in connection with the sale and conveyance of any Parcel within the Project upon which Common Area Improvements have not been constructed,that Declarant and the purchaser of such Parcel shall enter into a development(or similar) agreement that will address and allocate the responsibility for the construction and payment of Common Area Improvements on and/or servicing such Parcel. 2.02 Construction of Buildings. In order to maintain an architecturally compatible Project, the initial construction of all Buildings in the Project(and any subsequent additions, alterations, exterior remodeling, or reconstruction of Buildings in the Project)shall be performed only in accordance with approved plans for the work as provided in this Declaration,and in conformance with the Design 6aioeffiies attached as Exhibit evelopment Manual and the "Conditions of Approval" given to the overall project. Prior to commencing such work, each constructing Owner shall submit to Declarant detailed plans and specifications as to the exterior of the Building including artist exterior renderings, exterior elevations, descriptions of colors and materials to be used,layouts and descriptions of exterior landscaping, exterior wall configurations, door and storefront configurations, canopies and overhangs,column locations, lighting fixtures,proposed roof plans, all surface drainage features, if any, and exterior sign dimensions, colors, treatments and locations. Declarant shall either reasonably approve, disapprove, or make recommendations for change in such plans within thirty(30)days of receipt of the plans. After any disapproval or recommendation for change, the constructing Owner shall consult with Declarant to establish approved plans for the exterior portion of the proposed work. If the Owner and Declarant disagree after consultation,Declarant's decision shall be final. 9 Approval of such plans by the Declarant shall not constitute assumption of responsibility for the accuracy, sufficiency, or appropriateness of the plans,nor shall approval constitute a representation or warranty that the plans comply with applicable laws. No material deviation shall be made from the approved plans without the prior written approval of the Declarant. 2.03 General Construction Requirements. (a)Building Area. All Buildings to be constructed by Owners may be located only within the Building Areas designated on the Site Plan for those Buildings and if a maximum floor area designation for any Building is shown on the Site Plan or imposed by Article V of this Declaration,the designation shall not be exceeded. (b) Compliance With Laws. All construction activities performed by an Owner within the Project shall be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Declaration, the requirements and standards of the Development Manual. and in compliance with all laws,rules, regulations, orders and ordinances of the city, county, state, and federal governments, or any department or agency thereof, affecting improvements constructed within the Project. (c)Interference. The construction activities of an Owner shall not: (i) cause any unreasonable increase in the cost of constructing improvements upon another Owner's Parcel; (ii)unreasonably interfere with construction work being performed on any other part of the Entire Property; (iii)unreasonably interfere with the use, occupancy, or enjoyment of any part of the remainder of the Entire Property by any other Owner, its occupants, or its Permittees; (iv)cause any other Owner to be in violation of any law, rule,regulation, order,or ordinance of the City,County, State or federal government, or any department or agency of those governments. (d)General Construction Indemnity. Each Owner shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless each other Owner from all claims, actions and proceedings and costs incurred in connection therewith(including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit)resulting from any accident, injury, loss, or damage whatsoever occurring to any Person or to the property of any Person arising out of or resulting from the performance of any construction activities performed or authorized by such indemnifying Owner. Any damage occurring to any portion of the Project as a result of such construction work shall be the responsibility of the Owner performing such construction work or causing such construction work to be performed and shall be repaired by such Owner,at such Owner's sole cost and expense,to the same condition as existed immediately prior to such work promptly upon the completion of such construction work. 10 (e) Staging Storage and Access Points. Prior to constructing, reconstructing,remodeling, or enlarging a Building on its Parcel, an Owner shall give Declarant at least thirty(30)days prior notice of the proposed location of any temporary staging and storage area. All storage of materials and the parking of construction vehicles, including vehicles of workers, shall occur on the portions of the Parking Area which are on or adjacent to the constructing Owner's Parcel, and which will not unreasonably interfere with access between that Parcel,the other areas of the Project, and the public streets or roadways adjacent to the Project. All laborers, suppliers, contractors and others connected with such construction activities shall use only the access points located upon the constructing Owner's Parcel unless that Parcel has no access points to a public street, in which case such Persons shall only use the access points approved by Declarant. If substantial work is to be performed,the constructing Owner shall fence off the temporary staging and storage area. Upon completion of the work, the constructing Owner shall restore the affected .Common Area to a condition at least equal to that existing prior to commencement of the work. (f) Temporary License. Each Owner and its contractors, materialmen,and laborers shall have a temporary license for such access and passage over and across the Common Area as shall be reasonably necessary to construct and/or maintain improvements on the Parcel of such Owner; provided,however,that this license shall be in effect only during periods when actual construction and/or maintenance is being performed, and provided further that the use of this license shall not be exercised so as to unreasonably interfere with the use and/or operation of the Common Area by others. Any Owner availing itself of the temporary license shall promptly pay all costs and expenses associated with such work, shall diligently complete such work as quickly as possible, and shall promptly clean the area and restore the affected portion of the Common Area to a condition which is equal to or better than the condition which existed prior to the commencement of such work. (g)Construction Barricades. Construction of a Building within any Building Area within one hundred eighty feet(180') of a Building that is open for business shall be screened from view by a barrier or fence of a type and height approved by Declarant until completion of the construction in each case. 2.04 Construction Along Common Boundary Line. Any Owner constructing,repairing, or restoring a Building along a common property line between Parcels shall do so in a manner that does not result in damage to the improvements in place on the adjoining Parcel, and if applicable shall further undertake and assume at its sole cost the obligation of completing,repairing, reconstructing, and maintaining the nominal attachment(flashing and seal)of its Building to that of the Building on the other Parcel, it being the intent of Declarant to establish and maintain in these situations the appearance of one continuous building complex. 2.05 Mechanic's or Construction Lien. If,because of any act or omission(or alleged act or omission)of any Owner or its Occupant, or a contractor, employee or agent of either, any mechanic's or construction lien is filed with respect to any portion of the Project(whether or not such lien is valid or enforceable as such),the Owner shall cause the lien to be discharged of 11 record, or bonded,with respect to all:portions of the Project not owned by that Owner,within thirty(30)days after it was filed;and the Owner shall indemnify and save harmless all Owners:,- all ground and underlying lessors, and all.Mortgagees with respect to any portion of the Project against and from all costs, liabilities,suits,penalties, claims, and demands, including reasonable attorneys' fees,resulting therefrom. If the Owner fails to comply with these requirements, any other,Owner shall have the option of discharging or bonding any such lien, and if such.option is :. exercised, the Owner which has the obligation under this Section to cause the discharge of the lien shall reimburse the Owner who discharged or bonded the lien for all costs, expenses,and other sums of money(including reasonable attorneys' fees)incurred in connection with the lien promptly upon demand,.and the Owner which discharged or bonded the lien shall have:all rights with respect to the amounts owed to it, including but not limited to its rights.under Article-XII.of. this Declaration.: ARTICLE III SIGNS 3:01 Signs. No exterior identification signs shall be allowed within the Project except as permitted by (i)the City and any applicable.City ordinances or.Project.specific requirements, and/or. (ii) at the discretion or judgment:of the Declarant or.the Project Architect: ARTICLE IV EASEMENTS 4.01 Ingress, Egress and Parking. (a)Declarant reserves for itself and grants to each Owner, for the benefit of each Parcel (the Benefitted Parcel) and its Occupants, a nonexclusive easement on, over and through the Parking Area(the Burdened.Parcel)for (i)vehicular access,:ingress and egress,by Permittees from,public streets at the.. location of the curb.cuts shown on the Site Plan,passage of Permittees'vehicles over established circulation elements, and.parking of Permittees'vehicles within designated parking stalls, and upedestrian.access, ingress4gress, and passage byPermittees. Each future Owner,by taking title to its Parcel subject to this Declaration,:shall be deemed to.*. have granted such easement with respect to the Parking Area on its:Parcel to all other Owners and their Occupants. Such:easement rights shall exist only during the term of this Declaration and shall be subject to the following reservations as well:as other provisions:contained in this Declaration: 12 9 • (b)Except for situations specifically provided for in the following subparagraphs,no fence or other barrier which would unreasonably prevent or obstruct the passage of pedestrian or vehicular travel for the purposes permitted by this Declaration shall be erected or permitted within or across the easement areas;provided,however,that the foregoing provisions shall not prohibit the installation of (i) convenience facilities(such as mailboxes,public telephones,benches, or public transportation shelters); (ii)photo kiosks, flower stands, or other retail uses which occupy less than two hundred(200) square feet each, and in the aggregate not more than six hundred(600) square feet, so long as the retail use is approved by Declarant in its sole and absolute discretion and is permitted by the City and is not prohibited by the Owner of the Parcel on which the retail use is erected or permitted or any lease between the Owner of that Parcel and a tenant of the Owner; (iii)landscaping,beams or planters; (iv)limited curbing and other forms of traffic controls; or (v) Outside Sales Areas permitted by Declarant pursuant to Section 6.03. (c)In connection with any construction,reconstruction,repair or maintenance on its Parcel, each Owner reserves the right to create a temporary staging and/or storage area in the Parking Area on or adjacent to its Parcel at a location which will not unreasonably interfere with access between its Parcel,the other areas of the Project, and the public streets or roadways adjacent to the Project. (d)Declarant reserves the right to close off a portion of the Common Area for such minimal,reasonable period of time as may be legally necessary, in the opinion of its counsel, to prevent the acquisition of prescriptive rights by anyone;provided,however,that Declarant shall exercise reasonable efforts to coordinate the closing with each affected Owner to minimize any interference in the passage of pedestrians or vehicles. (e)Declarant reserves the right at any time and from time to time to exclude and restrain, or allow others to exclude or restrain, any Person who is not a Permittee from using the Common Area to the extent that such action can be lawfully taken. Specific areas within the Common Area to be used for motor vehicle parking purposes by employees of occupants of the Project may be designated from time to time by Declarant. In the event employee parking areas are designated as provided herein, employees of the Owners and Occupants of the Project shall use only those portions of the Common Area designated for such employee motor vehicle parking purposes. The authority herein granted shall be exercised in such manner as not to discriminate against any Owner or commercial establishment in the Project. 13 4.02 Utilities. (a)Declarant reserves for itself and grants to each Owner for the benefit of each Parcel (the Benefitted Parcel) and its Occupants a nonexclusive easement in, to, over,under, along, and across those portions of the Common Area(the Burdened Parcel)necessary for the installation, use, maintenance,relocation, and removal of utility lines or systems, including but not limited to sanitary sewers, storm drains,water(fire and domestic),gas, electrical, telephone, and communication lines. Each Owner,by taking title to its Parcel subject to this Declaration, shall be deemed to have granted such easement with respect to the Common Area on its Parcel to all other Owners and their Occupants, if any. This easement shall continue for the term of this Declaration and for so long afterwards as the easement is utilized for the above-described purposes. Except with respect to ground mounted electrical transformers at the rear of a Building or as may be necessary during periods of construction,repair, or temporary service, all utilities shall be underground,unless required to be above ground by the utility providing the service, and to the extent practical shall be located along the perimeter of the Parcel and shall otherwise be located as to not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of the Parcel by the Owners or their Occupants. Prior to utilizing the easement and exercising the rights granted in this Section, the Grantee shall first provide the Grantor and Declarant with a written statement describing the need for such easement and shall identify the proposed location of the utility line. Any Owner installing utilities pursuant to the provisions of this subparagraph shall pay all costs and expenses with respect to installing the utilities, and shall cause all work in connection with the installation(including general clean-up and proper surface and/or subsurface restoration)to be completed as quickly as possible and in a manner so as to minimize interference with the use of the Common Area. The Grantee benefitting from a utility easement across another Owner's Parcel shall indemnify and hold harmless the Grantor from and against all demands, damage, claims, loss, liability, or expense in connection with the use, installation,maintenance and removal of the utility line. If any Owner elects to install common utilities, all costs and expenses of the common utilities may be set forth in a separate agreement between those cooperating Owners. (b)The initial location and width of any utility shall be subject to the prior written approval of the Grantor, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. The easement area shall be no larger than whatever is necessary to reasonably satisfy the utility company for a public utility, or five feet(Y)on each side of the centerline as to a private line.Upon request, the Grantee shall provide the Grantor with a copy of an as-built survey showing the location of the utility. The Grantor shall have the right at any time to relocate a utility line upon thirty(30)days' prior written notice to the Grantee,provided that the relocation: (i) shall not interfere with or diminish the utility services to the Grantee; (ii) shall not reduce or unreasonably impair the usefulness or function of the utility; 14 (iii) shall be performed without cost or expense to the Grantee; (iv) shall be completed using materials and design standards which equal or exceed those originally used; (v) shall have been approved by the utility company and the appropriate governmental or quasi-governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the utility; and (vi) shall not unreasonably interfere with the Occupant's use of the Grantee's Parcel. Documentation of the relocated easement area shall be prepared at the Grantor's expense and shall be accomplished as soon as possible. The Grantee shall have the right to require an as-built survey of the relocated utility to be delivered to it at the Grantor's expense. (c)The Owners shall each;to'the extent necessary and to the extent the same shall not result in the loss of compensation otherwise obtainable from condemnation,join in the execution of such instruments as may be required in order to effectuate the installation(subject to the restrictions contained in this Declaration) for the sole benefit of the Project or the Owners' Parcels of public utilities and similar easements under and across portions of their respective Parcels. 4.03 Construction,Maintenance, and Reconstruction. (a)In order to accommodate any footings, foundations, columns, or walls which may be constructed or reconstructed immediately adjacent to a common boundary line and which may overlap that common boundary line, each Owner shall grant and,by taking title to its Parcel subject to this Declaration shall be deemed to have granted, to each adjacent Owner a nonexclusive easement in, to, over,under, and across that portion of its Parcel adjacent to the common boundary line in space not there-to-fore occupied by any then existing structure for the construction, maintenance, and replacement of subterranean footings to a maximum distance of five feet(5) onto the Grantor's Parcel and for the construction,replacement and maintenance of foundations,columns,or walls to a maximum distance of six inches (6")onto the Grantor's. Parcel. The grant of easement shall include the reasonable right of access necessary to exercise and enjoy the grant. The easement shall continue in effect for the term of this Declaration and thereafter so long as the building utilizing the easement area exists(including a reasonable period to permit reconstruction or replacement of the building if it is destroyed,damaged,or demolished) and shall include the reasonable right of access necessary to exercise and enjoy the grant. (b)Prior to utilizing the easement right set forth in subparagraph(a) above, the Grantee shall advise the grantor Owner of its intention to use the easement, shall provide plans and specifications and proposed construction techniques for the improvements to be located within 15 the easement area, and shall give the Grantor an opportunity to commence any construction activities which that Owner contemplates undertaking at approximately the same time to the end that each Owner involved shall be able to utilize subterranean construction techniques which will permit the placement above ground of a building on each Parcel immediately adjacent to the common boundary line. If a common subterranean construction element is used by the Owners, it is specifically understood that each shall assume and pay its reasonable share of the cost and expense of the initial construction, and so long as both Owners are benefitting from the common element, subsequent maintenance of the common element. If any Building utilizing a common subterranean element is destroyed and not replaced or is removed,the common subterranean construction element shall be left in place for the benefit of any Building utilizing the same element located on the adjoining Parcel. 4.04 Surface Drainage Easement. Declarant reserves for itself and grants to each existing and future Owner for the benefit of each Parcel(the Benefitted Parcel) a nonexclusive easement for surface drainage over the Common Area(the Burdened Parcel)through the drainage patterns and systems as are established from time to time within the Common Area of the Project. To the extent an Owner's Parcel includes Common Area, nothing in this Declaration shall prevent an Owner from relocating the drainage patterns and systems established upon that Owner's Parcel, provided the Owner first provides Declarant with plans respecting the relocation and the relocation does not unreasonably interfere with the drainage of other Parcels within the Project nor interfere with the orderly discharge of water by means of the drainage patterns and systems. By taking title subject to this Declaration, each Owner shall be deemed to have joined in this grant of easement. 4.05 Restriction on Grant of Easements.No Owner shall grant any easements over any land within the Project for the benefit of any land outside the Project;provided,however, that this Section shall not prohibit the granting or dedicating of utility easements by an Owner on its Parcel to governmental or quasi-governmental authorities or to public utilities. 4.06 Term and Limitation of Easements, Covenants and Conditions. The easements referred to in Sections 4.01,4.02,4.03, 4.04 and 4.05 shall continue in favor of the respective Grantees for the term of this Declaration and for so long afterwards as each of the Grantees shall continuously utilize the easements. 4.07 Benefit and Burden to Run with the Land. The easements granted by this Article IV and all other covenants, conditions, and restrictions contained in this Declaration shall be deemed and construed to be covenants running with the land,which are for the benefit of the Benefitted Parcel of the Grantee,which Parcel shall be the dominant estate, and which burden the Parcel on which such easement is located or as to which such covenant is appurtenant, which shall be the servient estate. 16 �i 1 �I , ' f i1 ' 1 i� I 1� J� S i i ARTICLE V PROJECT DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS 5.01 General Restrictions. (a)No improvements may be built or maintained in the Common Area of the Project other than(i)parking spaces, driveways,walking and bike paths,walkways, sidewalks, curbs, loading docks and ramps, service areas,trash receptacles, lights, signs,ponds, streams,bridges, landscaping, and convenience facilities (such as mailboxes,public telephones,benches or public transportation shelters), and improvements normally found in parking areas of commercial developments, and(ii)photo kiosks, flower stands, or other retail improvements which occupy less than two hundred(200) square feet each, and in the aggregate not more than six hundred (600) square feet(provided,however, such kiosk, stand or other retail improvement is approved by Declarant in its sole and absolute discretion and is permitted by the City and is not prohibited by the Owner of the subject Parcel nor by any lease between the Owner of the subject Parcel and a tenant of such Owner). (b)As to the areas designated on the Site Plan as 'Building Area," the Owner of those Building Areas shall be permitted to construct on those Building Areas, or cause to be constructed on those Building Areas, such buildings or structures, in the locations and with the heights, exterior configurations, and designs as Declarant shall approve, so long as such improvements (i)do not violate City imposed parking requirements for the Project, (ii) are built in accordance with all set-back, zoning and other ordinances of the City, and (iii)do not exceed the maximum square footages as designated on the Site Plan and/or set forth in this Declaration(see Section 2.03) and the Design 6aidelines(see Exhibit"E"'Develoyment Manual. (c)Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Declaration, each Owner and Occupant,by taking title subject to this Declaration,hereby approves of the processing and recording by Declarant of, and agrees to execute and acknowledge, an amendment to the Parcel Map("Amended Parcel Map")to reflect any changes or modifications to the Parcel Map which do not materially and adversely affect the use or development of the Parcel(s) of the Owner or directly or indirectly impose on the Owner or Occupants any greater obligations than those previously agreed to by the Owner or Occupants. Each Owner agrees to execute and acknowledge an amendment to this Declaration, and each Occupant agrees to execute and acknowledge a subordination to this Declaration, as so amended,provided that the amendment reflects only the changes required for this Declaration to be consistent with the Amended Parcel Map. 17 . .. .... . ....... . (d)The;Site Plan sets forth:Declarant's pre'sent:intentions with'regardao the location, ....... . :configuration arfd massing of improvements on the Entire Property. Declarant and/.or the assignee .. . shah have the absolute right•to make or approve such revisions or modifications to the Site Plan as,it in' deem.necessary or desirable from time to time,.subject'to:all.of the provisions.of.this :Declaration and:the-requirements"of.all:applicable governmental laws, ordinances,-rules and regulations including, without limitation; local.zoning ordinances'and building codes::;Such . • revisions and modifications may:include,without limitation, the addition or relocation of Project .. .... . . Roads. Except.to,.the extent•Declararit'has"agreed to greaterrestrictions iri:ariy lease with an :. . Occupant or iri any.written agreement with another Owner,.Declarant may make.changes in the'. .. .... Site.Plan:provided that :'(i)'access to then-existing Buildings is riot'impaired by the-changes; (ii)the principal means of ingress and egress to the:Proj e'ct is not materially Y. altered':aiid; (iii)Declarant complies with:all,applicable City parking requirements:and in.all events;complies with Section 5.02(a)below. (e)At such time as:Declarant requests,:each:Owner shall:execute an amendment to this . ..... . Declaration to replace the•Site Plan with an "as-built" Site Plan("Amended.Site Plan")to reflect the location and/or relocation of any;of the Buildings;the''reconfiguration of the Common Area:: or any of the Parcels; and:the improvements constructed on the Parcels.:Exceptto the extent that an Occupant's lease conditions or limits its Willingness to subordinate"its lease to an Amended ' Site Plan, at such:time.as Declarant:requests, each Occupant shall execute:a subordination to ari Amended Site Plan. 5.02 Parking Standards.: (a)Declarant agrees that the Parking'Areas will always contain at least that number of parking spaces for automobiles, and driveways and footways incidental to the parking.spaces,as is necessary to:comply with all City'requirements, ana:that.the Parking Areaswill contain at leash that number of'parking g spaces within the-Projea as is necessary:to:corn ly with all City.: ; requirements. (b)All persons shall use the.available Parkin 'Area,in accordance with the:applicable'':',, .. ..' requirements of this Declaration and all reasoiiable rules and regulations which Declarant shall : ....... . adopt from time:to time. .' .. .... . - c No erson shall have an exclusive:ri t to use ari onion of the Parkin Area unless Declarant has approved of such'exclusive use;in its sole discretion:"Unless required bylaw.or ::approved by Declarant and the Owners"of the Parcels affected.thereby,nocharge of any type •' •shall be collected-from any_Permittee's forparking, or the right to park vehicles in any portion of 18 the Parking Area, except reimbursement of Common Area Maintenance Costs as may be provided in this Declaration or in any agreement with any Occupant. (d)Each Owner shall cause the employees of all Occupants of its Parcel to park their automobiles in the applicable employee parking areas designated by Declarant. 5.03 Obstructions. Except as specifically depicted on the Site Plan or as may be approved in writing by the Declarant,no fence, division,partition,rail, or obstruction of any type or kind shall ever be placed,kept,permitted,or maintained between the Parcels or between any subsequent division of the Parcels or upon or along any of the common property lines of any portion thereof except within the confines of the Building Area, and except as may be required at any time and from time to time in connection with the construction,maintenance, and repair of the Common Area or construction within a Building Area(see Section 2.03(f) and(h)). 5.04 Grading. Any regrading of a Parcel shall require the prior written approval of Declarant,which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. ARTICLE VI USE RESTRICTIONS 6.01 Use in General. The types of uses permitted in the Project shall be of a mixed use, commercial and/or retail nature found in first class developments of similar size and type in similarly situated metropolitan areas. Such uses may include, supermarkets, drug stores, hardware stores, apparel stores, other general mercantile businesses, financial institutions, brokerage offices,real estate services,travel agencies, insurance agencies,movie theaters, restaurants, general office, medical, dental, and gaming as well as a hotel operation. 6.02 Generally Prohibited Uses.No use or operation will be made, conducted or permitted on or with respect to all or any part of the Project,which use or operation is obnoxious to, or out of harmony with, the development or operation of a first-class shopping center,and/or lifestyle center, and/or office complex and/or hotel, including but not limited to,the following: (a)Any public or private nuisance. (b)Any noise or sound that is objectionable due to intermittence,beat, frequency, shrillness,or loudness. (c)Any smell that is offensive or objectionable due to its nature or intensity. (d)Any excessive quantity of dust, dirt, or fly ash;provided however,this prohibition shall not preclude the sale of soils, fertilizers, or other garden materials or building materials in containers if incident to the operation of a home improvement or other similar store. 19 0 0 (e)Any fire, explosion, or other damaging or dangerous hazard, including the storage, display,or sale of explosives or fireworks. (f)Any assembly,manufacture, distillation,refining, smelting, agriculture, or mining operations. (g)Any mobile home or trailer court,junkyard, stock yard, or animal raising. Notwithstanding the foregoing,pet shops shall be permitted within the Project. (h)Any drilling for and/or removal of subsurface substances. (i) Any dumping of garbage or refuse, other than in enclosed,covered receptacles intended for that purpose. 0)Any automobile body and fender repair work, except within those Parcels to be designed specifically for such use and referred to in an amendment to these covenants. (k)Any flea market or swap meet,"second hand" or"surplus"store(excluding national or regional operators such as "Goodwill"). (1)Any store in which a substantial portion of the inventory consists of pornography, sexual products, and similar "adult" goods,publications,movies,or videos. Declarant reserves the right to modify, amend, delete from or add to any of the foregoing list of restricted or prohibited uses and operations from time to time, and such modification, amendment, deletion or addition shall be effective as if set forth above. Declarant further reserves the right to grant exclusive or restricted uses of the Entire Property or any portions thereof from time to time for the benefit of any one or more Owners or Occupants, and each Owner and Occupant of an affected portion of the Entire Property shall thereafter hold and occupy its Parcel subject to such exclusive or restrictive use. 6.03 Noninterference With Common Area. The Common Area is intended for the nonexclusive use by the Occupants and Permittees of the Project. Except for any Outside Sales Area approved by Declarant in writing and any kiosk, stand or other retail improvements permitted by Section 5.01 (a), in order to provide for the orderly development and operation of the Project, no Occupant shall be entitled to the use of any Outside Sales Area, and no Occupant shall display, store, or sell any merchandise or place portable signs or other objects outside the defined exterior walls,roof, and permanent doorways of its Building. Declarant's approval of an Occupant's use of Outside Sales Area may be conditioned upon such Occupant's assumption of Common Area Maintenance Costs or maintenance duties related to that use. 6.04 Rules and Regulations. In the operation of the Common Area,Declarant from time to time may adopt reasonable Rules and Regulations pertaining to the use of the Common Area 20 r �} �{ it 0 0 by the Permittees of the Project and employee parking;provided that all such Rules and Regulations and other matters affecting the users of the Common Area(a)will apply equally and without discrimination to all Permittees, (b) comply with City ordinances, and(c)are otherwise consistent with this Declaration. The adoption of such Rules and Regulations any amendment of such Rules and Regulations shall not be deemed to be,nor shall it require, an amendment to this Declaration. 6.05 Deliveries and Exterior Maintenance Work.No deliveries of merchandise or other supplies shall be made, and no maintenance work or repair(except in the event of an emergency) on the exterior of any Building shall be performed between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. each day. 6.06 Additional Use Restrictions and Requirements. In connection with Declarant's transfer or conveyance of a Parcel,Declarant reserves the right to impose such additional restrictions on operation or use requirements on the transferred Parcel or the Parcels Declarant continues to own,which restrictions are consistent and not in conflict with Declarant's then- existing agreements, as may be agreed to by Declarant and the subject Owner. ARTICLE VII MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR 7.01 Utilities. (a)Declarant shall replace,repair and maintain, or cause to be replaced, repaired and maintained, in a first-class condition all common utility lines and systems located on the Common Area,unless the same are dedicated to and accepted by a public or quasi-public utility or authority or are maintained by a utility company. Such costs of replacement, repair and maintenance, to the extent such costs are not covered by insurance proceeds, are to be included in Common Area Maintenance Costs, as discussed in Section 7.03. (b)Each Owner shall replace,repair, and maintain in first-class condition all utility facilities, lines, and systems located on its Parcel that serve only its Parcel unless the same are dedicated to and accepted by a public or quasi-public utility or authority or are maintained by a utility company. (c)Any Owner who is the Grantee of a utility easement referred to in Section 4.02 (exclusive of an easement in which common utility lines and systems are located,which shall be maintained as part of the Common Area), shall maintain and repair at its cost any facilities installed pursuant to that easement which exclusively serve the Grantee's Parcel unless the facilities are granted or dedicated to and accepted by a utility or a governmental agency acceptable to the Grantor which agrees to maintain and replace the facilities. Any maintenance and repair of non-dedicated utilities located on the Grantor's Parcel shall be performed only after two (2)weeks'notice to the Grantor(except in an emergency the work may be initiated with 21 reasonable notice) and shall be done after normal business hours whenever possible and shall otherwise be performed in such a manner as to cause as little disturbance in the use of the Grantor's Parcel as is practicable under the circumstances. Any Grantee performing or causing to be performed such maintenance or repair shall pay all expenses associated with the maintenance and repair,will diligently complete such work as quickly as possible, and will promptly clean the area and restore the affected portion of the Common Area to a condition equal to or better than the condition which existed prior to the commencement of the work. 7.02 Common Area Maintenance Obligation. (a)From and after the date upon which the Common Area or a functional portion of the Common Area of the Project is substantially completed, Declarant shall maintain the Common Area or cause it to be maintained, in good order, condition, and repair. Declarant shall have the right, from time to time, to select another person or persons to maintain the Common Area(or portions thereof) and delegate Declarant's obligations with respect to the Common Area(or portions thereof)to such person(s). Declarant may hire companies affiliated with it to perform the maintenance and operation of the Common Area,but only if the rates charged by such companies are competitive with those of other companies furnishing similar services in the Bozeman, Montana area. In addition to the foregoing, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein,Declarant shall have the right, from time to time,to segregate the Common Area maintenance obligations hereunder(and associated Common Area Maintenance Costs) into one or more Phases, and in connection therewith to assign and transfer its obligations with respect to such Common Area to one or more of the Owners within such Phase(s). In such event, such Owner or Owners shall maintain the Common Area within such Phase(s), or cause it to be maintained, in accordance with the standards and requirements set forth herein, and the Common Area Maintenance Costs incurred by such Owner(s) shall be allocated among and paid by the Owners within such Phase(s)in the manner provided in this Declaration. In such event, such Owners' share of Common Area Maintenance Costs to be paid to Declarant as provided below shall be their share of those Common Area Maintenance Costs that generally benefit the Project (or multiple Phases within the Project including such Owner's Phase); including,insurance premiums (unless specifically approved otherwise by Declarant in writing),maintenance, replacement and operation of Project Roads, common utility lines, Open Space and Open Space landscaping,walking and bike trails,bridges,ponds and streams;but specifically excluding, maintenance,replacement and operation of Parking Areas, landscaped areas outside of Open Space, dock, service and loading areas and sidewalks adjacent to buildings. Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything to the contrary contained herein, the Common Area of Phase 65 shall be maintained and operated separately from the balance of the Project and the Common Area Maintenance Costs associated with such maintenance shall be accounted for and billed separately from the Common Area Maintenance Costs for the balance of the Project. The Owner(s) of the Parcels within Phase 45 shall have no obligation to pay for any portion of Common Area Maintenance Costs applicable to any other Phase in the Project. Similarly,the Owner(s)of Parcels within the other Phases of the Project(i.e., all Phases, excluding Phase 6�D 22 shall have no obligation to pay for any portion of Common Area Maintenance Costs applicable to Phase 65. (b)The minimum standard of maintenance for the Common Area Improvements shall be comparable to the standard of maintenance followed in other first-class commercial and/or retail developments of comparable size in the Bozeman,Montana area and in any event in compliance with all applicable governmental laws, rules, regulations, orders, and ordinances, City and County Noxious Weed Management Plan, and the provisions of this Declaration. All Common Area Improvements shall be repaired or replaced with materials at least equal to the quality of the materials being repaired or replaced so as to maintain the architectural and aesthetic harmony and integration of the Project as a whole. In any event,the maintenance and repair obligation shall include but not be limited to the following: (i)Drive and Parking Areas. Maintaining all paved surfaces and curbs in a smooth and evenly covered condition,which maintenance work shall include,without limitation, cleaning, sweeping, snow removal,re-striping,repairing,resealing, and resurfacing. (For the purposes of this Section, an overlay of the Parking Area shall be considered a repair or maintenance item.) (ii)Debris and Refuse. Periodic removal of all papers,debris, filth,refuse, ice and snow, including sweeping to the extent necessary to keep the Common Area in a first- class, clean, and orderly condition. All sweeping shall be at appropriate intervals during such times as shall not interfere with the conduct of business or use of the Common Area by persons intending to conduct business with Occupants of the Project. (iii) Signs and Markers. Placing, cleaning,keeping in repair, replacing, and repainting any appropriate directional signs or markers, including any handicapped parking signs, and any Project identification signage(excluding,however, any Occupant signage). (iv)Lighting. Operating(except after-hours lighting requirements - see Section_ 7.06),keeping in repair,cleaning, and replacing when necessary such Common Area lighting facilities as may be reasonably required, including all lighting necessary or appropriate for Common Area security. (v)Landscaped Areas. Cleaning and maintaining(including any requirement as may be imposed by the City to maintain landscape or to remove debris) all landscaped areas, landscaping,and planters adjacent to exterior walls of buildings,repairing automatic sprinkler systems or water lines in the Common Area, irrigating, weeding, pruning, fertilizing, and replacing shrubs and other landscaping as necessary;provided, however, that if any Owner requires or installs "special' landscaping(i.e.beyond the standard landscaping requirements for the remainder of the Project)the maintenance and cost of such special landscaping shall be borne solely by such Owner without cost or 23 expense to the other Owners and shall not be included in Common Area Maintenance Costs. . (vi)Utilities. To the extent the same have not beeri.dedicated to the public or any public or private utility,maintaining,cleaning, and repairing any and all common storm: .drains, utility lines, sewers, and other utility.systems and services located in the Common Area which are necessary for the operation of the Common Area, and the maintenance And replacement of the trunk.line portion of utility lines serving the Building Areas. (vii) Obstructions. Keeping the._Common Area free from any obstructions including those caused by the sale:or display of merchandise not otherwise permitted by this Declaration,unless th&obstruction is permitted:under the provisions of this Declaration. (viii) Sidewalks. Cleaning(including washing and/or steam cleaning), maintenance, and repair.of all sidewalks, including those adjacent and contiguous to Buildings locatedmithin the Project.Sidewalks shall be cleaned at appropriate intervals during such time as shall not interfere with the conduct of business or;use of the Common. Area.Notwithstanding the foregoing, any Occupant which is permitted by Declarant orb' the terms of this Declaration to use any portion of the Common Area or the sidewalk areas adjacent to its Building for staging, storage, sales,promotional,marketing, customer.service, or seating purposes shall keep that area in a neat:arid clean condition:..'o free of refuse and shall be responsible for any increase in Declarant's cost of maintaining the Common Area as a result of such activities. (ix) Security Personnel. Providing professional security personnel for the Common Area,if reasonably required. (x)Traffic. Supervision of traffic at entrances and exits to the Project and within the Project as conditions reasonably require in order to maintain an orderly and,proper traffic flow. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, eachOwner shall maintain and repair,at its sole cost,in a clean, sightly and safe condition all of the following relating to its Parcel: any exterior shipping/receiving dock area, any"drive-thrus"approved by Declarant as herein provided, any truck ramp or truck parking area, any refuse,compactor or dumpster area, and any separate utility lines or any.-lateral utility lines extending to and from common trunk lines. 7.03 Common Area Maintenance.Costs. Common Area Maintenance Costs shall include,without'limitation,all expenditures,costs,premiums, and:expenses for the following: 24 • • (a) casualty and public liability insurance for the Common Area and improvements located on the Common Area, in the amounts and types set forth in Article X below, and payment of any deductible amount in the event of a claim; (b)repairs for any damage to the Common Area including,without limitation,the common utility lines and systems,to the extent that those costs are not covered by insurance proceeds; (c)all general maintenance and repairs with respect to the Common Area,whether required by the enactment or operation of law, or otherwise, including, without limitation, painting, re-striping,resurfacing, cleaning, sweeping, snow removal, and janitorial services; (d)maintenance,repair, and replacement as required, of the Common Area including, without limitation, the common utility lines and systems, and Parking Areas;provided, however, that if Declarant establishes reserves in anticipation of the replacement of Common Area Improvements, the aggregate amount of the reserves with respect to that particular replacement item shall be applied by Declarant against the cost of replacing that item,at the time the item is replaced; (e)operation,maintenance and repair of the Project identification monument signs and pylon signs (if any);provided,however, if a monument or pylon sign also identifies specific Occupants, the portion of the operation and maintenance costs proportional to those Occupants' share of the sign area shall be paid by those Occupants and shall not be a Common Area Maintenance Cost; (f maintenance and repair of light standards, all plantings, sprinkler systems,ponds, streams,bridges, walking and bike paths, landscaping,directional signs and other markers, and parking bumpers; (g)providing common rubbish receptacles(including gates and enclosures)and removal service only for Permittees of the Project; (h)storage space for Common Area maintenance equipment and supplies; (i) expenses for personnel to implement such services including, if Declarant in its sole judgment deems them reasonably necessary,the cost of security guards; 0) operation,maintenance, repair, and/or installation of any fire protection systems, security alarm systems, lighting systems, storm drainage systems, electrical systems, and any other utility systems serving the Common Area; 25 (k)payroll,payroll taxes,health, and workers'compensation insurance applicable to employees providing the aforementioned services rendered in connection with the Common Area; (1)all real estate taxes and assessments levied or assessed against the Common Area or the Common Area Improvements; (m) any public utility or governmental charges, surcharges, and any other costs levied, assessed, or imposed pursuant to assessment districts, laws, statutes, regulations, codes, and ordinances promulgated under or created by any governmental or quasi-governmental authority in connection with the development of the Project or the use of the Common Area; (n)necessary tools and supplies; (o)depreciation on maintenance and operating machinery and equipment(if owned)and rental paid for such machinery and equipment(if rented);provided,however,that if Declarant depreciates any particular machine or piece of equipment or establishes reserves in anticipation of the replacement of that machine or piece of equipment,the aggregate amount of the depreciation and reserves with respect to that particular machine or piece of equipment shall be applied by Declarant against the cost of replacing that machine and/or piece of equipment,at the time the machine or piece of equipment is replaced; (p)other costs and fees necessary or beneficial, in Declarant's sole judgment, for the maintenance and operation of the Common Area, including the cost of enforcing the terms of this Declaration applicable to the Common Area; and (q)an allowance or fee for supervision of the Common Area in an amount equal to 15% of the total of all Common Area Maintenance Costs exclusive of this supervision allowance or fee. Declarant shall have the right to establish appropriate reserves for the payment of certain Common Area Maintenance Costs e(e...,repaving,restriping,replacing lighting and lighting facilities, equipment replacement, etc.)as it deems appropriate and the funding of such reserves shall be included in Common Area Maintenance Costs. To the extent feasible, as determined by Declarant in Declarant's sole discretion, from an accounting and operational perspective, as determined by Declarant in Declarant's sole discretion,Declarant shall attempt to separately account for Common Area Maintenance Costs on a Phase-by-Phase basis. 7.04 Payment of Common Area Maintenance Costs. Common Area Maintenance Costs shall not include any costs of the initial construction of the Common Area Improvements. After 26 the initial construction of the Common Area Improvements, the Common Area Maintenance Costs shall be paid to Declarant by each other Owner as follows: (a)Each other Owner shall pay to Declarant, on the first day of each calendar month, an amount reasonably estimated by Declarant to be one twelfth(1/12) of that Owner's share of the annual Common Area Maintenance Costs (which estimate, except for the first calendar year, shall be based on the prior year's expenses and reasonably anticipated changes in cost). An Owner's share of Common Area Maintenance Costs during any applicable monthly, quarterly or annual accounting period shall be the total Common Area Maintenance Costs incurred during that period multiplied by the quotient arrived at by dividing the number of square feet of Floor Area located on that Owner's Parcel by the total number of square feet of Floor Area which has been completed in the Project. This estimated monthly charge may be adjusted by Declarant at the end of any calendar quarter on the basis of Declarant's experience and reasonably anticipated costs. (b)Within a reasonable time following the end of each calendar year,Declarant shall furnish to each Owner a statement covering the calendar year just expired showing the total of the Common Area Maintenance Costs, the amount of each Owner's share of the Common Area Maintenance Costs for that calendar year, and the payments made by each Owner with respect to that calendar year as set forth in subparagraph(a) above. Owners shall have the right to audit any such statements in accordance with subparagraph(e)below. If an Owner's share of the Common Area Maintenance Costs exceeds that Owner's payments,the Owner shall pay to Declarant the deficiency within ten(10)days after receipt of the statement. If the payments exceed that Owner's share of the Common Area Maintenance Costs,the Owner shall be entitled to offset the excess against the next payments which become due to Declarant as set forth in subparagraph(a)above. (c) Payment of any Common Area Maintenance Costs owed to Declarant under this Declaration which is more than ten(10)days past due shall be subject to a late payment penalty of fifteen percent(15%). In addition, for as long as the amounts owed to Declarant remain unpaid,those unpaid amounts shall bear interest at the Default Rate. Each Owner acknowledges that the late payment of any monthly installment will cause Declarant to incur certain costs and expenses not otherwise contemplated, the exact amount of which is extremely difficult and impractical to fix. Those costs and expenses will include, without limitation,administrative and collection costs,processing and accounting expenses, and other costs and expenses necessary and incidental to those costs and expenses. It is, therefore, agreed that this late charge represents a reasonable estimate of those costs and expenses and is fair compensation to Declarant for its loss suffered by the Owner's nonpayment. The late charge provisions contained in this Section are in addition to and do not diminish or represent a substitute for any or all of Declarant's other rights to enforce the provisions of this Declaration. (d)Within sixty(60) days after receipt of any Common Area Expense statement, any Owner may audit that statement. If it is determined as a result of an audit that the auditing Owner has paid in excess of the amount required pursuant to this Declaration,then the overpayment 27 shall be credited toward the next installment that would otherwise be due from the Owner. In addition, if the Owner paid more than five percent(5%) over the amount that the Owner should have paid(as determined by the approved audit),then the Declarant shall pay all of the auditing Owner's reasonable costs and expenses connected with the audit. (e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Declaration to the contrary and without in any way modifying or limiting an Owner's obligations under this Declaration, each Owner may enter into agreements with its Occupants pursuant to which the Occupants are obligated to reimburse the Owner for some or all Common Area Maintenance Costs allocable to the Parcel and/or other expenses related to the operation and maintenance of the Common Area on terms which are more or less favorable than the terms of this Declaration with respect to that Owner's payment of its share of Common Area Maintenance Costs. If the agreement is entered into on less favorable terms, subject to the immediately following sentence,the Owner will make up the shortfall. Likewise, in connection with the transfer or conveyance of a Parcel, Declarant may enter into an agreement with the respective Owner pursuant to which the Owner is obligated to reimburse Declarant for some or all Common Area Maintenance Costs allocable to the subject Parcel and/or other expenses related to the operation and maintenance of the Common Area on terms which are more or less favorable than the terms of this Declaration with respect to that Owner's payment of its share of Common Area Maintenance Costs. If the agreement is entered into on less favorable terms,Declarant shall assume the shortfall. 7.05 Building Improvements. After completion of construction on its Parcel, each Owner or its Occupant shall, at its sole cost and expense,maintain and keep its Building and building improvements (including loading docks, service areas, "drive-thrus"and the like), if any, located on its Parcel in first-class, good, clean condition and state of repair, in compliance with all governmental laws,rules, regulations, orders, and ordinances exercising jurisdiction over them, and in compliance with the provisions of this Declaration. Each Owner or its Occupant shall store all trash and garbage in adequate containers, in areas designated or approved by Declarant, and will arrange for regular removal of the trash or garbage. If an Owner or its Occupant fails to comply with Section 7.05,then Declarant shall have the right to give the defaulting Owner written notice of the default, specifying the particulars of the default. If the Owner which receives the notice fails to cure the default within thirty(30)days after its receipt of the notice, or if the nature of the default is such that it cannot be reasonably cured within a thirty (30)day period and the Owner does not commence to cure the default within the thirty(30)day period and thereafter diligently pursue the cure to completion, then Declarant may cure the default and then bill the defaulting Owner for the expense incurred. If the defaulting Owner does not pay the bill within fifteen(15)days,Declarant shall have all rights with respect to the bill as are provided for in Article XII. 7.06 After-Hours Lighting. If any Occupant's use of its Parcel requires Common Area lighting one half hour beyond the normal hours of the Project(as reasonably determined by Declarant),that Occupant shall be responsible for the cost of operating the Common Area 28 lighting on its Parcel and any other Parcel;which it elects:to have lighted after the normal hours, and the expense shall not be a Common Area Maintenance Cost. ARTICLE VIII DAMAGE TO IMPROVEMENTS 8.01 Restoration of Common Area. If any of the Common Area Improvements are damaged or destroyed,whether insured or uninsured,Declarant shall restore,:repair, or rebuild ... those Common Area Improvements with all due diligence as nearly as possible to at least as good a condition as they were in:immediately prior to the damage or destruction. Any cost:of the restoration,repair, or rebuilding which is not reimbursed by insurance shall be a Common Area. .. Maintenance Cost. 8.02 Restoration of Buildings. If the Building(s)on an Owner's Parcel are damaged or destroyed,that Owner may,but shall not be obligated'by this Declaration to,restore and reconstruct those Building(s)within the final configuration of the Building Areas within that Owner's Parcel. If an Owner elects to reconstruct the Building(s)ion its Parcel,those.Buildings shall be restored to a condition as good as immediately prior to the damage or destruction, and all restoration and reconstruction shall be performed in accordance with the following requirements; as those. requirements are,applicable to the restoration and reconstruction: (a)No:restoration or reconstruction work shall:be commenced unless the Owner desiring . to perform the work has in.each.instance complied with the appropriate provisions of Article I with respect to plan approval: All'restoration and reconstruction work shall'be;performed in a good and workmanlike manner and shall conform to and coinply with: (i)The plans and specifications approvedpursuant to Article II; ii All applicable requirements:of laws codes regulations lations and rules,'and (iii)All applicable requirements of this Declaration. (c)All restoration and reconstruction work shall.be completed with due diligence and at:.:. the sole cost and;expense of the Owner performing the work. . 8.03 Clearing of Premises. Whenever an Owner elects not to restore,repair or rebuild a Building that has been damaged or destroyed,that Owner,at its sole cost and expense, shall raw the Building, or the parts of the Building which has been damaged.or destroyed, shall clear the premises of all debris, and.all areas not restored to their original use shall, at the expense'of the Owner,be leveled; cleared,and improved with, at the option of the Owner, either landscaping:or: .parking area,"of.like,standard and design as the Common.Area of the Project. Although no 29 • • transfer of ownership shall be deemed to have occurred as a result of the Owner's election not to restore its Building if the area is converted to landscaped area or Parking Area, the area shall be treated as Common Area and shall be maintained and insured by Declarant as Common Area; however,the Owner shall reimburse Declarant for the maintenance and insurance costs which are fairly allocated to the area and those costs shall not be Common Area Maintenance Costs. ARTICLE IX EMINENT DOMAIN 9.01 Eminent Domain. If any part of the Project, including the Common Area, shall be taken by eminent domain or any other similar authority of law, the entire award for value of the land and improvements so taken shall belong to the Owner whose property was so taken or its Occupants, as their interests may appear or as the Owner and Occupants have agreed to in the Occupant's lease, and the other Owner(s) shall not claim any portion of the award by virtue of any interests created by this Declaration. However,the other Owner(s)may file a claim with the condemning authority over and above the value of the property so taken to the extent of any damage suffered by those Owner(s)resulting from the severance of the area taken. The Owner whose property was condemned shall promptly repair and restore in accordance with this Declaration the remaining portion of its Parcel as nearly as practicable to the condition existing just prior to the condemnation without contribution from the other Owner(s). ARTICLE X TAXES AND INSURANCE 10.01 Realty Taxes and Assessments. In addition to each Owner's payment of its share of real estate taxes and assessments on the Common Area as provided in Article VU, each Owner shall pay, or cause to be paid by that Owner's Occupants when due, all real estate taxes and assessments which may be levied, assessed,or charged by any public authority against that Owner's Parcel,the improvements on that Parcel, or any other part of that Parcel. If an Owner shall deem any real estate tax or assessment(including the rate thereof or the assessed valuation of the property)to be excessive or illegal, that Owner shall have the right, at its own costs and expense, to contest the tax or assessment by appropriate proceedings, and nothing contained in this Section shall require the Owner to pay the real estate tax or assessment as long as (a)no other Owner's Parcel would be immediately affected by the failure'to pay(or bond)the tax or assessment; and(b) the amount or validity of the tax or assessment shall be contested in good faith. If the failure to pay(or bond)the tax or assessment would affect another Owner's Parcel, that other Owner shall have the right to pay the tax and shall have a lien on the nonpaying Owner's Parcel for the amount so paid until reimbursed for the payment. The lien shall be subject to and junior to, and shall in no way impair or defeat the interest, lien, or charge of any Mortgagee or Occupant. 10.02 Indemnification. Declarant or any other person who operates and maintains the Common Area shall indemnify, defend, and save the other Owners harmless from and against 30 i • any and all demands,liability, damage, expense, cause of action, suit,claims, and judgments, including reasonable attorneys'fees,arising from injury or death to person or damage to property that occurs as a result of that person's operation and maintenance of the Common Area except to the extent that the injury, death, or damage is caused by the indemnified Owner's negligence or willful act or omission. In addition, each Owner shall indemnify,defend, and save the other Owners harmless from and against any and all demands, liability, damages, expenses, causes of action, suits, claims, and judgments, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from injury or death to person or damage to property that occurs as a result of the use or operation of the indemnifying Owner's Parcel, except to the extent that the injury, death or damage is caused by the indemnified Owner's negligence or willful act or omission; provided,however, indemnification under this sentence shall not be required where the claim or loss underlying an indemnitee's request for indemnity is (i)required to be indemnified against pursuant to the immediately preceding sentence, (ii)is insured against by the insurance required to be maintained by the Declarant covering the Common Area in accordance with Section 10.4,or(iii) is insured against by the insurance required to be maintained by the indemnitee with respect to the use and operation of the Buildings on the indemnitee's Parcel in accordance with Section 10.04. 10.03 Casualty Insurance and Restoration. (a)Declarant, as respects the improvements on its Parcels and as respects all of the Common Area Improvements,will carry or cause to be carried, casualty insurance in an amount equal to 90%of the full replacement cost(exclusive of the cost of excavation, foundations and footings) of those buildings and improvements for the risks covered within the classification of "all-risk" coverage,excluding coverage against earthquake and flood unless the cost of the that coverage is, in Declarant's business judgment, economically reasonable. The insurance shall be carried with a financially responsible insurance company or companies. (b)Each other Owner, as respects the building improvements on its Parcel(excluding Common Area Improvements on its Parcel),will carry or cause to be carried"all-risk" casualty insurance, excluding coverage against earthquake and flood unless the cost of the same is, in the Owner's business judgment,reasonably exercised, economically reasonable. The insurance shall be in an amount equal to 90%of the full replacement cost(exclusive of the cost of excavation, foundations and footings of the Building). The insurance shall be carried with a financially responsible insurance company or companies. The insurance shall contain a provision that it may not be canceled,reduced or materially amended without at least thirty(30)days written notice being given by the insurer to the Declarant. To the extent Declarant is causing the insurance to be carried by an Occupant who has ground leased premises in the Project and who has developed its Building substantially at its own cost and expense, Declarant may agree to a reduced insurance obligation for that Occupant near the end of that Occupant's lease term. 10.04 Owners'Liability Insurance. Each Owner shall, severally, at all times during the term of this Declaration, maintain or cause to be maintained by its Occupant in full force and effect a comprehensive occurrence public liability insurance policy covering the use and 31 i '• operation of Buildings(and other structures,if applicable) on its Parcel (and, as to Declarant, covering the use and operation of all of the Common Area),with a financially responsible insurance company or companies,including coverage for any accident resulting in bodily injury to or death of any person and consequential damages arising therefrom, and comprehensive property damage insurance, each in an amount not less than$3,000,000 per occurrence or, as to an Occupant of a Declarant owned Parcel and as to an Owner other than Declarant, such lesser amount as may be agreed to by Declarant. Declarant's public liability policy with respect to the Common Area shall name each other Owner as an additional named insured and each public liability policy with respect to the use and operation of the Buildings on an Owner's Parcel shall name Declarant and each other Owner as an additional named insured. Declarant's public liability policy with respect to the Common Area and each Owner's public liability policy with respect to the Buildings on its Parcel shall also include a contractual liability endorsement in an amount not less than the amount of the above-described comprehensive public liability policy to insure their respective indemnities set forth in Section 10.02. Each Owner shall furnish to each other Owner which requests proof of insurance in writing, evidence that the insurance referred to in this Section is in full force and effect and that the premiums for the policy have been paid. The insurance shall provide that it may not be canceled,reduced below the required minimum or materially amended without at least thirty(30)days prior written notice being given by the insurer to Declarant. 10.05 Blanket Insurance. Any insurance required to be carried pursuant to this Article may be carried under a policy or policies covering other liabilities and locations of an Owner; provided, however,that the policy or polices must apply to the properties required to be insured by this Article in an amount not less than the amount of insurance required to be carried by the Owner with respect to the Parcel,pursuant to this Article. 10.06 Release and Waiver of Subrogation. Each Owner hereby releases and waives for itself, and to the extent legally possible for it to do so, on behalf of its insurer, each of the other Owners from any liability for any loss or damage to its property located upon the Project, which loss or damage is of the type covered by the"all-risk" casualty insurance described in this Article X,irrespective of any negligence on the part of the other Owner which may have contributed to or caused such loss. Each Owner covenants that it will, if generally available in the insurance industry, obtain for the benefit of the other Owners an express waiver of any right of subrogation which the insurer of that Owner may acquire against the other Owner by virtue of the payment of any such loss covered by the insurance. If any Owner is by law, statute, or governmental regulation unable to obtain a waiver of the right of subrogation for the benefit of another Owner, then, during any period of time when a waiver of subrogation is unobtainable,the Owner shall be deemed not to have released any surrogated claim of its insurance carrier against the other Owner, and during the same period of time the other Owner shall be deemed not to have released the Owner who has been unable to obtain a waiver of subrogation from any claims they or their insurance carriers may assert which otherwise would have been released pursuant to this Section. 32 ARTICLE XI ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS 11.01 Duties of Owners. Except as provided in Section 11.03,neither Owners nor Occupants shall release, generate,treat,use, store, dump, transport,handle, or dispose of any Hazardous Material within the Parcels or otherwise permit the presence of any Hazardous Material on,under,or about the Parcels or transport any Hazardous Material to or from the Parcels. Any such use,handling or storage permitted under Section 11.03 shall be in accordance with all Environmental Laws and all other applicable laws, ordinances,rules, and regulations now or hereafter promulgated by any governmental authority having jurisdiction thereof.Neither Owners nor Occupants shall install, operate or maintain any above,below,or at grade tank, sump,pit, or other storage or treatment vessel or device on or about the Parcels with the exception of gasoline, diesel and/or oil underground storage tanks or other storage devices or containers utilized in connection with an automobile gasoline and/or service station provided that such use is permitted in the Project, and fiu-ther provided that the operator of the service station has obtained Declarant's consent to the underground storage tanks or other storage devices or containers pursuant to the last paragraph of Section 11.03 of this Declaration. 11.02 Specific Construction Materials.No Owner or Occupant shall introduce, or permit any other Person to introduce, any friable asbestos, radioactive material,urea formaldehyde foam insulation, or devices containing polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs) into any portion of the Proj ect. 11.03 Permitted Use, Storage, Handling, and Disposal of Hazardous Materials. Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 11.01 to the contrary, incident to the normal operation of motor vehicles within the Parking Areas, the Owners and their Occupants and Permittees may utilize gasoline and petroleum products used to fuel and/or lubricate motor vehicles. In addition,notwithstanding anything contained in Section 11.01 to the contrary,the Owners or their Occupants may utilize cleaning products and sell and otherwise merchandise products,which may contain Hazardous Materials, so long as those products are commonly utilized for maintenance purposes or merchandised in other first-class shopping centers, and so long as those products are safely handled and stored in compliance with applicable laws. An Owner or its Occupants may also use other Hazardous Materials in connection with its use of its Parcel if the Owner has received Declarant's prior consent to the use. Declarant shall not unreasonably withhold or delay its consent provided(i)the Owner or Occupant demonstrates to Declarant's reasonable satisfaction that the Hazardous Materials (a)are necessary or useful to the Owner's or Occupant's business, (b)will be monitored,used, stored, handled, and disposed of in compliance with all Environmental Laws, (c)will not endanger any persons or property, (d) are consistent with and normally found in first-class retail establishments, and(e)will not invalidate or limit the coverage or increase the premiums of any insurance policy effecting or covering the Building,the Parcel, or the Project; (ii) such use is not prohibited by Article VI of. this Declaration; (iii)the Owner or Occupant provides Declarant with such security as may be 33 • 0 reasonably required by Declarant; and(iv)the Owner or Occupant satisfies any other requirements Declarant may reasonably impose with respect to the Owner's or Occupant's use of the Hazardous Materials. ARTICLE XII LIENS 12.01 Assessment Lien. If any sum of money payable by any Owner pursuant to any provision of this Declaration to any other Owner is not paid when due, and after the defaulting Owner has been notified in writing of the default and the expiration of any applicable grace period set forth in this Declaration,or a reasonable period of time not to exceed thirty(30)days if there is no express grace period, the Person to whom the sums are owing shall have the right to record, in the office where documents are to be recorded, a notice of Assessment Lien("Notice of Assessment Lien")which shall set forth the then delinquent amount owed by the defaulting Owner pertaining to any Parcel(including, if applicable, interest at the Default Rate) and a legal description of the Parcel within the Project owned by that defaulting Owner. Upon recordation of a Notice of Assessment Lien,the then delinquent amount owed by the Owner together with interest on that amount, shall constitute an Assessment Lien upon the property within the Project described in the Notice of Assessment Lien which is owned or was previously owned by the defaulting Owner. If the amount secured by an Assessment Lien is not paid in full within ten(10) days after a Notice of Assessment Lien has been recorded, and the Owner has been provided with a copy of the recorded Notice of Assessment Lien,the Person to whom the amounts are owed may enforce payment of the assessment or other amount due, or enforce the Assessment Lien against the property of the delinquent Owner,by foreclosing the Assessment Lien against the delinquent Owners Parcel in accordance with the laws relating to the foreclosure of realty mortgages (including the right to recover any deficiency), either judicially or non judicially under a power of sale, such power being hereby granted to Declarant as a mortgagee. 12.02 Assessments as Personal Obligations. Each amount due by an Owner pursuant to any provision of this Declaration,together with interest at the Default Rate, costs and attorneys' fees, shall be the personal obligation of the defaulting Owner,but the personal obligation of the Owner shall not be deemed to discharge or limit the lien on the land of any Assessment Lien encumbering the property of the Owner within the Project.No Owner shall avoid liability for payment of any amount due under this Declaration which fell due while that Person was the Owner by nonuse of the Common Area or by transfer or abandonment of the Owner's property. If any property within the Project as to which a Notice of Assessment Lien has been recorded pursuant to Section 12.01 is sold, conveyed or otherwise transferred in whole or in part,by the Owner of that Parcel,the property shall remain subject and subordinate to the Assessment Lien created by reason of the delinquency described in the recorded Notice of Assessment Lien. 12.03 Superiority of Assessment Lien. The Assessment Lien provided for above shall be superior to any and all other charges, liens and encumbrances which hereafter in any manner may arise or be imposed upon any portion of the Project,regardless of the order of filing of any of the 34 foregoing; provided,however, that the Assessment Lien shall in all events:be subject and subordinate to (a)Liens for taxes and.other public charges which by applicable law are expressly made superior to the.:lien of the Assessment Lien; (b)Any mortgages,:trust indentures;deeds of trust, or security instruments of anykind recorded in the office of the County clerk and recorder prior to the date of recordation of a Notice of:Assessment Lien;provided,however, that all liens recorded subsequent to the recordation of a Notice.of Assessment Lien shall be junior and subordinate to the Assessment Lien created by reason of the delinquency described.in the recorded Notice of Assessment Lien; and (c)The rights of any and all Occupants occupying any portion of the Project under written leases, whether the lease:at issue was dated and/or recorded beforeor after the Assessment Lien at issue. If an,Owner is delinquent in paying any amounts due under this Declaration,:and as a result of the delinquency a Notice of Assessment Lien is recorded as provided in this Declaration, the Person recording the Notice of Assessment Lien may record subsequent Notices of Assessment Lien as to any amounts owed by that Owner to the same person which become delinquent after the recordation of the initial Notice of Assessment.Lien, and the priority of the Assessment Lien:as to any amounts thereafter becoming delinquent shall be fixed as of the date. of recordation of the*initial:Notice of Assessment Lien,but only,if:the initial Notice of.. Assessment Lien has not been discharged. A person may prosecute a single Assessment Lien foreclosure action as to amounts delinquent at the time a Notice of Assessment Lien is recorded:'::': and as to amounts thereafter becoming delinquent,up to and including the time a final judgment. is rendered in the action:: 12.04 Release of Assessment Lien: Within 10 days after the curing of any default for which a Notice of Assessment Lien was recorded,the Person who:recorded the Notice of Assessment Lien shall record an appropriate release of any Notice of Assessment Lien upon payment by the defaulting Owner of a reasonable fee,to be determined by the person recording the Notice of Assessment Lien,to cover the costs of preparing and recording the release, together with the payment of such'o_ther costs, including,without limitation,reasonable legal fees;court costs, interest,and fees, as that Person shall have incurred in connection the Assessment Lien. :: Any Assessment Lien relative to which suit has not been filed and a lis pendens recorded in the'.:.. records of Gallatin County,Montana within one(1)year after the date of the recordation of the Assessment Lien, shall automatically be rendered null,void and of no further force or effect: The. foregoing nullification of any Assessment Lien shall be"self-operative and shall not require the: execution or recordation of any further documents. 12.05 Litigation of Assessment Lien. Notwithstanding any provision contained in this::: :: Declaration, any Owner shall have the right to contest, in a court of competent jurisdiction,the 35 recordation of any Notice of Assessment Lien against the property within the Project owned or occupied by that Owner on the basis that the recordation of the Notice of Assessment Lien or the amounts claimed to be delinquent in the Notice of Assessment Lien are incorrect or improper under the provisions of this Declaration. The prevailing party in the action shall be entitled to recover from the other party or parties its reasonable attorneys'fees incurred in connection with the action. ARTICLE MII RESALE RESTRICTIONS 13.01 Right of First Refusal. The Declarant will have a right of first refusal, on the terms and conditions set forth in this Article,with respect to each Parcel in the Project. The right of first refusal will be binding on all Parcels and all Owners throughout the term of this Declaration. 13.02 Negotiation Before Marketing. If an Owner wishes to attempt to sell its Parcel, then before attempting to market the Parcel or solicit offers to purchase the Parcel, the Owner will inform the Declarant in writing of the Owner's intent to sell the Parcel, and will then enter into good faith negotiations for sale of the Parcel to the Declarant on mutually acceptable terms and conditions. If despite such good faith negotiations the Owner and the Declarant cannot reach a mutually acceptable agreement under which the Owner will sell the Parcel to the Declarant, then the Owner may attempt to market the Parcel to third parties, subject to the requirements of this Article. 13.03 Notice of Intent to Sell.No Owner will have the right to sell or otherwise transfer its Parcel to any person other than the Declarant unless and until the Owner has complied with the following requirements: (i)If the Owner enters into a good faith, bonafide contract to sell or otherwise transfer its Parcel to a person other than the Declarant,then the Owner must promptly deliver a complete copy of the sale contract, or a complete summary of the terms of any oral sale contract,to the Declarant,together with a written notice advising the Declarant that unless the Declarant exercises the right of first refusal granted by this agreement within ten(10)business days,then the Owner intends to sell or transfer the Parcel to the third party in accordance with the terms of the sale contract attached to the notice. The written notice described in this paragraph is referred to in this Article as a "Notice of Intent to Sell." (ii)Upon receipt of a Notice of Intent to Sell and a copy of a sale contract, the Declarant will have a period of ten(10)business days in which to advise the Owner in writing that the Declarant intends to purchase the Parcel from the Owner on terms and conditions identical to those set forth in the sale contract attached to the Notice of Intent to Sell. 36 0 i (iii)If within ten(10)business days after receipt of a Notice of Intent to Sell, the Declarant delivers a written notice to the Owner stating that the Declarant has elected to purchase the Parcel on the terms and conditions set forth in the sale contract attached to the Notice of Intent to Sell, then the Owner will transfer good and marketable title to the Parcel to the Declarant on those terms and conditions. (iv)If the Owner does not receive a written notice stating that the Declarant has elected to purchase the Parcel within ten(10)business days after the Declarant receives a Notice of Intent to Sell, or the Declarant notifies the Owner in writing that the Declarant has decided not to exercise the right of first refusal provided for in this Article, or the Declarant fails to purchase the Parcel on the terms and conditions set forth in the sale contract attached to the Notice of Intent to Sell, then the Owner may sell the Parcel to the third party on the terms and conditions set forth in the sale contract attached to the Notice of Intent to Sell. 13.04 Transfers Exempt From Right of First Refusal. (a)The Owner will not be required to comply with the requirements of this Article, and the Declarant will not have the right to exercise the remedies provided for in this Article, in the following situations: (i) Transfers involving only the Owner. If the Owner consists of two or more individuals and/or entities, and any of those individuals or entities sells that party's interest in the Parcel to one or more of the other individuals and/or entities which comprise the Owner. (ii)Death. If the Owner is an individual, and the Parcel is transferred upon the death of the Owner to a third party by action of law or through probate proceedings. (iii)Divorce. If the Owner's interest in the Parcel is transferred to the Owner's spouse in the course of divorce proceedings. (iv)Foreclosure. The Parcel is transferred to a third party by foreclosure proceedings,by trustee's sale or other non judicial foreclosure proceedings,by forfeiture of the Owner's rights under a contract for deed, or by deed in lieu of foreclosure. (v)Execution of judgment. The Parcel is transferred to a third party at sheriffs sale in connection with the execution of a judgment which has attached to the Parcel. (vi)Bankruptcy or regulatory proceedings. The Parcel is transferred to a third party in connection with bankruptcy proceedings or any regulatory receivership, conservatorship or liquidation proceedings involving the Owner. (vii)Gifts. The Parcel, or any interest in the Parcel,is transferred to a third party without consideration,or for less than full consideration, as a gift. 37 13.05 Effect of Failure to Comply.with this Article. If a Parcel or any interest in a Parcel is transferred to any person without satisfying the requirements of this Article, or on terms other than those set forth in a Notice of Intent to Sell, then the Declarant will be entitled to =: purchase the Parcel from the transferee at any time within two(2)years after the Declarant receives actual knowledge of the transfer or the violation of the requirements:of this Article for: the amount that the transferee paid for the Parcel. The Declarant will not waive its rights under this Article, or be estopped from exercising its.rights under this Article, as a result of aiiy delay in exercising those:rights after a transfer-which violates this.Article. ARTICLE XIV MISCELLANEOUS 14.01 Notices. Any notice,payment,.demand, offer,or communication required or permitted to be given by any provision of this Declaration shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or served for all purposes if personally delivered, sent by registered or certified:: mail,postage and charges prepaid,or by Federal Express or other reputable overnight courier or. delivery service, addressed as.follows: To Declarant: Mitchell Development Group,LLC P. 0. Box 738 Great Falls, MT 59403 Attention: Theodore J. Mitchell Any such notice shall:be deemed to b'e given(i) on the date.' personal service:upon the person to whom the notice is addressed or if such person is not available the date such notice is::: left at the address of the person to whom it is directed, (ii)three(3) days after the date the notice: is deposited with the United States Post Office,provided it is sent prepaid,registered.or certified mail,return receipt requested,and(iii)on the date the notice is delivered by a reputable professional courier.service (including Federal Express,Express Mail,UPS,'or similar operation)' to the address of the person to whom it is directed,provided it is sent prepaid. 14.02 Binding Effect. All of the limitations, covenants, conditions,easements, and restrictions contained in this Declaration shall attach to and run with each Parcel and shall benefit. or be' binding upon the successors and assigns of the respective Owners. This Declaration and all the terms, covenants, and conditions contained in it shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes in favor of all nor any portion of the Parcels. 14.03 Breach Shall Not Permit Termination.It is expressly agreed that no breach of this Declaration shall entitle any Owner to cancel,rescind, or otherwise terminate this Declaration; and such limitations shall not affect in any manner any of the rights or remedies which the , Owners may have by reason of any breach of this Declaration. 38 • • 14.04 Legal Action. If any of the Owners breaches any provision of this Declaration,then any other Owner may institute legal action against the defaulting Owner for specific performance, injunction, declaratory relief, damages, or any other remedy provided by law. In addition to the recovery of any amounts expended on behalf of the defaulting Owner,the prevailing Owner shall be entitled to recover from the losing Owner such amount as the court may adjudge to be reasonable attorneys'fees. 14.05 Breach-Effect on Mortgagee and Right to Cure. Breach of any of the covenants or restrictions contained in this Declaration shall not defeat or render invalid the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith,but all of the foregoing provisions,restrictions, and covenants shall be binding and effective against any Owner of any portion of the Project who acquires title by foreclosure,by trustee's sale, or by deed in lieu of foreclosure or trustee's sale;provided, however,that any such Owner who acquires title by foreclosure or trustee's sale or by deed in lieu of foreclosure or trustee's sale shall take title free of any liens created or provided for under this Declaration,though otherwise subject to the provisions of this Declaration. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Declaration for notices of default, the Mortgagee of any Owner in default under this Declaration shall be entitled to notice of the default, in the same manner that other notices are required to be given under this Declaration;provided,however, that the Mortgagee shall have,prior to the time of the default,notified the Owner giving the notice of default of the Mortgagee's interest and mailing address. If any notice is given of the default of an Owner and the defaulting Owner has failed to cure or commence to cure that default as provided in this Declaration,then the Owner giving the notice of default covenants to give the Mortgagee(which has previously given the notice described above to the Owner)under any Mortgage affecting the Parcel of the defaulting Owner an additional notice given in the manner provided above, that the defaulting Owner has failed to cure the default and the Mortgagee shall have thirty(30)days after the additional notice to cure the default, or, if the default cannot be cured within thirty(30)days, diligently to commence curing within such time and diligently pursue such cure to completion within a reasonable time after the notice of default. The giving of any notice of default or the failure to deliver a copy of the notice to any Mortgagee will not create any liability on the part of the Owner which declares a default. 14.06 Effect on Third Parties. Except for Section 13.05 which is for the benefit of Mortgagees, the rights,privileges, or immunities conferred under this Declaration are for the benefit of the Owners and not for any third party. 14.07 No Partnership.Neither this Declaration nor any acts of the Owners shall be deemed or construed by the parties to this Declaration, or any of them, or by any third person, to create the relationship of principal and agent,or of partnership,or of joint venture, or of any association between any of the Owners to this Declaration. 14.08 Modification. Except as otherwise provided in this Declaration, this Declaration may be amended and/or supplemented by a writing signed by Declarant and by the Owner(s)to be bound by the terms and provisions of such amendment or supplement and consented to by the 39 Y s or Occupants; Mortgagee(s) of the affected Parcels :without the consent of an other Person provided that Declarant shall have"the right to (i) locate with specificity any of the easements created p .ursuant to Section4.02 ii revise the Site Plan as provided in Section 5.01: iii . subject-any other land presently outside of the Entire Property,to the provisions of this: Declaration,byrecording with the.County Recorder an amendment to this Declaration executed. only by Declarant, without the consent'of any other-Owner or Occupant, and/or(iv)modify the requirements of this Declaration as it pertains to any Parcel without the consent of anyPerson other than the affected Owner. If.a request to change-or alter this Declaration is made by.any."institutional lender," as defined in this Section,proposing to.extend credit to be secured by a first trust indenture,first: deed of trust,or first mortgage on the interest of any Owner within the Project,'in order to (i) clarifyahe rights of that lender under this Declaration and/or(ii) otherwise better secure to the lender its ability to protectits security, consent to the changes or alteration of this Declaration Shall not be unreasonably withheld:by any Owner or other person or entity:whose.consent or .: approval of the changes or:alteration is required by this Declaration..The term"institutional lender," as used in this Section shall be deemed to mean any bank, savings or building and loan association, trust;or other similar institutional type of lender(including loan service correspondent companies designated by any such lender). 14.09 SeverabiliN. If any term, covenant,condition,provision;or.agreement contained in this Declaration is held to be invalid;void,or otherwise unenforceable,by any court of competent jurisdiction, 'the holdingshall in no affect the yalidi of enforceabili of an Y. other,'term, covenant, condition,provision, or agreement contained in this Declaration. . 14.10 Governing Law. This Declaration and the obligations of the Owners under this Declaration shall be interpreted;construed, and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Montana. 14.11 Terminology: Captions. All personal pronouns used in this Declaration,whether used in the masculine, feminine; or neuter gender, shall include all other genders; the singular shall include the plural and vice versa. Article and Section titles or captions contained in this Declaration are inserted as a matter of convenience and for reference, and in no way define, limit; extend, or describe the scope of.this Declaration or any provisions:of this Declaration. The Exhibits attached hereto are incorporated herein by this reference. 14.12 Consent. In'any instance in which any Owner shall be requested to consent ao or .approve of any matter with respect to which consent or approval is required by any of the provisions of this Declaration,the consent or approvalor disapproval shall:be given in writing: 14.13 Estoppel Certificate. Each Owner severally covenants,that upon written request of any other Owner:it:will issue to the other Owner or to any prospective Mortgagee or purchaser:of the other Owner's Parcel an Estoppel Certificate-stating: (a)whether the Owner to whom the 40 • 0 request has been directed knows of any default under this Declaration and if there are known defaults specifying the nature of those defaults; (b)whether to its knowledge this Declaration has been assigned,modified, or amended in any way(and if it has, then stating the nature of the modifications or amendments); and(c)whether to the Owner's knowledge this Declaration as of that date is in full force and effect. 14.14 Not a Public Dedication.Nothing contained in this Declaration shall be deemed to be a gift or dedication of any portion of the Project to the general public or for the general public or for any public purpose whatsoever, it being the intention of Declarant that this Declaration shall be strictly limited to and for the purposes expressed in this Declaration. 14.15 Release. If an Owner sells, transfers, or assigns its entire Parcel or its interest in its Parcel, it shall, except as provided in this Declaration,be released from its unaccrued obligations under this Declaration from and after the date of the sale,transfer or assignment. It shall be a condition precedent to the release and discharge of any Grantor or assignor Owner from its unaccrued obligations under this Declaration that the following conditions are satisfied: (a)the Grantor or assignor shall give notice to the Declarant of the sale,transfer, conveyance, or assignment prior to the filing for record of the instrument effecting the same, (b)the Grantor or assignor shall pay all monetary sums then owed under the terms of this Declaration, and(c)the transferee shall execute and deliver to the Declarant a written statement in recordable form in which: (i)the name and address of the transferee shall be disclosed; and(ii)the transferee shall acknowledge its obligation under this Declaration and agree to be bound by this Declaration and perform all obligations under this Declaration in accordance with the provisions of this Declaration. Failure to deliver this written statement shall not affect the running of any covenants contained in this Declaration with the land,however, it shall constitute a default by the transferee. In addition to those rights set forth elsewhere in this Declaration,Declarant shall have the right, from time to time, to transfer or assign some or all of its rights and obligations hereunder to (i) any successor or assign who has or takes title to any portion of the Entire Property for the purpose of development and/or resale in the ordinary course of business,or(ii)an association of Owners established and formed for the purpose of assuming and performing the rights and obligations of Declarant hereunder; and in each case as so designated as "Declarant"in a recorded instrument executed by the immediately preceding Declarant. In such event, such immediately preceding Declarant shall be released of all unaccrued liabilities and obligations so transferred or assigned. Anything in this Section to the contrary notwithstanding, it is expressly understood and agreed that no sale, transfer, or assignment or written acknowledgment by the transferee of its obligations under this Declaration shall effectuate a release of its transferor with respect to obligations which accrued prior to the transfer. 41 14.16 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to the performance of each of the covenants and agreements contained in this Declaration. 14.17 Excuse for Nonperformance. Each Owner shall be excused from performing any obligation or undertaking provided in this Declaration, except any obligation to pay any sums of money under the applicable provisions of this Declaration(unless the payment is conditioned upon performance of any obligation or undertaking excused by this Section), if and so long as the performance of the obligation is prevented or delayed, or hindered by act of God, fire, earthquake, floods, explosion, actions of the elements, war,invasion, insurrection,riot,mob violence, sabotage, inability to procure or general shortage of labor, equipment facilities, materials, or supplies in the ordinary course on the open market, failure of normal transportation, strikes, lockouts,action of labor unions, condemnation,requisition, laws, orders of governmental agencies, approvals, or permits despite the exercise of due diligence and best efforts by an Owner or any other cause, whether similar or dissimilar to the foregoing,not within the reasonable control of the Owner, other than the lack of or inability to obtain funds. 14.18 Duration. This Declaration and each term, easement, covenant,restriction, and undertaking of this Declaration will remain in effect for a term of sixty(60)years from the its recordation date and will automatically be renewed for successive ten(10)year periods unless the Owners owning two-thirds or more of the land comprising the Project elect in writing not to so renew. 14.19 Waiver of Default.No waiver of any default by any Owner shall be implied from any omission by any other Owner to take any action in respect of the default if the default continues or is repeated. No express written waiver of any default shall affect any default or cover any period of time other than the default and period of time specified in the express waiver. One or more written waivers of any default in the performance of any term,provision, or covenant contained in this Declaration shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default in the performance of the same term,provision, or covenant or any other term, provision, or covenant contained in this Declaration. The consent or approval by any Owner to or of any act or request by any other Owner requiring consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the consent to or approval of any subsequent similar acts or requests. The rights and remedies given to any Owner by this Declaration shall be deemed to be cumulative and no one of such rights and remedies shall be exclusive of any of the others, or if any other right or remedy at law or in equity which any Owner might otherwise have by virtue of a default under this Declaration, and the exercise of one right or remedy by any Owner shall not impair the Owner's standing to exercise any other right or remedy. 14.20 Common Ownership. The ownership of all Parcels in the Project by the same Person shall not result in the termination of this Declaration. 42 Ilr' T EXECUTED as of the date first written above: MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC,'a Montana limited liability company By Name: Theodore J. Mitchell Its: Operating Manager mm [ADD ACKNOWLEDGMENT] List of Exhibits: Exhibit"A" - Legal Description Exhibit`B" Parcel Map Exhibit"C" - Phasing Plan Exhibit"D" - Site Plan mm 43 ' CIAF BOZEMAN 0 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260 20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263 P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozeman.net February 11, 2006 Ted Mitchell Mitchell Development Group,L.L.C. 1315 8`h Avenue N., Great Falls,MT 59401 RE: Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. Zoning Application No. Z-05217 Dear Ted, The City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community bevelopment has completed its second review of the updated Development Manual for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.; and as a result, offer the following comments for your consideration. Foremost in reviewing the document, staff believes the Development Manual for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. is one of the finest documents this office has had the opportunity to review. A lot of time has been put into it, was well thought out, and the illustrations serve their purpose well. We believe that as an integral tool for implementing the development of the project, that it will guide the project as you and community has envisioned all along and will be a contributing element to the West Main Street entryway corridor. In finalizing the Manual; Landscape Plan, and Final Site Plan for the development it would appear that it is probably 80% complete. However, it is the last 20% of the approval process that is the most difficult and it is imperative that we are on the same wave length before granting final approval. We hope you realize our purpose in providing the following comments. Although there is a disclaimer in the document stating that the exhibits and plans are intended to only visually emphasize points within the text, it is important that there your team is not misguided or misled in terms of site, building, landscape and signage. Thus, staff is making a serious attempt to clear some discrepancies in the document, landscape plan and final site plan so your team and future tenants of the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. clearly understand the commitments made with this project. Staff has reviewed your responses to the conditions of approval referenced in the Development Manual and find that some of the references contain similar language to the conditions or language that changes the context of the condition of approval. It is important that you make sure to include the specific language outlined in the conditions of approval as staff is requesting in the comments provided below. This is also the case with the Landscape Plan and Final Site Plan. Concerns with exhibits that do not comply with the conditions of approval or the U.D.O. are of concern. Again, the disclaimer in the manual is fine but you must realize that there are clearly direct conflicts with the U.D.O., particularly with signage. The exhibit on page 24 that shows the monument sign along Huffine Lane and two additional tower signs at the entrance is going to have to be modified once the common signage plan is resolved.. planning • zoning • subdivision review . annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration • neighborhood coordination Condition #7 -A conceptual pLan of the transit stop in relation to the street, boulevard sidewalk and open space corridor should be provided in the Manual. For purposes of infrastructure and street construction the type of transit stop should be determined at this time (i.e..,pullout lane?). Condition #8 -The landscape plans do not illustrate the regular spacing of boulevard trees and must be revised accordingly. Staff could not find the language in the manual that talks about: "street character along the West Main Street entryway corridor, Fowler Avenue and Garfield Street shall call for architectural features that suggest a presence of store fronts, plazas, fenestration treatment and architectural details that reflect the "lifestyle center" concept." Condition #9 -This condition specifically states "commercial and retail drive-thrus and associated apprentices (speaker phones, signage, ATM, canopies, etc.) shall not front onto the entryway corridor or corner-side of the building and will not impact the building fagade of the satellite structures along the streetscape." Include this specific language in the manual on page 23,word for word. Condition #10 - Please identify in the Manual were the language in this condition is specifically provided. Condition #13 - Clearly state on page 55 where you plan to use a slope of 3:1, or 33%. Condition #14- Items addressing this condition and what is expected with the Landscape Plan is addressed in the letter to Jolene Rieck dated February 10, 2006. Condition #15 - Where does the manual contain the following language: "The design standards shall specifically discourage the use of "pea"gavel or decorative 1 3/4" to 2" washed_rock gravel, or less. All landscape islands that include decorative rock or gravel as a groundcover shall specify "river rock" or equal in the landscape plan." The letter to Jolene Rieck also requested a series of typical landscape features to be included in the manual that will be installed throughout the development." Condition #19 - The D.R.B. and A.D.R. staff agreed that the term "synthetic surface" applied to only the artificial types know as "Dryvit", "E.I.F.S.", or similar. Please language on page 99 accordingly. Condition #20 - See comments already provided in the D.R.B. memo dated February 1, 2006. Condition #25 - Where does the manual talk about - "All of the buildings on the perimeter of the development shall have a second store front (double fronted design) that is oriented towards the streetscape and shall include a colonnade and a sidewalk connection to the perimeter sidewalk/trail system. All corner buildings shall include a type of design feature directed towards the corner (a concave area or a bump-out constructed of transparent materials) and shall be noted accordingly in the Development Manual." This language needs to be included in the manual and the exhibit on page 98 only touches on aspects of this condition. Condition #28 - This has already been discussed in the previous D.R.B. memo of February 1, 2006. Conditions #30 - Please provide the specific language of this condition in section h of page 97. Condition #34 - The applicant's response makes the presumption that the exhibits and plans in the Development Manual are correct,which is not true, and staff refers you to your disclaimer on page 85. Thus, the lengthy condition #34 and discussion in the staff report. The exhibits on page 24, 50 and 51 have not been approved as part of the common sign plan. An approved common signage plan that shows proper location, placement, dimensions, materials, color and illumination will need to be provided. Staff will go Page 2 } • into further detail once you have submitted the common signage plan. Please make sure to review Section 18.52 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Condition #36 - Staff will review this further once it has the opportunity to review the protective covenants. Condition #39 - The residential component will need to be addressed once we have an approved version of the minutes by the City Commission. Please take the time to review all of the above comments. There is probably some overlap between this correspondence with the D.R.B. memorandum of February 1, 2006 and the letter to Jolene Rieck, but at least that way we are able to identify all of the issues that still need to be addressed in order to obtain Final P.U.D. Plan approval. Per the recommendation of the D.R.B. at the our last meeting, please remove from the modified Development Manual all references where it starts with "The Bozeman Design Objectives Plan calls for...." (i.e.., page 94, 97, etc.). Once the common signage plan has been provided for review, staff will provide you with the necessary comments. Section 18.52 of the Unified Development Ordinance should give you a good start on the limitations with signage within the planned unit development. Staff would prefer that once we have finalized the common signage plan that we modify some of the key exhibits in the Manual that make reference to signage (i.e., 24, 50 and 51). Or, we could just provide the final plan and include in the document. There have been references.to M.D.O.T. allowing landscape features in the right-of-way. If so, please provide staff with a letter from the state agency allowing this to happen. We tried this on.North 19`h Avenue and they would not let the developers install trees, trails, water features and landscape elements in the right-of-way. With your urgency to get before the D.R.B. with the Development Manual and an informal on the supermarket staff has not had the opportunity to review the protective covenants yet. It will probably take a couple more weeks to finalize comments on that document. We have not determined to what degree and detail the Final Site Plan should contain, but will let you know shortly. Most of the emphasis has been on the Manual and Landscape Plan. Please make sure to remind Jolene Rieck that this entryway corridor is the last corridor in our community to be developed. The complexity and scale of this project needs the typical details for landscape features included in the Manual so it is clear with development of each phase. Looking forward to seeing you on Wednesday. Respectfully, David P. Skelton Senior Planner DS/dps cc: Carter&Burgess Consultants, Inc., 1420 W. Mockingbird Lane, Suite 800, Dallas,T175247 Morrison-Maierle, Inc., P.O. Box 1113,Bozeman,MT 59771 Jolene Rieck, Peaks to Plains Design, 208 N. Broadway, Suite 350,Billings,MT 59101 Page 3 s¢; e d � d ty o �7 N . a lei z a . � z 10' MINIMUM WIDTH FOR SHARED USE i' GRAVEL t' GRAVEL SHOULDER ' 6' MINIMUM WIDTH FOR SINGLE USE SHOULDER OZ D m m 2% SLOPE CLEAR & GRUB, MINIMUM LIMITS V) 11' MINUS CRUSHED GRAVEL BASE, 9' "0 -0 MINIMUM THICKNESS, COMPACTED TO A TYPE B ASPHALT PLANT MIX, 2 MINIMUM C7 = MINIMUM OF 95% OF MAX DRY DENSITY AS THICKNESS. COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF D D DETERMINED BY AASHTO T99 93% OF MAX. DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY r r ASTMD 2041 V) m .v n D --I --I NOTES: O Z 1. PATHWAYS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO SUPPORT D A MINIMUM DESIGN LOAD OF 25,000 ESAL. < 2. A SOIL STERILANT SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE SUBGRADE.PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE GRAVEL BASE. 3. A CONSTRUCTION SEAL SHALL BE APPLIED Tf THE PAVED SURFACE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING FINAL ROLLIN( AT THE RATE OF 0.1 GALLON/SQUARE YARD. Z D , Z p N N � O N O to Cn � . 0 f1 The Bozeman Gateway Request for Additional Relaxations Additional UDO relaxation requests are summarized below: 1. UDO18.18.050 and 18.20.050 provide for the following yard setbacks: Minimum Yards in the B-2 district: Building: Front yard—7 feet, except along arterials where minimum is 25' Rear yard— 10 feet Side yards— 5 feet, except where zero lot lines allowed) Parking and Loading Areas: Front Yard—25 feet Rear Yard— 10 feet Side yard—8 feet Minimum Yards in the B-P district: Front yard—25 feet Rear yard—20 feet Side yard— 15 feet (except where zero lot lines allowed) Request:_ The Applicant will request a relaxation of Sections 18.18.050 and 18.20.050 to allow reductions of setbacks as follows. All encroachments will be on privately maintained streets internal to the site: Setbacks to buildings and parking and loading areas shall be provided as follows: Huffine Lane— Buildings 60 feet Parking and Loading Areas 50 feet Fowler Avenue— Buildings 30 feet Parking and Loading Areas 20 feet f encroaches-5-fe€t i-nto 25 foot setback) Technology Blvd— Buildings 15 feet Parking and Loading Areas 10 feet(encroachesl5_feet_into 25-foot-setback) Harmon Stream Blvd— Buildings 10 feet Parking and Loading Areas 10 feet (encroach se 15 feet into 25 foot setback) Garfield St.- T Buildings 25 feet Parking and Loading Areas 25 feet Chronicle Lane— :t • 0 �w Buildings 15 feet Parking and Loading Areas 15 feet (encroaches-0"feet-in`to 25rtf6ot setback) t — Justifications: The relaxation will generally establish building and parking setbacks to the same setback line and allow the flexibility to meet parking requirements throughout the subdivision. The cases where the parking/loading area setbacks are reduced to less than the building setbacks are generally to accommodate circulation of traffic to the rear or sides of the buildings. In the Case of Chronicle Lane the setbacks are the remnants of the underlying B-P zoning. As discussed in the submittal the land use designation for the property supports B-2 zoning in this portion of the site. The Applicant is proposing to use the PUD process to allow B-2 uses in this area in lieu of a zone change. The proposed setbacks are consistent with the B- 2 zone district. 2. UDO 18.18.040 and 18.20.040 provides for minimum lot widths in the B-2 of 100 feet and in the B-P zone of 150 feet. Request: The Applicant requests a relaxation of Section 18.18.040 and 18.20.040 to allow lot widths less than those required. Lot widths less than the required will be requested in the lifestyle center portion of the project. Justification: These lots will be in areas where common wall buildings will be constructed. The resulting buildings will be in excess of the 100 foot requirement, however, individual tenant widths will be less than the requirements. Other reduced width lots are identified as plaza areas in the lifestyle center portion of the project. 3. UDO 18.20.060 provides for an allowable building height in the B-2 district of 44 feet. Request: The Applicant requests a relaxation to increase the allowable building height from 44 feet to 146 feet. Justification: The building height relaxation provides an element of flexibility and uniqueness to the project. Any multi-story buildings will still be controlled by the restraints of the site. The availability of parking space to the overall plan will control the size of any buildings. As the height of buildings increases the footprint of the building will decrease if the same amount of space is provided. This will allow for additional green space and landscaped areas on the site. CI*F BOZEMAN M j DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260 ;;••', 20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263 P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozeman.net MEMORANDUM TO: BOZEMAN DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: DAVE SKELTON, SENIOR PLANNER RE: BOZEMAN GATEWAY SUBDIVISION P.U.D.DEVELOPMENT MANUAL ZONING APPICATION NO. Z-05217 DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Planning Office has reviewed the revised Development Manual for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.; and as a result, offer the following comments for consideration. Staff finds the document acceptable with the recommended modifications or additions outlined below, realizing that each project will be considered further against the document during Site Plan Review. General: Both the Planning Office and D.R.B. must review and approve the Development Manual. A Landscape Plan and Final Site Plan will still need to be submitted for review and approval also. However, the majority of this information is included in the Manual. Final Landscape Plan: The exhibits in the Development Manual are very effect but should not be considered a substitute for the Landscape Plan for the entire development. The manual is a supplement to the Landscape Plan that contains typical details of landscape areas and features The Final Landscape Plan must identify landscape features in relation and proximity to existing power poles, property line, underground faculties, etc. The entire length of the West Main Street entryway corridor must be addressed with the Landscape Plan. The West Main Street corridor calls for informal landscape features in concert with a formal spacing of boulevard trees at one (1) tree per fifty (50) lineal feet. Screening of the off-street parking lot from the entryway corridor is minimal and requires a typical detail of how the parking lots will be screened from the corridor. This would also apply to West Garfield Street, Chronicle Lane, and Harmon Stream Boulevard. There was discussion on providing a typical landscape feature along the corridors that suggests the more native type species and/or more non-traditional landscape features along the water corridors, as well as the West Main Street entryway corridor. Also a typical landscape feature in the plaza areas along the watercourse that is not part of planter bed, or raised seating area, but a continuation of the same ideal along the other natural corridors. planning • zoning . subdivision review . annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration • neighborhood coordination Final Site Plan: The Final Site Plan for the entire development will include the revisions discussed in the Development Manual, including placement of the information areas, bus transit stop, seating features along the corridors, landscape seating areas in the parking lot areas, Signage: There is a need for a common signage plan that depicts a specific signage theme for project identification signs related to monument and pylon signs for the project. Only one (1) project identification pylon sign per street frontage. No personal pylon signs for an anchor tenant. Chapter I Introduction: Section C (page 10) — Review of the main street corridor calls for a wider sidewalk between the buildings and on-street parking spaces. Subdivision review discussed the sidewalk being 12-feet wide and defined as that area between the on-street parking and the required 7-foot setback from the property line for all structures. This should. be included in the Development Manual to assist with defining the main street for the lifestyle center. Chapter II Site Development Standards: Section A.5 (page20) — Site maintenance and grading, particularly in open space corridors, stream corridors and entryway corridors, the minimum allowable grading for landscaped features is 4:1, or 25% slope. It should be made clear what areas may be 3:1, or 33% slope, please provide an example of what you're talking about here. Landscaped areas are limited to 4:1, or 25% slope. See Section 15 - Grading on page 12 of staff report. Section B.Ld (page 23) — view of drive-thru facilities should also apply to Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street. Section B.Ld (page 24) — Section 18.44.090.C.2.b(2) of the U.D.O. calls for a minimum width of 16 feet for one-way drive aisles. Section BA.c (page 28-29) —The exhibit on page 28 does not show sidewalks, or "walkways", on both sides of Technology Boulevard as in intersects with Fowler Avenue. If this is the main street for the "lifestyle" center sidewalks must be on both sides and is required by the U.D.O. Section B.6 - Snow Clearing (page 31) — if the plan is to have shared parking throughout the development, it is going to be impossible to oversize lots to address snow storage. Probably need language about provisions for snow removal from the site. Otherwise, this language will be an issue during site plan review for each project. Section D — Green Space (page 44) —The location of the transit stop is a workable location. The issue is having adequate width for two-way traffic and the ability to provide a pull-out area for buses. May, Page 2 or may not be an issue. The detail is good start, but better attention needs to be given to it in the Manual. Section E.1 — Site Lighting and Signage (page 49) —The second light fixture does not comply with the U.D.O. and would need a variance (i.e., exposed lens and bulb). There also is no discussion about pedestrian lighting, particularly along the trail corridors within the interior of the development (i.e., bollard lighting). Section E.La — Site Lighting and Signage (page 49) — Lighting fixtures, both street and parking lot fixtures and poles, can not exceed a height of 20 feet. Section E.Lb — Site Lighting and Signage (page 49) — Parking lot light illumination may not exceed 0.2 foot candles. Only accent lighting of building entrances may be an average of 5.0 foot candles. Section E — Site Signage (page 50) —For the record all pylon signs must be setback from the property line and not in the public right-of-way. The exhibit suggests that this is possible. Only one pylon sign is permitted on each street frontage, basically three. Exhibit on page 50 needs to identify the three signs. Nine monument signs to identify the project is not feasible, three pylon signs at the main entrances and six monument signs at the street intersections is feasible. You will need to modify the exhibit accordingly. A common signage plan, depicting design, dimensions, height, materials and method of illumination for the pylon and monument signs must be provided. Are the signs in the exhibit on page 51 pylon signs, or monument signs? By the U.D.O. monument signs may not exceed a height of 5 feet. Just need to get this squared away on what you're calling monument signs. Section E.2.g and E.2.h -Site Lighting and Signage (page 52) — The common signage plan needs to define the design, materials dimensions, etc., etc. This could suggest that a tenant may have their own pylon sign, which is not correct. A project identification pylon sign may have tenant space on it, but tenants may not have their own pylon sign (i.e., supermarket). Replace the exhibits on page 52, or incorporate the design of the project identification signs for Bozeman Gateway to illustrate on the design mirrors the present quality and design. Section F.2.g — Utilities, Grading and Drainage (page 55) — Max slope is 4:1, or 25%, if its not hardscape. All landscape features, required yards, parking lot landscape, storm water facilities must be 25% slope. Provide an example of what you're talking about. Chapter III Landscape Design Standards: Section A—Overview (page 60) - The exhibit needs to illustrate staff's discussions with the landscape designer to include the formal spacing of boulevard trees along the entryway corridor. The Landscape Plan will reflect the same design, but expand on the landscape features in proximity to trails, ponds, over poles, and utilities. Section A—Overview (page 61)—Great detail of the landscape island in the parking area. Section B.Lm — Vegetation (page 64) — Shade trees "shall' be a minimum of 2" caliper, not "should" be of 2" caliper. Page 3 Section C.5 and 6 — Hardscape (page 71) — Will need to verify specifications with City parks department to comply with their trail specifications. Section c.8 —Planters (page 73)—Good! Section D—Storm Water Facilities (page 75)—Good! Section E — Maintenance (page 77) — Make sure to add a section that discusses the location and placement of wells and associated mechanical equipment that are screened from the generally public and not an eyesore. Note that placement will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Office. Chapter IV Building Design Standards: Section B —Building Exterior (page 93 and 94) —There is an approved building height of up to 65 feet for the entire project, no higher. Section B — Building Exterior (page 99) — Condition #19 of the C.U.P. approval states that not more than 25% of any building fagade shall be covered with a synthetic surface. Section B..g—Building Exterior(page 103) - Strike this section it does not comply with condition #29. A translucent or transparent awning does not have to be back lit to be obtrusive. The illumination from the store front could cause enough illumination in itself to be make, the awning appear to "hover" at night, be obtrusive, or become a distraction. Section D.1 — Building Lighting (page 114) — This section is acceptable as long as it states that "no neon tube or LED lighting, or similar lighting, may be used unless it is used as an architectural feature as a indirect backwash to the building fagade. Said lighting and fixture will not be visible from the adjoining street, or sidewalk by the pedestrian passerby." Also include the reference to exposed, unshielded lighting. Section E — Building Signage — Internally Illuminated, Fully Integrated Cabinet Signs (page 121) — Include the language required in condition #33 of C.U.P. approval that discusses three-dimensional component with a sense of architectural relief. V. Review Procedures: DA—Final Review (page 142)—Just state that applicant will submit to the City of Bozeman a site plan review application in the accordance with the COB U.D.O. for review and approval by the applicable review agency. Point being that the City of Bozeman could look at it if a variance or deviation is requested, or a modification to the PUD. DS/dps cc: Mitchell Development Group, L.L.C., 1315 81h Avenue N., Great Falls, MT 59401 Carter & Burgess Consultants, Inc., 1420 W. Mockingbird Lane, Suite 800,Dallas,TX 75247 Morrison-Maierle, Inc., P.O. Box 1113, Bozeman, MT 59771 Page 4 A' Toozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U. 0 Zoning Condition Responses DEPARW.FNTCF 1. The PUD shall comply with all approved conditions of the subdi, isioaoprel� ,"li7h y��v �T plat approval. Response: Applicant Agrees. 2. Conditional approval of the Preliminary P.U.D. Plan and final approval of the Final P.U.D. Plan for Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. by the Planning Director is limited to the approval of the master plan and development guidelines of the Development Manual only. Approval does not exempt the applicant from compliance with all provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code, which are applicable to this project and site plan review of individual projects within the P.U.D. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed; does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. Response: Applicant Agrees. 3. Prior to submitting for Final Plat review and approval of the initial phase(s) for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. the applicant shall obtain Final P.U.D. approval by the Planning Director. A draft of the revised protective covenants and restrictions for the property owner's association, preliminary draft of the Final P.U.D. Plan and Development Manual addressing all of the conditions of approval and outlined in the staff report shall be submitted for review by the City Commission, Planning Office and D.R.B. a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to submitting for final plat review and approval of the initial phase(s) of the subdivision. S Response: Applicant shall have received Final P.U.D. approval and shall have submitted a revised draft of the protective covenants to the Planning Office for review and approval thirty (30) days prior to the initial phase Final.Plat submittal. 4. The landscape features and trail improvements along the West Main Street entryway corridor that front onto US 191/Huffing Lane and West Garfield Street shall be installed with Phase 1 of The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. Response: Applicant Agrees. Page 1 of 13 A Akozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U. Zoning Condition Responses 5. That all pedestrian/bicycle crossings and walkways with streets be given greater emphasis by using similar pavers that reflect the surface treatment of public plazas and areas of outdoor social activities. Connections between streets, off-street parking lots, and public areas should also be given attention in terms of raised walkways, pavers, pedestrian lighting and landscape features. The Final P.U.D. Plan will contain a written narrative and detailed plan in the Development Manual whereby the project provides a public information shelter and map display area along the West Main Street entryway corridor. This area will serve as a regional trail connection point for pedestrians and bicycles along the corridor. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Pages 28 & 29, Section II (Site Development Standards), Item B (Traffic Flow and Parking), Part 4 (Walkways), Paragraph c. and Page 50, Section II (Site Development Standards), Item E (Site Lighting and Signage), Part 2 (Site Signage), Paragraph b. 6. Pathways must be maintained by the developer in conformance with the approved maintenance plan until 50% of the lots are sold. Thereafter, the homeowner's association is responsible for pathway maintenance (Section 18.50.110). Plans and specification for the trail will need to be reviewed by the Parks Department prior to construction. A Type II Class trail is recommended along the watercourse corridor with the placement of appropriate pedestrian crossings at all intersections with interior subdivision streets. A typical cross section of the public trails, both Type I and Type II, shall be included in the landscape guidelines and will include trail specifications, typical landscape guidelines, and site grading plans for review and approval prior to final plat approval. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Pages 71 & 72, Section III (Landscape Design Standards), Item C (Hardscape), Parts 5 (Asphalt Trails) and Part 6 (Gravel Trails). 7. Provisions for a transit stop within the interior of the P.U.D. and an information center along the West Main Street entryway corridor shall be incorporated into site design for review and approval with the Final P.U.D. Plan. A written explanation, illustrations and details shall be included in the Development Manual for review and approval. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Page 44, Section II (Site Development Standards), Item D (Green Space), Part 3 (Pedestrian and Bike Circulation), Paragraph d, and Page 50, Section II (Site Development Standards), Item E (Site Lighting and Signage), Part 2 (Site Signage), Paragraph b. Page 2 of 13 Ttozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.0 Zoning Condition Responses 8. The public streetscape shall contain a regular spacing of boulevard trees along streets, both public and private, in concert with landscape features and screening of off-street parking lots; primarily, areas along West Garfield Street and US Highway 191/West Main Street. All trees to be installed in the boulevards, off-street parking ✓' lots, common open space areas, public plazas and individual subdivision lots will be installed at 2-inch caliper in diameter. Street character along the West Main Street entryway corridor, Fowler Avenue and Garfield Street shall call for architectural features that suggest a presence of store fronts, plazas, fenestration treatment and architectural details that reflect the "lifestyle center" concept. The Development Manual shall contain said language to insure implementation of said streetscape features. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Page 63, Section III (Landscape Design Standards), Item B (Vegetation), Part 1 (Tree and Shrub Species), Page 86, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item A (Overview), Convenience Center and Out parcels, and Pages 89-103, Section IV (Building Design Standards) Item B (Building Exterior). 9. Commercial and retail drive-thrus and associated apprentices (speaker phones, signage, ATM, canopies, etc.) shall not front onto the entryway corridor or corner- side of the building and will not impact the building facade of the satellite structures along the streetscape. The Development Manual will provide a typical illustration that speaks to this provision prior to Final P.U.D. Plan approval. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 23, Section II (Site Development Standards), Item B (Traffic Flow and Parking), Part 1 (Site Access), Paragraph d. 10. The Final P.U.D, Plan and Development Manual shall discuss the treatment of streets intersections that are enhanced by pedestrian-friendly entrances, plazas or design features such as benches and landscape planters. Building entrances near the sidewalk edge that contain an entry plaza should also be considered at the intersections of local streets with Technology Boulevard and not only in the commercial area, but also along the business park/professional office corridors. This would also apply at the corner of Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street. If it is the decision to locate the grocery store at the southeast corner of West Main Street and Fowler Avenue, a building entrance and plaza must occur along the entryway corridor, preferably at the northwest corner of the building. Page 3 of 13 T*ozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.0 Zoning Condition Responses Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Page 86, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item A (Overview), Convenience Center and Out parcels, Pages 89-103, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior) and Pages 69,70,72 & 73, Section III (Landscape Design Standards) Item C (Hardscape). 11. The Development Manual and Landscape Plan shall address the treatment of drainage basins in the open space corridors with regard to placement of said facilities and outlet structures. These facilities must be properly landscaped and prevent any impact on the landscape features along these corridors. Specific —• landscape details will be required with the final landscape plan to demonstrate proper landscape of the facilities. IThe landscape guidelines shall state that drainage — basins will not eliminate the installation of landscape and landscape features as depicted on the Preliminary P.U.D. Plan; and if so, will be replaced outside of the open space corridors. A Landscape Plan that landscape features installed over or around areas that contain a drainage basin in the open space corridor will not be impacted. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 75, Section III (Landscape Design Standards),Item D (Storm Water Facilities). 12. That the landscape guidelines of the Development Manual state that the surface ponds along West Main Street are not part of the storm water facilities and will be maintained as landscape feature along the entryway corridor. Provisions will be discussed in the protective covenants and Development Manual that will limit the fluctuation of said ponds to ensure that they remain an effective landscape feature along the entryway corridor. Should the design and installation of the surface ponds result in problems with fluctuation and are not considered an effective landscape element of the entryway corridor, resolution of the problem shall be resolved prior to the filing of the final plat for the second phase(s) of the major subdivision. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Pages 60-61, Section III (Landscape Design Standards), Item A (Overview) and Page 75 Section III (Landscape Design Standards), Item D (Storm Water Facilities). 13. The water features along the West Main Street entryway corridor shall be designed as open space amenities as organic in shape and form, lined with appropriate aquatic and wetland features, native grasses and indigenous plants. Provisions will be outlined in the Development Manual and/or protective covenants the P.U.D. Landscape Plan shall include landscape plan of the water features for review and approval prior to Final P.U.D. Plan approval. Side slopes for the water features shall not exceed 25% slope. Page 4 of 13 ABozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U# Zoning Condition Responses Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Page 60, Section III (Landscape Design Standards), Item A (Overview) and Page 55, Section II Site Development Standards), Item F (Utilities, Grading and Drainage), Part 2 (Grading and Drainage), Paragraph h. 14. The final Landscape Plan shall specifically address landscape details for the three open corridors, two public trails within the north off-street parking lot, and West Main Street entryway corridor. Detailed landscape plans shall also be included for the two public plazas within the interior of the lifestyle center and the small public spaces along the north/south water courses. Prior to Final P.U.D. Plan approval the Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Office and D.R.B. for approval. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Pages 59-82, Section III (Landscape Design Standards). 15. The final Landscape Plan shall expand on the types of vegetation sought within the design standards and should a stronger emphasis on clustered landscape features, low-profile vegetation, native type species, vegetation along the watercourse corridors and West Main Street entryway corridor, flowering and perennial species, and ground cover. The design standards shall specifically discourage the use of "pea" gravel or decorative 1 1/4" to 2" washed rock gravel, or less. All landscape islands that include decorative rock or gravel as a ground cover shall specify "river rock" or equal in the landscape plan. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Pages 63-66, Section III (Landscape Design Standards), Item B (Vegetation), Part 1 (Tree and Shrub Species) and Part 2 (Planting Beds). 16. That the applicant will provide surface finish elevations for all parking lots and building finished floor elevations with respect to associated watercourse features. The Development Manual and protective covenants shall state that all open space areas and associated watercourse setbacks will remain undisturbed unless otherwise approved by the Planning Office. All grade transitions between off-street parking lot areas and abutting watercourse open space areas shall not exceed a maximum slope of 4:1, or 25% slope. Response: Condition is addressed on the Preliminary Site Grading Plan under Tab 34 of the Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Plat Application and also in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 55, Section II Site Development Standards), Item F (Utilities, Grading and Drainage), Part 2 (Grading and Drainage), Paragraph h. Page 5 of 13 Atozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.0 Zoning Condition Responses 17. The Bozeman Design Objectives Plan states that the following elements must be achieved in order to reduce the perceived mass of a building: a change in color or change in material shall be used in each building module; a 20% change in vertical V", height between each module; change roof form; change in articulation. The architectural guidelines should discuss components that help to establish a human scale along the facade, store fronts, primary entrances (i.e. one-story elements). Expression of each floor in the external skin and use of material should also be noted. The Development Manual will need to provide illustrations for each of these guidelines as discussed and revise any illustrations proposed in the Development Manual that do not reflect said criteria. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Pages 94-96, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior), Part 3 (Mass and Scale). 41/18. The architectural guidelines for the development suggest that the Convenience Center, Outparcels and Office-Professional areas will incorporate the architectural vocabulary of the lifestyle center. However, modifications will be required due to the significant variation in building type and scale. The Development Manual goes on to state that an exact determination of which entities will be responsible for which elements of design and construction will be determined by individual lease or sales agreements. In-lieu of this, the Development Manual shall give specific attention to each of these areas of the mixed-use development and identify what must be achieved in each of these areas to maintain the architectural integrity of the overall development theme. The Development Manual shall graphically address the presentation of building facades that face onto the public streets (i.e. West Main Street corridor entryway, Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street) and through the use of illustration illustrate the architectural theme sought with the "lifestyle" center of the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision. This also applies as well to the professional office, business park and convenience components of the development, as well as the rear facades of both sides of the "lifestyle" center situated along Technology Boulevard. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Pages 85-103, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item A (Overview) and Item B (Building Exterior). 19. The architectural guidelines of the Development Manual will be modified to state that not more than 25% of any of the building facades shall be covered with a synthetic surface. Page 6of13 Atozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.10 Zoning Condition Responses Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 99, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior), Part 5 (Materials), Paragraph a. �20. The Development Manual will discuss presentation onto a street regardless if it's the main street for the lifestyle center, private street or a public street with respect to a formal entrance, store fronts, covered entrances, and public spaces. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Pages 85-103, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior) and Page 98, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior), Exhibit // Shown. /21. Section V of the Development Manual — "Review Procedures of the Development Manual" shall be revised to clarify that the site plan review process for individuals projects within the planned unit development are not an informal review by the City of Bozeman and shall instead follow the prescribed site plan review process outlined in the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. The Manual shall further note that with the site plan review applications for each building project shall include in the submittal detailed elevations, floor plans, landscape plan, site plan, colored rendering, accurate color palette, and materials sample board specific to said project. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 142, Section V (Review Procedures), Item D (Final Review), Part 4 (City of Bozeman Site Plan Review). V 2. No corporate or franchise style architecture shall be permitted in the Bozeman -A,G AA Gateway Subdivision and noted accordingly in the Development Manual and the protective covenants and restrictions of the property owner's association documents. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Page 87, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item A (Overview) and Page 97, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior), Part 4 (Architectural Vocabulary), Paragraph i. 23. The general building materials theme and color palette shall be continued throughout all phases of the development. The types of cultural stone to be used throughout the project shall be reviewed and approved by the D.R.B. and A.D.R. staff as part of the Final P.U.D. and noted accordingly in the Development Manual. Page 7of13 1 TIPBozeman Gateway Subdivision P.0 0 Zoning Condition Responses Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Page 96, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior), Part 4 (Architectural Vocabulary), Paragraph a, Page 97, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior), Part 5 (Materials) and Page 142, Section V (Review Procedures), Item D. (Final Review), Part 4 (City of Bozeman Site Plan Review). 24. The Development Manual shall be modified to specifically state that all roof top mechanical equipment will be properly screened through the use of proper architectural screening techniques or with parapet walls that will reach a height that is equal or greater than the top of all mechanical equipment. Any ventilation for plumbing or air exchange that is not mechanical related equipment shall be painted to match the color palette of the roof and/or architectural screening. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 95, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior), Part 3 (Mass and Scale), Paragraph f. 25. All of the buildings on the perimeter of the development shall have a second store front (double fronted design) that is oriented towards the streetscape and shall include a type of design feature directed towards the corner (a concave area or a bump-out constructed of transparent materials) and shall be noted accordingly in the Development Manual. Any additional exhibits presented to the D.R.B. and City Commission that are found acceptable shall be included in the Development Manual. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 98, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior), Exhibit Shown. Z6The backside of the buildings shall be addressed by the continuation of similar materials on all sides of the building(s) with similar architectural features, light fixtures, materials, color palette and awnings over the doors on the rear or back elevations. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 90, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior), Part 1 (Building Planning), Paragraph f. Page 8of13 TIRozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.10 Zoning Condition Responses /27. The development guidelines shall contain language for all store fronts that encourages the use of dark bronze anodized, or similarly darker frames, in-lieu of the brushed stainless steel finish. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 99, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior), Part 5 (Materials), Paragraph c. . Sconce lights and goose neck lights (down lights only) shall be added to the larger retail buildings (over 15,000 square feet). Exposed, unshielded neon tube lighting and continuous L.E.D. string lighting are not permitted in the planned unit development and shall be noted accordingly in the Developments Manual and protective covenants of the property owner's association. The lighting guidelines may indicate that neon lighting and L.E.D. lighting may be used as a subtle lighting element under the soffits, behind the fascia or in the sign package (i.e. backlit feature) as an indirect, obscure lighting detail. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Page 113, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item D (Building Lighting), Part 1 (Exterior Facade Lighting), Paragraph a and Page 113, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item D (Building Lighting), Part 1 (Exterior Facade Lighting), Paragraph 1. ✓29. The architectural guidelines of the Development Manual shall contain language that discourages the use of translucent or transparent awnings and shall instead be opaque in material through the use of fabric or metal materials only. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 103, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior), Part 8 (Projecting Design Elements), Paragraph g. 30. Those areas of the building facade to be finished in a synthetic material (i.e. E.F.I.S., dryvit, stucco or similar finish) shall place a strong emphasis on the treatment, color palette and variation in joint detail and pattern, relief and architectural detail, and noted accordingly in the Development Manual. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 97, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item B (Building Exterior), Part 5 (Materials). Page 9 of 13 ThRozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.0 Zoning Condition Responses 1. All crossings within the Planned Unit Development shall be constructed with scored concrete or pavers similar to the surface materials installed throughout the public outdoor public areas. The crossings shall be noted as such on Final P.U.D. Plan and details for the pattern(s) shall be provided in the final development guidelines. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Pages 28 and 29, Section II (Site Development Standards), Item B (Traffic Flow and Parking), Part 4 (Walkways), Paragraph c, Page 38, Section II (Site Development Standards), Item C (Civic Spaces), Part 3 (Paving Materials), Paragraph g. V3-2. Larger seating areas with planters shall be installed throughout the plazas and public areas and a typical detail of the planters included in the Development Manual. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 73, Section III (Landscape Design Standards), Item C (Hardscape), Part 8 (Planters). 33. The development guidelines shall indicate that no backlit cabinet type "box" signs will be permitted in each phase of the development unless a three-dimensional component is included that creates a sense of architectural relief and where no plastic, translucent or transparent face are permitted. This shall be addressed in the comprehensive signage plan for the planned unit development and shall be submitted to the Planning Office prior to the Final P.U.D. approval that depicts a sign package that exhibits qualities of style, relief and compatibility. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 123, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item E (Building Signage, Part 5 (Signage Not Permitted). 34. A common master Signage plan depicting the actual location, dimensions, height, illumination and use of material for all freestanding signs shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Final P.U.D. Plan approval. Both the pylon signs and monument signs shall be constructed of materials compatible with the overall building design theme for the development and illustrated accordingly in the Development Manual. All signs shall obtain a sign permit prior to construction and installation, and shall comply with the required regulatory standards set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance. The Development Manual will need to include a graphic component of the master sign plan for the entire property that reflects the theme desired with this P.U.D. This includes discussion on the position of signs as past of the overall building Page 10 of 13 T*ozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.01 Zoning Condition Responses composition; avoid obscuring architectural details, materials, and use of color and relief, three-dimensional signage, placement of freestanding signs along street frontages, entrances into the development, and addressing required setbacks and street vision triangles. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Pages 50-52, Section II (Site Development Standards), Item E (Lighting and Signage), Part 2 (Site Signage) and Pages 117-124, Section IV (Building Design Standards), Item E (Building Signage). 35. The north off-street parking lot in Phase 4 will replace two off-street parking spaces along each of the two watercourse open space corridors for the placement of an 18' by 18' public area with benches, pavers and landscape features. A typical detail of this area shall be illustrated accordingly in the Development Manual as part of the landscape guidelines and the final Landscape Plan for the development. The watercourse corridors shall have a minimum width of not less than thirty feet, exclusive of the 18' by 18' public area. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following locations: Page 61, Section III (Landscape Design Standards), Item A (Overview), See Detail. 36. The applicant shall implement an "Off-Street Parking Lot Implementation Plan" for each phase of the planned unit development that ensures adequate parking facilities are available for the general public in each phase of the P.U.D. The gross floor area of buildings in each phase will be determined based on the ability to comply with the required minimum off-street parking standards outlined in the Unified Development Ordinance. This will be further addressed during site plan review of each individual project. The applicant shall further provide a notation on the subdivision plats and in the protective covenants and Development Manual that all off-street parking areas located within the development will be held to a reciprocal shared parking easement and agreement for use by the general public. Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 30, Section II (Site Development Standards), Item B (Traffic Flow and Parking), Part 5 (Parking Lots), Paragraph a. �-� 37. All parking lot lights and internally illuminated signs shall be turned off within one hour of closing, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director of City Commission during site plan review of each individual project within The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. Only security lights will be permitted to remainn/-J throughout the night. Page 11 of 13 Aozeman Gateway Subdivision P.0 00 Zoning Condition Responses Response: Condition is addressed in the Development Manual under the following location: Page 49, Section II (Site Development Standards), Item E (Site Lighting and Signage), Part 1 (Site Lighting), Paragraph h. 38. The City of Bozeman shall be party to any modifications, changes or amendments to the protective covenants and restrictions and to the Development Manual for The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. as it relates to the conditions of approval for the subdivision Preliminary Plat and zoning P.U.D. Preliminary Plan. Response: Any modifications, changes or amendments to the protective covenants and restrictions and to the Development Manual for The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. as it relates to the conditions of approval for the subdivision Preliminary Plat and zoning P.U.D. Preliminary Plan shall be subject to the prior approval of the City of Bozeman. The Applicant wishes to clarify that the City of Bozeman shall separately approve (rather than be a party/signatory to) any such modifications, changes or amendments to the protective covenants and restrictions and the Development Manual for The Bozeman Gateway. 39. That the applicant submit an implementation plan for a residential component of seventy (70) or more residential dwelling units with a substantial number of dwelling units located in the core of the development prior to review and approval of Phase 2. Response: Applicant— is not in agreement as to the City's interpretation of city commission motion as it relates to restricting the phasing of the Bozeman Gateway until an implementation plan for a residential component is submitted. It was very clear to us that the phasing issue was eliminated from the motion immediately before a vote and was tied to the height relaxation request instead. We hereby decline comment on this issue at this time until we receive the actual transcript of the motion as well as the minutes of the December 121h City Commission Meeting and further investigation is completed. Be advised, however, that we are excited about the opportunity to include at least 70 residential units in the core of the project and are performing a feasibility studies regarding this issue. Carter Burgess is hard at work to provide us a conceptual design as to how we can include a residential aspect within the Page 12 of 13 T ozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U. . Zoning Condition.Responses development. An implementation plan will be submitted as it becomes available. We believe you will be very pleased with our concept. 40. That all site plan review applications within the subdivision will be subject to review by the Design Review Board. Response: Applicant Agrees. 41. That office buildings 3, 4, and 5 in Phase 3 be rotated to front onto Garfield Street. Response: Applicant Agrees. 42. Building heights will be permitted not to exceed a height of sixty-five (65) feet based on the merits of a residential component for the planned unit development. Response: Applicant Agrees. Page 13 of 13 1420 IV. Mocks gbird, #800 CarternBurgess Dallas, Texas 75247 214-920-8100 Phone 214-688-0618 Fax MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21,2006 TO: BOZEMAN TEAM FROM: Eric Bell,Carter&Burgess SUBJECT: Bozeman Gateway Subdivision PUD Zoning Application No. Z-05217 Below is a response to all DRB and Staff comments received through Dave Skelton and where a response can be found in the development manual. Commission Report - November 28th 2005 1. The PUD shall comply with all approved conditions of the subdivision preliminary plat approval. Nothing to add to Development Manual 2. Conditional approval of the Preliminary PUD Plan and final approval of the Final PUD Plan for Bozeman Gateway Subdivision PUD by the Planning Director is limited to the approval of the master plan and development guidelines of the Development Manual only. Approval does not exempt the applicant from compliance with all provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code, which are applicable to this project and site plan review of individual projects within the PUD. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. Added to Page 6, exact verbiage 3. Prior to submitting for Final Plat review and approval of the initial phase(s) for the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision PUD the applicant shall obtain Final PUD approval by the Planning Director. A draft of the revised protective covenants and restrictions for the property owner's association, preliminary draft of the Final PUD Plan and Development Manual addressing all of the conditions of approval and outlined in the staff report shall be submitted for review by the Planning Office and D.R.B. a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to submitting for final plat review and approval of the initial phase(s)of the subdivision. Nothing to add to Development Manual 4. The landscape features and trail improvements along the West Main Street entryway corridor that front onto US 191/Huffine Lane and West Garfield Street shall be installed with Phase 1 of The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision PUD Added to Page 11, exact verbiage 5. That all pedestrian/bicycle crossings and walkways with streets be given greater emphasis by using similar pavers that reflect the surface treatment of public plazas and areas of outdoor social activities. Connections between streets, off-street parking lots, and public areas should also be given attention in terms of raised walkways, pavers, pedestrian lighting and landscape features. The Final PUD Plan will contain a written narrative and detailed plan in the Development Manual whereby the project provides a public information Bozeman Gateway February 21,2006 Page 2 of 12 shelter and map display area along the West Main Street entryway corridor. This area will serve as a regional trail connection point for pedestrians and bicycles along the corridor. Existing on Pages 28 and 29, Existing on Page 44 and 50 6. Pathways must be maintained by the developer in conformance with the approved maintenance plan until 50% of the lots are sold. Thereafter, the homeowner's association is responsible for pathway maintenance (Section 18.50.110 ). Plans and specifications for the trail will need to be reviewed by the Parks Department prior to construction. A Type H Class trail is recommended along the watercourse corridor with the placement of appropriate pedestrian crossings at all intersections with interior subdivision streets. A typical cross section of the public trails, Both Type I and Type II, shall be included in the landscape guidelines and will include trail specifications, typical landscape guidelines, and site grading plans for review and approval prior to final plat approval. Existing on Page 71 7. Provisions for a transit stop within the interior of the PUD and an information center along the West Main Street entryway corridor shall be incorporated into the site design for review and approval with the Final PUD Plan. A written explanation, illustrations and details shall be included in the Development Manual for review and approval. Added to Page 44, Transit Stop Plan 8. The public streetscape shall contain a regular spacing of boulevard trees along all streets, both public and private, in concert with landscape features and screening of off-street parking lots; primarily, areas along West Garfield Street and US Highway 191/West Main Street. All trees to be installed in the boulevards, off-street parking lots, common open space areas, public plazas and individual subdivision lots will be installed at 2-inch caliper in diameter. Added to Page 65 s., exact verbiage Added to Page 64 m., exact verbiage Street character along the West Main Street entryway corridor,Fowler Avenue and Garfield Street shall call for architectural features that suggest a presence of store fronts, plazas, fenestration treatment and architectural details that reflect the "lifestyle center" concept. The Development Manual shall contain said language to insure implementation of said streetscape features. Added to Page 85, exact verbiage 9. Commercial and retail drive-thru's and associated apprentices (speaker phones, signage, ATM, canopies, etc.) shall not front onto the entryway corridor or corner-side of the building and will not impact the building fagade of the satellite structures along the streetscape. The Development Manual will provide a typical illustration that speaks to this provision prior to Final PUD Plan approval. Added to Page 23 d., exact verbiage 10. The Final PUD Plan and Development Manual shall discuss the treatment of street intersections that are enhanced by pedestrian-friendly entrances,plazas or design features such as benches and landscape planters. Building entrances near the sidewalk edge that contain an entry plaza should also be considered at the intersections of local streets with Technology Boulevard and not only in the commercial area, but also along the business park/professional office corridors. This would also apply at the corner of Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street. If it is the decision to locate the grocery store at the southeast corner of West Main Street and Fowler Avenue, a building entrance and plaza must occur along the entryway corridor,preferably at the northwest corner of the building. Discussion of topic has been requested via e-mail to Dave on 2121106 Bozeman Gateway February 21,2006 Page 3 of 12 11. The Development Manual and Landscape Plan shall address the treatment of drainage basins in the open space corridors with regard to placement of said facilities and outlet structures. These facilities must be properly landscaped and prevent any impact on the landscape features along these corridors. Specific landscape details will be required with the final landscape plan to demonstrate proper landscape of the facilities. The landscape guidelines shall state that drainage basins will not eliminate the installation of landscape and landscape features as depicted on the Preliminary PUD Plan; and if so, will be replaced outside of the open space corridors. A landscape architect shall certify on the Landscape Plan that landscape features installed over or around areas that contain a drainage basin in the open space corridor will not be impacted. Existing on Page 75 12. That the landscape guidelines of the Development Manual state that the surface ponds along West Main Street are not part of the storm water facilities and will be maintained as landscape feature along the entryway corridor. Provisions will be discussed in the protective covenants and Development Manual that will limit the fluctuation of said ponds to ensure that they remain an effective landscape feature along the entryway corridor. Should the design and installation of the surface ponds result in problems with fluctuation and are not considered an effective landscape element of the entryway corridor,resolution of the problem shall be resolved prior to the filing of the final plat for the second phase(s) of the major subdivision. Existing on Page 75 13. The water features along the West Main Street entryway corridor shall be designed as open space amenities as organic in shape and form and lined with appropriate aquatic and wetland features, native grasses and indigenous plants. Provisions will outlined in the Development Manual and/or protective covenants that The PUD Landscape Plan shall include landscape plan of the water features for review and approval prior to Final PUD Plan approval. Side slopes for the water features shall not exceed 25%slope. Added to Page 20 5.b. and Page 55 g. 14. The final Landscape Plan shall specifically address landscape details for the three open corridors, two public trails within the north off-street parking lot, and West Main Street entryway corridor. Detailed landscape plans shall also be included for the two public plazas within the interior of the lifestyle center and the small public spaces along the north/south water courses. Prior to Final PUD Plan approval the Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Office and D.R.B. for approval. Nothing to add to Development Manual 15. The final Landscape Plan shall expand on the types of vegetation sought within the design standards and should a stronger emphasis on clustered landscape features, low-profile vegetation, native type species, vegetation along the watercourse corridors and West Main Street entryway corridor,flowering and perennial species, and ground cover. The design standards shall specifically discourage the use of "pea" gravel or decorative 1 3/a" to 2" washed rock gravel, or less. All landscape islands that include decorative rock or gravel as a groundcover shall specify"river rock" or equal in the landscape plan. Added to Page 66 e., exact verbiage 16. That the applicant will provide surface finish elevations for all parking lots and building finished floor elevations with respect to associated watercourse features. The Development Manual and protective covenants shall state that all open space areas and associated watercourse setbacks will remain undisturbed unless otherwise approved by the Planning Office. All grade transitions between off-street parking lot areas and abutting watercourse open space areas shall not exceed a maximum slope of 4:1,or 25% slope. Added to Page 75 f.,exact verbiage Added to Page 55h., exact verbiage Bozeman Gateway February 21,2006 Page 4 of 12 17. The Bozeman Design Objectives Plan states that the following elements must be achieved in order to reduce the perceived mass of a building: a change in color or change in material shall be used in each building module; a 20% change in vertical height between each module; change roof form; change in articulation. The architectural guidelines should discuss components that help to establish a human scale along the fagade, store fronts, primary entrances (i.e., one-story elements). Expression of each floor in the external skin and use of materials should also be noted. The Development Manual will need to provide illustrations for each of these guidelines as discussed and revise any illustrations proposed in the Development Manual that do not reflect said criteria. Issue trying to be resolved via e-mail to Dave Skelton, 2112106 18. The architectural guidelines for the development suggest that the Convenience Center, Outparcels and Office-Professional areas will incorporate the architectural vocabulary of the lifestyle center. However, modifications will be required due to the significant variation in building type and scale. The Development Manual goes on to state that an exact determination of which entities will be responsible for which elements of design and construction will be determined by individual lease or sales agreements. In-lieu of this, the Development Manual shall give specific attention to each of these areas of the mixed-use development and identify what must be achieved in each of these areas to maintain the architectural integrity of the overall development theme. The Development Manual shall graphically address the presentation of building facades that face onto the public streets-(i.e., West Main Street entryway corridor, Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street) and through the use of illustrations illustrate the architectural theme sought with the "lifestyle center of the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision. This also applies as well to the professional office, business park and convenience components of the development, as well as the rear facades of both sides of the "lifestyle" center situated along Technology Boulevard. Existing on Page 85 19. The architectural guidelines of the Development Manual will be modified to state that not more than 25% of any of the building facades shall be covered with a synthetic surface. Added to Page 97, last bullet point. 20. The Development Manual will discuss presentation onto a street regardless if it's the main street for the lifestyle center, private street or a public street with respect to a formal entrance, store fronts, covered entrances,and public spaces. Added to Page 85, 2"d paragraph, 2"d sentence, exact verbiage 21. Section V of the Development Manual - "Review Procedures of the Development Manual" shall be revised to clarify that the site plan review process for individual projects within the planned unit development are not an informal review by the City of Bozeman and shall instead follow the prescribed site plan review process outlined in the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. The Manual shall further note that with site plan review applications for each building project shall include in the submittal detailed elevations, floor plans, landscape plan, site plan, colored rendering, accurate color palette, and materials sample board specific to said project Dave asked that this exact verbiage be removed from the development manual in the February IS; 2006 revisions. s s Bozeman Gateway February 21,2006 Page 5 of 12 22. No corporate or franchise style architecture shall be permitted in the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision and noted accordingly in the Development Manual and the protective covenants and restrictions of the property owner's association documents. Existing on Page 87 and Page 97 i. 23. The general building materials theme and color palette shall be continued throughout all phases of the development. The types of cultural stone to be used throughout the project shall be reviewed and approved by the D.R.B. and A.D.R. staff as part of the Final PUD Plan and noted accordingly in the Development Manual. Existing on Page 97 s. 24. The Development Manual shall be modified to specifically state that all roof top mechanical equipment will be properly screened through the use of proper architectural screening techniques or with parapet walls that will reach a height that is equal or greater than the top of all mechanical equipment. Any ventilation for plumbing or air exchange that is not mechanical related equipment shall be painted to match the color palette of the roof and/or architectural screening. Existing on Page 95 f. 25. All of the buildings on the perimeter of the development shall have a second store front (double fronted design) that is oriented towards the streetscape and shall include a colonnade and a sidewalk connection to the perimeter sidewalk/trail system. All corner buildings shall .include a type of design feature directed towards the corner (a concave area or a bump-out constructed of transparent materials) and shall be noted accordingly in the. Development Manual. Any additional exhibits presented to the D.R.B. and City Commission that are found acceptable shall be included in the Development Manual. Partially Addressed in Page 102, under Service Entrance Discussion of topic has been requested via e-mail to Dave on 2121106 26. The backside of the buildings shall be addressed by the continuation of similar materials on all sides of the building(s) with similar architectural features, light fixtures, materials, color palette and awnings over the doors on the rear or back elevations. Existing on Page 90 f. 27. The development guidelines shall contain language for all store fronts that encourages the use of dark bronze anodized, or similarly darker frames,in-lieu of the brushed stainless steel finish. Existing on Page 99 c. 28. Sconce lights and goose neck lights (down lights only) shall be added to the larger retail buildings (over 15,000 square feet). Exposed, unshielded neon tube lighting and continuous L.E.D. string lighting are not permitted in the planned unit development and shall be noted accordingly in the Development Manual and protective covenants of the property owner's association. Added on Page 113 e., exact verbiage The lighting guidelines may indicate that neon lighting and L.E.D. lighting may be used as a subtle lighting element under the soffits, behind the fascia or in the sign package (i.e., backlit feature) as an indirect, obscure lighting detail. Added on Page 114 m.. Bozeman Gateway February 21,2006 Page 6 of 12 29. The architectural guidelines of the Development Manual shall contain language that discourages the use of translucent or transparent awnings and shall instead be opaque in material through the use of fabric or metal materials only. Added on Page 103 g., exact verbiage 30. Those areas of the building facade to be finished in a synthetic material (i.e., E.F.I.S., dryvit, stucco or similar finish) shall place a strong emphasis on the treatment, color palette and variation in joint detail and pattern,relief and architectural detail, and noted accordingly in the Development Manual. Added on Page 97, last bullet point Added on Page 99,first bullet point 31. All crossings within the Planned Unit Development shall be constructed with scored concrete or pavers similar to the surface materials installed throughout the public outdoor public areas. The crossings shall be noted as such on the Final PUD Plan and details for the pattern(s) shall be provided in the final development guidelines. Existing on Page 28 and 29 32. Larger seating areas with planters shall be installed throughout the plazas and public areas and a typical detail of the planters included in the Development Manual. Existing on Page 73 a. 33. The development guidelines shall indicate that no backlit cabinet type "box" signs will be permitted in each phase of the development unless a three-dimensional component is included that creates a sense of architectural relief and where no plastic, translucent or transparent face are permitted. This shall be addressed in the comprehensive signage plan for the planned unit development and shall be submitted to the Planning Office prior to Final PUD approval that depicts a sign package that exhibits qualities of style, relief and compatibility. Added on Page 122 i., exact verbiage 34. A common master signage plan depicting the actual location, dimensions, height, illumination and use of materials for all freestanding signs shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Final PUD Plan approval. Both the pylon signs and monument signs shall be constructed of materials compatible with the overall building design theme for the development and illustrated accordingly in the Development Manual. All signs shall obtain a sign permit prior to construction and installation, and shall comply with the required regulatory standards set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance. The Development Manual will need to include a graphic component of the master sign plan for the entire property that reflects the theme desired with this PUD This includes discussion on the position of signs as part of the overall building composition; avoid obscuring architectural details, materials, and use of color and relief, three-dimensional signage, placement of freestanding signs along street frontages, entrances into the development, and addressing required setbacks and street vision triangles. Discussion of topic has been requested via e-mail to Dave on 2121106 35. The north off-street parking lot in Phase 4 will replace two off-street parking spaces along each of the two watercourse open space corridors for the placement of an 18' by 18' public area with benches, pavers and landscape features. A typical detail of this area shall be illustrated accordingly in the Development Manual as part of the landscape guidelines and the final Landscape Plan for the development. The watercourse corridors shall have a minimum width of not less than thirty feet,exclusive of the 18' by 18' public area. Existing on Page 61, Parking Lot Seating Area Bozeman Gateway February 21,2006 Page 7 of 12 36. The applicant shall implement an "Off-Street Parking Lot Implementation Plan" for each phase of the planned unit development that ensures adequate parking facilities are available for the general public in each phase of the PUD The gross floor area of buildings in each phase will be determined based on the ability to comply with the required minimum off-street parking standards outlined in the Unified Development Ordinance. This will be further addressed during site plan review of each individual project. The applicant shall further provide a notation on the subdivision plats and in the protective covenants and Development Manual that all off-street parking areas are to be held in common ownership by the property owners' association for use by the general public. Existing on Page 30 a. 37. All parking lot lights and internally illuminated signs shall be turned off within one hour of closing, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director of City Commission during site plan review of each individual project within The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision PUD. Only security lights will be permitted to remain on throughout the night. Existing on Page 49 h. 38. The City of Bozeman shall be third party to any modifications, changes or amendments to the protective covenants and restrictions and to the Development Manual for The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision PUD as it relates to the conditions of approval for the subdivision Preliminary Plat and zoning PUD Preliminary Plan. Issue was addressed in Jim Ullman's Zoning Condition Response, "The Applicant wishes to clarify that the City of Bozeman shall separately approve (rather than be a party/signatory to) any such modifications, changes or amendments to the protective covenants and restrictions and the Development Manual for The Bozeman Gateway. 39. All building mounted and pole mounted lights shall meet the cut off shield requirements outlined in the UDO, unless a relaxation is granted by the City Commission. Existing on Page 49 f, Comments on the Development Manual - February 1, 2006 Chapter 1 Introduction: Section C (page 10) — Review of the main street corridor calls for a wider sidewalk between the buildings and on-street parking spaces. Subdivision review discussed the sidewalk being 12-feet wide and defined as that area between the on-street parking and the required 7-foot setback from the property line for all structures. This should be included in the Development Manual to assist with defining the main street for the lifestyle center. Added on Page 10, Sidewalk Section Chapter 11 Site Development Standards: Section A.5 (page20) — Site maintenance and grading, particularly in open space corridors, stream corridors and entryway corridors, the minimum allowable grading for landscaped features is 4:1, or 25% slope. It should be made clear what areas may be 3:1, or 3 3% slope, please provide an example of what you're talking about here. Landscaped areas are limited to 4:1, or 25% slope. See Section 15 - Grading on page 12 of staff report. Bozeman Gateway February 21,2006 Page 8 of 12 Added on Page 20 5. b.. Section B.l.d (page 23) — view of drive-thru facilities should also apply to Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street. Added on Page 23 d. Section B.Ld (page 24) — Section 18.44.090.C.2.b(2) of the U.D.O. calls for a minimum width of 16 feet for one-way drive aisles. Added on Page 24 h. Section B.4.c (page 28-29) —The exhibit on page 28 does not show sidewalks, or "walkways", on both sides of Technology Boulevard as in intersects with Fowler Avenue. If this is the main street for the "lifestyle"center sidewalks must be on both sides and is required by the U.D.O. Added on Page 10, Sidewalk Section at Building Section B.6 - Snow Clearing (page 31) — if the plan is to have shared parking throughout the development, it is going to be impossible to oversize lots to address snow storage. Probably need language about provisions for snow removal from the site. Otherwise, this language will be an issue during site plan review for each project. To be further developed Section D—Green Space (page 44) —The location of the transit stop is a workable location. The issue is having adequate width for two-way traffic and the ability to provide a pull-out area for buses. May, or may not be an issue. The detail is good start, but better attention needs to be given to it in the Manual. Added on Page 44, Transit Stop Plan Section E.1 — Site Lighting and Signage (page 49) —The second light fixture does not comply with the U.D.O. and would need a variance (i.e., exposed lens and bulb). There also is no discussion about pedestrian lighting, particularly along the trail corridors within the interior of the development (i.e., bollard lighting). Added on Page 49, Parking Lot Light Fixture Examples Section E.La — Site Lighting and Signage (page 49) — Lighting fixtures, both street and parking lot fixtures and poles, can not exceed a height of 20 feet. Added on 49 a., exact verbiage Section E.l.b — Site Lighting and Signage (page 49) — Parking lot light illumination may not exceed 0.2 foot candles. Only accent lighting of building entrances may be an average of 5.0 foot candles. Added on 49 b., exact verbiage Section E— Site Signage (page 50) —For the record all pylon signs must be setback from the property line and not in the public right-of-way. The exhibit suggests that this is possible. Only one pylon sign is permitted on each street frontage, basically three. Exhibit on page 50 needs to identify the three signs. Added on 50,revised map Bozeman Gateway February 21,2006 Page 9 of 12 Nine monument signs to identify the project is not feasible, three pylon signs at the main entrances and six monument signs at the street intersections is feasible. You will need to modify the exhibit accordingly. A common signage plan, depicting design, dimensions, height, materials and method of illumination for the pylon and monument signs must be provided. Are the signs in the exhibit on page 51 pylon signs, or monument signs? By the U.D.O. monument signs may not exceed a height of 5 feet. Just need to get this squared away on what you're calling monument signs. Discussion of topic has been requested via e-mail to Dave on 2121106 Section E.2.g and E.2.h — Site Lighting and Signage (page 52) — The common signage plan needs to define the design, materials dimensions, etc., etc. This could suggest that a tenant may have their own pylon sign, which is not correct. A project identification pylon sign may have tenant space on it, but tenants may not have their own pylon sign (i.e., supermarket). Replace the exhibits on page 52, or incorporate the design of the project identification signs for Bozeman Gateway to illustrate on the design mirrors the present quality and design. Discussion of topic has been requested via e-mail to Dave on 2121106 Section F.2.g — Utilities, Grading and Drainage (page 55) — Max slope is 4:1, or 25%, if its not hardscape. All landscape features, required yards, parking lot landscape, storm water facilities must be 25% slope. Provide an example of what you're talking about. Added on 55 g., exact verbiage as written in Commission Deport Condition#16 Chapter III Landscape Design Standards: Section A—Overview (page 60) - The exhibit needs to illustrate staff's discussions with the landscape designer to include the formal spacing of boulevard trees along the entryway corridor. The Landscape Plan will reflect the same design, but expand on the landscape features in proximity to trails, ponds, over poles, and utilities. Master Landscape plan will be added to the Development Manual upon its completion. Section A—Overview (page 61)—Great detail of the landscape island in the parking area. N/A Section B.Lm — Vegetation (page 64) — Shade trees "shall' be a minimum of 2" caliper, not "should" be of 2"caliper. Added on 64 m.,exact verbiage Section C.5 and 6 — Hardscape (page 71) — Will need to verify specifications with City parks department to comply with their trail specifications. Added on 71 Section c.8 —Planters (page 73)—Good! N/A Section D—Storm Water Facilities (page 75)—Good! N/A Bozeman Gateway February 21,2006 Page 10 of 12 Section E — Maintenance (page 77) — Make sure to add a section that discusses the location and placement of wells and associated mechanical equipment that are screened from the generally public and not an eyesore. Note that placement will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Office. To be further developed Chapter IV Building Design Standards: Section B —Building Exterior (page 93 and 94) —There is an approved building height of up to 65 feet for the entire project, no higher. Added on 93under Office-Professional Section B — Building Exterior (page 99) — Condition #19 of the C.U.P. approval states that not more than 25% of any building fagade shall be covered with a synthetic surface. Added to Page 97 last bullet point Section B.g—Building Exterior(page 103) - Strike this section it does not comply with condition#29. A translucent or transparent awning does not have to be back lit to be obtrusive. The illumination from the store front could cause enough illumination in itself to be make the awning appear to "hover" at night, be obtrusive, or become a distraction. Added on Page 103 g., exact verbiage as written in:Commission Report Condition#29 Section D.1 — Building Lighting (page 11.4) —This section is acceptable as long as it states that "no neon tube or LED lighting, or similar lighting, may be used unless it is used as an architectural feature as a indirect backwash to the building fagade. Said lighting and fixture will not be visible from the adjoining street, or sidewalk by the pedestrian passerby." Also include the reference to exposed, unshielded lighting. Added on Page 121 f. Section E — Building Signage — Internally Illuminated, Fully Integrated Cabinet Signs (page 121) — Include the language required in condition #33 of C.U.P. approval that discusses three-dimensional component with a sense of architectural relief. Added on Page 122 i., exact verbiage as written in Commission Report Condition#33 V. Review Procedures: DA—Final Review (page 142)—Just state that applicant will submit to the City of Bozeman a site plan review application in the accordance with the COB U.D.O. for review and approval by the applicable review agency. Point being that the City of Bozeman could look at it if a variance or deviation is requested, or a modification to the PUD. Added on Page 142 Bozeman Gateway February 21,2006 Page 11 of 12 Comments on the Development Manual — February 11, 2006 Condition #7 -A conceptual pLan of the transit stop in relation to the street, boulevard sidewalk and open space corridor should be provided in the Manual. For purposes of infrastructure and street construction the type of transit stop should be determined at this time (i.e..,pullout lane?). Added on Page 44, Transit Stop Plan Condition #8 -The landscape plans do not illustrate the regular spacing of boulevard trees and must be revised accordingly. Staff could not find the language in the manual that talks about: "street character along the West Main Street entryway corridor. Fowler Avenue and Garfield Street shall call for architectural features that suggest a 1resence of store fronts, plazas, fenestration treatment and architectural details that reflect the "lifestyle center" concept." Added to Page 85, exact verbiage Condition #9 -This condition specifically states "commercial and retail drive-thrus and associated apprentices (speaker phones, signage, ATM, canopies, etc.) shall not front onto the entryway corridor or corner-side of the building and will not impact the building facade of the satellite structures along the streetscape." Include this specific language in the manual on page 23,word for word. Added to Page 23 d., exact verbiage Condition #10 - Please identify in the Manual were the language in this condition is specifically provided. Discussion of topic has been requested via e-mail to Dave on 2121106 Condition#13 - Clearly state on page 55 where you plan to use a slope of 3:1,or 33%. Added to Page 20 5.b.and Page 55 g. Condition #14 - Items addressing this condition and what is expected with the Landscape Plan is addressed in the letter to Jolene Rieck dated February 10,2006. No one on the team has received this letter. A request for a copy of this letter was made in an email set to Dave on February 14, 2006. Condition #15 - Where does the manual contain the following language: "The design standards shall specifically discourage the use of"pea" gravel or decorative 1 '/4" to 2" washed rock gravel, or less All landscape islands that include decorative rock or gravel as a groundcover shall specify "river rock" or equal in the landscape plan." The letter to Jolene Rieck also requested a series of typical landscape features to be included in the manual that will be installed throughout the development." Added to Page 66 e., exact verbiage Condition #19 - The D.R.B. and A.D.R. staff agreed that the term "synthetic surface" applied to only the artificial types know as "Dryvit","E.I.F.S.", or similar. Please language on page 99 accordingly. Added to Page 97, last bullet point. Condition#20 - See comments already provided in the D.R.B. memo dated February 1,2006. Added to Page 85, 2"d paragraph, 2"d sentence, exact verbiage Condition #25 - Where does the manual talk about - "All of the buildings on the perimeter of the development shall have a second store front (double fronted design) that is oriented towards the Bozeman Gateway February 21,2006 Page 12 of 12 streetscape and shall include a colonnade and a sidewalk connection to the perimeter sidewalk/trail system. All corner buildings shall include a type of design feature directed towards the corner (a concave area or a bump-out constructed of transparent materials) and shall be noted accordingly in the Development Manual." This language needs to be included in the manual and the exhibit on page 98 only touches on aspects of this condition. Partially Addressed in Page 102, under Service Entrance Issue trying to be resolved via e-mail to Dave Skelton,2112106 Condition #28 - This has already been discussed in the previous D.R.B. memo of February 1, 2006. Added on Page 113 e., exact verbiage Conditions #30 - Please provide the specific language of this condition in section h of page 97. Added on Page 97, last bullet point Added on Page 99,first bullet point Condition #34 - The applicant's response makes the presumption that the exhibits and plans in the Development Manual are correct,which is not true,and staff refers you to your disclaimer on page 85. Thus, the lengthy condition #34 and discussion in the staff report. The exhibits on page 24, 50 and 51 have not been approved as part of the common sign plan. An approved common signage plan that shows proper location, placement, dimensions,materials, color and illumination will need to be provided. Staff will go into further detail once you have submitted the common signage plan. Please make sure to review Section 18.52 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Discussion of topic has been requested via e-mail to Dave on 2121106 Condition #36 - Staff will review this further once it has the opportunity to review the protective covenants. N/A Condition#39 - The residential component will need to be addressed once we have an approved version of the nunutes by the City Commission. N/A Should you have any questions regarding the items listed above, or if you need any additional information, please feel free to contact me at 214-920-8198 or e-mail me at eric.bell@c-b.com. Sincerely, aric Odell Eric Bell Carter&Burgess,Inc. cc: Ted Mitchell,Mitchell Development Group,L.L.C. Jolene Rieck,Peaks to Plains Design Jim Ullman,Morrison-Maierle, Inc. • 0 Page 1 of 3 Dave Skelton From: Bell, Eric A. [Eric.Bell@c-b.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 10:13 AM To: Dave Skelton Cc: mitchell_dev@sofast.net; Jim Ullman;jolene@peakstoplains.com Subject: Bozeman Gateway Dave, Ted has directed me to incorporate as much of the exact text from the conditions as feasible. There are only 4 out of 37 conditions that we have concerns with. It will take only a short discussion with someone from the planning department to get things moving forward. I hope you will be the one to help. Listed below, you will find exact verbiage of the condition in question, followed by my comments in bold. I am currently updating the development manual with the changes so we can provide you and the DRB a black and white version by tomorrow night. Your quick response would be appreciated. However, if I do not hear from you, I will not be able to address the following issues within the development manual. Condition 1�. The Final PUD Plan and Development Manual shall discuss the treatment of street intersections that are enhanced by pedestrian-friendly entrances, plazas or design features such as benches and landscape planters. Building entrances near the sidewalk edge that contain an entry plaza should also be considered at the intersections of local streets with Technology Boulevard and not only in the commercial area, but also along the business park/professional office corridors. This would also apply at the corner of Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street. I am having considerable trouble understanding the intent of this condition. I am confused as to the definition of"building entrances that contain an entry plaza". The only way I feel comfortable incorporating this verbiage is if I understand what you are looking for. A specific response on this issue,from you,is necessary. Also in Condition 10. If it is the decision to locate the grocery store at the southeast corner of West Main Street and Fowler Avenue, a building entrance and plaza must occur along the entryway corridor, preferably at the northwest corner of the building. A grocery store entrance and plaza occurs along the entry way corridor and that requirement is in the development manual. Due to the interior layout of the grocery store it is not feasible for this entrance to be located at the northwest corner of the building. Since this element is only preferred and is not possible per reasonable grocery store design,the exact verbiage has been left out of the manual. Please let me know if you are in agreement. Con ition lff The Bozeman Design Objectives Plan states that the following elements must be achieved in order to reduce the perceived mass of a building: a change in color or change in material shall be used in each building module; a 20%change in vertical height between each module; change roof form; change in articulation. The current Bozeman Design Objective Plan reads as follows: 1. Divide a building into modules that express dimensions of structures seen traditionally. -In general,a primary facade plane should not exceed 100 feet in length. 2. Buildings shall employ all of the following design techniques: 2/22/2006 4 . • Page 2 of 3 4 -Change the height of a wall plane or building module. The change in height shall be at least 20% of the vertical height. The definition of a building module is not exactly clear. If a building module is every 100' then a 20% change in vertical height is appropriate. If a building module is a "traditional" storefront,not longer then say 20 or 30 feet,then a 20% change is extreme and will result in a strange,ill proportioned building. We need to define the term "building module" and make sure all facades are as aesthetically pleasing as possible. A quick discussion about this topic should create a solution that is far more beneficial for the city and the developer. % dition -'5. All of the buildings on the perimeter of the development shall have a second store front(double fronted design)that is oriented towards the streetscape and shall include a colonnade and a sidewalk connection to the perimeter sidewalk/trail system. Buildings will have store front design along the rear that is oriented towards the street. While clear vision store front and/or a second public entrance is encouraged,it is by no means required. The typical tenant occupying these spaces will require storage and "back of house" type operations in the rear of their space. The public will not want a view of these spaces and therefore spandrel glass and service entrances will be used along most of the rear of buildings. To require public entrances in the back of the convenience center will leave it unleasable and abandoned. It is my recommendation that we require the use of the "double fronted " design as it is shown by the diagram on page 40 of the Bozeman Design Objective Plan. Using it at the corner of the buildings where the parking lot meets the street seems much more appropriate. Please let me know your thoughts on this issue. The current wording suggests that a colonnade and a sidewalk are to connect to the perimeter sidewalk/trail system. This seems irrational so I assume the condition is trying to suggest that a colonnade be provided along the back facades of buildings. The presence of a colonnade was never suggested by the back of building study elevations presented to the DRB on November 9th, 2005 at 3:3012M. Besides being of significant expense,these colonnades would seldom be used by the public,would darken the back facade, and would provide an area for garbage and vagrant collection. Colonnades along the rear of building will not enhance the project and should not be required by the development manual. Condition 4. A common master signage plan depicting the actual location, dimensions, height, illumination and use materials for all freestanding signs shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Final PUD Plan approval. Both the pylon signs and monument signs shall be constructed of materials compatible with the overall building design theme for the development and illustrated accordingly in the Development Manual. All signs shall obtain a sign permit prior to construction and installation, and shall comply with the required regulatory standards set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance. The Development Manual will need to include a graphic component of the master sign plan for the entire property that reflects the theme desired with this PUD This includes discussion on the position of signs as part of the overall building composition; avoid obscuring architectural details, materials, and use of color and relief,three-dimensional signage,placement of freestanding signs along street frontages, entrances into the development, and addressing required setbacks and street vision triangles The team is currently sorting out the beginnings of a environmental graphics package for the project. When completed,this should accurately depict the design of the monument and pylon signs. The process will take some time but will be completed for final plat. Unfortunately there is no way to get an accurate design for signage into the development manual in this week. I suggest we leave that section as is, and the DRB review the rest of the document knowing it will be updated in the near future. I need to know if this strategy will work for you. Please help me make the last finishing touches to the development manual so that things can move forward. My client has spent an incredible, almost unjustifiable, amount of time and money trying to perfect this document. Sincerely, 2/22/2006 . #� • Page 3 of 3 (Eric Bell 214-920-8198 This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secured or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, received late or incomplete, or could contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any error or omission in the contents of this message, which arises as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard-copy version from the sender. 2/22/2006 Page I of I Dave Skelton From: Greg Stratton [gstratton@m-m.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 12:34 PM To: Dave Skelton Cc: Eric.Bel I@c-b.com; Randy.Stone@c-b.com;jolene.rieck@fischerand associates.com; mitchell—dev@sofast.net Subject: DRB Comments Dave - Please forward to DRB for review and discussion at tomorrows meeting. Let us know if you have and questions or comments. Thanks Greg 11/9/2005 - CITY OF BOZEMAN DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M.Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260 20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263 P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozeman.net MEMORANDUM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE FROM: DAVE SKELTON, SENIOR PLANNER RE: THE BOZEMAN GATEWAY SUBDIVISION P.U.D. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION REVIEW PLANNING FILE NO. P-05049 DATE: OCTOBER 18,2005 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Planning Office has reviewed the subdivision preliminary plat application plan for The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D., to subdivide 72.2± acres of land between West Main Street/US 191, Fowler Avenue, and Garfield Street, being west of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle; and as a result, recommends the following: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code,which are applicable to this project. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed, does not,in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. 2. All areas designated for use as "Common Area" owned and maintained by the property owner association shall not be referred to as lots, but as Common Areas according to each specific area designation (i.e., Common Area 8, not Lot C8). Common areas are not subdivision lots and should not noted as such on the final plat. 3. Lot 10, 11, 12 and 3 shall be described on the final plat as four consecutive subdivision lots with adjoining boundaries as zero lot lines and frontage extending to the right-of-way of Fowler Avenue. 4. That water rights, or cash in-lieu thereof, shall be provided and paid for prior to final plat review and approval for each phase. If the final plat of the subdivision is filed in phases, water rights, or cash in-lieu thereof will only be required for each phase of the subdivision that is being filed. planning • zoning • subdivision review . annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration • neighborhood coordination The applicant shall provide payment of the calculated cash in-lieu of water rights based on an amount determined by the Director of Public Service. 5. That the applicant modify the protective covenants of the property owner's association as outlined in the staff report and that the applicant submit a revised draft of the protective covenants for review and approval by the Planning Office at least thirty (30) days prior to submitting for final plat approval of the initial phase of the major subdivision. 6. All areas for the purposes of open space, storm water runoff facilities, and other common areas owned and maintained by the property owner's association (i.e., off-street parking) shall be identified on final plat as "common area" and/or "common open space", and noted accordingly in the protective covenants of the property owner's association documents. 7. That the final plats and protective covenants establish a 1-foot wide "No Access" strip for all subdivision lots fronting onto Fowler Avenue, Garfield Street, and US Highway 191/West Main Street. 8. (Section 18.42.040.H) All subdivisions shall clearly delineate subdivision blocks each containing its own grouping of lot numbers. 9. (18.42.060.A.1) All easements shall be described, dimensioned and shown on the final plat in their true and correct location. 10. (18.42.060.B.1.a and 18.42.060.C.3) Building setbacks and permanent structures shall be coordinated with all provided utility easements. Utility easements greater than the required building setbacks shall be noted to that effect and placed on the final plat and/or final plan (i.e., Fowler Avenue and Garfield Street) and noted accordingly in the protective covenants. 11. (18.42.080.F) Storm water facilities shall not occupy more than one-third of a required front yard, including, but not limited to frontage along US 191/West Main Street. All subdivision exhibits that reference surface water ponding along the West Main entryway corridor (i.e., drainage basins, storm water runoff facilities, landscape plans, site plans, etc.) shall reflect the same delineation boundary for said ponds, for review and approval by the Planning Office prior to final plat and final plan approval. 12. A reciprocal access and parking easement shall be provided for all shared accesses and parking facilities. The easement shall state that the drive accesses and parking areas are permitted reciprocal use by all of the lots of the subdivision. 13. Construction fencing shall be installed along the required stream setbacks to protect water quality and the adjacent vegetation during construction. Said fencing shall be properly staked and field verified by the Planning Office prior to final plat approval of the first phase and prior to proceeding with surface preparation and/or site construction 14. (18.44.110) The trail identified in the Transportation Plan along the existing Farmer's Canal, to be relocated to the US 191/West Main Street frontage, shall be constructed to a width acceptable to the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board and GY.L.T. ( 8 or 10 feet). All interior trails will be of Type II classification constructed within a 25 foot public trail easement. All trail types and construction Page 2 specifications shall be noted accordingly on the landscape guidelines and protective covenants and restrictions. 15. The subdivision shall comply with all approved conditions of the Planned Unit Development and the subdivision shall comply with the approved Master Plan and Development Manual Guidelines for the Planned Unit Development. 16. The recorded covenants shall indicate that the property owner's association is responsible for the maintenance of the common open space, wetlands, watercourse setback and trails. Noxious weeds shall be controlled as directed by the County Weed Control District and in accordance with the Montana County Noxious Weed Control Act. The property owner's association shall be responsible for the continued control of the weeds and fulfillment of the revegetation plan. 17. The applicant shall obtain and provide the Planning Office with the applicable access permit(s) from the Montana Department of Transportation for the access onto US 191/West Main Street from Harmon Street Boulevard and Chronicle Drive and shall comply with all requirements of the permit. 18. The traffic impact analysis submitted for the project shall be approved by City Engineering and the Montana Department of Transportation. All improvements needed to provide adequate level of service for the analyzed intersections must be installed with the project. 19. A 5-foot wide boulevard sidewalk with a 5 V2 (?)foot wide boulevard shall be constructed along the north side of Garfield Street and applicable public access easements, if necessary, noted accordingly on the final plat. 20. 21. 22 23 Need to physically call all utility easements on each individual subdivision block. All plats need to also identify the right-of-way width for all streets and alleys. Treatment of storm water detention ponds? Ponds in the West Main Street entryway corridor shall not be credited for satisfying the required open space provisions. Need to know total area/acreage for each individual retention pond and detention pond along the entryway corridor to determine deduction in parkland calculations. Identified Code Provisions: a. Section 18.42.0403 - That all block lengths shall not be more than 400 feet in length not less than 300 feet in length, unless a variance to Section 16.14.030 "Blocks" of the Bozeman Subdivision Regulations is granted by the City Commission. b. Section 18.42.150 — That the Lighting Plan shall reflect the standards outlined in the U.D.O. A lighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the contracting, creation of an S.I.L.D. and installation of the lights. The plan shall include a pole light detail with spacing based on high pedestrian conflict, a local street pole light at one per local street intersection, and Page 3 a bollard light detail for placement at pathway/street intersections. All lights including the bollard light shall conform to the City's requirement for cut-off shields. All interior parking lot street lighting will comply with the standards outlined in the U.D.O., exclusive of any relaxation and/or variance for interior street lighting proposed with the planned unit development. C. Section 18.42.060.B —Requires all utility easements to be noted on the Final Plat for each typical subdivision lot/block, exclusive of notations on the final plat. d. Section 18.42.060.D.4 — States that storm water runoff from a development shall not be discharged directly to an irrigation facility. e. Section 18.48.070—Irrigation, sod and street trees on all external streets, private streets and open space corridors or other opens spaces is required of the developer. It is recommended that internal streets also be landscaped with boulevard trees at a regular spacing to maintain consistency with an urban streetscape throughout the subdivision. A landscape plan shall be submitted, identifying the location and tree species to be installed by the developer, prior to installation of the trees, final plat and/or PUD final plan, whichever comes first. f. Section 18.50.080 — The subdivider will be responsible for protecting all areas designated as open space, amending the soil, seeding disturbed areas to allow mowing with turf type mowers, and installing an underground irrigation system in compliance with City standards. g. Section 18.50.080.D — All storm water retention or detention facilities may be located within areas of common open space but may not counted towards the minimum required open space provisions. All areas identified in the subdivision for the purposes of retention/detention storm water facilities shall be noted on the subdivision plat as "Common Areas" owned and maintained by the property owner's association, and noted accordingly in the property owner's association documents, for review and approval by the Planning Office. All storm water facilities must be designed in a fashion that is landscaped as effective landscape features (i.e., not rectangular or box-like), with slopes not more than 1:4 , or 25%, with an average depth of not more that two feet. All collection and outlet facilities must also be properly landscape and screened from the general public, and situated outside of said areas designed to satisfy the required open space provisions. Typical landscape details will need to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Office with the subdivision final plat and PUD final plan applications. h. Section 18.50.110 — Pathways must be maintained by the developer in conformance with the approved maintenance plan until 50% of the lots are sold. Thereafter, the property owner's association is responsible for pathway maintenance. Plans and specifications for the trail will need to be reviewed by the Parks Department prior to construction. A Type H Class trail is recommended along the watercourse corridors with the placement appropriate pedestrian crossings at all intersections with interior subdivision streets. A typical cross section of the public trail shall be included in the landscape guidelines and will include trail specifications, typical landscape guidelines, and site grading plans for review and approval prior to final plat approval.. Page 4 • • i. Section 18.72 — Requirements for bylaws, covenants, conditions and restrictions must contain provisions for: 1) provisions for maintenance and upkeep of all common areas, public and private open space areas, trails, storm water runoff facilities, 2) inclusion of a Development Manual that outlines architectural and landscape guidelines for each individual lot and/or phase of the subdivision, 3) list of permitted land uses in both the B-2 and BP zoning designations, 4) applicable building and parking lot yard setbacks from US 191/West Main Street, Fowler Avenue, West Garfield Street and all interior local streets, 5) provisions for the maintenance and upkeep of all storm water facilities, and 6) provisions that outline the renewal of an annual contract with a certified landscape nursery person for the upkeep and maintenance of all parklands, common open space, trails, etc. j. Section 18.78.060.G - A professional cultural resource inventory of the site to be conducted by a qualified archeologist is necessary. The results of said survey must be provided to the Planning Office and the State Historic Preservation Office prior to the disturbance of any of the subdivision grounds. k. Section 18.78.070.0 — A Memorandum of Understanding shall be entered into by the Weed Control District and the subdivider for the control of county declared noxious weeds and a copy provided to the Planning Department prior to Final Plat approval. 1. That a one (1) foot wide "No Access" strip be delineated on the Final Plat for all subdivision lots fronting directly onto US 191/West Main Street, Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street, as well as a similar notation provided accordingly on the final plat for review and approval by the Planning Office. M. That the applicant verify that that all subdivision lots have the minimum required lot width at the front yard setback, unless a relaxation and/or variance is granted by the City Commission. n. That the final plat contain a notation stating that all downstream water user facilities will not be impacted by this subdivision and that it also be noted accordingly in the by-laws and protective covenants for the homeowners' association. o. That the final plat shall comply with Section 16.08.070 "Final Plat" and Chapter 16.32 "Certificates" of the City of Bozeman Subdivision Regulations, and shall conform to all requirements of the Uniform Standards for Final Subdivision Plats including provisions for all appropriate certificates and language, certification from the City Engineer that as-built drawings for public improvements were received, and accompanied by all appropriate documents, including a Platting Certificate. Four (4) mylar copies of the final plat must be submitted for final plat approval, along with two (2) digital copies of the final plat, on a double sided, high density 3'/s-inch floppy disk; and five (5)paper prints. P. That the applicant obtain Montana Department of Environmental Quality approval of the subdivision prior to Final Plat approval pursuant to Section 16.16.101 through 16.16.805 A.R.M. q. That the applicant execute and file with the final plat a waiver of right-to-protest creation of a city-wide park maintenance district for review and approval by the City of Bozeman for maintenance and upkeep of dedicated park land and trail system prior to Final Plat approval (may have been done with the Annexation Agreement). Page 5 r. The final plat shall provide public utility easements along side and rear lots lines as required by the subdivision regulations. However, in the event front yard easements are used, side and rear yard easements must still be provided on the plat unless written confirmation is submitted to the Planning Office from all utility companies indicating that front yard easements are adequate to service said subdivision lots. The easement notation required in Section 16.14.050.B.4 of the Bozeman Subdivision regulations shall also be provided on the final plat. S. The subdivider shall ensure that all construction material and other debris are removed from the subdivision prior to final plat approval, or prior to release of said financial guarantee, if an Improvements Agreement is necessary with the final plat. t. That the developer shall enter in an Improvements Agreement with the City of Bozeman guaranteeing the completion of all improvements in accordance with the Preliminary Plat submittal information and conditions of approval. If the Final Plat is filed prior to installation of all improvements, the developer shall supply the City of Bozeman with an acceptable method of security equal to one hundred fifty (150) percent of the cost of the remaining improvements. U. That the developer shall have three (3) years from the date of Preliminary Plat approval to complete the conditions of preliminary plat approval and apply for Final Plat approval. At the end of this period the City Commission may, at the written request of the subdivider, extend its approval for a period of no more than one (1) calendar year except that the City Commission may extend its approval for a period of more than one (1) year if that approval period is included as a specific condition of a written subdivision improvements agreement between the City Commission and the subdivider, provided for in Chapter 16.22 of the Bozeman Subdivision Regulations. V. That the applicant submit with the application for Final Plat review and approval of Walton Homestead P.U.D., a written narrative stating how each of the conditions of Preliminary Plat approval has been met or satisfactorily addressed. P.U.D. Preliminary Plan Review: Relaxations - ? Section 18.18 —`B-2" Setbacks Building Heights Lot Width of at least 100 feet Section 18.20—`BP" Land Uses Lot Coverage and Width Setbacks Building Heights Section 18.30—Entryway Corridor Page 6 I. Setbacks along Garfield will be 30 feet for buildings and 25 feet for off-street parking lots based on the 30-foot wide farmer's canal & public access easement. 2. Setbacks along Fowler Avenue will be 45 feet for buildings and 25 feet for off-street based on the parking due Note: Further comments and/or recommendations will be included in the staff report once all of the comments solicited of local, county and state agencies have been provided to the Planning Office. Written comments from the Park and Recreation Advisory Board, G.V.L.T., and Bicycle Advisory Board will be included in the Planning Board Staff Report. Additional comments may be identified prior to the City Commission hearing. Page 7 THE BOZEMAN GATEWAY SUBDIVISION ZONING FILE NO.Z-05217 P.U.D. PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT ITEM: ZONING APPLICATION NO. Z-05217 -- AN APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY P.U.D. PLAN REVIEW FOR A MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL/PROFESSIONAL OFFICE/RETAIL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON APPROXIMATELY 72.2± ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF HUFFINE LANE/US HIGHWAY 191, ZONED "B-2", COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND "BP", BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT. APPLICANT: MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, I.L.C. %TED MITCHELL P.O. BOX 738, GREAT FALLS, MT 59403 OWNER: MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, I.L.C. %TED MITCHELL P.O. BOX 738, GREAT FALLS, MT 59403 DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2005, AT 3:30 P.M., IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM, ALFRED M. STIFF PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, 20 EAST OLIVE STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANA REPORT BY: DAVE SKELTON SENIOR PLANNER --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Description: The subject property is legally described as being Tract 2A of the Amended Plat of West College Minor Subdivision No. 195A located in the NW 'A of Section 15, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, and is further identified as property situated south of Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 and Gallatin Valley Mall, and west of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle facility. The site is approximately 72.2 acres in size and fronts Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 along the north boundary, extension of Fowler Avenue on the west and extension of Garfield Street on the south boundary. Please refer to the vicinity map and exhibits provided in the applicant's submittal. Proposal: The applicant, Mitchell Development Group, L.L.C., has made application for Preliminary P.U.D. Plan Review of a mixed-use commercial, professional office, and retail planned unit development consisting of The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 1 61 commercial/business park lots zoned `B-2" and `BP". The proposal is also undergoing a concurrent preliminary plat review of the 72+ acre site as a major subdivision. The six-phased mixed-use planned unit development is located in the West Main Street entryway corridor overlay district along its north boundary and is bound on the north by the major arterial street, Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 and Gallatin Valley Mall. The Advanced Technology Park and Bozeman Daily Chronicle are to the east and partially developed lands under Gallatin County jurisdiction are to the west. The placement of mixed land uses within the development focuses on a mix of professional offices, retail services and hotel/conference facility on the east one-third and a mixed of retail service and commercial uses on the west two-thirds. The Development Manual contains architectural and landscape guidelines that illustrate the concept of a "lifestyle" center and methods by which the developer will implement the image of the planned unit development. The Bozeman Gateway consists of several different building types that are discussed in the Manual: 1) Lifestyle Center along the interior main street for the development, 2) Convenience Center and Outparcels along Fowler Avenue and West Main Street, and 3) Office Professional area along the east adjacent to the Advanced Technology Center and the extreme west at the southwest corner of Huffine Lane and Fowler Avenue. Chapter 18.36—Planned Unit Development The intent of the planned unit development concept is to promote maximum flexibility and innovation in the development of land and the design of development projects within the city. As a result, the developer has requested multiple relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance with this application for P.U.D. review. With regard to the improvement and protection of the public health, safety and welfare,it shall be the intent of the Ordinance to promote the city's pursuit of community objectives as outlined in Chapter 18.36 of the Unified Development Ordinance. The Development Review Committee, Design Review Board, Planning Board and City Commission participated in the Concept P.U.D. Plan Review process in January and February of 2005. Please refer to the attached copies of the meeting of the D.R.B. in January of 2005. The purpose of these meetings was for discussion of the applicant's proposal with the designated review committees in order to identify any requirements and applicable standards and policies, as well as offering the applicant the opportunity to identify major problems that may exist and identify solutions prior to making formal application. Relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance: The following relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance have been identified with the application for subdivision preliminary plat review and P.U.D. preliminary plan review: Requested Relaxations: • Section 18.20.030.B "Lot Coverage and Floor Area" to eliminate the 60 percent restriction on impervious surfaces and development the entire site, exclusive of the required yard setbacks. • Section 18.36.060.B. "Duration of Final Plan Approval" to undertake and complete the development in ten years. • Section 18.42.040.B "Block Length" to allow the block lengths to exceed 400 feet. • Section 18.42.040.0 "Block Width" to allow the block widths to be more than 400 feet. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 2 4 • Section 18.42.100.B.3.c — "Setbacks" to encroach into the 50-foot minimum setback required along watercourses. • Section 18.42.100.B.4.b —"Watercourse Setback" to allow the required watercourse setback to not include adjacent wetlands. • Section 18.44.030.A.1 "Intersections" to allow streets to intersect at angles less than 90 degrees. • Section 18.44.090.D.3 "Spacing Standards for Drive Access" to allow the average spacing of intersections on Fowler Avenue to be reduced from 660 feet to 420 feet. • Section 18.42.150.D.1 "Parking Lot Lighting" to allow horizontal illuminnace to be less than 0.1 foot-candles as required by the U.D.O. • Section 18.42.1501 "Lighting Specifications" to allow light fixtures and standards that do not comply the U.D.O. (i.e., distract light and glare down and aware from adjoining streets and properties. • Section 18.44.030.A.1 "Intersections" to relax the streets to intersection at angles less than 90 degrees (City Engineer decision). • Section 18.44.080 "Sidewalks" to allow soft trials in place of concrete boulevard sidewalks along streets fronting open space/pedestrian corridors. • Section 18.44.090 "Access" to relax the average spacing requirements for public streets (City Engineer decision). • Section 18.44.090.B.2 "Drive Access from Public Streets" to exclude the requirement of all subdivision lots having 25 feet of frontage on all improved public or private street, or improved alley. • Section !8.46.020.D `Backing into Public Rights-of-Way" to allow diagonal parking along Technology Boulevard and Chronicle Lane. Identified Relaxations not Requested: • Section 18.18.020 `Building Height" to increase the allowable building height in the `B-2 district from 44 feet to 146 feet. • Section 18.18.050 "Yards" to encroach into the yard setbacks with off-street parking in the B'2" District. • Section 18.20.060" `Building Height" to increase the allowable building height in the `BP" district from 44 feet to 146 feet. • Section 18.20.050 "Yards" to encroach into the yard setbacks with off-street parking in the "BP" District. • Section 18.42.030.I "Frontage" to not have access for all subdivision lots from an improved pubic street, approved private street or alley. ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES The subject property is zoned `B-2", Community Business District and`BP," Business Park District. The "B-2", Community Business District, allows for a broad range of mutually supportive retail and service functions located in clustered areas bordered on one of more sides by limited access arterial streets. Principal permitted uses range from banks and hospitals to offices and hotels/motels. Conditional uses permitted in the district range from automobile fuel sales to technical or vocational schools to light goods repair and light manufacturing. The "BP", Business Park District, provides for high quality settings and The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 3 facilities for the development of a wide range of compatible employment opportunities. These areas should be developed so as to recognize the impact on surrounding or adjacent development and contribute to the overall image of the community. Compatibility with adjacent land uses and zoning is required. Permitted uses range from hospitals and professional offices to research laboratories and public buildings. Conditional uses that may be considered in the `BP" district range from banks and day care centers to type II essential services. The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property: North: US Highway 101/Huffine Lane/West Main Street and Gallatin Valley Mall zoned `B-2", Community Business District. South: Undeveloped agricultural land under Gallatin County jurisdiction and owned by the State of Montana Endowment and Research Foundation. East: Advanced Technology Park and Bozeman Daily Chronicle zoned `BP", Business Park District. West: Partially developed agricultural lands under Gallatin County jurisdiction. ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION The development proposal is in general conformance with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan including the "Community Commercial" and `Business Park" land use designations with the recommendations to be considered by the Planning Board and City Commission. The "Community Commercial" classification provides areas for basic employment and services necessary for a vibrant community. Establishments located within this category draw from a community as a whole for their employee and customer base and are sized accordingly. A broad range of functions include retail, education, professional and personal services, offices,residences and general service activities typify this designation. The "Business Park"classification provides for areas typified by office uses and technology-oriented light industrial uses, although retail, services, or industrial uses may also be included in an accessory or local service role. Additional uses may be approved as part of a planned unit development if they are found to be compatible with and subordinate to the uses described above, and are consistent with the intent of the underlying Business Park land use classification. REVIEW CRITERIA The Design Review Board is established to evaluate aesthetic considerations of larger and more complex proposals which are likely to produce significant community impact and to provide recommendations regarding such proposals to the City Commission. The Board is empowered to recommend approval or conditional approval of the project with support of some or all of the requested relaxations or to forward a recommendation of denial. The Design Review Board provided the following comments with the Concept Plan: The DRB recommended a reduction in parking from the minimum required (as a relaxation through the PUD). The proposal for shared, reduced off-street parking spaces was supportive but concern was also expressed with the demand with maximum parking with retail establishments. :• D.R.B. recommended that consideration should be given to residential development as part of the mixed-use planned unit development. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 4 Expressed concern with the potential for storm water runoff impacting the landscape features and ponds along the entryway corridor. Questioned the level of retail uses allowed in the `BP" component of the P.U.D. Fewer off-street parking provided with additional landscape features incorporated into the mixed use development that people could mingle in. Stated that the location of the grocery store on the corner of the entryway corridor was problematic and suggested relocating the grocery store to the central core of the development, or provide extensive screening. :• Expressed concern with the presentation of drive-thru facilities along the entryway corridor and the potential conflict with making the pro)ect pedestrian and bicycle friendly . Would like to see the use of natural materials throughout the development. Supported the preservation of the watercourses and associated wetlands to enhance the area. :• Recommended a conscious effort of keeping and enhancing the character of Bozeman. Expressed concern with crossings and connections between vehicular movement with pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Need for adequate connections to Babcock Street and components of the Farmer's Canal trail to the east. Suggested placement of nodes and a place where cars cannot go to avoid conflict with bicycles. Protect as many of the large trees and mature vegetation preserved. :• Carry out materials and architectural elements on all sides of the buildings. Do not present a "backside" of a building, especially on the unloading side and refuse areas. There should be more building frontage onto the Entryway instead of parking. This may be accomplished by including additional pad site in front of the larger buildings and/or more landscape features. Design Objectives Plan 1. Neighborhood Design (pages 9-14): A. Green Space- Provisions for achieving the minimum open space requirements have been met with the overall master plan for the PUD. This includes the preservation of the existing watercourses and associated vegetation and wetlands. Those areas designated as open space must be identified accordingly on the final subdivision plat and final PUD plan. The preliminary plan identifies six key areas of green space for both visually and functionally open space; 1) entryway corridor along US 191/West Main Street, 2) west most watercourse along Fowler Avenue, 3) watercourse along Harmon Stream Boulevard, 4) watercourse along the eastern half of the PUD, 5) public plaza along Technology Boulevard, and 6) two watercourses in the The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 5 north parking lot . All of theses areas contain existing physical features that are being preserved and should be further complimented with landscape features that will embrace the importance of urban open space. The applicant requests a relaxation to Section 18.20.030.B "Lot Coverage and Floor Area" to eliminate the 60 percent restriction on impervious surfaces and development for the entire site, exclusive of the required yard setbacks for lots in the `BP" District. Staff is recommending denial finding that the request does not encourage the campus like setting of open space that is sought in the BP District and importance of urban open space and green spaces throughout the BP District. B. Auto Connections- Construction of Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street by the developer, as well as the installation of the interior local streets and signalization improvements at the intersection of Fowler Avenue and US 191/West Main Street will provide direct automobile access to the development, abutting property, and surrounding areas. C. Pedestrian & Bicycle Connections- The application illustrates a pedestrian and bicycle trail system for the development that stems from recommendations by City Staff, Planning Office, Recreation and Parks Advisory Board, and GN.L.T. The proposal calls for a Type I asphalt trail along the frontage of US 191/West Main Street that continues linkage with the called for Farmer's Canal trail and a series of interior Type II trails throughout the site. Trails constructed in the watercourse setback shall be constructed in Zone 2 of the setback. Staff is further recommending that all pedestrian/bicycle crossings with streets should be given greater emphasis by using similar pavers that reflect the surface treatment of public plazas and areas of outdoor social activities. Connections of between streets, off-street parking lots, public areas should also be given attention in terms of raised walkways, pavers, pedestrian lighting and landscape features. D. Street Character- A landscaped streetscape along all public and private streets that contain a compliment of formal boulevard trees with placement of informal landscape features is necessary to provide continuity and sense of place at a pedestrian scale. Informal landscape features should provide a mix of type, texture and seasonal color throughout and are important in coordinating landscape design along that establishes a unified identity for the area.. A regular spacing of boulevard trees along all streets in concert with landscape features and screening of off-street parking lots is necessary; primarily, areas along West Garfield Street and US Highway 191/West Main Street. Street character along the West Main Street entryway corridor should call for architectural features that suggest a presence of store fronts, plazas, fenestration treatment and architectural details that reflect the "lifestyle center" concept. Commercial and retail drive-thrus and associated apprentices (speaker phones, signage, ATM, canopies, etc.) shall not front onto the entryway corridor and will not impact the building facade of the satellite structures along the streetscape. 2. Site Design (pages 15-36): A. Natural Features- The described watercourses with associated vegetation and wetlands will be maintained as public open space with exception to the necessary street crossings. The 50-foot The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 6 wide watercourses will need to be landscaped to emphasize effective landscape features as discussed previously. B. Views- View sheds of the mountains to the northeast and south should not be significantly obscured, unless the applicant elects to move forward with a request to relax the building heights in the `B-2" and `BP" of up to 146 feet. A relaxation to exceed the maximum building height of 44 feet in the `B-2" and `BP" would be inconsistent with surrounding land uses. However, the "BP" district allows the maximum building height to be increased by 30 percent when the additional height is specifically identified as being the purpose of the review (example: downtown business district). C. Cultural Resources- There are no existing structures on the site. A cultural resource inventory study is required with the preliminary plat for review by the State Historic Preservation Office. Any cultural resources uncovered during construction and earthwork will need to be inventoried by the Planning Office and State Historic Preservation Office. D. Topography- The site slopes from south to north with an approximate change in grade of 18+ feet. The amount of cut and fill required with the project during construction activity will influence the existing amenities of the existing topography. As a result, encroachments into the watercourse setbacks and areas of mature vegetation should be limited. Any change in grade that will encroach into these areas should be limited to a 1:4 or 25% slope to minimize the visual impact of cut and fill on the site. E. Site Drainage- The storm drainage master plan for the development will direct storm water runoff generally to the north and will be treated with underground facilities designated throughout the site. The applicant's consultants note that the surface water ponds along the entryway corridor and along Technology Boulevard are not part of the storm water runoff facilities. However, the master plan identifies at least fourth drainage basins that are either located in the open space corridors for have outlets draining into the corridor. These facilities must be properly landscaped and prevent any impact on the landscape features along these corridors. Specific landscape details will be required with the final landscape plan to demonstrate proper landscape of the facilities. F. Building Placement- The mixed-use development focuses on a "lifestyle center" concrete that centers on an interior street (i.e.., Technology Boulevard), which faces the primary building entrances to a common interior route that features pedestrian friendly open-air squares and plazas. Thus,producing active outdoor public spaces. In addition, there are at least three of the five street intersections that are considered major intersections and should give consideration to a strong building presence (i.e., intersection of US 191/West Main Street with Fowler Avenue, Harmon Stream Boulevard with US 191/West Main Street, West Garfield with Fowler Avenue, and Chronicle Drive with West College Street). These intersections should be enhanced with a pedestrian-friendly entrance plaza or human scaled design features., such as benches and landscape planters. Building entrances near the sidewalk edge that contain an entry plaza should also be considered at the intersections of local streets with Technology Boulevard and should be considered not only in the commercial area, but also along the business park/professional office corridors. G. Outdoor Public Spaces- The plan notes a number of outdoor public spaces for the enjoyment of pedestrians. Two plazas along Technology Boulevard serve as focal points shared by adjoining The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 7 buildings and visually connect at least one of the watercourse/open space corridors. The plan also suggests the opportunity for a number of smaller public spaces along the watercourses that preserve the natural amenities of the site. Both public plazas along Technology Boulevard will contain decorative surface materials, landscape features, and plaza furniture. These areas should illustrate the heart of the development and be carried throughout the entire regions of the project. Detail to these areas is critical and should be specifically addressed in the master landscape plan. The principle public plaza extends north through the "life style' center, continues to the off-street parking lot, ending at the West Main Street entryway corridor. Detail for this section is limited and must be described in the landscape plan. Those pedestrian/bicycle pathway sections through the parking lot must be carefully considered and offer at least one public space along each watercourse corridor within the parking lot. This would involve the conversation of at least two off-street parking spaces (i.e., 18' by 18') that abut the corridor being converted to a green space with a bench, pavers and landscape features. Public spaces along the identified watercourses should also be given attention with smaller pads that reflect similar pavers, benches, lighting and landscape features as the larger plazas. H. Pedestrian & Bicycle Circulation Systems- The Master Plan provides connections for pedestrians and bicyclists throughout the development while also implementing the Farmer's Canal trail system called for in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. This includes connections from parking lots,into buildings, as well as a network of pedestrian/bicycle trails throughout the project. Emphasis should be given to transitions between parking lots, driveways, street crossings and connections with pubic boulevard sidewalks that include the typical "life style" center landscape theme. Transitions through the parking lots, primarily the larger north most parking lot, must be given specific attention to providing an adequate width through the parking lot. Principle and secondary entries (i.e.., US 191/West Main Street, Fowler Avenue, Garfield Street and West College Street) , should be given the same attention with developments landscape theme. I. Internal Automobile Circulation Systems- The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision PUD contains a transportation network that includes implementation of the greater Bozeman Transportation Plan with construction of Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street. A network of interior local streets completes the transportation network for the development. Diagonal parking along Technology Boulevard is proposed to compliment the "lifestyle" center and reduce conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular movement. A higher degree of landscape materials along major circulation routes is sought by the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan. In particular, the US 191/West Main Street entryway corridor should convey a higher degree of urban open space and importance intensive pedestrian/bicycle use. This should include decorative elements and furnishing that provide interest and a sense of human scale. This would also apply to both sides of Fowler Avenue and north side of West Garfield Street. J. Parking Lots- The application includes a parking plan that minimizes the number of off-street parking spaces as allowed under the Unified Development Ordinance by using the reduction table in 18.46.040. This is implemented with a combination of privately owned or common parking areas throughout the development. A parking analysis by the developer calculates the required off- street parking at 2,907 spaces. With the allowable reduction the parking plan may be adjusted to 2,556 spaces. The applicant is proposing 2,557 off-street parking spaces. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 8 • 0 K. Site Lighting- The Preliminary Light Plan identifies three architectural light fixtures proposed throughout the development and off-street parking lots. Only of one the three fixtures (i.e.., Domus Series) complies with the U.D.O. and would prevent off-site glare and distraction to vehicular movement along adjoining pubic streets. It is recommended that the Domus Series fixture be allowed throughout the development and the other two fixtures be allowed with a retrofitted "louvered cover" along Technology Boulevard with a transition to the compliant fixture along private streets prior to intersecting with adjoining public streets. Street lights will be required along Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street and must comply with the U.D.O. Neon and L.E.D. lighting will not be permitted unless used as a backlight architectural feature that is not directly visible from the public streetscape, sidewalks or streets. L. Utilities & Service Areas- The application is not clear on the placement, treatment and screening of waste disposal areas, unloading/loading and access to utilities. Because the development does not propose alleys and or backs to the buildings, provisions for utility and service areas is not clearly addressed in the application. The Development Manual discusses guidelines that suggests solutions to the issue (i.e., page 31) but does not demonstrate a desired solution that is consistent with architectural theme of the project. This is more of an issue when store fronts and public access will occur at the tear of the buildings, creating obtrusive noise, offensive sounds and odors, as well as conflict with servicing vehicles and the general vehicular circulation system.. As a result, the Development Manual must clearly demonstrate graphically how the conflict between utility service areas and the general public will be resolved. M. Landscape Design- Existing physical features, wetlands and mature vegetation are protected with the preservation of the existing watercourses identified on the site. These areas should be incorporated into new development site design with public trails and pubic spaces as illustrated on the preliminary plan. Drought-tolerate plant species, native to the area, have been introduced and included in the plant palette. High maintenance, or highly decorative landscape is reserved for the public plazas and public spaces along the watercourse corridors. The landscape plan will need to identify the landscape palette to be implemented throughout the property and should include lighting structures, paving material, plantings and outdoor furniture. The plan should also include typical illustrations of a consistent plant palette throughout the property. The landscape guidelines of the Development Manual include illustrations for the two principle north/south watercourse corridors. The same illustrations are necessary for the West Main Street entryway corridor and Fowler Avenue corridor, as well as the pubic spaces identified along all of the watercourses. The landscape plan for the Final PUD Plan will need to include the final details for each area, landscape species and quantity to be installed and reviewed by the Planning Office and Design Review Board prior to submitting for final subdivision plat approval. It is further recommended based on the number of relaxations being requested with this application that all trees will be installed with a minimum caliber of 2 inches in diameter. The application suggests that a significant amount of the West Main Street entryway corridor will feature a series of ponds as landscape features for the development. The landscape guidelines have not specially addressed the landscape elements along the corridor with respect to landscape features and landscape furniture, nor an emphasis on trail connections leading into the development. As a result, these details will need to be addressed and will require review of the Final Plan and Landscape Plan by the Planning Office and Design Review Board. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 9 • • N. Buffers- Landscape buffers should be provided adjacent to the off-street parking lots, between incompatible uses and for ground mounted mechanical equipment and service/storage areas. Special attention must be given to landscape buffers along the West Main Street entryway corridor and West Garfield Street based on the expansive imperious parking lots 3. Building Design (pages 37-48): A. Building & Topography- The site does not contain significant outcroppings or topographical features and has a gradual drop in grade of approximately 18 feet from south to north. Provisions to avoid the potential of exposed building foundations resulting from significant changes in grade should not be an issue. B. Building Character- Standardized "franchise" style architecture is strongly discouraged. If the developer chooses to use franchise style architecture it is necessary to establish a reasonable argument of how the franchise style is an innovative design that draws upon regional design traditions. The application does not specifically address. As a result, it is assumed that the development will not accept structures that suggest standardized "franchise" style architecture and so note it in the Development Manual. The architectural guidelines for the development suggest that the Convenience Center, Outparcels and Office-Professional areas will incorporate the architectural vocabulary of the lifestyle center. However, modifications will be required due to the significant variation in building type and scale. The Development Manual goes on to state that an exact determination of which entities will be responsible for which elements of design and construction will be determined by individual lease or sales agreements. In-lieu of this, the Development Manual should give specific attention to each of these areas of the mixed-use development and identify what must be achieved in each of these areas to maintain the architectural integrity of the overall development theme. C. Primary Building Entrance- The majority of the buildings orientate their entrance onto the "lifestyle" center main street, Technology Boulevard. The Development Manual discusses the treatment of the main entrance, but does not address a primary objective of the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan to orient the primary entrances of a building to face a street, plaza or pedestrian way for those structures that do not front onto Technology Boulevard. In particular, those structures that will back onto the West Main entryway corridor, Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street. This needs to be addressed in the Development Manual. The Manual should go on to state a need for sheltering elements such as a canopy, awning, arcade or portico to signify the primary entrance to a building, as well as the secondary entrance if it serves an entrance along another faqade. D. Street Level Interest- All sides of a building should include interesting details and materials to avoid presenting a "back side" to neighboring properties, public streets and the West Main Street entryway corridor. The treatment of materials and architectural detail will be consistent along all sides of the buildings and storefronts or display cases should be incorporated over at least one third of the fagade area. Darker anodized window fronts should also be recommended in-lieu of brushed aluminum store fronts. E. Building Mass & Scale- The Bozeman Design Objectives Plan state that the following elements must be achieved in order to reduce the perceived mass of a building: a change in color or change The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 10 in material shall be used in each building module; a 20% change in vertical height between each module; change roof form; change in articulation. The architectural guidelines should discuss components that help to establish a human scale along the fagade, store fronts, primary entrances (i.e., one-story elements). Expression of the each floor in the external skin and use of materials should also be noted. The Development Manual must contain these provisions and any illustrations proposed in the application that does not reflect the guidelines should be modified accordingly. F. Roof Form- The principle roof form for the mixed-use development is a flat roof with parapet walls, pediments, and articulate hip or shed roofs. Gable roof details either as a principle or secondary feature, or at the primary entrance points should be included to reduce the perceived scale of the building. This should be a primary architectural feature throughout the development but primarily on structures fronting onto the entryway corridor and public streets. G. Building Materials- The architectural guidelines discuss building materials that vary and create visual interest, while exhibiting an overall coordination of color materials and are generally consistent with the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan. However, the guidelines state 65% of all facades exclusive of the front facade may be covered with stucco or EIFS synthetic surfaces,which is consistent with the design objectives plan. Because this proposal stands on a `lifestyle' center concept and a high quality setting that does not have the rear or back to a building, not more than 25% of any building fagade will be covered by synthetic surfaces. H. Building Complex- The architectural guidelines reinforce the desire to create a development that exhibits a unity in design while providing a variety in the architectural vocabulary. I. Service Canopies- these criteria is not applicable as it is specific to gas stations and convenience store canopy design. J. Color- The architectural guidelines shall include language that specifically states that muted colors and earth tones will be used, including roof materials. A minimum of 75% of the exterior walls seen from the public way shall have muted colors. K. Utilities & Mechanical Equipment- The Development Manual will need to include language stating that all mechanical, electrical, HVAC, and utility services will be properly screened with an opaque screening device, which may include landscape screening features. The guidelines must go on to state that all utility equipment associated with storm water facilities or landscape irrigation system (i.e., irrigation wells, pumps, etc.) shall be located outside of the common open space areas and properly screened. 4. Sign Design (pages 49-56): A. Sign Context & Position- The design guidelines call for a common signage theme that generally focuses on building signage, not freestanding signs. Illustrations in the Development Manual suggest placement of monument signs at principle and secondary access points into the development, which are generally consistent with the quality and character of the project. The illustrations are intended to demonstrate the character of the signage and no so much compliance with the sign ordinance. However, two of the illustrations would not comply with the sign The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 11 • • ordinance. As a result, the common signage plan submitted with the Final PUD Plan will need to comply with the sign ordinance,unless deviations to the ordinance are requested by the applicant. The signage plan focuses on project identification signs as key entrance into the project, but does not identify freestanding type (i.e., pylon or monument). Only one pylon-style sign is permitted per street frontage with the remainder freestanding However, the Final PUD Plan will need to contain a common signage plan that illustrates the actual design standards for the project identification signs. The Development Manual will need to include a graphic component of the master sign plan for the entire property. This includes discussion on the position of signs as part of the overall building composition; avoid obscuring architectural details, materials, and use of color and relief, three-dimensional signage. B. Sign Type- The signage guidelines for buildings contain a mix of halo type reverse channel letters, internally illuminated cabinet signs, blade signs, and window graphics. Cabinet type "box" signage will not be permitted unless a three-dimensional component creates a sense of architectural relief with no plastic, translucent face allowed. These standards will need to be included in the Development Manual. C. Sign Materials- The signs discussed in the Development Manual contain a broad range of signs that exhibit high standards and quality of style, permanence and compatibility with the natural and building environment. Changeable copy reader boards are discouraged and should be noted in the guidelines D. Sign Lighting- The guidelines indicate that the majority of the illuminated signs will be internally illuminated. Light color backgrounds on internally illuminated signs are discouraged and a white background is inappropriate. The guidelines will need to address these restrictions E. Sign Content- The guidelines establish parameters for the letter styles and sizes that are compatible with the building design. F. Wall Murals- Not applicable. 5. Corridor Specific Guidelines: C. North 19`h Avenue & Oak Street Corridor (pages 69-79)- 1. Existing agricultural site features and/or resources should be integrated into a newer development when feasible. Not applicable. 2. A building should fit within existing topography when feasible. The topography from south to north is generally gradual enough whereby a stepped foundations area necessary. The proposal does not give consideration parking underneath the structures. Double-fronted buildings are proposed to avoid the presence of the back of buildings onto the public streets and West Main Street entryway corridor. This was discussed in detail previously in the staff report. 3. Provide an infill building adjacent to the sidewalk in new and established developments. The application discusses the presence of satellite commercial pads along the The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 12 • • West Main Street entryway corridor. With exception to the corridor, no building fronts are proposed to be built adjacent to the public right-of-way along Fowler Avenue or West Garfield Street. 4. A pedestrian and bicycle boulevard trail shall be provided on the furthest reaches of West Main Street. This has been addressed as part of a trail network that includes an asphalt pedestrian/bicycle trail along the entire entryway corridor frontage. 5. The applicable streetscape elements appropriate in the corridor must be addressed. The application has addressed the treatment of street trees, landscape accents, furnishings, and bicycle facilities. The applicant should consider a shelter map and map display along what will serve as a regional boulevard trail connection that fronts along West Main Street. Provisions for a transit stop should also be considered. CONSIDERATIONS 1. That all pedestrian/bicycle crossings with streets be given greater emphasis by using similar pavers that reflect the surface treatment of public plazas and areas of outdoor social activities. Connections of between streets, off-street parking lots, public areas should also be given attention in terms of raised walkways, pavers, pedestrian lighting and landscape features. The Final PUD Plan will contain a detail whereby the development provides a public shelter and map display along what will serve as a regional boulevard trail connection that fronts along West Main Street. 2. Provisions for a transit stop within the interior of the PUD should be incorporated into site plan for review and approval with the Final PUD Plan. 3. The public streetscape shall contain a regular spacing of boulevard trees along all streets, both public and private, in concert with landscape features and screening of off-street parking lots; primarily, areas along West Garfield Street and US Highway 191/West Main Street. All trees to be installed in the boulevards, off-street parking lots, common open space areas, and individual subdivision lots will be installed at 2-inch caliber in diameter. Street character along the West Main Street entryway corridor Fowler Avenue and Garfield Street shall call for architectural features that suggest a presence of store fronts, plazas, fenestration treatment and architectural details that reflect the "lifestyle center" concept. The Development Manual shall contain said language to insure implementation of said streetscape features. 4. Commercial and retail drive-thrus and associated apprentices (speaker phones, signage, ATM, canopies, etc.) shall not front onto the entryway corridor or corner-side of the building and will not impact the building fagade of the satellite structures along the streetscape. The Development Manual will provide a typical illustration that speaks to this provision prior to Final PUD Plan approval. 5. The Final PUD Plan and Development Manual will need to discus the treatment of street intersections that will be enhanced with a pedestrian-friendly entrance plaza or human scaled design features. such as benches and landscape planters. Building entrances near the sidewalk edge that contain an entry plaza should also be considered at the intersections of local streets with Technology Boulevard and should be considered not only in the commercial area, but also along the business park/professional office corridors. This would also apply at the corner of Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street. If it is the decision to locate the grocery store at the southeast corner of West Main Street and Fowler The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 13 i • Avenue, a building entrance and plaza must occur along the entryway corridor, preferably at the northwest corner of the building. 6. The Development Manual and Landscape Plan shall address the treatment of drainage basins in the open space corridors with regard to placement of said facilities and outlet structures. These facilities must be properly landscaped and prevent any impact on the landscape features along these corridors. Specific landscape details will be required with the final landscape plan to demonstrate proper landscape of the facilities. The landscape guidelines shall state that drainage basins will not eliminate the installation of landscape and landscape features as depicted on the Preliminary PUD Plan; and if so, will be replaced outside of the open space corridors. A landscape architect shall certify on the Landscape Plan that landscape features installed over or around areas that contain a drainage basin in the open space corridor will not be impacted. 7. That the landscape guidelines of the Development Manual state that the surface ponds along West Main Street are not be part of the storm water facilities and will be maintained as landscape feature along the entryway corridor. Provisions will be discussed in the protective covenants and Development Manual that will limit the fluctuation of said ponds to ensure that they remain a landscape feature along the entryway corridor. Said improvements will be financially guarantee for a minimum of twenty-four mouths, or to construction seasons, to ensure that said improvements are an effective element of the entryway corridor. 8. The final Landscape Plan shall specifically address landscape details for the three corridors, two public trails within the off-street parking lot, West Main Street entryway corridor. Detailed landscape plans shall also be included for the two public plazas within in the interior of lifestyle center and the small public spaces along the north/south water courses. 9. The Bozeman Design Objectives Plan states that the following elements must be achieved in order to reduce the perceived mass of a building: a change in color or change in material shall be used in each building module; a 20% change in vertical height between each module; change roof form; change in articulation. The architectural guidelines should discuss components that help to establish a human scale along the facade, store fronts, primary entrances (i.e., one-story elements). Expression of the each floor in the external skin and use of materials should also be noted. The Development Manual will need to provide illustrations for each of these guidelines as discussed and revise any illustrations proposed in the application that do not reflect said criteria. 10. The architectural guidelines for the development suggest that the Convenience Center, Outparcels and Office-Professional areas will incorporate the architectural vocabulary of the lifestyle center. However, modifications will be required due to the significant variation in building type and scale. The Development Manual goes on to state that an exact determination of which entities will be responsible for which elements of design and construction will be determined by individual lease or sales agreements. In-lieu of this, the Development Manual should give specific attention to each of these areas of the mixed-use development and identify what must be achieved in each of these areas to maintain the architectural integrity of the overall development theme. The Development Manual shall graphically address the presentation of building facades that face onto the pubic streets (i.e., West Main Street entryway corridor, Fowler Avenue and West Garfield Street) and through the use of illustrations illustrate the architectural theme sought with the "lifestyle center of the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision. This also applies as well to the professional office, business park The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 14 and convenience components of the development, as well as the rear facades of both sides of the "lifestyle" center situated along Technology Boulevard. 11. The architectural guidelines of the Development Manual will be modified to state that not more than 25% of any of the building facades shall be covered with a synthetic surface. 12. The Development Manual will discuss presentation onto a street regardless if it's the main street for the lifestyle center, private street or a public street with respect to a formal entrance, store fronts, covered entrances, and public spaces. 13. Detailed elevations, floor plan, landscape plan, site plan and a color palette and materials sample board shall be submitted for each building prior to Final PUD Plan or Final Site Plan approval and issuance of a building permit. 14. No franchise style architecture shall be permitted in the Bozeman Gateway Subdivision and noted accordingly in the protective covenants and restrictions and Development Manual. 15. The general materials theme shall be continued throughout the development but there needs to be more variety in design. 16. All of the buildings on the perimeter of the development shall have a second front (double fronted design) oriented towards the streetscape and include a colonnade and a sidewalk connection to the perimeter sidewalk/trail system and all corner buildings shall include some type of design feature oriented towards the corner (a concave area or a bump-out constructed of transparent materials). 17. The backside of the buildings shall be addressed by the continuation of materials on all sides and the addition of awnings over the doors on the rear elevations. 18. The development guidelines shall indicate that all store fronts shall be dark bronze anodized, or similar,versus the brushed stainless finish. 19. Sconce lights and goose neck lights (down lights only) shall be added to the larger retail buildings (over 15,000 square feet). 20. No translucent awnings. Building awnings shall be fabric or metal only. 21. Those areas to be finished in a synthetic finish shall place a strong emphasis on joint detail, relief and architectural detail, and noted accordingly in the Development Manual. 22. All crossings within the Planned Unit Development shall be constructed with scored concrete or pavers similar to the surface materials installed throughout the public outdoor public areas. The crossings shall be noted as such on the Final PUD Plan and details for the pattern shall be provided in the final development guidelines. 23. Larger seating areas with planters shall be installed throughout the plazas and public areas and a typical detail of the planters included in the Development Manual. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 15 6 4 24. Shelter areas with a transit stop shall be added to the circle intersection and waiting zones shall be installed at the Tschache/19`h and Oak/19`h intersections. 25. The development guidelines shall indicate that no backlit cabinet signs will be permitted in the phase. A comprehensive sign plan shall be submitted to the Planning Office prior to Final PUD approval that depicts a sign package that exhibits qualities of style,relief and compatibility. 26. The development guidelines shall indicate that exposed neon is prohibited and can only be used as a subtle lighting element under the soffits, behind the fascia or in the sign package (i.e.,backlit feature). 27. A common signage plan depicting the location, dimensions, height, illumination and use of materials for all freestanding stings shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Final PUD Plan approval. Both the pylon sign and monument signs shall be constructed of materials compatible with the overall building design theme for the complex, and illustrated accordingly in the Development Manual. 28. The north off-street parking lot shall exclude two off-street parking spaces along each of the two watercourse corridors for the placement of an 18' x 18' public space with benches, pavers and landscape features, and illustrated accordingly in the landscape guidelines and landscape plan. The watercourse corridors shall have a minimum width of not less than thirty feet, exclusive of the public space. 29. The storm water ponds shall be designed as open, landscaped features that are organic in shape and lined with native grasses and indigenous plants. Code Requirements: 30. All building mounted and pole mounted lights shall meet the cut off shield requirements outlined in the UDO. unless a relaxation is granted by the City Commission. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION The applicant must comply with all other provisions of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance, which are applicable to this project prior to receiving Final PUD Plan, Final Plat or Building Permit approval. 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. NOTE: The Design Review Board and Development Review Committee will forward a formal recommendation to the City Commission on this matter who will in turn consider an action on this application tentatively scheduled for Monday, December 5,2005. Attachments: Applicant's Submittal Materials Mailed To: Mitchell Development Group, L.L.C., 1315 81h Avenue N., Great Falls, MT 59401 Carter& Burgess Consultants, Inc., 1420 W. Mockingbird Lane, Suite 800,Dallas, TX 75247 Morrison-Maierle, Inc., P.O. Box 1113, Bozeman,MT 59771 The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 16 e • • THE BOZEMAN.GATEWAY CONCEPT P.U.D. ZONINGFILENO.Z-04313 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT ITEM: ZONING APPLICATION NO. Z-04313 -- AN APPLICATION FOR CONCEPT P.U.D. PLAN REVIEW FOR A MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL/PROFESSIONAL OFFICE/RETAIL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON APPROXIMATELY 72.2± ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF HUFFINE LANE/US HIGHWAY 191, ZONED "B-2", COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND "BP", BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT. APPLICANT: MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, I.L.C. %TED MITCHELL P.O. BOX 738, GREAT FALLS, MT 59403 OWNER: MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, I.L.C. %TED MITCHELL P.O. BOX 738, GREAT FALLS, MT 59403 DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2004, AT 3:30 P.M., IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM, ALFRED M. STIFF PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, 20 EAST OLIVE STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANA REPORT BY: DAVE SKELTON SENIOR PLANNER --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Project Description: The subject property is legally described as being Tract 2A of the Amended Plat of West College Minor Subdivision No. 195A located in the NW 'A of Section 15, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, and is further identified as property situated south of Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 and Gallatin Valley Mall, and west of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle facility. The site is approximately 72.2 acres in size and fronts Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 along the north boundary, extension of Fowler Avenue on the west and extension of Garfield Street on the south boundary. Please refer to the vicinity map and exhibits provided in the applicant's submittal. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 1 c Proposal: The applicant, Mitchell Development Group, L.L.C., has made application for Concept P.U.D. Plan Review of a mixed-use commercial, professional office, and retail planned unit development consisting of 61 commercial/business park lots zoned `B-2" and `BP". The proposal is also undergoing a concurrent pre-application subdivision plan review of the 72+ acre site as a major subdivision. The five-phased mixed-use planned unit development is located in the West Main Street entryway corridor overlay district along its north boundary and is bound on the north by the major arterial street, Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 and Gallatin Valley Mall. The Advanced Technology Park and Bozeman Daily Chronicle are to the east and partially developed lands under Gallatin County jurisdiction are to the west. The placement of mixed land uses within the development focuses on a mix of professional offices, retail services and hotel/conference facility on the east one-third and a mixed of retail service and commercial uses on the west two-thirds. The `B-2", Community Business District, allows for a broad range of mutually supportive retail and service functions located in clustered areas bordered on one of more sides by limited access arterial streets. Principal permitted uses range from banks and hospitals to offices and hotels/motels. Conditional uses permitted in the district range from automobile fuel sales to technical or vocational schools to light goods repair and light manufacturing. The `BP", Business Park District, provides for high quality settings and facilities for the development of a wide range of compatible employment opportunities. These areas should be developed so as to recognize the impact on surrounding or adjacent development and contribute to the overall image of the community. Compatibility with adjacent land uses and zoning is required. Permitted uses range from hospitals and professional offices to research laboratories and public buildings. Conditional uses that may be considered in the `BP" district range from banks and day care centers to type II essential services. Chapter 18.36—Planned Unit Development The intent of the planned unit development concept is to promote maximum flexibility and innovation in the development of land and the design of development projects within the city. As a result, the developer has requested multiple relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance with this application for P.U.D. review. With regard to the improvement and protection of the public health, safety and welfare, it shall be the intent of the Ordinance to promote the city's pursuit of community objectives as outlined in Chapter 18.36 of the Unified Development Ordinance. The purpose of the Concept P.U.D. Plan Review is for discussion of the applicant's proposal with the designated review committees in order to identify any requirements and applicable standards and policies, as well as offering the applicant the opportunity to identify major problems that may exist and identify solutions prior to making formal application. Relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance. The following relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance have been identified with the application for subdivision pre-application plan review and P.U.D. concept plan review: • Section 18.42.030.1 "Frontage" and Section 18.44.090.B.2 "Drive Access" to not have access for all subdivision lots from an improved pubic street, approved private street or alley. • Section 18.42.040.B "Block Length" to allow the block lengths to exceed 400 feet. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 2 • Section 18.42.040.0 "Block Width" to allow the block widths to be more than 400 feet. • Section 18.42.100.B.3.c — "Setbacks" to encroach into the 50-foot minimum setback required along watercourses. • Section 18.42.100.B.4.b — "Watercourse Setback" to allow the required watercourse setback to not include adjacent wetlands. • Section 18.44.030.A.1 "Intersections" to allow streets to intersect at angles less than 90 degrees. • Section 18.44.090.D.3 "Spacing Standards for Drive Access" to allow the average spacing of intersections on Fowler Avenue to be reduced from 660 feet to 420 feet. Natural Features: The application identifies four watercourses existing on the site and has delineated these features in the submittal. Three of the watercourses establish the crux of existing physical features on the site. The Fish, Wildlife & Parks has identified these as either a stream or intermediate streams. Therefore there are associated jurisdictional wetlands and the applicable watercourse setbacks. A Section 404 Permit has been granted by the Army Corp of Engineers to mitigate any related impacts to distributing existing wetlands with the construction of Fowler Lane. The wetlands identified with the two interior intermediate streams will remain generally undistributed. However, the applicant is requesting to encroach into the required 50-foot watercourse setback and from the wetlands boundary associated with the watercourses. There are basically three general points of conflict between the required watercourse setback and development of the property; 1) Lot #14 and #15 in Phase One, 2) Lot #24 in Phase Four , and 3) Lot #49 in Phase Two. The applicant's basis for requesting a relaxation to reduce these watercourse setbacks based on hardship and/or evidence of conflicting physical features lends itself to an unfavorable recommendation by staff. Open Space: Under section 18.36.090.E.2.7.b of the U.D.O. at least twenty performance points must be earned through a combination of affordable housing or additional open space. The applicant has elected to meet the performance points by providing additional open space at: 1) one point for each percent of the project that provides non-public area, or 2) one and one-quarter points for each percent of provided as publicly accessible open space. The portion of the project to be used in determining the size of the area for open space is the gross area less dedicated land transferred to the public. The area provided for open space shall be exclusive of yard setbacks and interior off-street parking lot landscape. Approximately 16.84% (16 points) of open space, including 1.25% credit for the pubic access to the corridors, was calculated by staff. This is a discrepancy compared to the submittal information of 21.5% (21 points) in the application,which may be in part be due the application using required yard setbacks along the west side of Fowler Avenue and south side of Huffine Lane in the open space calculations. This will need to be confirmed with the preliminary plan and preliminary subdivision plat applications. Ponds: The concept plan proposes a series of ponds as public landscape features within the context of the development. The two ponds in proximity of Gateway Boulevard serve as exceptional elements of the public plazas and social interaction, while the ponds along Huffine Lane are aesthetic landscape features along the entryway corridor. Ample space between building, streets and water features along Gateway Boulevard must be provided as an effective place for public activities. The water features along the Huffine Lane will also serve to accommodate storm water runoff from The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 3 impervious surfaces. As a result, the ponds along Huffine Lane will fluctuate substantially based upon the time of the year, and degree of spring showers and runoff. As open space features along the entryway corridor, pre-treatment of garbage and refuse, as well as grease, oil and silt will need to occur "prior" to discharging into these ponds. The ponds may not serve as the principle treatment facility for grease, oil, silt, and refuse. These ponds must be designed to necessitate a principle landscape feature as their principle function and as a storm water runoff facility secondly in order to receive the needed credit for open space. Pedestrian Circulation: A hierarchy for pedestrian circulation for this area includes: 1) development of Fowler Avenue and Garfield Street as the area's major transportation network with associated bike lanes and boulevard sidewalks, 2), developing a major linkage in this part of the community for a public trail system currently identified along the Farmer's Canal, 3) implementing the "lifestyle center" along Gateway Boulevard that recognizes pedestrian circulation, 4) interior public streetscape and sidewalks for pedestrian circulation, and 5) a public trail system within the interior of the mixed-use commercial development. Because the pedestrian circulation system will aid in producing an efficient, functionally organized, and cohesive planned unit development, consideration should be given to stronger connections between areas of useable open space, through off-street parking lots, as well as connections with public areas. Fewer accentuated crossings across the collector street, Fowler Avenue, should be considered to limit the potential conflict between vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Greater attention should be given to the intersections with Huffine Lane and West Garfield Street. Emphasis on raised walkways, pavers, and landscape features should be given to any pedestrian crossings along the major street system,perimeter streets, and interior streets within the development. If it is the wish of the developer to reroute the planned "future trail corridor" along the Farmer's Canal ditch that is designated in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, it is imperative that the trail system provide users with the ability to: 1) interact_with the mixed-use commercial development, 2) experience the physical features of the open space areas, or 3) continue along the public trail system as part of the community's trail system with the least amount of resistance from vehicular movement, off-street parking lots and related engineered facilities (i.e., storm water runoff facilities, drainage swales,irrigation wells, etc. The Gallatin Valley Land Trust and Bozeman Recreation Parks Advisory Board generally supported the concept of the trail system with the understanding to address the points discussed in the previous phase. Until a detailed master plan is provided the advisory bodies recommended an impervious surface along Huffine Lane and throughout the parking lots, and a more natural, Class II type, trail system along the open space stream corridors. Landscape: At the concept level the application does not delineate in detail the amount of landscape features that are intended. However, the submittal does suggest substantial areas of green space and public landscape features. In all aspects of the development proposal emphasis on common landscape furniture and landscape features should be noted. Landscape itrigation is imperative and placement of irrigation system is crucial. All irrigation wells will be properly screened from the streetscape,public buildings,public plazas and open space areas. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 4 • Public Streetscape - Boulevard trees at a regular spacing of one (1) tree per fifty (50) lineal feet of street frontage will be installed along all pubic street frontages for both local and perimeter streets. • Off-street Parking Lot — In addition to the required interior parking lot landscape, parking areas that adjoin the public streetscape should contain meandering low-profile berms and foliage, as well as well as landscape features designed in clustered arrangements of season types and color. • Key access Points — The principle access points from Fowler Avenue, Garfield Street, Huffine Lane/US Highway 191, and West College Street should contain expansive landscape features that emphasize the importance of the natural landscape and how it plays a major role in the form and character of the entryway corridor and community. A strong emphasis with the access from Huffine Lane is encouraged as the formal entrance from entrance along the entryway corridor. • Public Areas and Plaza—Not only does the public plaza within the core of the development, serve as a place for social interaction, the entire Gateway Boulevard lends itself to both landscape features and furniture. These should generate a common theme through the development as part of a unified planned unit development. • Open Space/Watercourse Corridors — Landscape features in these areas should be informal and consistent with the natural setting of the area. Ample width for the watercourses that bisect the off-street parking lots must be provided (i.e.,minimum of 60 feet). • Entryway Corridor — The Design Objectives Plan for entryway corridors encourages the West Main Street corridor to a create a "green edge" over time on both sides of the street and that street frontage landscaping should be strongly emphasized. Therefore, the streetscape along this corridor should include both a formal setting of boulevard trees, designed in concert vJith a more informal setting to emphasize the importance of urban open space and the quality of urban lifestyles in the community. Lighting As with landscape features and furniture, lighting of public areas, open space and major entrances into the development should implement a common theme that supports the "life style" concept of the commercial planned unit development. Off-street parking lots should be properly illuminated but not become an intrusive element along the entryway corridor during the evening hours. ParkinP:• Off-street parking calculations are conceptual at this stage of the process. The approximate project breakdown of land uses is outlined in the applicant's submittal, totaling approximately 800,000± square feet. Based on the formal of 1 parking space/300 square feet of retail store and service establishments, approximately 2,267 parking spaces would be required. Using the 125% maximum threshold that is allowable, 2,834 spaces are permitted as a parking ceiling by the U.D.O. A rough count of off-street parking proposed with the development is estimated at 3,059 space,which exceeds the 125% allowable maximum. Due to the scale of the project,it is recommended that the minimum width for parking lot drive aisles should exceed the minimum required width of 26 feet. Fronting off-street parking facilities directly onto Huffine Lane and the entryway corridor is not recommended. Signage• Signs should be an integral part of the overall architectural design and should be part of the Development Manual. A common signage program that specifies location, size, lighting, materials, and unified graphic design for both shared and individual signs should be expected. Low profile signs should be strongly encouraged along Huffine Lane and Fowler Avenue and should be limited to only project identification signage. A larger project identification sign may be considered based on location, placement and need. The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 5 Public Areas and Plazas: Consideration should be given to identifying a general theme for the public outdoor plaza area(s) with landscape furniture and features, as well as lighting. The areas between the building and Gateway Boulevard should remain wider than expected for the protection of pedestrians from vehicular movement, as well as providing an adequate area of drop-off and pick-up of the patrons. A 20-30 foot wide sidewalk storefront should not be unreasonable. Accenting key pedestrian crossings and connections is an important element of these public areas. Landscape features, outdoor furniture, lighting, seating areas, outdoor vendor areas should be integral elements of these areas. Consideration of a possible location for a transit system should also be investigated. BuildingD� The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. is located in the West Main Street entryway corridor; and as a result, said guidelines should be applied using a "sliding scale" approach with the attitude of the greater the degree of change proposed, the greater and more elaborate the degree of review. In this case, the design expectations must be applied with the intent of achieving high quality design that reflects the local community character, climate, history and natural environment. As this is a multi-phased project, the Development Manual that will include the architectural and landscape guidelines will play an integral role in maintaining the quality of the project and the "lifestyle" concept that the developers intend to exploit. Variety in architectural design with dramatic architectural forms is encouraged. However, not at the cost of losing a unified theme or encourage franchise architecture. The guidelines should develop a vocabulary of acceptable materials, treatment and use of materials, patterns, fenestration, scale and directional expression. Use of offsets, fenestration treatment, proportions, and emphasis of main entrances should be included. The following building orientations should be considered. • All buildings requiring a service area must avoid the impression of not having a rear to the building. • The presentation of the rear of the grocery store fronting the corridor must be responsible to the West Main Street entryway corridor, Fowler Avenue and development patterns within the context of the proposal. The current location makes it difficult to address. • The office building at the west end of the development should be closer to the entryway corridor with a majority of the off-street parking to the south of the structure. • If the development is proposing future building pads, along the West Garfield Street frontage, they should be included as part of the discussion for this concept plan review. • A larger satellite building fronting onto Huffine Lane/US Highway 191 should be situated in the central area of the development to reduce the visual impact of the parking area. • Careful scrutiny will be given to any land use that contains a drivethru facility. The covenants will specifically restrict any drive thru facility from facing onto the West Main Street entryway corridor. • Franchise architecture is not recommended as part of the Design Objectives Plan for entryway corridors. These land uses must also exemplify the sprit of the "lifestyle" center. Protective Covenants and Architectural&Landscape Guidelines: The ability of the mixed-use planned unit development to ensure compatibility with, and sensitivity to, the immediate environment of the site will fall substantially on the aptitude of the applicant to prepare The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 6 a Development Manual, which will implement the architectural and landscape guidelines for the project. Consideration must be given to scale, mass, neighborhood identity, landscape, orientation of buildings, use of materials, color palette, and specific architectural character-giving features that will define the architectural parameters of the planned unit development. The Manual should clearly outline the concept of a "lifestyle center" and illustrate the methods by which to implement the concept. The mixed-use commercial development will have the most immediate and greatest impact on adjoining properties to the north, which includes the West Main Street entryway corridor, and should have the highest degree of review. Landscape, buffering features, open space, fencing and orientation of buildings adjoining the future development to the west, south, and east must be considered. Provisions for the maintenance and upkeep of open space, public areas, trail system, streetscape, ponds, and other related areas should be clearly outlined. All common areas should be maintained and kept in good condition under a single contract with a landscape maintenance company. Landscape irrigation and placement of irrigation wells must be addressed. No irrigation wells and related facilities will be situated in the yard setbacks, but instead immediately adjacent to said improvements and properly screened. Attachments: Applicant's Submittal for Concept P.U.D. Plan Review Mailed To: Mitchell Development Group, L.L.C., 1315 8`h Avenue N., Great Falls, MT 59401 Carter&Burgess Consultants, Inc., 201 North Charles St., 9`h Floor, Baltimore, MY 21201 Morrison-Maierle, Inc., P.O. Box 1113, Bozeman,MT 59771 The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 7 i +� DESIGN REVIEW BOARD • WEDNESDAY,JANUARY 12, 2005 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Dawn Smith called the meeting to order at 3:32 p.m. and directed the secretary to record the attendance. Members Present Staff Present Bill Hanson Chris Saunders, Associate Planner Dawn Smith Lanette Windemaker, Contract Planner Brian Krueger David Skelton, Senior Planner Scott Hedglin Tara Hastie,Recording Secretary Randy Carpenter Visitors Present Ted Mitchell John Davidson Mark Mitchell Greg Stratton Bill Ogle James Nickelson Jamie Lenon ITEM 2. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10,2004 (Continued from 12/22/04.) Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of November 10, 2004. MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF DECEM 3ER 8, 2004 (Continued from 12/22/04.) Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of December 8, 2004. MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Mr. Hanson seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0. ITEM 4. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 22,2004 Chairperson Dawn Smith called for corrections or additions to the minutes of December 22, 2004. MOTION: Mr. Carpenter moved, Mr. Hanson seconded,to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried 5-0. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—January 12,2005 1 ITEM 5. Presentatisy Chris Kukulski, City Manager—1 our. Chris Kukulski, City Manager, introduced himself to the DRB and explained the City's long- term goals. ITEM 6. U.D.O. Edits Discussion A. * Discussion of the U.D.O. text amendments pertinent to the DRB. Continued to the meeting of January 26, 2005. ITEM 7. The Bozeman Gateway Concept PUD#Z-04313 (Skelton) A. Southwest of the intersection of West College Street and Huffine Lane * A Concept Planned Unit Development Application to allow the construction of a mixed-use commercial development on 72.2 acres with related site improvements. Ted Mitchell, Mark Mitchell, John Davidson, and Greg Stratton joined the DRB. Senior Planner David Skelton presented the project noting that the DRB was informally reviewing the project so the advisory board could have a dialog with the applicant before the project was formally reviewed by the DRB in two weeks. He stated the project started as an extension of the Advanced Technology Park and had been modified with the sale of the property, identifying commercial development north of Huffine Lane, and development of the recently adopted Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. He added that the applicants and he had invited City Commission members to attend the next meeting of the DRB. Mr. Mark Mitchell noted the background of the Mitchell Group; who has been working on the Gateway project for the past year. He stated the applicants wanted to keep and enhance the wetlands on the site and added they had offered to install Garfield Street from South 19th Avenue to Fowler Lane and Fowler Lane to Huffine Lane, at their expense. He stated there would be a traffic signal installed at their expense as well. He stated the easements were negotiated in favor of the City of Bozeman, but the applicant would be responsible for curb and gutter on one side of the road with a gravel shoulder on the other side. He stated there would be major redesigns of intersections to make the project's accesses work. He stated they had taken special care in keeping with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan and they had enhanced the frontage on Huffine Lane using the placement of retention ponds. He stated there would be a plaza with a pond in the center of the development. He stated the hotel component fit well with the lodging demand generators on the west side of town. He stated the applicant had taken special care to design a project that would be an asset to Bozeman and had been working with the Army Corp of Engineers and the Department of Transportation from the project's inception. Mr. Davidson stated he and the developers had'an on-site charette regarding what would fit on the site and how it would be arranged. He stated some of the wetland areas posed difficulties given the limited developable area. He stated he came to the conclusion that the Farmer's Canal was bisecting the site and had decided to incorporate the canal into the development. He presented a color rendering depicting the types of uses (hotel, club, community center, shopping center, etc.) and their arrangement on the proposed development, as well as potential views from various proposed structures on the site. He noted the proposed enhancement of the natural streams and the addition of ponds throughout the development. He stated they developed City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—January 12,2005 2 specific architectural chaA for areas of the development and pre9ted a color rendering of the proposed entrance from Huffine Lane, of the interior streetscape, and the central plaza. He stated there would be natural stone up to 10 feet. He stated there would be a fireplace, an ice rink/water feature, and audio equipment in the plaza for public gatherings. He added that the formal water features would be blended with the natural water features and there were significant pedestrian connections proposed throughout the development; promoting pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Mr. Hanson asked how the number of parking stalls compared to the number of parking stalls required by the U.D.O. Mr. Davidson responded that the project would meet the requirements when compact spaces were calculated in. Mr. Hanson asked if Staff had given the applicant options for parking calculations. Mr. Saunders responded that shared parking was allowed as long as there was an obvious agreement. Mr. Davidson responded that the site, as a whole, had met the requirements. Mr. Hanson stated the DRB was supportive of parking reductions but the problem with retail development was they pushed the envelope on the number of stalls. Mr. Davidson added that grocery stores were often adamant about the arrangement and number of parking stalls. Mr. Hanson asked if the City would allow storm water retention into an active waterway. Mr. Stratton responded that the retention ponds were not connected to the active waterways and they would use an old canal that has been dry. Mr. Hanson stated that the pollutants needed to be filtered from the retention ponds. Mr. Stratton responded they would be filtered by City engineering standards. Mr. Hanson asked if the open space requirements had been met. Mr. Saunders responded that it was a point system with a variety of ways to meet those points, and publicly accessible spaces would be worth more points. Mr. Hanson stated the project was in a stream corridor, and asked if there would be difficulties meeting open space requirements because part of the open space was unusable as it was in a waterway. Mr. Stratton stated the calculation of open space was based on the net area multiplied by 0.25. Mr. Hanson suggested Staff review the usable space next to the stream corridors. Mr. Hanson asked why there was no residential development proposed with so many pedestrian connections on the site. Mr. Davidson replied there was no market for residential development in that location. Mr. Ted Mitchell stated the parking requirements would become an issue if there were residential development due to the tremendous cost of ramping driveways to residences. Mr. Carpenter suggested residential structures with below-grade parking. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded the water level was too high to incorporate below-grade parking. Mr. Carpenter asked if they had met the impervious surface requirements. Mr. Stratton responded they had not calculated those requirements yet. Mr. Carpenter asked where the retention ponds, outlets, and filtration areas would be located. Mr. Stratton responded that the water would be released from the detention ponds into the discharge pipes or canals and then to the outlets; which had not been formally located in the proposal yet. Mr. Carpenter suggested being cautious in the design of the retention ponds so that the project would remain attractive. Mr. Carpenter asked if the pedestrian and bike trails were more for internal. Mr. Davidson responded that the connection to the east (the college) and the residential development across Huffine Lane would likely be using the pedestrian and bike trails. Mr. Carpenter asked how the pedestrians would be moved safely across Huffine Lane. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that there would be a signal installed on Huffine Lane as it was no longer a highway and inside corporate city limits. Mr. Carpenter asked if there would be screening along Huffine Lane. Mr. Davidson and Mr. Ted Mitchell indicated where screening was proposed. Mr. Carpenter stated that not many of the views would have terminal vistas from the boulevards and the plaza. Mr. Carpenter asked how the phases of City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—January 12,2005 3 development would be co#eted and how the circulation would Aintained. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that Garfield Street and the intersection of South 191h Avenue and Fowler Lane would be constructed in the first phase, the second phase would be the development of the east side of the project. Mr. Hedglin asked the projected fill-out for the retail space; was there enough of an attraction to the site to occupy the retail spaces. Mr. Stratton responded there would be 216 retail spaces. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded the development would be filled-out within 7 or 8 years. Mr. Krueger stated that, with a PUD, an applicant could design their project with more flexibility and asked what the applicant was proposing that would be above and beyond the zoning requirements for a PUD. Mr. Davidson responded that the project would be more upscale; i.e. many of the wall coverings would be upgraded, outdoor fireplaces, a plaza, etc. Mr. Davidson responded that the applicant had not looked upon the project as an upgrade to the normal PUD. Mr. Stratton responded that the PUD development was a method by which to request variances, for example; the width of the streets, diagonal parking, longer blocks, and other irregularities. Mr. Stratton added that none of the requested variances were too far from code requirements. Mr. Krueger asked Mr. Ted Mitchell to explain why they would retain the curviness of the street through the development. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that the curved street served the purpose of slowing traffic and it added a unique quality to the site. Mr. Krueger asked if the diagonal parking would be on a two lane street. Mr. Davidson responded that it would be a two lane, two way street with diagonal parking. Mr. Krueger asked which of the page of design images in the submittal materials and the proposed design images on the renderings were being proposed. Mr. Davidson responded that they would like to see varied architectural designs with multiple architects working on the project and there would be overall design standards for the development. Chairperson Smith asked what level of retail `BP" zoning allowed. Mr. Saunders responded there was mainly `B-2" zoning in the proposal, and Mr. Ted Mitchell illustrated where there was a small area of`BP". Planner Saunders explained the differences between `BP" and"B-2" zoning with regard to allowable retail space. Chairperson Smith asked if a drive-thru was allowable in the "B-2" zoning. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that drive-thru's were allowable and indicated their locations on the color rendering. Chairperson Smith asked if the City would be reviewing the final submittal of the project. Planner Saunders responded that individual final site plans would be reviewed. Chairperson Smith asked what made this a"lifestyle" development when pedestrian pathways were dominant. Mr. Davidson responded it was an open-air shopping center; not like a mall with parking along the outside of the structures, and there were many entertainment opportunities located within the "lifestyle" development. Mr. Hanson stated he appreciated that the project was presented with good graphics and site plan analysis. He stated the project had interesting character with expansion prospects and suggested reducing the number of parking stalls and adding green spaces that people could mingle in. He stated the location of the grocery store on the corner of the entryway corridor was problematic and suggested relocating the grocery store or adding extensive screening. He stated he felt that, comparatively, the proposal had a wonderful character and he applauded the applicant's efforts. He suggested the drive-thru be closely examined and cited the Taco Bell drive-thru as a bad example. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—January 12,2005 4 Mr. Carpenter stated he agreed with Mr. Hanson's comments regarding the presentation of the project to the DRB. He stated he was excited about the concept of"lifestyle centers" and appreciated the thoughtfulness and thoroughness of the site design. He suggested they know the percentage of impervious surfaces and what efforts could be made to keep the number of impervious surfaces down. He stated he was surprised to hear that the applicants did not think residential development would work, despite the parking issues. He stated he thought the reduced opportunities for vistas could improve with a less curved street. He stated it would be a conflict for the applicant's to make the project pedestrian and bike friendly while maintaining the proposed drive-thru's. Mr. Hedglin stated he would be curious to see the project in ten to twenty years. He stated developments were moving away from the enclosed shopping atmosphere. He stated he would like to see the use of natural materials throughout the development. Mr. Krueger stated he appreciated the irony of rebuilding another main street in a town with a great main street. He stated he liked the preservation of the watercourse and wetlands to enhance the area. He suggested keeping and enhancing the character of Bozeman within the development. Chairperson Smith stated she agreed with previous DRB comments. She stated she would be the person riding her bike to the development and she would like to know where the connections between the sidewalks and the bike trails would be. Mr. Davidson responded there would be a bike lane throughout the development and along Huffine Lane. Chairperson Smith suggested the placement of nodes and a place where cars cannot go so that bicyclers could go there. She stated she would like to see a connection to Babcock Street. She stated she would like to see as many large trees as possible preserved on the site. She stated she was concerned with the parking lot between Huffine Lane and Gateway Boulevard, and the parking lot on Garfield Street, which was proposed abutting the street. She stated she was concerned with the Chronicle Lane access because people turn left into the bank drive-thru and congestion is common. Mr. Ted Mitchell responded that the access was a right-in, right-out only. Mr. Stratton responded the traffic study showed there would be 3,000 cars per day eliminated from that intersection with the extension of Garfield Street and Fowler Lane. Mr. Carpenter added that he did not think a Main Street sort of thoroughfare was exclusive of vehicular travel. ITEM 8. INFORMAL REVIEW A. The Garage At City Center Informal#I-04037 (Windemaker) 26 East Mendenhall Street * An Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of a parking garage consisting of three phases; Phase 1 - 2-level parking garage with 354 parking stalls and 11,000 +/- square feet of retail space on street level; Phase 2 - the addition of a 3rd level of parking containing 104 parking stalls; and Phase 3 - the addition of two additional levels of parking containing 142 parking stalls. Historic Preservation Planner Allyson Bristor,Dick Clotfelter, and Jamie Lenon joined the DRB. City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—January 12,2005 5 i i i SI -� 7 ,6 v sado)a11u3 i P,55 ppyl padlv�S 4 �ls - I ca n " �£ CITY OF BOZEMAN 4 1 .� v— „r.�_;• PLANNING & COL1114UNiTY DEVELOPMENT m�2E,M 92 - 20 EAST OLIVE STREET k PO. BOX 1230 A BOZEMAN, MT 59771 - -it �'' ° " - �.�. ' M S PB ME rR 5027122 U&POSTAGE r State of Montana Endowment & Research Foundation Bozeman, MT 59715 ZEM r 'o CITY OF BOZEMAN -9�' '�, �An PLANNING & COMMUNITYz 7 DEVELOPMENT •3 20 EAST OLIVE STREET P.O. BOX 1230 MT psUrI i uS POSTAGE BOZEMAN, MT 59771 State of Montana Endowment & Research Foundation / Bozeman, MT 59715 1 • - —� ; CITY Of BOZEMAN E PLANNING b COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /� 20 EAST OLIVE STREET DO. BOX 1230 ,3 BOZEMAN, MT59771 5oz71i� U%POSTAGE / State of Montana Endowment & Research Foundation Bozeman, MT 59715 CITY OF BOZEMAN 2�M" !• PLANNING B COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 00 -42'' - 20 EAST OLIVE STREET p0. BOX 1230 a3' !i, �� -'J 7 - + WAN, MT,59771 " M'T as ME►M 5027122 ILLSPOSTAGE] �4 GMRP, LLC 3623 Brooks St. Missoula, MT `59801-7359 CITY OF 80ZEMAN "" • ,P -«! ^-� PLANNING 20 E STM OLIVE ST DEVELOPMENT Po.-Box1230 pr �,�a E.3 7 BOZEMAN, MT 59771 S 50271ETER22 US,POSTAGE Rocky Mountain Credit Union Jerry Gustafson 3400 N. Montana Ave. Helena, MT 59602-7802 ��r CITY OF BOZEMAN ZE ty `' "w•=° '�= PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 EAST OLIVE STREET J a� `•3 7 PO. BOX 1230 BOZEMAN, MT 59771 " S 5027 WETM JUS,POSTAGE Larry Bowman 337 Summer Ridge Rd. Bozeman, MT 59714-7771 CITY OF BOZEMAN �Z Y � EMq .rr PLANNING-& COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2 20 EAST OLIVE STREET f =.3 7 P.O. BOX 1230 BOZEMAN, MT 59771 MT PS METER LlS POSTAGE-,* Thomas & Peggy Reihman Living Trust 3320 Sundance Dr. Bozeman, MT 59715-9265 �r� �� I� +I� I !� ,; 1 / 1 r I' !{ / 1 '',� / �t �� ' 1 1F '� 1 t 1` 1, � i '. CRY OFBOZEMAN oZ1=A4 PLANNING.&COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �' �� _ •t 20-EAST OLIVE STREET �"� '� y _.3 7 _z ' DO. BOX 1230 BOZEMAN. MT 59771 T PS METER ' 5027122 US.POSTAGE Main Mall Limited Partnership AD% Gallatin Mall Group, LLC P.O. Box 80510 Billings, MT. 59108-0510 / M OF BOZEMAN PLANNING&COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT m° .92 ��I 20 EAST OLIVE STREET PO. BOX 1230 ti A�� .3 7 BOZEMAN, MT59771 2 PS METER 5927122 tU&POSTAGE First Citizens Bank of Bozeman, Inc. Attn: Corporate FAC P.O. Box 30918 Billings, MT 59116-0918 City oF BOZEMAN PLANNING 8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 EAST OLIVE STREET .3 P.O. BOX 1230' �' �% • BOZEMAN, MT 59771 A `T PS METER • 5027122 US.POSTAGE ; k 1, Big Sky.Publishing;"LLC 221"1 st Ave W., Suite 405' Seattle, WA 98119-4238 . - ..- , ... :1ti ti + ' ♦ .a " i - .,n .t.a 2i a .n.. . • . }� .. - .:F Y� }, A I a.1 4 .♦ `i 1 . ! r .� �� i �� F I I � , i � � I f .. �1 ,, .� { � �� . ,� f � � ti_ ,'. CRY OF BOZEMANti1,9a •; PLANNING&COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2 /�► _ _ 20 EAST OLIVE STREET Hr j,�'a ;.3 7 z P.O. BOX 1230 BOZEMAN. MT59771 MT vsMfrFs+ 50 7122 U-S POSTAGE I` Advanced Technology, Inc. 1711 W. College St. Bozeman, MT 59715-4913 � C ��. i 1 ,, ', p Itil ,f it i f�, � �� I. u . �� "' �. • • • • • o • • • • • • • • • • • • • - - - F. I i' ;i c �j i } i f ' i �I r z i i iE f 1 •. Septemi ber 296 24D4 .: . ;.� rirr -' taaf! Ffr�iGe!_.'fey1. 1i41Qv( ". �.: t w 60.,000 SF Pachimgg'R€qrired I AAkey 132 Spaces • Anchor Expansion 20,000 SF CanWence 0 S1races d$ iill Sht 75�144 SF. .' Resta�rant '. 0 Sp�acex • Bank 8000Reue7(2 level*) 1f,000 SF Subtotall.: 272 Spaces • Stmotap wfo Expe;ms�: ra 161,000 SF _ --- — ---. -----.--- •' Stadt'ot !:M�rt'1, 1PIi 57on :. 171,000 SF: Office' 1 _ 4'2@ 20,00(T) Pa*mRac}uiret! {.B5 x,1S11N600! .. 423 Spaces 2 (218 44, 0). 29,000 SF • di . Eeuraatt-S4 1 O,OOOSlFp000 SF (�q2 96, 0 4�32, 1ID SF . S 12( 12 24,001) SF . • kiag Required! 650 Spades 7 (2 @ 15,000) 30,000 SF — . .;S�Let,Re2S1'! ;. •.. .... -. . �: - �.�a�'cimg IRee�rired f?�S��s 2i15�000}S� ts�tao 31S�00 SIF Cirteun. (14 pl'eat:-2,754,Sects) . S9;000 SF St At M- Spaces . • Res rent (4Q,7;000%f), 28,000 SF Giet ili Shq .: 11 + 9 SF. Gross,'�iC�i,a Area.- ,400 SF . • _ Tuad - 251,400_SF • - fi.atal rtgin0eciaedw,dc Sham dl 3.� ?S SF •. �a R;eauired! Oormaet Speces • .: .: Pletg p1iC�edl 0'7.S� Restaurant (4 7; n,, .476 S;�ces w Actaill Shops :. 506 Spees - - - . •. Subtotal Rarfdng RegAred 1,670 Spaces; • SCHEMEJ AT A • • 0 ` i • • • • . • • • •_• • •J• • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • 0 . • • • • • • • • • • • t E c , J L r . e � r C I� {R c' Ili �rF �•I z }l f i h r F i 1 ` I a t i 4Y �y 1k t'}[k ,,R11 1� i�f a ' pf` -I IZ it E r r� i s p V 'Z"0O0 ^r VO d O p i•W� � tr' '} JR Q ' L ll _ d _" pV�(1 \V � W Y•.+.• � -� !t � ,- _ _ "r"� 7� ► .. K'""i y*T•� .. -.r M. r� � - +'r:D O JN ,. p � � '�'� ,.^- '�^'4ft-� ' f i .•`� _ ' _ .y.,;..r A '`i 1 ♦. r,r' c y,.� {' Q w _ '}y �. �� .-. � „� � '.. !" ►i `, f. ' tom' • r J•. 03 r+� O N^ O '• •a ^�- ii! A1+ ..! `.i;bra .•:.� ..�� y •l�"'+.• 1�..•� 'J" ^ '.�' Wjq► _'� t• � Y` '+'`"'"' _ '`"'arc, 1'. '{""`^-•-� �'(`.,1�' V �. C 7� � `'�fy+r♦ /' '•�J�" 1t Tr- =._ �. ,I �\ ,f/•` ,'►•♦ _ _ { �I S, ` :Y•, ! _ w.''.c`-'Y' �.�„ yo �' �'�' •. qqyy „ � \ ram_ � ?! UrE ��,... 1 it '�� ♦'• � ;.:.' �",� � r- � �� ,u a ,� _. .f •� r rh'� . y i•r'r..�a�.r.�,f�i�.:• � I 1"r '`��-'+1 ,, 1 \ � •.�r � � �•_ :s .4� �l r '�-` .'1►. ' �1 l '•Mr wit.~ r4 .,�. •�4`;+�1 w` ryy."'tir +s..�r .�,,;' •+r i.{ ...�„ �• Al. ;►-' '�. _ �]y! ,,,, � �y_ ! �. ' �?�� +t.'i 1\ 1 �f`y';'+ � . -.,`yam, � - �'1�.' ,/� �w + I-A t7 .r `? '• ?I ` t A'?Y j. `+" a `••� T-. - - --'+- - -.►...7.yl r"''Sfl 14 fM x •Ir�r cw.: c r i T�1�� t T.,1kr • I' 11 11 � /. �. r. ,��,• '� � � # ':it H`i, -F � Y `' �, 't.. , JILSWIF �1'••�1 It d �'• � �!,. j��..b r,'�4,y� � "� —11�►, _ 1 � .. •,fir �_".>,:� w...:�, •'^•- - r�, • -- �• � --'rr. f Lam'! I 1 '�; `� Y. '\.. ...er'p'�OA is �C • _ ,+ 1 �. � tea:-:. i ± �' fo i K1F 'r � 1� � , '•� .rI �� •+r` ` 1�v,r. � i�ra s_.� �w s. +�i'T'V * A�."�y- �� f't �/. y. �► _� 51 bow, v Ila Z J,� �1,r' � ,� ,•�.1�r�91.�_,�i•_� _ � r � ; r 7�t��•'/y',j '1• ft s` .�+r„) •�•. -�tii ',,,,; "� ter,. r�/' ' ( �,fr �,.��y,-I:, =y�,� 'r��. ,�1�_,Ms{� �++�1c4 � / �'� � +'' 1 • � l.;t�1�YCQ'1 :tip ,.� l` 1 � r �«•d„ �� '+` �•y��,,� ��.� -�,.fir-_$,�`"' ��j•''aaa�� +j r • • •r�.". 1 i �, - =' A _ .'►L. ,may.}A.�- ti a. I �,.,.� .. � ,. ��,�.'Y{•�'' (.F,,-R{°f f -_�..�-----�`'�� _ r ter„'. � . 1 • { i /� 1III��1 � �_ I ,., � 4"- �-� F _ i'tee--•��:� r Am w I. --rig 1 im Lv t �� ✓ �`L' .fir, t tt' r oe rM 0 All p ,.r y. . Zi. . l ,•- ,r r , - z o w c y ilfp' n �'!a; '�F rih. t t .� � , ? ,.ti. / _. yt�.�L• '" , . O I C ett� :70 et_ 1� �t {,� ' I `� �� .• a� r �! i } �. H i � . IF r a �' ��; � '` �. �� .�� II �� ,, ��. „� - -- ., ,. ��, -• - --, fir= .;�• �• '' - ,k I� o i � � ,� � —� ;+��..�-`'t`C �,�,-;►:--, � r.. � .�. -rat-� �t? � � _ �.' n! ,. 1 17 . _ fit' ',/•� T ' ?p •�^ ��. ':��.� 1�11 1 - "tea It jr dim IA TJ INVI31. YNQ1! S ` W r Lr y � ►off , J _ I qq ,y 15+�Jr. 74F-1,/I rl f ifs~ -� t� u` r �`r►��,��`G (�r �`_..7 �'I i �-••�'' �—.rLJ L �i �A'�A�`” � 4+. �dZI LA j r4 r F Y � - � C.� Wll`Y►J1 - + j'7 ♦4 - ` '1 i-_ - S " .�t r 111111 41 (_ �.- j ter= �ti �� ' t -_-�1, • ~may , � i�. �' �r�'6'�"r �». � �fi► "._,. "'' I� F kl .I III "--•.--.— - - 900 �; �•,,:;- ' , .�� - ;,��._ -�..�' rya �. + I O — + it m N (� ) • "�ofo e p G .• V • 1,•!T� N� s rta• ,/R Q 1 ON Ate• n� • ONE O V O + P y Y r „ y ra m x .. .� •• f �, �' `~ fa•jg-�Il 1 C �T+ *, ' 'rk • , '�0 � � •' .i1A 1 1 .-. _�� ' •' I• y�a . tilt � �� • +< '�� , ;� to slit Rib lop '01 Ina FA rL ,i• tI a^Z •4 Pt 4 • 7 1 • r Plf ate` - ,� fi'� :` •i� t � �' ' �` ' :�' ,�� ,r�r S11M,1.' �1•..'�,� \► i,�•., �ti�/��* � � �hit. 1� , I: � M� � � "''As" 6 •'r'. �' — � 'fir• 1i4r r - '�. 4 ; ;:".�a,- � 'I 11�—�rr �,� ? j� ;'�•.•�lf.�'+.•�. r.l �6 - � � � spry' � t � � '� rl i zv Awl IF 40. ip 1 I• 4 1111 A "' y f Ir MIMME ..•r. mil_- .�"� . � r� •.• � 1 1� i�� • i,. i i/ 6 w I ■ :�' i i i1 it 4 i ,� i� r ��} 1' l� t Anor ► m /� 7 �'� J�` ! ter- '• •l•.��IL mot �� to ��1 �►.� �;- •1� �';'�'� ►r� ' pr.bdl + w f.•fitt �' , • %"I 164 IF WL �—�"" �,,.".•'��► :j jar �~+ • �n�l�r.� qp 71. AW I •i ; f r_ ,' �.�...,r�--ice , r , �--! ��;,. .' .�t,��r�• �` ' ,��.: art.,►► , a _Y[ hi ' PP AP It ter ' �'7t7d �F� �■ �rE��s !E� _ -o,��r _ • f �I �f 0 M 4 0 Q:...a....... ....�.... ...� .... .... ..... wri a...�.... 't -i. p pglgiiii",'i��'�.'-'iiiie� =��,7.a+lr�.-: �';_y- '■ 5 1.,�I;h119Rda:�i.� [4`-::1 "a.; �.r: :;+s r; '�;.-.�"� - m m.m m a - ��+CC," �N ll87llAilii{saw a��a a1�Y�1ad� �;! <ii/�"-:.R,�INSIA mom ■��■ _ ?��_—� ��■ ■��■ ■�ME ■��■ k._ _ ,� 11 M■ ■l Moil _i�:0000:'_: ME -_ Y � - BB 8 � B �JB BB BB BB _ B8 ,Q-- - - -. _ _ v e _ - _ a o:•C,e_'siniv�i=si:='-.u �.••-• - `=��• �� - - :mow ;:�•- _-.-~se_ Manama _n�- ■■■�iZiZ[� \\■ aa■r L°1°J� INStqWINry{ 1ONION q{ �•...� •'I a--100 all 100-1. ..1� 9 _y r... H .P� •J1� '17L i; IAiU 1 �� + � 16 11�� s� ��a Y�l�M � �ti 1\�� _ i---_�■ _:- x- •�-i....n::.�.:..n�•:Yn'..................................ld�9d��i��is3f:�i-.,�77i �� •��;v�vv �;,�� OM moo _ �_F■��■ - �__■��■-■��■- oo = �•�_ � - -�s1 -tea - - ,::lf:'��`•�-_ ,,.'.K 3� � ,ryd o'^?:a n- _`'Y4 ^'!�.- ^J d.- �SYc is ryra_ _ ^fie.----- _ Yn----n----�w,ry ,G4ir► - - - _ - - - - a ��/ I -�� C: '.__ F .-twlS f2�.'•a- u� - 4 - -�NN�T'i�1.111■-1r-.:i•; ._Ga��i��lllllllllllllllllllllllii��_ __ ' 109 1441 ® ®- ® ® �� IllllAllY_aa_ _- � ypyyii aii}r ME Y . . . o b 1 J V 0 CZ- fir— A rn z D k4 a rN § rn 1, rn b 1 y z 1) rn r r � D i ) , n ° �a of o1 • rn ly czj D - � � - Z - _ _ - -0 zu ; ) z vz N 1 i - 1 z >` D zz>>]]7]1111 s oi. o r n c-) g �L DnArrrr D nDiT7L� � i L r%j nz 0 Z QQ -- = SHEET TITLE PROJECT TITLE m ZS z m a HUFFINE LANE THE BOZEMAN GATEWAY m o I' a OPEN SPACE BOZEMAN,MONTANA PEAKS TO PLAINS DESIM o m Ff� DESIGN DEVELOPMENT U208 NORTH BROADWAY.S0MRE150 BILLINGS.MONTANA 59101 } 14061 294-9499-(406)256.7123 FAX gay W W W.PEAKSTOPU'NS.CON� (C)2005 PEAKS TO PLAINS DESIGN,P.C. Al r cw rn c - . ri rnrn . Yr fir- ITT 3 ! Z (cot m IL / r > D 1 rn z hr i C7 0 CD -A �m 00 u�I r� O OZ O i �z C71 rn o m SHEETTfTLE PROJECTTITLE $ 4 Q TECHNOLOGY BOULEVARD THE BOZEMAN GATEWAY e m o W PLAZA AND PARK BOZEMAN, MONTANA PEAKS TO PLAINS D' IGNt DESIGN DEVELOPMENT "'08N RTHBRO DWAY.'� 278 NORTH BROADWAY.StfIE 75C � BILLINGS NONIANA 59101 (4C6)29�9499'(406)2567123 FAX W W W.PEAKSIOPUINS.COM (C)2005 PEAKS TO PLAINS DESIGN,P.C. Exhibit B : Wetland Creation DEC 2 2 2005 OEPART ENT OF PLANNING CU Riverine Wetlands Emergent Wetland Shallow Pond'.IVIVUNITY DEVELOPMENT 0 CID cu� W W CU 0 z_0 CU 0.073 AC E o co 0 Z5. fu .4AA1 AC 0.099 AC 0.510AC 0 0.156 AC 0.055 AC Z >< co CONCEPTUAL CROSS SECTION EMERGENT WETLAND / SHALLOW POND EXAMPLE M U) _j _J _j b W (NOT TO SCALE) W > W a- C- N CONCEPTUAL CROSS SECTION OF MITIGATION SITE CD E RIVERINE WETLAND EXAMPLE -6 T z (NOT TO SCALE) z z 0 z W W L) a: co Current Mature Yellow Willows z . 9 Legend 9 ;:2 OFJ� �_ 8 IF BEFORE Creation Areas :�) E cn - Existing Wetlands 0 Z (jo 0 Impact Areas a: Uj Willows Red-Osier Dogwood z Cottonwoods A EXHIBIT Wetland Grass-like Species B REV 01 AFTER BATE:04/28/04 Exhibit C : Wetland Enhancement W-4, W-5 and W-6 W-5 U`C 22 200 ��; _ a� 0.220 AC W-6 �uFPr a'�ENT OF PLANN!" cu N 0.237 AC ANa=V WNITY DEVELOP' CD U W-4 w ca J cU r r t7 0.065 AC Legend a Cu 3 W / ® Creation Areas a E ® Existing Wetlands N Impact Areas N ca O +-• Enhancement Areas m . p Willows Red-Osier Dogwood e Q Cottonwoods • • Conifer �� 10 Wolf Willow W-4 0.406 AC �G� + 0Alder 0.072 AC 1 Shallow Open Water�`� W-6 0.100 AC W-5' Nmmm z o 0 w a p' U Q d PROPOSED E HANCEMENT CONCEPTUAL CROSS SECTION OF MITIGATION SITE (NOT TO CALE) RIVERINE WETLAND EXAMPLE (NOT TO SCALE) d cc o � N E C) N M j O O O 5aw Z O Z Z IL f • BEFORE r:• r• r J Q A w TRANSITIONAL TRANSITIONAL >5 «• ZONE SHALLOW MID SHALLOW MID SHALLOW ZONE EXHIBIT AFTER C REV o� DATE:04/28/0 DEC 2 2 2005 • r. DEPA t'MENT OF PLANNING AND CC",.i--NI'Y DEVELOPMENT T C TRANSECT6 TRANSECT5 TRANSECT7 TRANSECTO I EGENf) WETLAND AREA ®IMPACTED AREA WETLAND CREATION WETLAND ENHANCEMENT ~ TRANSECT2 S`•.. 0.035 AC 0 GOOSE BERRY ® WOLF WILLOW ® COTTONWOOD 8 ® RED-OSIER DOGWOOD r TRANSECTB ® WILLOW O p SPRUCE ® ASPEN TRANSECT3 ® CHOKECHERRY g HAWTHORN ® SERVICE BERRY ® SNOW BERRY 0 CITY TREES ( WALLOW CUTTINGS �i OPEN WATER N in eonJunotioa withaMORRISON BOZEMAN GATEWAY MM R�� LANDSCAPING DETAILS 0 0 ftsmw ....`r�.�.. �� EXHIBIT D LAND & WATER CONSULTING,INC. N o N CLIENT: Flm FIELD WORK- DATE:D=Vo ROTTED DATE:O5/28/04 DRAWING NAYS 052704ne�angesWpND.drg CHECKED BY• PROD SHEET--A--OF 4 I - U.� 1/IV11YI r-i In AMA a �: �°~ ♦\ _ T 1 DESIGNED BY PRESERVE veaerAno, ' _ , I ''I � ( 'ENT OF PLANNING DRAWN BY o •�•,. ` �� 1�;`\ _ 5 1•�"� a,L, ;,jNITY DEVELOPMENT JJR z CHECKED BY a ° �i 11 j._ 07/14/05 O DATE f t I Y �l 05022Na DeK7N I I'., 1 PROJECT NO.POND aW 1 I I ,♦ DI- 1 D50�LANDMP.dwg FRE NO. '� ` ♦ i 1 I �I 1 I�I � I� _ � Cz�.7 S I^k ell vo 111 I I III , Ii 1 I I I•t j 110 ,� 0 J 1 III y r� . - J 5m^TIND AReA ' , ` �� ` \ \ \` rn Y Y R 3 i""NO5 MooY'l 1 • � •' r ! ,i °� `�`� \1\ I - - \ ems .roOrelgckElL, ` •* 1-4 A r • .�/;i,t , 9 '�o� /4!' �� Q,1 ,\ ♦ \ �' \ \ `i -1 I .•r' A �� \ ` \ r� FOr j//''III _t .e �_s I� \ ��'♦ \ ' � ,11 � GOLORm. ,'f.♦�,� � \ ,\ \ ` \ i � _ � � •LI 4� �, '1 ,� Au x+cnTxcoHcqtTrennc �•• ' � .�f�' O W W x rn LAM ZL E-I 1 � � arse euu.Dlms \ 1 11 I I •; ' ENMANGeFDtt SEATING AREA ENLARGEMENT z TTV• UA WUW c .W oLaRru.PLTIN6r _."�_.- w DRAW ID IN A5 IN TO THE FACILITY AND AID IN WAYFINDNY> O r W^ 1 I � i SHEET OFFICE PARK PLAN L1 NOTE: CONCEPTUAL DRAWINGS ONLY;NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CZ - c- — s.1; Y z -- A 1 I 1 r - 6 Dl ' z �/ — - !�RM�lV o ST ~, N REAM- BL VD. rn — z O D z i rn _0 o ' y �� o� cn o 0 1 z i i = SHEET TITLE PROJECT WLE t $ a F m 3 HARMON STREAM THE BOZEMAN GATEWAY r BOULEVARD PARK BOZEMAN, MONTANA PEAKS TO PLAIhS DESIGNF m N DESIGN DEVELOPMENT BROAD"Y,SOTE 208 NORTi BROADwAY,$UIIE 350 � EILIINGS.MONTANA 59101 (406)29A 9499'(406)25b9123 FAX W W W.PEAKSTOPUINS.COM (C)2005 PEAKS TO PLAINS DESIGN,P.C. / .f CT , 87 TRACT N. ly5 t95F215PE0Gy T O�No.L 4L P: LOTK 1 VISION LT I 135 N SUB. 6 iRUS C,,pN 0 8051�08 BLD SUB p U.D. I !; TRA B I IT UNIO MINOR Ry BO>L�'EEK OR. n10M�LMNOCE OR. PO 8 Mi 54 y PIAu'CW. L.P. ROCKY g2O�NMTR59801 288� PMANG MI 5g715 RE,N 0 SUNppf7 59715 NCS. Tw,Li j jBP PARK OA COMMESiMENbb• y. 8 B / NEL50p0 BOK Bi B5y7 t9 1 [ N / / 1 LLI No K ' ` ELEN/`' 3OZEMAN M `,.,,.. sP Ot18 zM 98j6 Bp2EMAN• .. IN05. - — _ _ _ — _ — _ ( .J'--"=—� Ye'—�h.' .v .N—C( :y+ .•rd'-1:..Eys_-9> .x - y--•*4�_T•,.——— i To 7 C�9 C 1 I ACT No 1g5 3 I .I •--r-+ - -- Q 0 j OR SUB.NRONIGLE �, 0 BIpZE2Mo�ycCOLLE5gj15 r I 28 M •;'-- � � EMAN \ \ tics,,•>%,'.%%:%x /naun e-4- — s lADTgAC out T C:iA MµBif N0�71 1B SD MY OZEIT _ 3 RLLLLLlfl R 9 TRACT B1143 is \ t"' J TANA NOAnON �.f \ I ) C h-OF'MON CN FOU I'I +:_ STAB RE MEAR 5g7j5 I I O V I I 1 I I I I U Y 0 t ENDOWME BOZEUpN. 1RLWILLLLLn CD - - - k i 1 I LFmv7mTrij % hl VII Ilil'�„i — 1 r , o�+ oi t,l• 1 = � 0 - - - UII111U o — o O o CD '{ TH I� '(� - - w .00 w w w i w wI CAR ' STATE OF MONTANA ENDOWMENT AND RESERACH FOUNDATION ` BOZEMAN, MT 59775 j MORRISON BOZEMAN GATEWAY MAIERLE,INC. SITE PLAN - GRAPHIC SCALE w ••,•••w�-`••••�•••9 100 0 50 100 CLIENT: ( IN FEE[) PLOTTED DATE: MOr/08/2006 - 10:03:28 om I inch- 100 R FIELD WORK: DATE TE:06/17/OS DRAWING NAME: DRAWN BY: JAU SCALE-1-100, H;\3618\003\ACA0\SITCPL"\SJTEmSMR- 2270GC-9 CHECKED BY:C15 PROD #:3638.003 SHEET OF - �1 6 t g $11BBM90N ! ,j'i 7RA�T No. 135 TRApB No. 135 195FZt SPE�Y' T L O Ro.L P. PIS L PU-0- I R SUB �EpIF UNION MIN Ry t0p l(t9R' THAWS LmNGcf 1 4NBpX-OL g' PAR LOMMER-LNIS•1. NINO AIN -:t:M N EON I�X t095g719 MOUNF ilth AVE 1 1�SPRW MT 597 REINMANSUNDIW Sg7t5 PO S MT p0 MT l ! FI-c MEIN ,/T 5g60 Z680ZEWN BOZEWN W �,yINL .-_;.' �: / / / o" _ L 0 S.Ns K BOZE + 'ice/ `,s�:• 1st OFngOZE Spgt6 6 /-1 ^S a L01 !.O 5 _ - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - WEST MAIN •'�: II 1 on I 1 0+++��+�o�-�-Eo I l ❑_ I; I ELTB. N.- 19S II• sa��-i p SU RANKLE SOZE 0 WL��59j15 I • i';'S'S%'%i'%i� j — � AWN. N UT Ll OU,pT C No 195AINC�j SUB. LpOY. 1 . •/ - - I. % �^^ MINOR TECHPOE 5i.. �.`^ - •'POVL710 W,LO�MF 597,5 0111 111110 TWLT Bi 21304 No. pNA DA1I0N i 7 c p.S.OF M0ARC."FAUN 5TA p RESET 5g715 •_ ?' i. CJ ENDOWMENgpZ WN MT �..i 1'� _ _ — 01 1 11 V 1 11 11 11 V Y( i — e 1 \ o = i o o CD 0 0 1 UT�I 11 i U I I o as - o i o § n w w w W w I -W-�-r w rr rr , j GA j, OF MONTAN4 ENDOWMENT TATE AND RESERALM FOUNDATION BOIEMAN, MT 59715 MORRISON BOZEMAN GATEWAY �,,, QX x ■ • MAIERLE,[rrc. SITE PLAN GRAPHIC SCALE t00 CLIENT: IN FEET) 06/17/OS PLOTTED DATE: M0r/08/2006 - 10:03:28 am 1 i-h - 100 fL FIELD WORK DATE: DRAWN BY: JAU SCALE:1�=100' DRN WINO NAME: :\S6}6\001\KN1\S�1EPlAN\51iEu5,R-yd-072 TO6.d.g CHECKED BY,CJS PROJ p:3638.003 SHEET OF D5.,O D C C� C Q L/ C C---1 MAR 0 8 2006 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT qp r . y vor A l-so ,;-s w 1 0 / N slow- 14'•-� ter/ �� i ,,�....� �' gel vl y ;vow So 0 "./"� •� r/r;iii/iii/r r/ 1 $+ w �a "f rJl{F�. '+ {1 • l/J/!/)///r/l 3 {a fat U °d /nf/rfl/JrtnnJr/ur Vote 5 • /f/ f/lr1/J//ll/f/r/!/J/r/)/!/!//!I/l+J/ � •• ///J1l/l/,//llr lll'!J///J)f/,/J r//fJ/Jr /rrlr/u,truJ/,r/r///t n/r/f,J J/r.nr)rl to t r1f//,lrft/l/{I// •. /r/r/ur// rJl/rtr ll,l n//f U//fr/),/r/,urf//rrJ D Q • /iiii/iiiiiii�i/iiiriii ii/iii/i/iiiiiiiiiiiirJiij'/ �q Q • i////ll/l/u+//1 J/urlrf/fu/-roof ur/n//r!r/u Q � a \\ ////I//)//)fl//It/r/lJf!/)I r/!lr/J/l/t/J/f//!r/t/ , Lj ��l //r//!///l////f//,///(/J/l/JII/•/t/Jrllt/!/!/I � N ��!//iitiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ! il•J'c�'�G �S�`(QF ....... .n/ iii`/ r /:,//ut/rur/• 2 iJ/J/!rl)lur (ZO � /'../f/n/Ir.. coQ•f,/tlf � � tP Jt,f/u/rn„G 4� ,irrf/rrrul' �././rf nle � uJJffrurll.,rJ//l,rr J/J• rG \2 L r � -- !/t/!/,/// �� lrlf+" JJJ 1,t/,II/J/,/I1///f/!///t/f/J \ CD //IJ,/f/+/ !/,/Jll///!fl//f/eJt/rl/f I1/J/1Jfl)JJ/!//J y a & N} C It O ( 3s3 NUM SCAB AN \ 10 (4 o o � ' � I o \ N E � a 4 \ o 0 0 s v� l n rYd >7•d ' ( 1 V.b ! -~ / — TRUG(DOCK Fr awl I 1 , nmv ro fi c�. .Sd S-0mf _ 17 EE 3 N xEE�an = CA: - . .3_ j' it E' ' — tl � � ] •.`i c r!r ; F Y REVISIONS --- I ` PAIr1 = !J L J10/28/05 10/20/05 12/22/06 , s/05 r A �•. F t- 1 ELMO=0000 BQIIf1 v� 1 s FIXTURE PLAN TR M7 PROPOSED FIXTURE PLAN PMOO&M 60.M 50.(T. SOUIN®NORfN SHEET A. —41 ,.►� Ifni � �[1�iii'T�,1�A�71;� *iT' � F � �_ r• ..� �. �.fJY• 1rl� - � *� �-.�...ry` � s�1' F �'�' �. ��,3�� y;,, R : � �rR-'� �jj f- - �. - l��t � .ram 1�� a�r �1• '�t!-Y�,ir�'r_.ram._- - �f.�s'ir OF r74 �j� •/ �i141 t � } +�►.�� r �= ' fi" _ i �ti?-`r`' 4 �, _y`�—+ R�ii �l�'„`- ++„..►. lr�•. �.r.. 14 ��i '! rR� .. : f !} tt �`++��;�j�ig"'- a`' .rp.i �� s l�f1i �ri-, `.. t Yi ,I[ �I � Y ' • .ON gal _ •� `,,�'rj �• �!,'� - ' k 1 - �- ri.nY �` V41, i�� OW y -�_ y� r, f y - 4 FiAi: �•+� ri .. 1 ,�, ""t," +i1 �•. `� fj1, .�. - �'- .r �4•'.�.- '..a •i�-. }frj.gw� sit ! �y �� wow • ,: �r.�,j* , ''w�.. lr l/y� Rffi, ±� .- •�7 I��S 111f 'P�( 1[ rftyl t � f .• '�.'.. L_z -+� r a-.`S �/ :-� - ��r .+ tea. iL'■■�{ �. Y� . �.4 Fl � _ r •y rfr► .. - ..` .''� t , 1�1 t �. fir+ 7+, ArI .� ' c:'#� T_4"f rs-. i""''"+,.i�'l'._ _��•"��r�� a��_��0�► � ��iX 7�� i �� f'��j _ r'i[Y- R,�":r�i�� w _ _ w�-.,�� ,� -- - -'`� ��'��w..�1��Y'��S.t�� aff sums Pt " i ► - ��e •rr'� �icias�il��:. -- A'r.• F1 ,��.._ $~ �`-_ 3 -il .__� i ��. "_ ► '* t�'7 .� k ` w � ' �,1#► �. `� irk. OF 1 #i :.� �� ...�• - �.,��; ,�-. �. 4 yam:) PM '40 t,;�'[,r •rFTft` ' �.r - - ,� _ ,� - � `,1.11 � y - '�• � '��_�� "'- +r a�1 � i' -' r � rJ �� ir•r r ��77 M f • - `' ke el 11 M G-arrry �. �Vr�et[ Gonsuliani[, IG{ � n o •• V� a v� ' _ �I ��1 r •� � p • A �\ ��r.t �• y� A Kri AND I � T a tA yrm am• Vs tons WE on got, 'Fin 1 _ �'}' � � ;fir,;, j��t' '� � ►� �, t irrn 1"rl �r J �s } A .• I )r>�:r< < >,_-,fit I_'�z •►1�, r r • � 'r+ 4 `tom 1` 1 � �. - ' '.� %_ 07"•` 1 � � f rD 446 L ,r • �� .`� �.ti��:. * .' .� , •dam. i ►. r.r: Cl i �� i ! 44y a �.y'hi:j�p�� ,i �� , yr 8 �-' ��'�".. �• .�� 4� CA ON rp ZZ IF91JAM,I ' �I r �r F�•,�Imo„ , War �ylmi . r0 I �' ��• ' ION 'Aft� ?r dr hON KF link 19 44 WIN If AO • !3nf:" �,�„•�'�..',:,opt . v � �'vy';'t• s; �,. 4 '�*�• "yam _� �� -- -- 1w. � -r ,•, �. 1 .�'ii�� ram;' . �'.M, •I. �,� ✓� ,.�� ,�'�. I � �,,�' �' lEa 7� '`•tee � � 'r � � ��'� _ ;�• _/' * � ''� t j y� �� r.� � .`��,r.-� 'i y� ,�+:1' !Y� 1 ArY 1 � ,:.► � *;;�'1� l 0�` � � „N, � yy77I r •. �, � � pia' � e:_. � '3.,, frj •. irk, :�_ •ram _� ,�'-' I�rll, � :` .. _ �' �,y,��.••« � .. ��++rr�� tact w r.� '�•i#`r*o �.1� ]Y;r .\��f.�.'.~+aM,. �•'1T�Y • _ 4 ice; j�l..�R..1{� r 1 '•tl� '1i S' r �i V b C k : Irk TW- ME F t� � • � k �� 1 ��f , - � � .. {• '" G, ".r:�'—�' .�-,�, �i ;Mkt r;:. a+- ...- it �..r✓ \� ��"'�., � u j� ��,1�. ai °,� �� 'I��,.... yM 'tt` � •k�1�;'r_. �'S".Y."5" •1 �� =Sim'"•" •�. �"t „�. - ��• 1, fir , � r i � • _ + ^-lam - ) ,' i -,•,, a ,},•� � �.' M` •t ,J• ,- t!�-- im!�a` 'J1"'�9'llY;'^► •" -' 1. r� t a� . .� - u !* n �k:,, � •`C i S� i i4 � i �, h q �i �� , i r� 1 +Yo J� ` A �� A r `. '�,i Qa 'I ,� ;�; ��. p a 9" ti w•U•.: c) � l: Q ry• a V L C A • 8 A+a 1�A: i!•Y!!7 CD W y • 1J A ^ J I � IY � 9 ti IR J J z 1 1 w • f �+. J 1 • r. • I 'J, 1 i c • t � Y — � a ww v7 � IjJA + � • • O + �� r, �� f it (t: i T • � .� 4 f �� a I �t u V� 1� L t 1,• a t � , i r z � ED n C=:3' All i r 4 v t_� Anmob , c� r4 }� 1. <•j is �451 - _ 1, � li � �•=Y g� 4 1 0� * JAI �r � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� I t i } 1 i i PLAT of pcc�cud�D JUN 19 2006 D THE BOZEMAN GATEWAY SUBDIVISION P.U.D. PHASE l �Do�ANT BEING A PORTION OF TRACT 2A OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF WEST COLLEGE MINOR SUBDIVISION No. 195A SITUATED IN.THE NWI/4 SECTION 14 AND THE NEI/4 SECTION 15., T2S, R5E P.M.M., CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN.COUNTY, OWNER MONTANA PURPOSE MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT GROUP,LLC, TO CREATE 12 LOTS FOR COMMERCIAL USE - - No MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT& : &2 COMMON AREAS FOR PARKING - INVESTMENTS,U.C.a Montana - limited liability company - P.O.BOX 738 - , -. GREAT FALLS..MT 59403 © i-- o _ _ a • IM - 8 [a r + '�1 � I I t?' +wL a, - O GALLITIN I 1 - HUFFINELANE - .- VIALL = ;.-,W.COLLEGEST 7 .. ... .., -- r_�...- II - _ I {PROJECT 'LOCATION VICINITY MAP NORTH NOT TO SCALE _ CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OF DEDICATION, GRANT OF UTILITY EASEMENTS 1,'Ihryulb9•t.l-A7:k1AAl1 and I.James A. Ullman,a Registered Professional Engineer licensed to practice - We,the undersigned property owners,do hereby-certify that we.have caused to be surveyed,subdivided and in the State-of Montana hereby certify that the following improvements,required to meet the requirements plotted into Iota,blocks,streets,and allays,and other divisions and dedications,os shown by the plat. of this title or as o condhion(s)of approval of The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D..have been installed hereunto included,the following described tract of land,to wit: in conformance with the approved plan.and specifications. - A portion of Tract 2A of the Amended Plat of West College Minor Subdivision No. 195A situated in the 1. Water,sewer,storm drainage,and road surface improvements.In-Garfield Street and Fowler Avenue NWl/4 Section 14 and the NE1/4 Section 15;T2S,R5E,P.M.M.,City of Bozeman,Gallatin County,Montana, - rights-of-way - .. and being further described as follows: The following improvements have not been completed,but are subject to an improvements agreement and Beginning at a point which beam N89'31'42"E a distance of 118.74 feet from the southwest corner of said financial guarantee: - Tract 2A,said point being on the west right-of-way line of Fowler Avenue;thence along said right-of-way - line. N00'15'24W a distance of 531.04 feet;thence along an arc to the left a distance of 207.70 feet, 1. All water,sewer,storm drainage•sidewalk,trolls,aignage,landscaping,street lighting,road said arc having o radius of 469.00 feet and a central angle of 25'22'27";thence N25'37'51"W a distance Improvements,medians in Garfield Street and Fowler Avenue rights-of-way,and other imiovements of 160.00 feet;thence along an arc to the right a distance of 251.99 feet,said arc having a radius of required but,not listed above.. - 569.00 feel and a central angle of 25'22'271;thence N0('15'24"W a distance of 139.20 feet to a point on The subdivider hereby warrants against defects in these improvements for period of one year tram this ® the south right-of-way line of.U.S.Highway 191;thence along said right-of-woy line throught the following Y 9 P P y four coureeir date. The subdivider grants possession of all public infrastructure improvements to the City of Bozeman, and the City hereby accepts.possession of all public infrastructure improvements,subject to the above S8W59 451E a distance of 740.18 feet, - indicated war nty. S75'59'47E a distance of60.12 feet, L/i/ _n _ ' N89'5T39'E o distance of 60.12 feet,and � - along an arc to the left a distance of 102.89 feet,said arc having a radius of 2381.83 feet.o '(�e'odtStrT Mitchell June Dated C>Ti central angle of 2'28'30",a chord bearing of N00'45'29"E,and o chord length of f02.88 feet,to a MiteR 11 DallopmaM croup:U.C. Point on the east light-of-way line of Harmon Slreem BOMlevara; fka MrrCNELL DEVELOPMEM&INVESTIFNIS. Ui).Montane limited daMllty company •b O thence,along said right-of-way,line SOOrOV32"W a distonce of 102.34 feet;thence along an arc to the /I right a distance of 2DO.37 feet,said am having a radius of 430.00 feet and a central angle of 26'41'56"; C,'p•sKy,�. l�t•uti�e�� fn�%,'�'��6 ,;` - - Ahence S26'45'28"W a distance of 50.00 feet:.thence along on arc to the.left a distance of 37.05 feet, James A.Ullman.y10539 PE Dated sDid arc having a radius of 120.00 feet and a control angle of 17'41'20";thence S09'04'00"W o distance LMorrison-Moierle,Inc.of 215,96 feet;thence along an arc to the right a distance of 28.94 feet said arc having a radius of u 230.00 feet and a central angle of T72'37%thence S16'16'411W a distance of 151.55 feet;thence along an arc to the left a distance of 225.38 feet,said arc having a radius of 370.00 feet and a central angle of 34'54'06";thence SIW37'201E a distance of 50.00 feet;thence along an ore to the right a distance of Debra H.Arkell Dated 72.86 Yeet said are having a radius of 230.00 feet and a central ongle,of 18'09'04.1 thence S00'20'16"E a Director of Public Service distance of 132.50 feet to the south line of said Tract 2A;thence along said south line S89'31'42W a - distance of 679.66 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said tract contains 22.15 acres,more or less,and is subject to all existing easements,whether of record CERTIFICATE OF EXCLUSION FROM MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL or apparent on the ground QUALITY REVIEW and CERTIFICATE OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICE The above tract of land is to be known and designated as The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.Phase L Debra H.Arkell,do hereby certify that the accompanying plat of The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. 1,City of Bozeman,Gallatin County,Montana,and the lands included in all streets,avenues,alleys,and Phase 1 has been duly reviewed and has been found to conform to the requirements of the Subdivision and parks or public squares shown on saitl plat are hereby granted and donated to the City of Bozeman for the Platting Act,Section 76-3-101 et.seq,MCA,and the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. I further public use and enjoyment certify that The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.,Gallatin County.Montano.Is within the City of Bozeman, Montana,o first-ease municipality,and is within the planning area of the Bozeman growth policy which was The undersigned hereby grants nto.each and every person..firm,or corporation,whether public r private, adopted pursuant to Seet(on 76-1-601 st seq.i MCA,and con be provided with adequate storm water - -providing or altering to provide telephone,electric power,gas,interact,cable television or other similar utility drainage and adequate municipal facilities. Therefore,under the provisions of Section 76-4-125((2)(d),MCA,- . or service,the right to the joint use of an easement for the construction,maintenance,repair and removal this subdivl.ion is exclude from the requirement for Montana Department of Environmental Duality review.. of their line.and otherfacilities Ira over,under and across each area designated on this plat as Utility -- 'Easement'to have and hold forever. Dates this day of A.D.,2006 Dated this day of A.D.,2006. Debra H.Arkell _ Director of Public Service I T ORDup,uc, RELEASE & RECONVEYANCE OF FOWLER AVENUE EASEMENT ew ELL OEVAaPMENT&INVESTMENTS, U.C.a Montana limited nabnity company The City of Bozeman hereby relinquishes and abandons the easement for Fowler Avenue as Is described and Its: set forth In the Annexation Agreement recorded In Document No.2077892,records of Gallatin County, Montana. The trasement crossed land known de TPdct 2A of Minor Subdivision No.195A,in Gallatin County, Montana. Further,the dedlaetion of Fowler Avenue as delineated and described on the.plot herein 19 Intended to become the public right-of-way for Fowler Lane,and all previous grants of easement and rights - STATE OFreno for Fowler Avenue as created by the above referenced Annexation Agreement are hereby abandoned and COUNTY OF 9 oeag. .. removed. This Instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of &uaQ- A.D.2006 by Debra H.Arkell - �1'W,T�r4J.o: as CrynCO,paa of Mitchell Development Director of Public Service Group.LLC.,Me MITCNa1 DEVELOPMENT&tNYESTLIENTS.I.I.C.a`4wtano limited Ilobdlty campony CERTIFICATE County, COUNTY TREASURER `Y 1./al'SSc. 03 OQ.`Scva'h \y51p1.1111A1 - has b�nlyd�aexaminedsandr thotr a(ollllatin real property axes and special hereby the accompanying andnevlsdplot on assessed an Not Publ for the State of MocsAc�ne` fir NOTgR/q� •tpp the land to be subdivided are paid. Residing at T - ate• 2= QMY commission.trxolres 11 lrjrrj]nlr� S�•IAr 4 Dotes this{day of ^E' 2006. O - _ 11711R\1\0\w�\�� - CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYOR mbeny Buchanan �� I,the undersigned,Craig L Brown,Professional Land Surveyor.do here certify that between Treasurer of Gallatin County 9 9by fY April t,2008. and July 1I 2006.I.surveyed The Bozeman Gateway S accordance P.U.D.Phase 1 and Platted the came o9 CERTIFICATE OF CLERK & RECORDER shown on the.accompanying plat and as described in accordance with the provisions of the Montana ' Subdivision and Plotting Act,§76-3-101,through¢76-3-625,M.C.A.,and the Bozeman Unified Development I,Shells Vance,Clerk and Recorder of Gallatin County,Montana,do here cart{( that the foregoing - Ordinance. - - Y ty, by Y instrument was filed in my office at_o'clock,-(a.m.,or p.m.),this day of 14�/q/" AD.,2006,and recorded In.Book. ,of Plats on Page Doled is day of Jcr yt/ ',2000 car l;A (Document No. )Record.of the Clerk and Recorder,Gallatin County,Montana. /�Q) r �% NO.113T1LS r.i Shelley Vance rmg C L. Brow, - - Clerk.and Recorder of Gallatin County, - - Montano Registration No.11371L5 o - Morrison-Moierle.Ina O © -- _ MORRISON . 1/4 SEC. SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE apwmro�b NW 14 2S SE ❑ MAIERLE,y. ew z,ca w r.,.aler•-scar onx.,y m e,r nu.ni rwN,an e+a,eewmm.rr.tiers{.rev,n.(wx7 ssr•on+ rax(wet sal-u7s PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MONTANA CLIENT:MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT GALLATIN - COUNTY - FIELD WORK MMI. S/16/O6 PLOTTED DATE: Jun/09/2006 - 11:13:33 am DATE: DRAWING NAME:: DRAWN BY: SMR SCALE`. H:\3638\O03\ACAD\FPLAT-1\FPIct 1 plot.awg CHECKED BY:CLB PROD y:3638.003 SHEET - 1 OF 2 vwma lw:;Nee PLAT of THE BOZEMAN GATEWAY SUBDIVISION P. U.D. PRASE I BEING A PORTION OF TRACT 2A OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF WEST COLLEGE MINOR SUBDIVISION No. 195A SITUATED IN THE NW1/4 SECTION 14 AND THE NE1/4 SECTION 15, T2S, R5E, P.M.M.; CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA EXISTING - 20'UTILITY EASEMENT US HIGHWAY 191 (WEST MAIN ST.) - DRAINAGE EASEMENT US HIGHWAY 191 (WEST MAIN ST.) - PER MINOR SUB. 195 10'-WIDE COMMUNICATION PER 152F.2396 - R=2381.83'. EASEMENT CONDUIT BEING 10'OVERHEAD ELECTIC - L=102 89' CENTER OF EASEMENT EASEMENT PER 143F 2777 DOCUMENT#2034303, S89'59'45'E 740.18' S75.5g47„ 6=2'28'30" #2035373&#2115955 50.00 so.Do' I - - - - - - - - _ - - 640.18 - _ - - 82.53, £ N89'57'39"E CB=N88'45'29"E - - - - - - - - - - _ _- -_ - 60.12' CH=102.88' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OPENSPACE2 - - - - - - - _ ` _ L=28.85' - 81SqFt 5229ACRES S89'59'46E 724.79' t a Jo 1 « 3 3I9.15'^ _=_- .--269.00'- - ------ --I 136.68 =8g s�•oo 1 PI rNn'a'w N - cli - ------------- ---- I I o 13 -------30rSEWER LINE- --1 \ / I LOT 6. I \ - 1 40,314 SgFt 30'SEWER LINE EASEMENT CENTERED /. / 0.93 ACRES I \ 1 30'STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT CENTERED OVER SEWER LINE I 1. I e••io Ij I 1 1 EASEMENT CENTERED AS CONSTRUCTED OVER SEWER LINE p- I OVER STORM DRAIN AS CONSTRUCTED I \1 1\ LINE AS CONSTRUCTED 1 1 1 30'STORM DRAINAGE LOT I / / 30'SEWER LINE v I I 1 EASEMENT CENTERED LOT 1 $ 1.0479 SgFt _ OVER STORM DRAIN 57,064 SgFt 1.04 ACRES / / I 1 OVEREAlElENT SEWER LINE �RED "I JO' LINE AS CONSTRUCTED 1,31 ACRES i AS CONSTRUCTED r •1If .89. -I I 1' 30'WATER LINE / M 332.B9' RED r• u 1 \ 1 / / --_- --------- I E OVER WATERNUNEE N8901'50'E - - i .. I AS CON SR3UCTEI3 p U N 1 \_-\70•.PUE1 1 218.20' / / - 9M63 T°'T� 119 f I 8.52' `C 245. -•--- -- I O �• \U c\ \ \ \ / / 30' STORM DRAINAGE R=14.50' - 25 30 LOT 2 � EASEMENT CENTERED - L-14.90' N 'J 02 79•R=24.50' 1 - 4H,B71 SaFt d=5851'34" / - OVER STORM GRAIN V" L-26.4V LINE AS CONSTRUCTED "�• / U0- � 1.12 ACRES � / R=2950' '� d-61'49'OS' +� i 30'DITCH MAINTENANCE / '\ / - _ L=8.55' EASEMENT(SECTION . LINE DITCH) - 16'36'19' . LOT 5 / y4-, \ 1 1 r• .. /LOT4 g i3szs sgFe 2 /42,849 SgFt f- 0.3 ACRES 0.98 ACRES OPEN SPACE 3 r _Ie T A 18.174 SgFt ! �� R=120.00' 0.42 ACRES n - I la L=37.05' A=17'41'20 1\ 11 •._4 1 may` 30'WATER LINE - .A \ \ \ EASEMENT CENTERED OVER WATER LINE 10'PUE \ \�/ AS CONSTRUCTED �I��-- --0. - B4 L-Se.oJ' LOT 3 \ \ "tia5. 47,326 SgFt 1.09 ACRES L=210.70' d-40'14.29' .Y J0s4c 0.00 S75'15'O6"W WIDTH) i I 20.40' ' (VARIABLE I I \ \ --- INDER ENDED / L=5CO 5.08 REMF THE 0 EGE A a\ \ 61TB 7256' $ of TRACT.20°WEST N NO 195 I a\ \ --_ W�S6R0 55T37 'W 10 PUE ' h PIpT SUBDIVISIO I :. r S JA' 53 R _ F 9 MINo y 1 \ _ L-� T W S IN 2e.40 _ I LOTS l i E%IANNE 700'EASEMENT I ao0.00' L=139. PER ANNEXATION AGREEMENT - �- (OOC No.2077892)TO BE Ngp52•}4-_E 100.�0 - -+� / 19,DB7$qFt T 50 0 25 50 r GY � 0.44 ACRES RELEASED AND RECONVEYED 11 DL0 WITH THIS PLAT IN .� TEC N N- - R=230.00' (IN FEET) Hry J -- _ t, - f - / �� n^ L=28.94' BASIS OF BEARING 27_09' S89'44'36'W v p r C. r d=T12'37" BEARINGS FOR THIS PLOT ARE BASED ON „4 145.30' J THE EASTERLY POR ION OF THE SOUTH N I N9 S13'56"E- EXISTING 40' -J p LINE OF TRACT 2A OF AMENDED PLAT OF FARMERS CANAL I J ` WEST COLLEGE MINOR SUBDIVISION No. N r « / 195A BEING S89'34'27"W N N89'44'36'E EASEMENT - N I 182.85'.- oo AMENDRCEEMLAElOEO EFM THW STR N89/5E L-14.50' y �-2278 7PSTOF D d-9 NOR95A TOO" OPEN SPACE 4 _ I I 45,469 SQFt •� RT 3 C[)Asl N N0 ^I I 1.04 ACRES / .nJ � $U8D IOT1 S, 1 I 1 21,307.SgFt. so' s0' I I I 0.49 ACRES / EASEMENTS 1 / / y 1. IN ADDITION TO THE EASEMENT SHOWN,ALL.LOTS a I COMMON AREA 1 r ADJACENT TO DEDICATED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE I 74,052 SgFt - _ / HEREBY ENCUMBERED BY 10'PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS - I NST44'36'E $ 1.70 ACRES / �, .[ ALONG ALL LOT LINES ADJACENT TO SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY J 30• 2. REFER TO THE DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND GRANT OF R I I 19450' N r I DESCRIBED EASEMENTS REIN O FORE FFURTH FRRDD URTHER RECIPROCAL A THE PROPERTY UTILITY,AND PARKING EASEMENT RESERVATIONS AND V i----1-SEWER TER LINE N 1� PROVISIONS. EASEMENT - I I v 3. LOTS ADJOINING FOWLER AVENUE AND U.S. HIGHWAY 191 i o RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE SUBJECT TO A 1'-WIDE 2 LOTSgFt oN-VEH ACCESS IFR MR SAID LOTS WWITHIN THIS DIRECT VEHICULAR O U R SAID 1 I 0.58 ACRES _ I RIGHT-OF-WAY IS PROHIBITED EXCEPT AT APPROVED 10'PUE 1�1 I I to LOCATIONS. •'" _ 1 R 14,50' n I N 4. ALL GRAVEL AND ASPHALT TRAILS NOT LOCATED WITHIN I L_2p,7g' OPEN SPACE PARCELS UE WITHIN 25'-WIDE PUBLIC TRAIL ® I N I N89'45E N d=9000'00' ( ; I �, � u+ EASEMENT FOR SAID TRAILS AS CONSTRUCTED 118..; 23.5_1 Im --�I L-14.03' ^' w S89'44'36"W N89'44'38'E 1 o0 5. WATER AND SEWER EASEMENTS ARE CENTERED OVER MAIN 1400 .. - 1 180.00' ( 105,84'. LINES AND FIRE HYDRANTEA LDS AS CONSTRUCTED AND ? NSW43CE .4.% j s -EXTEND 15'BEYOND THE ENDS OF SAID LINES.. SAID 1400 474.J4' EASEMENTS ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF .589'45'WI N89'44'36-E P l A NST44'36'E w BOZEMAN TO ALLOW MAINTENANCE OF THE WATER AND/OR 23.5' 1u 180.00' •�\ 108.95 L=11.0T 10. SEWER FACILITIES THEREIN. EASEMENT ARE NOT V+ REQUIRED.NOR ARE ANY HEREBY CREATED,FOR LINES R=14.50' I -j;y I THAT SERVICE INDIVIDUAL LOT OR BUILDINGS. oo 1 1 I L-22.78' - •--\ I 11 - o 6.. STORM DRAIN EASEMENTS ARE CENTERED OVER MAIN LINES AND APPURTENANCES AS CONSTRUCTED. SAID EASEMENT NOTE - \-m ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OWNERS IN ACCORDANCE LOT 3 - STRUCTURES ON LOT 1-4, 1 \ EASEMENT TO ALLOWWITH THE N OF RESTRIC71ONS AND GRANT OF MAINTENANCE OF THE STORM DRAIN 23,198 S Ft _ BLOCK 5.SHALL NOT BE \ - i 0.53 ACRES - $± CONSTRUCTED OVER THE 30' SYSTEM. 'rt WATER&SEWER LINE o a N EASEMENT A .\ `?7. III a N {I L sd fi o o, 1 e - IT PUE-----� I" I N89144'36E \ •$ oA'7 \\ R=230.00' I OPEN SPACE 5 \ L=72.86' A I I I R 2oso' COMMON AREA 2 34,868 SgFt -50'� - I I 1 I L=25.4Y 68.076 Sgft 0.80 ACRES 1."`"., ',•' 1 I d°71'02'04" .58 ACRES m$ 1 N% 1m LOT R=19.50' _ I LEGEND w I 1 I 24,1117 SgFt - L-24,18' 1 0.56 ACRES d-71'02'04' E SET REBAR W/OPC +o u - _ _1 L--- _ _ _ I. 1 MAIERLE,INC.NC.1137115" N O MARKED S89'45'W - R-14.50' J rT I o - I L=22.72 EXISTING 32.5.PUBLIC STREET - - 1 - i N - FOUND REBAR W/BPC i 1 SB944'36 W d=BT4706' &UTIL EASEMENT PER DOC. a 00 MA ERLE, �825' MARKED*MORRISON 207.00' #2127249. PORTION ENCOMPASSED - - A° m BY GARFIELD STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY 14 `FOUND REBAR W/GPC 1 DEDICATION IS RELEASED AND - m AL MARKED MORRISON I RECONVEYEO BY THIS PLAT 10 PUE I "� MAIERLE INC 14456S- ( FOUND REBAR W/YPC © . 1-------------------------------------- .---- ----�_--_- cn • MARKED MORRISON -I- 50 50 102.54' 30' I 30' o MAIERLE INC:.100625' 417.00' - TON FOUND REBAR W/YPC - - - WEST GARFIELD STREET 34' - _ MARKED ING*GA 560 8 ( g ENGINEERING 58065' - 50.00' - 599 6' - - - 30.00• FOUND O MARKED EMIR W/ OF N89.31•a2"E- S89'31'42"W 679.66'- TRANSPORTATION" 118.74- - P.O.B. - UNP�MoO TANA - - - _---_NEW EASEMENT STATE OF _ - _-- __ ____ -SUIBDIVISION EASEMENT LINE O.S. OPEN SPACE - BPC BLUE PLASTIC CAP - - GPC GREEN PLASTIC CAP OPC ORANGE PLASTIC CAP YPC YELLOW PLASTIC CAP AC ALUMINUM CAP CA COMMON AREA PARCEL © - - AREA SUMMARY PUE PUBLIC UTILITYEASEMENT GROSS AREA-' 965003 SR - 22.IS ACRES RIGHT-OF-WAY'AREA- -.2111:81.SRFt - 8.01 ACRES OPEN SPACE AREA- 151.702 SgFt 3.48 ACRES �]MORRISQN - rtrara411s 1/4 SEC. SECTION- TOWNSHIP RANGE LOTCOMON AREA - 142,728 SgFt` 3.28 CRES �xma- MAIERLE,tNC. NW 14 2S SE a.pow_awa.,��wt. Po m.u+i,sc+t-n.a.yr ena.m:.,c",Vr:xm.cm.e pasl sm-onr Te.:(,06)SBi-H)fi PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MONTANA - - - - CLIENT:MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT GALLATIN COUNTY FIELD WORK:MIMI 5/16/O6 PLOTTED DATE: Jun/21/2006 - 02:42:10 pm - DATE: DRAWING NAME:. DRAWN BY: SMR SCALE: H:\3638\003\ACAD\FPLAT-1\FPIat 1 plot.dwg. CHECKED BY:Cl B PROJ-#:3638.003- SHEET 2 OF 2 - ft=.D IV,-. PLAT of THE BOZEMAN GATEWAY SUBDIVISION P.U.D. PHASE I BEING TRACT 2A OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF WEST COLLEGE MINOR SUBDIVISION No. 195A SITUATED IN THE NW 1/4 SECTION 14 AND THE NEIA SECTION 15, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA OWNER PURPOSE 'MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT GROUP,LLC, - TO CREATE 12 LOTS FOR COMMERCIAL USE NO MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT& &2 COMMON AREAS FOR PARKING INVESTMENTS,I.I.C.a Montana limited liability company P.O. BOX 738 GREAT FALLS,MT 59403 AREA SUMMARY GROSS AREA- 3.144,983 SgFt 72.20 ACRES RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA- 316.046 SgFt 7.25 ACRES OPEN SPACE AREA- 370,545 SgFt 8.51 ACRES i LOT AREA= 2,315,664 SgFt 53.16 ACRES COMMON AREA 142.728 SgFt 3.28 ACRES o m LEGEND �.. ¢ROAD DUIiSTON _ SET REBAR W/OPC 8 m t O MARKED MORRISON 3 - Zo 4 z :t{ +�,H MAIERLE,INC.11371S" FOUND REBAR W/BPC '�' '1,"" 4 T ♦ MARKED"MORRISON _ U % Ii! I Ii7411 MAIERLE,INC.10062S" �( _ I ,i FOUND REBAR W/GPC MARKED"MORRISON MAIERLE,INC.14456S" FOUND REBAR W/YPC • MARKED MORRISON GALLAHN J - MAIERLE,INC.10062S" �7r, VALLLY II;". 'c� t.' � FOUND REBAR W/YPC HLIFFINE LANE MALT. I LW,COLL FUE ST ;, E MARKED'GASTON ENGINEERING 5606S" . .. '•.. .. t(I-'3J FOUND REBAR W/YPC 200 0 100 200 ■ MARKED"MT DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION" t t I (IN FEET) NEW EASEMENT PROJECT I, I I I�: - EXISTING EASEMENT LOCATION BASIS OF BEARING O.S. OPEN SPACEPHASE LINE - BEARINGS FOR THIS PLAT ARE BASED ON BOG BLUE PLASTIC CAP ® THE EASTERLY PORTION OF THE SOUTH CPC GREEN PLASTIC CAP VICINITY MAP 11 1TN LINE OF TRACT 2A OF AMENDED PLAT OF OPC ORANGE PLASTIC CAP YELLOW PLASTIC CAP NOT TO SCALE WEST COLLEGE MINOR SUBDIVISION No. AC ALUMINUM CAP 195A BEING 589'34'2TW CA COMMON AREA PARCEL PUE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT O O cT' �100 �9TRA 467 6 OCK PIA2A C ACT 1 135 TRACT 2 135 L=704.80 C. 5.N°' R=5810.74' KWAY N 14 1R. Na, SUB No. 95F2157 p=165T".(R) $' W36.56-E(R) L=71.68' PASUBOIVISIO MINOR SUB' MjryOR C5481.1'(�R), N6922'48"E(fl)� 70.00'(R1 A _d=O'42'24" I,83 269.13'(R) S00'3T01"E rR5cT175A R—27 0 4.7 3 N89 24 42"E 69.82' �224.18 CB=S89'59'09"E / N895659 W US FIICHWAY 797 575'59'47"E CN89'57'39"E 16 57 09" E _� $¢y 23 . ,� WESTCH=71.68' 59'43 E(R) S89'5950"E(R)B9884(R) ' '8'E(R' 1NB9'577TE(R) CB-N ) 31179 �i ..._ N6224.�3D"E COAVE E R.5810.74'(R) !/■ 57T89:(RL....,569,�Q 4S'E_$,96 65 :,�.- _...8$,�,L,.(R),,.■... 8(113•(R) 7D2 ..J RA(',F., t ■ L-71.73'(R) ♦ _I - A-042'26"in) �� BEN-$1'FTCE �1QF � '{..:w ... _ •— -�'� CB-569'55'42"E(R) •, I \\ _ _ -_ — -. :-�. TRACT No. 195 - CH=71.73 (R) MINOR SUB Ohl hh LOT I Y LOT 7///I LOT 6 _ I ll . N8217470'•(R)R) N751V501(R) Cl* z I N81'23'57"E N75'15'2t�"E LOT 217.69' 194.51' / / O.S.3/ 90\ \ //iOT4 O an TRACT CLOT 3 1 I En\ I \h r I CI TRACT A Z �� '� sE s ��583'S4 59 W 337.09; 563'52'34^N(R)337.11'(R) r I f -I LOT I C.A.1 nW TRACT 8t243, vx{ I It I LOT 2 �'� O II >;i C.0.5. 00' Ail � A^ I ILOT 3 't ¢ C.A.2 bo O.S.5\) 4h z LOT4 �I �� RFIELD �. S89'31 44 W 1345.87 S89 34 27 W 1075 52 (BASIS OF BEARING} —•m. 56931'43^N(R)1345.84'(R) - TTED SBB'34'2TW(R)1075.52'(R) UNOF MONTANA STATE OF MONTANA �f I CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE OF DEDICATION, GRANT OF UTILITY EASEMENTS I INefIlePt 1.rTt:>Rr ht1,�and I,James A.Ullman,o Registered Professional Engineer licensee to practice We,the undersigned property owners,do hereby certify that we have caused to be surveyed,subdivided and in the State of Montana,hereby certify that the following improvements,required to meet the requirements platted Into lots,blocks,streets.and alleys,and other divisions and dedications,as shown by the plot of this title or as a condition(s)of approval of The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. have been Installed hereunto included,the following described tract of land,to wit: in conformance with the approved plans and specifications. GENERAL NOTES Tract 2A of the Amended Plat of West College Minor Subdivision No. 195A situated in the NW1/4 Section 14 1. Water,sewer,storm drainage,and road surface improvements in Garfield Street and Fowler Avenue 1. PHASING and the NE1/4 Section 15.T2S,R5E,P.M.M.,City of Bozeman,Gallatin County,Montana. rights-of-way -P.HASE1: BLOCKS 2,&5.OPEN SPACES 1-6, TECHNOLOGY BOULEVARD, FOWLER AVENUE, HARMON Sold tract contains 72.20 acres,more or less,and is subject to all existing easements, whether of record The following improvements hove not been completed, but are subject to an improvements agreement and STREAM BOULEVARD,AND GARFIELD STREET. or apparent on the ground. financial guarantee: The above tract of land is to be known and designated as The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.Phase 1. All water,sewer,storm drainage,sidewalk,trails,signage,landscaping,street lighting,road 2. TRACTS A.B. &C WILL BE USED FOR FUTURE PHASES. 1,City of Bozeman,Gallatin County,Montana,and the lands included in all streets,avenues,alleys,and improvements, median.In Garfield Street and Fowler Avenue rights-of-way,and other imrovements parka or public square$ shown on said plot are hereby granted and donated to the City of Bozeman for the required but not listed above. public use and enjoyment. The subdivider hereby warrants against defeats in these improvements for a period of one year from this , The undersigned ering here p by proms to each and every person,firm•or corporation,whether public or private, date. The subdivider grants possession of all public infrastructure improvements to the City of Bozeman, providing or off to rovide untelephone,electric power,gas,internet,cable television or other similar utility and the City hereby accepts possession of all public infrastructure improvements,subject to the above or service,the right to the joint use of an easement for the construction, maintenance,repair and removal indicated warranty. of their lines and other facilities in,over, under and across each area designated on this plat as'Utility ) Easement'to have and hold forever. ,� so re in,G Dated t 'r /��ry�.G_ Tylleh,l(D lopm.nl ell LLC, Dated this dp y of �� A.D.,2006. lke MRCHELL DEVELOPMENT&INVESTMENTS• • EASEMENTS �f�! U.C.a Montour rented Ikbllty company _ 1. IN ADDITION TO THE EASEMENTS SHOWN,ALL LOTS s ( a• - /n7 /,,� 1 I I ADJACENT TO DEDICATED PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY ARE C QA-. VY• 5-Z2.O(e '. _ HEREBY ENCUMBERED BY 10' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS W OPMENT GROUP LLC JkdM LL DEVELOPMENT&INVHSTMEHIS, <� ALONG ALL LOT LINES ADJACENT TO SAID RIGHTS-OF-WAY LLt,a Montana limited naeney company Il'ames A.Ullmaq p10539 PE Dated i : ' Its: orrison-Malerie,Inc. �r,'Si;'rm r".1.e',�` 9I'�lrh_4H:t 2. REFER TO THE DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND STATE OF GRANT OF EASEMENTS RECORDED T THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN FOR FURTHER RECIPROCAL ACCESS, COUNTY OF 411AJ�d — r Debra H.Arkell Dated UTILITY,AND PARKING EASEMENT RESERVATIONS AND �A� ' Director of Public Service PROVISIONS. This instrument was acknowledged before me on this _day of_12yy�,A.D.2006 by JJ 3. LOTS ADJOINING FOWLER AVENUE AND U.S.HIGHWAY 191 11lfck-7t A.Sli•4+ALA as tP1L'vt M Of Mitchell Development CERTIFICATE OF EXCLUSION FROM MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY ARE SUBJECT TO A V-WIDE Group,LLC.&a MITCHELL MVELCPMTNT&INVESTMENTS•LLC,a if tans umle. Iaenit��eampany��-•:' QUALITY REVIEW and CERTIFICATE OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICE NO-VEHICULAR-ACCESS EASEMENT. DIRECT VEHICULAR �. ACCESS FROM SAID LOTS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION TO SAID :;��'.' •;'`i. RIGHTS-OF-WAY IS PROHIBITED EXCEPT AT APPROVED I,Debra H.Arkell,do hereby certify that the accompanying.plat of The Bozeman Gateway Subdivleton P.U.D. LOCATIONS. / w _ •`\v Tf•Rj�'i(•rj= Ph....1 has been duly reviewed and has been found to conform to the r quirementa of the Subdivision /L�,L/..a�- 4f�•d1: R15TI �wTANDIFaR9) _ij• _.._ .O= and Platting Act,Section 76-3-101 et.seq,MCA• nd the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. I further 4. ALL GRAVEL AND ASPHALT TRAILS NOT LOCATED WITHIN tRb ar Public fo a State of flM1an,:+n r- T7 y� ••k; certifythat The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D.,Galloon Cunt,Montana,is within the City of Bozeman, y C y y y OPEN SPACE PARCELS LIE WITHIN 25'-WIDE PUBLIC TRAIL Residing a! • J1:2 iL, Montana,a first-class municipality, nd is within the planning area of the Bozeman growth policy which was EASEMENTS FOR SAID TRAILS AS CONSTRUCTED My Commissin expire. WIo,YD.2L,,1^09 �'p.• adopted pursuant to Section 76-1-601 et seq.,MCA,and ears be provided with adequate storm water FOF M,O'SVxV�\ this h slnsubdivisione and d'is excludeequate d from the)require requirement*ereifor Montano De under the partment ofrevisions f Environmental)Quality review. 5. WATER AND SEWER EASEMENTS ARE CENTERED OVER MAIN V/lllllllt LINES AND FIRE HYDRANT LEADS AS CONSTRUCTED AND Dated this day of A.D.,2006 EXTEND 15' BEYOND THE ENDS OF SAID LINES. SAID EASEMENTS ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN TO ALLOW MAINTENANCE OF THE WATER AND/OR CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYOR SEWER FACILITIES THEREIN. EASEMENTS ARE NOT I,the undersigned,Craig L.Brown, Regiatered Land Surveyor,do hereby certify that between April 1, Debra H.Arkell REQUIRED,NOR ARE ANY HEREBY CREATED,FOR LINES 2008,and June 15,2008,t surveyed The Bozeman Gateway Subdivision P.U.D. Phase 1 and platted the Director of Public Service THAT SERVICE INDIVIDUAL L075 OR BUILDINGS. some as shown on the accompanying plat and as described in accordance with the provisions of the Montano Subdivision and Platting Act,§76-3-101 through§76-3-625.M.C.A.,and the Bozeman Unified CERTIFICATE OF COUNTY TREASURER 6. STORM DRAIN EASEMENTS ARE CENTERED OVER MAIN LINES Development Ordinance. AND APPURTENANCES AS CONSTRUCTED. SAID EASEMENTS - I,Kimberly Buchonan.Treasurer of Gallatin County, Montana,do hereby certify that the accompanying plot ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OWNERS IN ACCORDANCE NT{ has been duly examined and that all real property fazes and special assessments assessed and levied on WITH THE DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND GRANT OF Doted 2�-• day of "/v9�% 2008 ••'tb ill the land to ly subdivided are paid EASEMENTS TO ALLOW MAINTENANCE OF THE STORM DRAIN T—' ••.,N .............'i`. SYSTEM. Craig L.BrowJ�I�y1 37 LSE ---^ - itv'iN Doted this 3.•d day of r.�ll% 2006. Morrison-Maierle,Inc. i9j No.11371LS q PA Himberiy Buchanan •.;rpVAl LAND 9.L'' Treasurer of Gallatin County Y - CERTIFICATE OF CLERK & RECORDER - 1,Shelley Vance,Clerk and Recorder of Gallatin County,Montana,do hereby certify that the foregoing instrument was filed in my office at__o'clock,(a.m..or p.m.),this day of - .A.D.,2006'and recorded in Book , of Plot.an Page - ® - (Document No. )Records of the Clerk and Recorder,Gallatin County.Montana. D D Shelley Vance MAY 2 3 2006 Clerk and Recorder of Gallatin County OEPARIMENTOf PIANNINB _ �JORRISQN � �/4 SEC. SECTIONAIERLE,irrc. NW 14 25 SE ro m.nu,sp.r.wa,e ae,po.e�wn Is.seen,n,,:,.:pas)sc-are, r,.:(.a=1 se,_mc PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. MONTANA CLIENT:MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT GALLATIN COUNTY FIELD WORK:MMI DATE:5/16/O6 PLOTTED DATE: May�18/2006 - 04:09:07 pm DRAWING NAME: DRAWN BY: SMR SCALE: H:\3638\003\ACAD\FPLAT-1\FPlat 1 p.t.dwg CHECKED BY:CLB PROJ #:3638.003 SHEET 1 OF 4 waTTTn ev:wad. PLAT of THE BOZEMAN GATEWAY SUBDIVISION P.U.D. PHASE I ® BEING TRACT 2A OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF WEST COLLEGE MINOR SUBDIVISION No. 195A SITUATED IN THE NW1/4 SECTION 14 AND THE NE1/4 SECTION 15, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA 10'COMMUNICATION R=5810.74' EASEMENT PER DOC. =71.6s' 2034303,2035373, 20'UTILITY EASEMENT EXISTING 2115955 and 10' - G=0'42'24" DRAINAGE EASEMENT US HIGHWAY 191 (WEST MAIN ST.) PIPELINE EASEMENT PER MINOR SUB. 195 CB=S89'S9'09"E N89'S6'S9"Y/ PER 152F 2396 PER 143F 2803 10'OVERHEAD E3F 2 CH=71.68' 57.76' S89'59'45"E 896.85' EASEMENT PER 1a3F n7 5,5 S7g 4T E 156.67' 50.00' 50.00' +± - - - - - - - - - - _ - 640.18' - - - - - - - _ _ 82,53' - - __ _ _ - - - - - - -I - � - + } - OPEN SPACE 2 _ 54,154 SgFt L 1.24 ACRES S89'59'45'E 127.9Y \ \ \ - ^^ S89'59'46'E 724.79' ~ 319.15' _ 269.00'--- -------------- -- I -------------- --- / ^------ 30 SEWER LINE- --1 I/ I 40,314 qFt ASCENTERED- 30'SEWER LINE EASEMENT / I 0.93 ACRES I I I 1 I 30'STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT CENTERED OVER SEWER LINE I I 1 1 EASEMENT CENTERED OVER SEWER LINE +_st AS CONSTRUCTED OVER STORM DRAIN AS CONSTRUCTED g / / J 11 \1 LINE AS CONSTRUCTED - / / I!R�z I I2 30'STORM DRAINAGE LOT 7 / 1 I 30'SEWER LINE 1 I I \ EASEMENT CENTERED LOT 1 45.479 SgFt / / I I EASEMENT CENTERED 1 iJ I I OVER STORM DRAIN 57,064 S gFt 1,04 ACRES / OVER SEWER UNE �1 LINE AS CONSTRUCTED / / I I 1 I 1 I \ 1 1.31 ACRES / / I I. AS CONSTRUCTED I�{ 1 / / I a III111 1\\ -- ------- N8Z00eE 332.89' / // L - - _ i7r.,"''• 1 \ - N89'01'50'E 1N 1__ 110'PUEt 1 216.20' R=14.50. 1 LOT 2 / X 3EASEMENT CENTERED 0'STORM DRAINAGE L=14.90' �'O• \ .+ I �\ \ 1 1 48.871 S9Ft / OVER STORM DRAIN d-5651'34' h ^ LINE AS CONSTRUCTED R=2950' y g 1.12 ACRES 30' DITCH MAINTENANCE \ \ \ 1 1 EASEMENT(SECTION 3 I \\ ( I \\ \ 1 11 LINE DITCH) r / /.• ,9 $ \ \ \ 1 O v_ •/..,. /LOT4 13929TSgFt + /42,849 SgFt 0.32 ACRES �' \ o\ \1 1 ✓ / 0.98 ACRES N8706'26'E 148�179 TRACT I \\ I �s� \\ \\\\ 11 �/� 30'WATER LINE 3.6 ACRES \ EASEMENT CENTERED OPEN SPACE 1\ \ 1 \ 1 Y ( OVER WATER LINE 153,342 SgFt \ "� \3. - ��i\ 1 \ 1 AS CONSTRUCTED l_ ___ ---^_ ^ 10' PUE-1 3.52 ACRES \ O� $ �.\1 \ 1 \ \ I �5 64, L=58.0 J' L`38.11 \\s LOT 3 \ \ t>13 \I \ \\$' 59Ft 1.09 A 1.09 ACRES \ ��'� • \ 72 \ \ \ i�A°1 S7FIS'06'W A` WIDTH) `~ p \I c1 \ \ 20.40, (VARIABLE t3134.55 10' PUEJ. S573753N - \\ 1 AR9 20.40' 54.89. DO" i EXISTING 100'EASEMENT I _ 6.4 N8153'E�95.5� .0 _ 03 - ps400 00 Ls139. ! ` 1,QT PER ANNEXATION AGREEMENT \ `� �- 19LO S Ft (DOC No. 2077812)TO BE m \ N N835T34_�E 100A0 - -'r-� OLOGY m 2 0.44 ACRES RELEASED AND RECONVEYED WITH THIS PLAT I �'j m$ y \' � �m I \•�i+ ts1�to �J u:9 R. \ 145.30' ry J N gyE 110.8� r 1 N74'13'S6'E J EXISTING 40' 19.31 n 83 1 ' I FARMERS CANAL EASEMENT 4'gg"W 337.09' 1 182.85' 1� R=14.50: N8T45'E L=22.78 EX STING 20' 30.0' d=9voo'oo' OPEN SPACE 4 EASEMENT PER - I '•I I 1046 ACRES MINOR SUB. 195 _ 1 LO T 0.49 ACRES COMMON AREA 1 74,052 SgFt / ® I I I NBW44'36'E 1.70 ACRES 19a.50' 1 I I4 I 30,WATER h ) I I VI I SEWER LINE 8 (, EASEMENT J 1 a NI I I LOT S i' I 25,143 SgFt • I .0.58 ACRES - I 10'PUE I - N R=14.50' c li 50- 0 25 50 - I I N89'45'EI Iq L=22.78' I - 17.8. . 2I 5- ru.,' d=9000'00' ;(-.,.. N6544'38'E L=14.03'I (IN FEET) - I I 56944'361V f - 105.84' 80.00, EASEMENTS o I 1400'...: I ? N8944'JB'E 1. IN ADDITION TO THE EASEMENTS SHOWN,ALL LOTS - N - - ADJACENT TO DEDICATED PUBUC RIGHTS-OF-WAY ARE m I 1400 ''.569'45'W N8T44'36'E 474.34' ? NB9'44'38'E HEREBY ENCUMBERED BY 10' PUBUC UTILITY EASEMENTS I 23.5' Lu 180.00' > '- 108.95' L=14.0T ALONG ALL LOT LINES ADJACENT TO SAID RIGHTS-OF-WAY 1 3 Io R=1a.5o' 2. REFER TO THE DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND GRANT iv I I -I. L=22.78' OF EASEMENTS RECORDED AGAINST THE PROPERTY - I I d=90'00'00' DESCRIBED HEREIN FOR FURTHER RECIPROCAL ACCESS, UTILITY,AND PARKING EASEMENT RESERVATIONS AND PROVISIONS. = LOTS o I I Y.' "' I _ STRUCTURES ON LOTS 1-4, 1\� l o f 3. LOTS ADJOINING FOWLER AVENUE AND U.S.HIGHWAY 191 I I# y; I 23.198 SgFt 6; BLOCK 5,SHALL NOT BE \ RIGHTS-OF-WAY ARE SUBJECT TO A 1'-WIDE m 0.53 ACRES $a CONSTRUCTED OVER THE 30'- NO-VEHICULAR-ACCESS EASEMENT. DIRECT VEHICULAR I I o n1 WATER&SEWER LINE - \- ACCESS FROM SAID LOTS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION TO SAID I N J \ RIGHTS-OF-WAY IS PROHIBITED EXCEPT AT APPROVED LOCATIONS. _ I I I aI I 10, PUE- $ - 4. ALL GRAVEL AND ASPHALT TRAILS NOT LOCATED WITHIN I - I I `'I I N89144'36E - \" OPEN SPACE PARCELS LIE WITHIN 25'-WIDE PUBUC TRAIL I I I I 194.50' \ - EASEMENTS FOR SAID TRAILS AS CONSTRUCTED I I I I I OPEN SPACE 5 \ 5. WATER AND SEWER EASEMENTS ARE CENTERED OVER MAIN I I R=20.50' COMMON AREA 2 m 34,868 SgFt \ LINES AND FIRE HYDRANT LEADS AS CONSTRUCTED AND 50' - I I L-25.42' 68.878 SgFt `'• 0.80 ACRES 1 - EXTEND 15'BEYOND THE ENDS OF SAID LINES. SAID d=71'02'04' 1.58 ACRES - v EASEMENTS ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF I I u I I I LOT 4 R=19.50'- BOZEMAN TO ALLOW MAINTENANCE OF THE WATER AND/OR _ 7 SgFt SEWER FACILITIES THEREIN. EASEMENTS ARE NOT I u I I 24.18 L 24.18 REOUIRED,NOR ARE ANY HEREBY CREATED, FOR LINES I 0.56 ACRES d=71'02'04' THAT SERVICE INDIVIDUAL LOTS OR BUILDINGS. - I L-_-I - b 589'45'W 6. STORM DRAIN EASEMENTS ARE CENTERED OVER MAIN LINES - I � I I '30.0' R=14S0' 'y�t AND APPURTENANCES AS CONSTRUCTED. SAID EASEMENTSI L-22.72' ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OWNERS IN ACCORDANCE - I d=89'4TO6' WITH THE DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND GRANT OF I SB9'44'36Y1 EASEMENTS TO ALLOW OF -0F THE STORM DRAIN I 207.00' - SYSTEM I I I EXISTING 32.5'PUBLIC STREET @ UTIL EASEMENT PER 10'PUE DOC.#2127249 TO BE �+ RELEASED AND RECONVEYED ----WITH THIS PLAT -- _ ---- I--__---------------- 7-- LEGEND -I- - I So' so, _ - - - - - an.a0' - -- - - - - 1o2sas_ SET REBAR W/OPC O MARKED'MORRISON I I y GARFIELD STREET(34') - - MAIERLE,INC.11371S' FOUND REBAR W/OPC 11 - 8 MARKED"MORRISON a' 0.00' 589'31'44"W 1345.8T MAIERLE,INC.10062S' - - - - - FOUND REBAR W/OPC - - - - MARKED"MORRISON - - MAIERLE,INC.144565" - FOUND REBAR W/YPC - - - • MARKED"MORRISON - - - AMAIERLE,INC.100625' - - - FOUND REBAR W/YPC ® MARKED"GASTON - ENGINEERING 5606S" - - FOUND REBAR W/YPC - - - ■ MARKED"MT DEPT OF - - TRANSPORTATION" - -- NEW EASEMENT �.rAF� 1/4-SEC: SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE --EXISTING EASEMENT- MORRISON 5°°"a's s•-ra -SUBDIVISION PHASE LINE s 5E O.S. OPEN SPACE � AILRLL7INC. - smc[tau BPC BLUE PLASTIC CAP GPC GREEN PLASTIC CAP PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MONTANA OPC ORANGE PLASTIC CAP - - GALLATIN YPC YELLOW PLASTIC CAP - CLIENT:MITCHELL DEVELOPMENT COUNTY AG ALUMINUM CAP - - - - - PLOTTED DATE: MGy/18/2006 - 03:47:28 pm CA COMMON AREA PARCEL - - - FIELD WORK:MMI DATE;5/16/06 PUE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT - - - DRAWING NAME: - - - � DRAWN BY: SMR SCALE: _ H:\3638\003\ACAD\FPIAT-1\FPlot 1 ploldwg - - CHECKED BY:Cl B - PROJ #:3638.003- SHEET 2- OF 4 PLoriEp er:..�e. PLAT of THE BOZEMAN GATEWAY SUBDIVISION P.U.D. PHASE 1 I BEING TRACT 2A OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF WEST COLLEGE MINOR SUBDIVISION No. 195A SITUATED IN THE NW 1/4 SECTION 14 AND THE NEI/4 SECTION 15, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA 10'OVERHEAD ELEC N89'24'42"E 269.23' ESMT PER 143E 2777 10'COMMUNICATION // / EXISTING 30' ROAD EASEMENT PER DOC. AY ST) CH= N89'24'42"E 123.23' EASEMENT PER Cos © 2034303 a0a 73' 191 (WEST MAIN 0B.N81'31'09"E 1243/A/B/C& Sj . PIPELINE EASEMENT US HTGIfW 11= � — MINOR SUB 195 T. 55g'4j"E PER 143E 2803 Rc2381.83 1=704.73' 16'ST09 L—pt 8- 1 OPEN SPA E 6 23 (w.COLLEGE sr.) 82,53. N89'57'39"E 64.538 SgFt C2�' EXISTING 20'UT CITY 60.12' 1.48 ACRES N73� PER MINOR SUB. 1 L=4 .86 =30. 1 L=30.02 _ —I _ 1— —I — � E�t- T — dp�o - 136.63' N8724'39'E 313.27' a• - I x � - I$ I sI 8^ I I I EASEMENTS LOT 6 b$ I I 1. IN ADDITION TO THE EASEMENTS SHOWN,ALL LOTS 40.314 SgFt _ -. _ --10' PUE LEGEND ADJACENT TO DEDICATED PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY ARE 0.93 ACRES SET REBAR W/OPC HEREBY ENCUMBERED BY 10'PVBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS o�n I O MARKED*MORRISON ALONG ALL LOT LINES ADJACENT TO SAID RIGHTS-OF-WAY MAIERLE,INC.113715" 2. REFER TO THE DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND GRANT FOUND REBAR W/BPC OF EASEMENTS RECORDED AGAINST THE PROPERTY Q"�'n I I ♦ MARKED"MORRISON - DESCRIBED HEREIN FOR FURTHER RECIPROCAL ACCESS, 1 u I MAIERLE,INC.10062S" UTILITY,AND PARKING EASEMENT RESERVATIONS AND EASEMENT CENTERED 3 SEWER LINE.' �I Y "' FOUND REBAR W/GPC PROVISIONS. el OVER SEWER LINE I' I MARKED"MORRISON AS CONSTRUCTED n MAIERLE,INC.14456S" 3.. LOTS ADJOINING FOWLER AVENUE AND U.S. HIGHWAY 191 I FOUND REBAR W/YPC RIGHTS-OF-WAY ARE SUBJECT'TO A 1'-WIDE -MORRISON ACCESS NO-VEHI FROM SAID SSS LOTS WITHINT.THIS DIRECT SUBDMSIVEHICULAR SAID • MARKED MAIERLE,INC.10062S" RIGHTS-OF-WAY IS PROHIBITED EXCEPT AT APPROVED I J, �30'WATER LINE ! FOUND REBAR W/YPC LOCATIONS .. EASEMENT CENTERED / �/ ,�! ® MARKED*GASTON I I OVER WATER E / �./. ENGINEERING 56065" 4.. ALL GRAVEL AND ASPHALT TRAILS NOT LOCATED WITHIN AS CONSTRUCTE R-/- / FOUND REBAR W/YPC OPEN SPACE PARCELS.LIE WITHIN 25'-WIDE PUBUC TRAIL mr, / • MARKED"Mr DEPT OF EASEMENTS FOR SAID TRAILS AS CONSTRUCTED Sag. I 98.41 _ TRANSPORTATION" qu / 5. WATER AND SEWER EASEMENTSARE CENTERED OVER MAIN I 17$ 4$F I 6.52' - -----NEW EASEMENT LINES AND FIRE HYDRANT LEADS AS CONSTRUCTED AND -- - -.r _ -_ _- / / --EXISTING EASEMENT EXTEND 15' BEYOND THE ENDS.OF SAID ONES. SAID L=14.90' 63 02 79.25 / --_ SUBDIMSION PHASE LINE EASEMENTS ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF O.S. OPEN SPACE BOZEMAN TO ALLOW MAINTENANCE OF THE WATER AND/DR 100 0 50 100 BPC BLUE PLASTIC CAP SEWER FACILITIES THEREIN. EASEMENTS ARE NOT .50� g, d=61'49'05"/ ,R' GPC GREEN PLASTIC CAP REQUIRED,NOR ARE ANY HEREBY CREATED, FOR LINES RL28.55' 6 S •'� / OPC ORANGE PLASTIC CAP THAT SERVICE INDMDUAL LOTS OR BUILDINGS. d=16'3619 / - .'� / (IN FEET) YPC YELLOW PLASTIC CAP / '� / AC ALUMINUM CAP 6. STORM DRAIN EASEMENTS ARE CENTERED OVER MAIN LINES CA COMMON AREA PARCEL AND APPURTENANCES AS CONSTRUCTED. SAID EASEMENTS /y •Y� PUE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OWNERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND GRANT OF EASEMENTS TO ALLOW MAINTENANCE OF THE STORM DRAIN OPEN SPACE 3 SYSTEM. 18074 SgFt 0.42 ACRES I 'u n/ i FARMERS CANAL /1 ml I EXISTING I 1 / EASEMENT / 10' PUE I1� N I 7 I / 67.20' ! - / / — — — — — — — — — / i I I 10' PUEJ -- -556 g i / 1 TRACT A 1,325,233 SgFt 30.42 ACRES _ !h OPEN SPACE 4 45,469 SgFt 1.04 ACRES I I I I I 1 I I I„ I I NI I O L-Ia.03'I - �q m I I I , \ \-10'PUE - 10' PUE- \'S \s \ \'s, OPEN SPACE 5 \, OIwN �111 I 34.868 SgFt 0.50 ACRES I I�EXISTING 20'UTILITY EASEMENT - PER MINOR SUB. 195 TO BE RELEASED AND RECONVEYED WITH THIS PLAT I I EXISTING 32.5'PUBLIC STREET I &UTIL EASEMENT PER ® I I DOG. #2127249 TO BE I I I RELEASED AND RE CONVEYED I e I WITH THIS PLAT EXISTING 32.5'PUBUC § u I STREET&UTILITY m I EASEMENT 21272 LD ST) tO�PUE PUE �- I .I I 50 ---------- Doe D g ---- --- ------ ------ I � I --102.54,--•-J. � I�30, _- 547.47'— 598.61' —.. _ —.— 577.47' GARFIELD STREET(34') fi a.a3' S89"31'44"W 1345.87' . �dMOMISON °� 1/4 SEC. SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE Ocorms ❑❑ MAIERLQ c. s NW 14 25 5E uaaf PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MONTANA _ CLIENT:5/16/06 GALLATIN COUNTY FIELD WORK:MMI DATE:4/10/06 PLOTTED DATE: May/18/2006 - 03:47:43 pm DRAWING NAME: DRAWN BY: SMR SCALE: H:\3638\003\ACAD\FPLAT-I\FPI"t 1 plot.dwg CHECKED BY:Cl B PROJ (l:3638.003 SHEET 3 OF 4 rwmo er:..�ae PLAT of THE BOZEMAN GATEWAY SUBDIVISION P.U.D. PHASE I BEING TRACT 2A OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF WEST COLLEGE MINOR SUBDIVISION No. 195A SITUATED IN THE NW1/4 SECTION 14 AND THE NEIA SECTION 15, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA p9 81GM IN �wEgT 10'OVERHEAD ELEC N89'24'42"E 269.23' ' ESMT PER 143F.2777 i WEST COLLEGE ST. /�� 1— p N 100 0 50 100 m i 'p m (IN FEET) N8724'42"E 123,23' EXISTING 30'ROAD O EASEMENT PER COS �^ 1243/A/B/C& N89'23'30"E 224.21' MINOR SUB 195 (W.COLLEGE ST.) 151.25' 72,96 q ^� EXISTING 20'UTILITY L — — — — — — — — '-- 91 EASEMENT PER MINOR SUB. 195 EASEMENTS N89'49'43'E 290.43' I 1. IN ADDITION TO THE EASEMENTS SHOWN,ALL LOTS LEGEND ADJACENT TO DEDICATED PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY ARE HEREBY ENCUMBERED BY 10'PUBLIC UTILTY EASEMENTS SET REBAR W/OPC ALONG ALL LOT LINES ADJACENT TO SAID RIGHTS-OF-WAY O MARKED'MORRISON MAIERLE,INC.11371S" 2. REFER TO THE DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND GRANT FOUND REBAR W/BPC OF EASEMENTS RECORDED AGAINST THE PROPERTY ♦ MARKED"MORRISON DESCRIBED HEREIN FOR FURTHER RECIPROCAL ACCESS, MAIERLE,INC. 10052S" UTILITY.AND PARKING EASEMENT RESERVATIONS AND _EXISTING 30'UTILIYT FOUND REBAR W/GPC PROVISIONS. EASEMENT PER A MARKED"MORRISON 3. LOTS ADJOINING FOWLER AVENUE AND U.S. HIGHWAY 191 MINOR SUB. 195 MAIERLE,INC. 14456S" RIGHTS-OF-WAY ARE SUBJECT TO A i'-WIDE FOUND REBAR W/YPC NO-VEHICULAR-ACCESS EASEMENT. DIRECT VEHICULAR • MARKED"MORRISON ACCESS FROM SAID LOTS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION TO SAID MAIERLE,INC,10062S" RIGHTS=OF-WAY IS PROHIBITED EXCEPT AT APPROVED FOUND REBAR W/YPC LOCATIONS. o ® MARKED*GASTON 4. ALL GRAVEL AND ASPHALT TRAILS NOT LOCATED:WITHIN 4 ENGINEERING 5606S" o OPEN SPACE PARCELS LIE WITHIN 25'-WIDE PUBLIC TRAIL u FOUND REBAR W/YPC EASEMENTS FOR SAID TRAILS AS CONSTRUCTED o ■ MARKED"MT DEPT OF -- -_ - TRANSPORTATION" 5. WATER AND SEWER EASEMENTS ARE CENTERED OVER MAIN - . -NEW EASEMENT LINES AND FIRE HYDRANT LEADS AS CONSTRUCTED AND r EXTEND 15' BEYOND THE ENDS OF SAID LINES. SAID o -.- --- -EXISTING EASEMENT EASEMENTS ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF P n SUBDIVISION PHASE LINE 13OZEMAN TO ALLOW MAINTENANCE OF THE WATER AND/OR rn O.S. OPEN SPACE SEWER FACILITIES THEREIN. EASEMENTS ARE NOT BPC BLUE PLASTIC CAP REQUIRED, NOR ARE ANY HEREBY CREATED.FOR LINES GPC GREEN PLASTIC CAP THAT SERVICE INDMOUAL LOTS OR BUILDINGS. OPC ORANGE PLASTIC CAP YPC YELLOW PLASTIC CAP 6. STORM DRAIN EASEMENTS ARE CENTERED OVER MAIN LINES AC ALUMINUM CAP AND APPURTENANCES.AS CONSTRUCTED, SAID EASEMENTS CA COMMON AREA PARCEL ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OWNERS IN ACCORDANCE . PUE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT WITH THE DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND GRANT OF EASEMENTS TO ALLOW MAINTENANCE OF THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEMEXISTING 40' FARMERS NANAL �5`520"E 194.51' EASEM _ — — 148t'23157 E 217.69' i i v4 TRACT A 1.325,233 SgFt 30.42 ACRES © I TRACT B 435.504 SgFt 10.00 ACRES M o 0 I. II EXISTING 20' UTUTY EASEMENT I PER MINOR SUB. 195 TO BE I RELEASED AND RECONVEYED WITH THIS PLAT EXISTING 325'PUBLIC. I -I EXISTING 32.5 PUBLIC STREET 8:UTILITY - STREET k UTILITY EASEMENT 21272 0 ST) I 10' PUE ------EASEDOC. H2127250 ENT(GARFlELD BT)— _________ _____________a_—__—_—__I--___---_____—__----_—___ —___--____—_—_--____----_—_--_--_ 477.07_ — — — — _ GARFIELD STREET(34') $ . 4, - - - 447.09' S89'34'27"W 1075.52' 1hV,1{OT1L�T1�D1TD�O m ms 1/4 SEC. SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE LLEIJ MAIERLE,INC. � Nw 14 2S sE ax¢+aw PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MONTANA CLIENT:MITCHELL DEVLOPMENT - GALLATIN COUNTY FIELD WORK•MMI DATE:5/16/O6 PLOTTED DATE: May/18/2006 — 03:47:53 pm DRAWING NAME: DRAWN BY: SMR - SCALE: H:\3638\003\ACAD\FPLAT-I\FPlat I plot.awq CHECKED BY:CLB PROJ #:3838.003 SHEET 4 OF 4 Pioncp er;,,"a,