Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout638300223262012857) dig !jytl (Fr lie estridgeStreet)vs . 1y Applicant . Gene 3-31-92 77 rsYSx k v sr }y • _ r s 1. �a - 1• tir '3 y t •3 !+ r { ,.4 `t 4: ). '9j': ,n`'4 1 ;, r .F i-. a j C�•rT r.� ''l'. 'i r t ,. 7 ' $ 1t � i'r{�•4�Yd, r• � YnS.'.r tx.` fY '+ + - � t l 1 fi + r N T v 'e ;F ♦ 'S .e :t'!" n s.: `.. s r�1`.F 5 t { �.f4yd�'�s t•`r y!� t .t 4 .� •ia�' x r J S Y4 dr:;s r Y' PROJECT ACTIVITY LOGS BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE Project Name �- File No. �� I STAFF STAFF CUMULATIVE_ DATE ACTIVITY PERSON HOURS STAFF TIME! C' CO KLJ ems' k r0 �_� Zj.�S ( - `ice ' l 1 I �1 PROJECT ACTIVITY LOGS BOZEMAN CITY--;COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE Project Name Ocel_ hrnc'316 File No . Z " � STAFF STAFF CUMULATIVE: DATE ACTIVITY PERSON HOURS STAFF TIME: 2,� Liz i ro t �Zg�a z- I 1 dos 4 FILE REVIEW SHEET 'ICONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Application Date: `I� ( Qa Staff Member: (( File Number: Z Reference Files: File Name: DATE DONE BY Staff/Agency Comment Requested : ; Staff/Agency Comment Deadline: ; Public Hearing Notice ' To Chronicle: ' Public Hearing. Notice ; 'In Chronicle: ' Public Hearing Notice Sent To ; Adjacent Property Owners: ; Public Hearing Notice Posted : ' Staff Report Due: ; Staff Report ( packet ) Sent Out: ; Planning Board Meeting : ; Action: City Commission Meeting : ; Action: Letter To Applicant ; Regarding Decision : ; 6 Month Review Due: 12 Month Review Due: Letter of Credit Received : ; Letter of Credit Released : ; Final CUP Issued : MISC\REVIEW.CUP 'RECEIVED BY BOZEMAN MEMO : CITY=COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE To: Kevin Wall DATE City/County Planning From: Dan Kamp Cikan Architects, P.C. 544 E. Mendenhall Bozeman, Montana 59715 (406) 586-3624 586-3630 FAX Re: Overbrook Submittal Kevin: The submittal should be complete, with the following exceptions: The signature from Shelley at Cashman' s appears only on the first copy of the site plans. She signed the original after we had run the earlier_ copies. Gene Graf is delayed in a meeting out of Bozeman and wil.1 -be in to the Planning office in the morning to sign the application. Upon final review of the Landscape plan, we realized that we had used the planting sizes from the earlier code. We would like to change those on the Final site plan to match the current code. There is a note on the site plan explaning that the sign for the entrance to the development will be submitted' at a later date. The design cannot be done until the marketing package, ( i .e. logo, colors etc) has been finalized as it will affect the design of the entrance sign. We will submit the design at that time for review by DRB etc. Give me a call if you have any questions. File No. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMIITTT,AL REQUIREMENTS Applicant 6p�,F_ � � ` � Residential PUD Project L � � Commercial PUD The following is a checklist of submittal requirements for all Planned Unit Development (PUD) Preliminary Plans. The applicant must complete this checklist and submit it along with the items stated for the application to be considered complete. Any item checked "NO" or "N/A" (not applicable ) must be explained in a narrative attached to the checklist. Upon submittal , staff will review the checklist and determine if the application as submitted is complete. If so, it will be placed on the Development Review Committee (DRC) and Design Review Board (DRB) agendas, then subsequently reviewed by the Planning Board. Incomplete submittals will be returned to the applicant. 1 . DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS The following information shall be presented in an 8 1 /2" X 11 " vertically bound document. The document shall be bound s -1- � a-1 and lie flat for reviewing and organized in the following order: YES NO . N/A AB forms ; v B. A list of names of all general and limited �G partners and/or officers and directors of the corporation involved as either applicants or owners of the Planned Unit Development; �/C' . Legal description of the site; _ 1/1D. Adjacent property owners / ( 1 ) a copy of the list of the names and addresses of record of real property within 400 feet of the property lines of the parcel of land for which the Planned Unit Development is proposed, exclusive of ' public ; rights-of-way; (2 ) the original list shall be included in the document; v( 3 ) a listing of the names and addresses typed on mailing lab is shall be submitted separately; ---� 1 . YES NO N/A E. A statement of planning objectives, y including: �( 1 ) statement of applicable City land use policies and objectives achieved by the proposed -plan and how it furthers the implementation of the Bozeman Area Master Plan . (2 ) statement of proposed ownership of, public and private open space areas and applicant's intentions with regard to future ownership of all or portions of the Planned Unit Development ✓33 ) estimate of number of employees for _ business, commercial , and industrial uses 1/,(4) description of rational behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant ( 5 ) the applicant shall submit as evidence of successful completion of the applicable Community Design Objectives and Criteria of Section 18. 54. 100 , documentation pursuant to these regulations for each proposed use; the applicant shall submit written expla- nation 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 i s required i red i n that section; any variance from onT-��� shall cri � �/( 6 ) detai description of how conflict C/ betw to and uses are being avoided or l�itigated V( 7 ) statements of design methods to reduc energy consumption, (e. g. - home/business utilities, transportation fuel , waste F�-ecyc 1 i ng) 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 com- pleted, including the proposed phasing of construction of public improvements and recreational and common space areas ; / G. Reduced versions of all preliminary plan !/ and supplemental plan maps and graphic illustrations at 8 1/2" X 11 " or 11 " X 17" size. 2 2 . SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS A site plan of the proposed development drawn at a scale of one ( 1 ) inch equals one hundred ( 100) feet, eighty (80) feet, sixty (60) feet, fifty ( 50) feet or forty (40 ) feet and composed of one or more sheets with an outer dimension of twenty-four by thirty-six ( 24 X 36) inches, showing the following information: YES NO N/A A. Name of project/development; B. Location of project/development by street address; C. Location map, including area within one mile of site; D. Name and mailing address of developer/owner ; E . Name and mailing address of engineer/ architect; F. Date of plan preparation ; G. North point indicator; H. Location of municipal and extra-territorial boundaries within or near the development; I . Listing of specific land uses being proposed'-,- J . Parcel size(s) in gross acres and square feet; K. Total number, type, and density per type of dwelling units; L. Total gross residential density and density ' per residential parcel ; M. Estimated total floor area and estimated ratio of floor area to lot size (Floor Area Ratio, FAR) , with a breakdown by land use ; N. Proposed coverage of buildings and structures for parcel (s) and total site, including the following the following : ( 1 ) percentage and square footage of building coverage (2 ) percentage and square footage of driveway and parking (3 ) percentage and square footage of public street right-of-way (4 ) percentage and square footage of open space and/or landscaped area ( 5 ) percentage and square footage of "active recreational use" area O. Number and location of off-street parking, including guest, handicapped, bicycle and motorcycle parking , with typical dimensions of each; . 3 - YES NO N/A P. Topographic contours at two-foot intervals, unless differently permitted by the Planning Director; Q. Watercourses, water bodies and irrigation ditches; R. Floodplains as designated on the Federal Insurance Rate Maps; , S. Unique natural features, significant wild- life areas and vegetative cover, including existing trees and shrubs, having a diameter greater than two and one-half ( 2 1/2) inches t � by species; T . Tentative location and floor area of existing and proposed buildings; U. Boundary and square footage of each area designated as active recreational use V. Location and acreage of common open areas and all public and semi-public land uses , including public parks, recreation areas, school sites , and similar uses; W. Location of existing and proposed pedes- trian circulation system, indicating the proposed treatment of points of conflict; X. Maximum building height of all structures; Y. The existing and proposed circulation system of arterial , collector and local streets, including off-street parking areas; service areas; loading zones; and major points of ingress and egress to the develop- ment; notations of proposed ownership, public or private , should be included where appropriate; Z . Existing zoning ; AA. The proposed treatment of the perimeter of the Planned Unit Development, including materials and techniques used, such as screening, fences , walls, and other land- scaping; BB. Prposed signage, with locations and illustrative examples; CC. Adjacent site information Area shown on the site plan shall extend beyond the property lines of the proposal to ' _c e a survey of the area and uses within 0 feet the proposal , exclusive of public 4*20'-g-h -way at the same scale as theoposal and including the following: land uses and location of princip-lid structures I (Z) densities of residential uses 4 YES NO N/A ( 3 ) existing trees and major features of landscape (4) topographic contours at two-foot intervals, unless differently permitted by the Planning Director / ( 5 ) traffic circulation system DD. Supplemental vicintiy map Vicinity map of the area surr site within a distance of at leas one ( 1 ) mile showing: ( 1 ) zoning districts (/ ( 2 ) location of municipal boundary lines ( 3 ) traffic circulation system (4 ) major public facilities including schools, parks, trails, etc. EE. Attorney's or owner's certification of ownership; FF. Chairperson and Secretary of the Planning and Zoning Board certification of approval of the site plan ,. including a statement of any variances to the Community Design Objectives and Criteria of• Section 18. 54. 100; GG. Owner certification of acceptance of conditions and restrictions as set forth on the site plan; 3 . SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS A. Architectural elevations Preliminary architectural elevations of all buildings sufficient to convey the basic architectural intent of the proposed -7 improvements; B. Landscape treatment A general landscaping plan indicating: ( 1 ) treatment of materials used for private and common open spaces ( 2 ) all existing vegetation with identifi- cation of trees by sizes of species ( 3 ) specific proposals to protect and preserve existing trees during and after construction (4 ) the scale shown on plant materials C. Utility plans The existing and proposed utility systems and proposed utility systems, including: ( 1 ) sanitary sewers ( 2 ) storm sewers ( 3) water (4) electric 5 r YES NO N/A (5 ) gas (6 ) telephone lines (7 ) fire hydrants trash collection areas D. Street cross sections if different from City standards; street cross sections schematics shall be submitted for each general category of street, including the propsed width, treatment of curbs and gutters, sidewalk .systems and bikeway systems where deviations from the design criteria and standards of the City are proposed; E. Physiographic data, including the f.ollowing: ( 1 ) a description of soils existing on the site, accompanied by analysis as to the suitability of such soils for the intended construction and proposed landscaping (2 ) a map showing all permanent and temporary streams and sketch showing the 100 year floodplain for each period as designated in the design criteria as established by the City (3 ) a description of the by io site wit analysis of wa_ t tab e fluctuations d a sta e ended construction and -- proposed landscaping F. Drainage plan P ge report an calcula- i o and/or plain .nc l ud ' - -- ses - - - - property or a Gated n 200 feet of the property, shown; in addition, the f 1 oodways ood fringe areas of thy_ _ e s -=a��=a­Ued ( 2 ) a " drainagew s, streets, arroyos, dry gullies, diversion ditches, spillways , reservoirs, etc. , which may be incorporated into the storm drainage system for the property shall be designated �_ an, structures sh bey �� (4) all requi n to detention areas , , inclu b es -atot =_,he appr ate "e facifity (5) all plans a indicate the proposed outlet for t for rainage from the property, i uding t name of the drainage- way (wher . . propriate the downstream V �(� conditions (developed, aJ�ilable drainage- 6 ways, etc. ) , an a downstream restrictions t,J� t YES NO N/A (6 ) existing and/or proposed grading plan G( ' A plan of the site showing the location' of all temporary model homes, sales offices and/ or construction facilities, including temporary signs and parking facilities; H. Preliminary subdivision plat. !� If the project involves or requires platting, a preliminary subdivision plat, subject to the requirements of the City's Subdivision Ordinance shall be submitted; I . Traffic impact analysis (� At the discretion of the Public Service Director a traffic impact analysis shall be prepared based upon the proposed development, including the provisions of the approved Master Plan, if part of such Master Plan, and upon surrounding land uses; the Public Service Director may require the traffic analysis to include the following: ( 1 ) land use and trip generation - a table of each type of land use, the number of units or square footage, as appropriate, the trip rates used (daily and peak hour) and resulting trip generation (2 ) traffic graphics showing: (� (a) AM peak hour site traffic —� (b) PM peak hour site traffic (c) AM peak hour total traffic -� ro (d) PM peak hour total traffic (e) tea-dail c with si g/ ene rated traf f i c shown separate 1 ,>) ( 3) AM a t anal s� An AM and PM peak hour capacity analysis for all major drive accesses that intersect collector or arterial streets and all site rterial-arterial collector-collector and ,arterial-collector intersections within one ( mile of the site or as directed by the Director of Public Service; (4) Report format shall be as follows: (a) trip generation - using Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (b) trip distribution . I(e) traffic assignment capacity analysis evaluation recommended access plan, including 7 access points, modifications and any mitigation techniques YES NO N/A (5) Additional Analysis Criteria t/ Appropriate clearance intervals shall be pro- vided for each exclusive movement; pedestrian movements must be provided for each cycle and pedestrian overpasses shall not be at inter-. sections; maximum pedestrian walking speeds shall be four feet per second with a minimum "WALK" time of seven seconds; intersection pavement widths shall not exceed that required to provide three through lanes. in each direc- tion, dual left-turn lanes and right-turn lanes. Traffic progression will be of paramount importance; consequently, all potential inter- sections with signals will be, placed on quarter mile points unless otherwise approved. by the Director of Public Service. Intersection Level of Service "C" shall be the design objective and under no conditions will less than Level of Service "D" be accepted for site operations; arterial intersections and turning operations shall operate at Level of Service "C" ; if Level of Service "E" is the result of the study, then alternatives of providing Level of Service "D" shall be analyzed and included as part of the study; generall — be: a roxi- mately years following constructio (6 ) S u mtrr -a-r n-i-n (a) the proposed access points for !�— the project, their location and the rationale for their placement in terms of circulation ( b) future off-site road improvements [� for access , which roads they will be, the projected time frame for their completion and who is respons- ible for their completion (c) ADT and level of service changes to all streets (d) how traffic impacts to existing streets will be minimized by the Planned Unit Development --7 (e) describe bicycle and pedestrian pathways within the development, if used 8 - 4 - YES NO N/A J . Additional Studies and Plans The Planning and Zoning Board or City Commission may require additional impact studies or other plans as it is deemed necessary for providing thorough . consideration of the proposed Planned Unit Development; particularly if the development's compliance with the Community Design Objectives and Criteria is under question; 4. REPRODUCIBLE COPY REQUIREMENTS In addition to the above document, Site Plan and Supplemental Plan requirements the applicant shall submit the following for review purposes: / A. One full size rolled (not folded) mylar of all plans and renderings; B. One 8 1/2" X 11 " clear film reduction of (/ all plans and renderings for reproduction and overhead projector use. * Reference to 18. 54 .060 "Preliminary Plan Submittal Requirements" of the Bozeman Interim Zoning. Ordinance ( 7/02/90) . 9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST File No. Applicant: Subject Property Address: This checklist shall be completed and returned as part of the submittal . Any ' item checked "NO" or "N/A" (not applicable) must be explained in a narrative attached to the checklist. Incomplete submittals will be returned to the applicant. Fifteen copies of the site plan drawn to scale on paper not larger than 24"x36" which contain the following: A. GENERAL INFORMATION YES NO N/A 1 . Name of project/development 2 . Location of project by street address 3. Location (vicinity) map, including area within 112 mile of site 4. Name and mailing address of develop' pe%owner �L 5 . Name and address of engineer/architect, / landscape architect or nurseryman y 6 . Date of plan preparation and changes 7 . North point indicator - i 8. Scale of 1 " to 20 ' , not less than 1 " to 100' 9. List of names and addresses of property :. owners within 200 ' of site, using last declared Gallatin County tax records 10 . Stamped , unsealed plain legal-size ;i envelopes addressed with names and addresses of property owners described in #9 11 . Zoning classification within 200 ' 12 . Phases of development, if appropriate l/ B. SITE PLAN INFORMATION 1 . Boundary line of property with dimensions iand setback lines of front, rear and side 2 . Location , identification and dimension of ` the following existand ro osed data, to a boundaryof 1b0 et outside of site pIan boundary un stated otherwise : a. topo contours at a minimum interval of two feet b. adjacent stye streets r/w to a distance o 150 feet, except for sites adjacent to erial streets where the distance shall be 200 feet c. on-site streets and rights-of-way i d . ingress and egress points 1G e. traffic flow on-site and off-site 1� f. utilities and utility rights-of-way and/or easements ( 1 ) electric, natural gas, telephone :i cable television (2 ) water, sewer ( sanitary, treated effluent and storm) • _� g. buildings and structures h. parking facilities, including ike rack I/ i . water bodies and wetlands j . streams and irrigation ditches f/ k. grading and drainage plan, including , '! sufficient spot elevations, storm water detention areas areas and storm water discharge destination. Detailed basin sizing inlet/ outlet details and discharge calcs will be be required prior to final site plan approval i6944i.f-icant rock outcroppings M. sidewalks�lkways , driveways , loading areas an _qo �ks, bikeways c� ,,n__—fialyd f capped accessibility provisions o. fences and walls y� p. exterior refuse collection area and enclosure detail q. laration of exterior lighting , including eta r. or' and height plan S. snow removal area t. exterior sign design , including height, size, materials i 1pmination, security thereof .u. landscaping including plantings, equipment, botanical and common names , size of plantings at time of planting and at maturity , type of irrigation Detailed information regarding parking , screening and landscape requirements available in Chapter 18. 52 of the Zone Code. All landscape plans shall be prepared and certified by a licensed landscape architect or Montana nurseryman for uses requiring more than fifteen ( 15 ) parking spaces. 3. Number and size of employee and non-employee off-street parking and loading spaces, existing and proposed 4. Site statistics including - - site square footage - percent of site coverage ( building and parking) - net dwelling unit density _lam - percent. of park or open space A� 5 . A reproducible copy of the site plan with appropriate signatures (when required) C. BUILDING INFORMATION (ON-SITE) 1 . Building elevations of - all exterior walls of all structures 2 . Materials to be used 3 . Height of elevation of lowest floor and location of lot outfall when structure is proposed to be located in a floodway / or floodplain area F/ D. PERMITS 1 . A list of all required and applicable permits and status of applications E. REVIEW FEES 1 . Conditional Use Permit - $220. 00 2 . Conditional Use Permit within Entryway, Historic Preservation I or Conservation Overlay District - $260. 00 NOTE: The review of signs in conjunction with this application is only review for compliance with the Bozeman Sign Code. ' A Sign Permit must be obtained from the City Building Department prior to erection of any and all signs. i i . 1 . ALL DEVELOPMENT All land uses within a proposed planned unit development shall be reviewed against, and comply with, the applicable objectives and criteria of the mandatory "All Development" group. RwBq u i rod C r i toB c I ja Yes No NA Neighborhood Compatibility 1 . Is the development compatible with, and sensitive to the immediate environeent of the site and the adjacent neighborhoods relative to architectural design, building bulk and height, neighborhood identity, landscaping, historical character, orientation of buildings on the site and visual integration? 2. Is the project designed so that additional traffic generation beyond what may be approved for permitted uses does not have a significant adverse impact on adjacent and surrounding development? 3. Have the guidelines outlined in Chapter 18.51, Development Review Committee, C been followed concerning identification and discussion of impacts related tc the proposed development? 4. Is the development in accordance with the adopted elements of the Bozeman Area blaster Plan and its accompanying goals, objectives and policies? Public Facilities, Services and Transportation 5 . Does the development comply with all City design standards, requirements and specifications for the following services: Water Supply Trails/Valks/Bikeways Sanitary Supply Irrigation Companies Fire Protection Electricity Flood Hazard Areas Natural Gas Telephone Storm Drainage Cable Television Streets 6. Will the sewage generated by the development not exceed the sanitary sewer system' line and treatment capacity? 7 . Will an adequate water supply exist to serve the develcpment? 8. Will an adequate electrical power supply exist to serve the development? 9. Will the City Transportation Plan be capable of handling the development's traffic generation? 1 0.Does the development provide adequate access for emergency service? 7 A L L D E V E LO P M E N-r R®q u 1 rod C r 1 to r i m = Yes No NA 11 .Are all vehicular use areas and exterior building areas provided with adequ- ate security lighting? I Natural Resources . I 1 2.Have precautions been taken to minimize hazards to life or property due to irrigation canals, stream channels or other water bodies? 13.Have known areas of natural or geological hazard (e.g., unstable or potenti- ally unstable slopes, faulting, landslides, rockfalls, flood, and wildfire, etc.) or soil conditions unfavorable to urban development had special engineering precautions taken to overcome natural constraints or have these areas been set aside from development? 1 4.Does the project preserve or replace existing natural vegetation? 1 5.Have special precautions been taken to preserve existing wildlife habitats, natural wildlife food services, or existing places, or are these areas being preserved? 16.If the proposed project is located within a locally-designated Historical District or includes a locally-designated landmark structure, is the pro- ject in conformance with the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance? 17 .If the development is proposed on existing agricultural land or open space, does it meet Master Plan cbjectives for clustering development? Environmental Standards 1 8.hill the project conform to applicable local, state and federal air quality standards, including, but not limited to: odor; dust; fumes or gases which are noxious, toxic or corrosive; suspended solid or liquid particles; or any air contaminant which may obscure an observer's vision or impair breathing? 19.hill the project conform to applicable local, state and federal water quality standards, including, but not limited to: erosion and sedimentation; runoff control; discharge of solid wastes; and discharge of hazardous substances? 2 0.Can the proposed land uses and activities be conducted so that noise gene- rated shall not exceed the minimum performance levies as specified in the City's noise control ordinance Section 18.50 of the Zoning Code? Detailed plans for the elimination of objectionable noises are required before the issuance of a building permit. 2 1 .If the proposed activity produces glare or heat, whether Direct or refie:ted, is the operation conducted within an enclosed building or with other effect- ive screening in such a sinner as to make such glare or heat completely imperceptible from any point along the property line? Detailed plans for the elimination of glare or heat are required before issuance of a bldg. permit. � : . I ALL DEVELOPMENT i -R®q u l red C r i teak v i a : Yes No NA 2 2.hill the project cause an inherent or recurring generated vibration percep- tible without instruments at any point along the property line? Temporary construction may be excluded from this criterion. i 21.1s the exterior lighting, except for warning, emergency or traffic signals, installed in such a mariner that the light source is obscured to prevent j excessive glare on public streets and walkways or into any residential area? The installation or erection of any lighting which may be confused with warning signals, emergency signals or traffic signals shall not be permitted. 24 .I1ill all sewage and industrial wastes be treated and disposed of in such a manner as to comply with applicable local, state and federal standards? Detailed plans for waste disposal are required before issuance of a build- ing permit. Site Design 25.Are the elements of the site plan (e.g. buildings, circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) arranged on the C site so that activities are inte- grated with the organizational scheme of the community and neighborhood? 26.Are the elements of the site plan (e.g. buildings, circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) designed and arranged to produce an efficient, functionally organized, and cohesive planned unit development? 2 7 .Is the design and arrangement of elements of the site plan (e.g., buildings circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) in harmony with the exist- ing natural topography; natural water bodies and water courses; existing vegetation; and 2 8.Does tie design and arrangement of elements of the site plan (e.g., building construction, orientation, and placement; transportation networks; selec- tion and placement of landscape materials; and/or use of renewable energy sources, etc.) contribute to the overall reduction of energy use by the project? 2 9.Are the elements of the site plan (e.g. buildings, circulation, open space and landscaping, etc,) designed and arranged to maximize the privacy by the residents of the project? 30.Does the design and arrangement of buildings and open space areas contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of the site configuration, and is at least thirty (30) percent of the project, exclusive of yard setbacks and parking lot interior landscape, developed as open space? 31 .Does the street and parking system provide for the smooth, safe and conven- ient m -;.ement of vehicles both on and off the site? _-.__..--------__.__.------- —_......._�._.._._.....,...,.....,�....—...--_.�.�.........-._..—,.................._........,..,.,�....--,v-,.....,..�..�..,°.,.,..,.,..;.,�•ren,.�.,,..,.--man-.rv.n,-w.+..�..+r..-aA.�.,.M'�oK�.E�!t.�A I AUU DEVELOPMENT Raq u i r-ebd C r-i to r-1 8 : .Yes No NA 3 2.Does the development satisfy the parking capacity requirements of the City and provide adequate space suited to the loading and unloading of persons, materials and goods? 3 3.Is the active recreational area suitably located and accessible to the resi- dential units it is intended to serve and is adequate screening provided to ensure privacy and quiet for neighboring residential uses? 34.Is the pedestrian circulation system designed to assure that pedestrians can move safely and easily both within the site and between properties and activities within the neighborhood area? 3 5.Is the development being properly integrated into development and circulation patterns of adjacent and nearby neighborhoods so that this development will not become in isolated 'pad' to adjoining development? 3 6 .Does the pedestrian circulation system incorporate design features to enhance convenience, safety and amenity across parking lots and streets, including, but not limited to, paving patterns, grade differences, landscaping and lighting? 3 7 .Does the pedestrian and bicycle trail system adequately connect to the systems in adjacent developments? 3 8.Does the landscape plan enhance the appearance of vehicular use, open space and pedestrian areas which contribute to their usage and visual appear- ance? 39 .Does the landscaping plan enhance the building(s)? 4 0.Does the landscape plan screen utility Dozes, parking areas, loading areas, trash containers, outside storage areas, blank walls or fences and other areas of low visual interest from roadways, pedestrian areas and public view? 41 .If the development is adjacent to an existing or approved public park or public open space area, his provisions been made in the site plan to avoid interfering with public access to that area? 4 2.hill all signs in the project be in compliance with the provisions of the Bozeman Sign Code? I 2 RESIDENTIAL App 1 i cst i on : Planned unit developments in residential areas may include a variety of housing types, designed ' to enhance the natural environment, conserve energy, . recognize and, to the extent possible, preserve and promote the unique character of neighborhoods with provisions for a mix of limited commercial development. Commercial development must be sited and designed such that the activities present will not detrimentally affect the adjacent residential neighborhood. R®q u l r®d C rite a'-l m : Yes No NA Each of the following applicable criteria must be answered 'yes' and implement- ed within the development plan. 1. On a gross acreage basis, is the average density in the project at least three (3) dwelling units Der acre (calculated for residential portion of the site only), or at least (1) dwelling unit per acre where septic tanks are to be used? 2. Does the residential project provide for private outdoor areas (e:g., pri- vate yards, patios, and balconies, etc,) for use by the residents of the project which are sufficient in site and have adequate light, sun, ventila- tion, orivacy and convenient access to the household unit they are intended to serve? 3 . Does the residential project provide for outdoor areas for use by the resi- dents as recreational, active or passive, activities? 4. Does the residential project encourage the juxtaposition or mix of uses? 5. Is the residential project within 2000 feet of an existing or approved neighborhood service center, public school, child care center, major employ- center, or public neighborhood or community park? - 6. Is the residential project within 4000 feet of an existing or approved community/regional shopping center? 7 . Is the residential project within 650 of an existing collector or arterial street? 8. If the residential project is proposing a density bonus above the density that is allowed, does the proposed project exceed the established design, standards for the development and ensure compatibility with adjacent neigh- borhood development? 9. If offices or commercial development are proposed within the residential ' project is less than twenty 120) percent of the P.U.D. designated to be used for offices or commercial activities? 2 , RESY �EiPDTYAL. R®cl u 1 r-oBd C r-1 t®r-1 a = Yes No NA 10.If commercial development is proposed within the residential project is less that fifty (50) percent of the market required to support the commercial uses proposed located outside the P.U.D, and are of a service that does not require drive-in facilities or justification for through traffic. 1 1 .If the project contains commercial development is the project located at the intersections of arterial streets, or arterial and collector streets? 12 .If the project contains commercial development has the project been sited and designed such that the activities present will not detrimentally affect the adjacent residential neighborhood and has it been developed at a scale compatible with residential development? _.....,..........�....�-,-.-.--.�._...� -..�.....,...................�.�-.-.,..... .-....�..... ..+e.. _ - r..e.._mr:r.-..-.-:.ivn�—.. .a,a.s.n•ro!.mee-ac-v+•.r-..-a-!-,.--+.;�m+isn�:. i City of Bozeman 03363 Receipt p $ �� Bozergan, Montana 19 _ Received of i " -S the sum of mI ars form r ( /v /p il\ r 0 6 /c By Z- 9a3a i ,, BOZEMAN C I T Y—COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE CARNEGIE BUILDING - 35 NORTH BOZEMAN P. 0. BOX 640, BOZEMAN , MONTANA 59715 (406 ) 586-3321 , EXT. 227 ( FAX #587-7785 ) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION ----------------------------------------------------------------- Certain uses , while generall-y not suitable in a particular Zoni.ng District, may, under certain circumstances, be acceptable. When such circumstances exist, a Conditional Use Permit may be granted subject to certain conditions. The permit is granted for a particular use and not for a particular person or firm. No Conditional Use Permit shall be granted for a use which is not specifically designated as a conditional use in the Zone Code. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1 . Name and address of property owner: Eugene Graf III 4510 Conestoga Circle, Bozeman, MT 59715 Phone: 581-7950 2 . Name and address of applicant: The Overbrook Partnership 4510 Conestoga Circle, Bozeman, MT 59715 Phone: 581-7950 3 . Name and address of Engineer/Architect/Planner: Dan Kamp, Cikan Architects, P.C. , 544 E. Mendenhall Phone: 586-3624 4. Name of project/development: Overbrook at Westridge 5 . Address of proposed development: Fryslie Street, Bozeman, MT Amended Plat of Block 9, Figgins Addition, First Phase 6 . Legal description: A tract of land lgcated in the F; NEB' Section ?4, T7.5, RSE, P,M.M. , Gallatin County, Montana. 7 . Current Zoning R-2 Land Area 203425 sq. ft. 4.67 acres 8. Describe the proposed development (use additional sheets if necessary: A Planned Unit Development of 34., 1200 square foot condominiums as described in attached submittal. 9 . Review Fee: $220. 00 (add $40 if property is within Historic Preservation , Conservation, or Entryway Overlay District, and complete and submit appropriate form) . This application must be accompanied by appropriate fee and 15 copies of a completed site plan (see submittal requirements) drawn to scale on paper not larger than 24"x36" . Application deadline is 5 : 00 p.m. every Tuesday . This application must be signed by both the applicant and property owner ( if different) before . the submittal will be accepted. I (We) here ertify that the above for on is true and co t e best of (our) knowl 301-' cant's ature Pro ty Owner' Signature RECEIVED BY BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE DATE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST File No. Applicant: THE OVERBROOK PARTNERSHIP Subject Property Address : Fryslie Street, Bozeman, MT This checklist shall be completed and returned as part of the submittal . Any item checked "NO" or "N/A" (not applicable) must be explained in a narrative attached to the checklist. Incomplete submittals will be returned to the applicant. Fifteen copies of the site plan drawn to scale on paper not larger than 24"x36" which contain the following : A. GENERAL INFORMATION YES NO N/A 1 . Name of project/development 2 . Location of project by street address 3 . Location (vicinity) map, including area within 1 /2 mile of site ✓ 4. Name and mailing address of developer/owner V 5 . Name and address of engineer/architect, landscape architect or nurseryman 6 . Date of plan preparation and changes ✓ 7 . North point indicator ✓ 8. Scale of 1 " to 20 ' , not less than 1 " to 100' ✓ 9. List of names and addresses of property owners within 200 ' of site, using last ✓ declared Gallatin County tax records 10. Stamped , unsealed plain legal-size envelopes addressed with names and addresses of property owners described in #9 11 . Zoning classification within 200 ' 12 . Phases of development, if appropriate ✓ B. SITE PLAN INFORMATION 1 . Boundary line of property with dimensions / and setback lines of front, rear and side 2 . Location, identification and dimension of the following existing and proposed data, to a boundary of 100 feet outside of site plan boundary unless stated otherwise: a. topo contours at a minimum interval of two feet ✓ b. adjacent streets and streets r/w to a distance of 150 feet, except for sites adjacent to major arterial streets where the distance shall be 200 feet C. on-site streets and rights-of-way _V_ d. ingress and egress points e. traffic flow on-site and off-site f. utilities and utility rights-of-way and/or easements ( 1 ) electric, natural gas, telephone ✓ i cable television (2 ) water , sewer (sanitary, treated effluent and storm) g. buildings and structures h. parking facilities, including bike racks i . water bodies and wetlands j . streams and irrigation ditches k. grading and drainage plan, including sufficient spot elevations, storm water detention areas and storm water discharge destination . Detailed basin sizing inlet/ outlet details and discharge calcs will be be required prior to final site plan approval 1 . significant rock outcroppings M. sidewalks, walkways, driveways , loading areas and docks , bikeways n . handicapped accessibility provisions o. fences and walls Y � p. exterior refuse collection area and enclosure detail // q . location of exterior lighting, including detail and height r. floor plan S. snow removal area t. exterior sign design , including height, size, materials, illumination, security thereof 19 U . landscaping including plantings, equipment, botanical and common names, size of plantings at time of planting and at maturity , type of irrigation Detailed information regarding parking, screening and landscape requirements available in Chapter 18. 52 of the Zone Code . All landscape plans shall be prepared and certified by a licensed landscape architect or Montana nurseryman for uses requiring more than fifteen ( 15) parking spaces. 3. Number and size of employee and non-employee off-street parking and loading spaces, / existing and proposed V 4. Site statistics including - - site square footage - percent of site coverage ( building and parking) \ - net dwelling unit density - percent of park or open space 4Z 5 . A reproducible copy of the site plan with appropriate signatures (when required ) C. BUILDING INFORMATION (ON-SITE) 1 . Building elevations of all exterior walls ✓ of all structures 2 . Materials to be used 3 . Height of elevation of lowest floor and location of lot outfall when structure is proposed to be located in a floodway or floodplain area D. PERMITS 1 . A list of all required and applicable permits and status of applications E. REVIEW FEES 1 . Conditional Use Permit - $220. 00 2 . Conditional Use Permit within Entryway, Historic Preservation or Conservation Overlay District - $260.00, NOTE: The review of signs in conjunction with this application is only review for compliance with the Bozeman Sign Code. A Sign Permit must be obtained from the City Building Department prior to erection of any and all signs. I It .............. ...... IMF ixy OW. ........... i"A • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Pages: INTENT OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 3 - 5 ' APPLICATION FORMS 6- 8 PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ' BACKGROUND AND EXISTING INFORMATION 9 Ownership ' Legal Description Gross Acreage Nature of Interest in Development of Site Ownership Interests F.A.R.s, Building Locations, etc. i ' Existing Land Uses 10 Land Uses within 1/4 Mile ' Vicinity Map Cover Land Use Map 11 Zoning Map 12 ' Topography 13 Hydrology Area Drainage Ma 14 g P ' View of Existing Stream from 15 Southwest of Property Views of Existing Trail 16 tIrrigation Ditch on North Boundary 17 Vegetation 18 Viewsheds Development Constraints Map 19 • • 1 11 1 1 1 1 ' I ' 1 '' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r � r ' Traffic Descriptions 20 Existing Recreation and Trails Historic Resources Development Constraints 1 Adjacent Property Owners Report 21-24 ' PLANNING OBJECTIVES 25-29 rOpen Space, Recreation and Buffer Area Map 30 COMMUNITY DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA 31-35 rASSESSMENT BY ENGINEER PHYSIOGRAPHIC DATA 36-40 Soils Hydrology rTRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 41-44 Street Cross Sections DRAINAGE PLAN 45-47 rExisting Water and Sewer Services Maps 48-49 rSITE PLANS (SEPARATE SHEETS) P.U.D. Site Plan Elevations rFloor Plans 1 1 1 i r r • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE A Planned Unit Development ' PROLOGUE ' Overbrook Partnership, a Development Group consisting of Eugene Graf III, Tim Dean Construction, and Charlie DiMarco, in conjunction with Dan Kamp of Cikan Architects, are proposing a residential P.U.D. in the area ' on the North boundary of the existing Figgins Subdivision. The land is currently platted for eleven single family residences, but the platted subdivision does not properly address the current housing needs or the ttopography of the site and the stream which exists on the property. It is the desire of the Overbrook Partnership to construct a residential planned unit development that clearly addresses the relationship of the property to the ' Figgins Addition and at the same time address the relationship to the stream on site, the views of and from the site, as well as the relationship of the property to nearby businesses and institutions such as Museum of the tRockies, Montana State University, and Video Lottery Consultants. ' INTENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT Described below is the intent of the development as reviewed in relation to the community design objectives of the Bozeman Zoning Ordinance and the Bozeman area Master Plan. A) To develop a residential planned unit development in accordance with the goals, elements, objectives, and policies of the City of Bozeman's and Gallatin County's adopted Master Plan. As shown in a later section of this document, the Development is an excellent example of the application of the Bozeman Area Master Plan and the performance standards of the Bozeman Zone Code. B) This innovative development incorporates a number of key factors which further the concepts and intentions of the Bozeman Area Master Plan. ' It's physical location in relation to the aforementioned employment opportunities, public facilities, and recreation areas create a project that lends itself to less vehicular traffic and more bicycling and walking. The ' incorporation of the trail system not only allows the residents of the development to utilize the existing trails used by joggers, walkers and bicyclists, but also is coordinated with the proposed extensions of the 1 • • � 1' 1 1 1 1 1 1 I � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 ' Galligator Trail. Negotiations are underway for that trails linkage to the new school. Also critical to the concept of the development is the emphasis on ' affordability while at the same time providing more amenities than normally associated with "affordable housing". ' C) The project promotes the safe, efficient and economic use of land and transportation and other public facilities. By developing a property which is already well within the developed portion of the city, the project not only ' utilizes existing city services, but through the location and density of the project allows minimum impact on traffic due to the target market, location, and nearby potential for employment and recreation. ' D) This project focuses heavily on open space and trail access, which allows accessibility to adjacent amenities -- not only' for the residents but also for the residents of nearby single family developments. Adequate provision of sewer, water and electricity is provided through its adjacency to existing City services. ' E) It is the intent of this development to not only fully address adequate drainage and reduction of flood damage, but to improve upon existing tproblems which have been occured from previous developments. Most notably, the storm sewer from Figgins Addition empties directly onto the property with no regard to discharge, silting, and retention of oils and ' associated problems that come from this storm sewer. It is the intent of this development to address those concerns through careful planning of the retention pond shown on the plat, and the proper development of an ' otherwise undefined stream through close negotiations with the State Department of Fish, Parks and Wildlife, and the Soil Conservation Service through the 310 permitting process. F) The project encourages a decrease in automobile traffic and trip ' consolidation through its location near to employment, schools, and the University. These factors combined with the targeted market of the development will encourage a medium density project that will have much ' less traffic than most projects of this density. G) This project promotes the use of walking and bicycles as an effective ' mode of transportation again through it's location and also through the development of an extensive trail system along the southeast and northwest boundaries of the property, connecting it with the aforementioned amenities ' and facilities. H) The project reduces energy consumption as addressed in ' aforementioned items F and G, as well as a reduction of utilities such as electricity and gas through it's energy efficient construction and design. • • 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I) While many projects attempt to minimize the adverse environmental impacts of development, this project actually has a positive environmental ' impact in that it is mitigating a situation which is degrading the environmental elements of the site and affecting the downstream environment by its mitigation of the storm sewer problem on the site. Also, ' some minor rerouting of the stream and development of the stream has been encouraged by the Fish, Parks and Wildlife service to develop the stream into a more appropriate configuration that encourages the desired effects to ' Fisheries and Wildlife. J) It is the intent of the development to provide a design quality and I character that is highly compatible with the adjacent single family development, which have addressed elements not normally seen in a project of this nature. The orientation of the open space to an existing development ' not only adds a very positive element to the development but also to the neighbors of the development and to those passersby seeing the development from Westridge Drive. The design of the individual units is such that the ' appearance is not of a multi-family condominium building, but through use of varied roof lines and off-sets provides a form that appears to be large single family residences or duplex units. K) The intent of the development was to develop a vacant property within a developed area. By redesigning an existing platted subdivision, the ' project not only satisfies the objective of development within developed areas, but also improves greatly upon a situation that could have been ' developed in a very negative manner. L) It has been the intent of this project to mitigate what are normally seen ' as negative or harmful encroachments on existing neighborhoods. Through the positioning of the open space, the development of the stream, the extensive landscaping, and the development of the trail system, this project not only mitigates those problems which might normally occur, but actually enhances the adjacent existing neighborhoods by helping to develop these amenities. This project was designed as a project that will mutually benefit ' the developer, the neighborhood and the community as a whole. This is achieved through the aforementioned items and as listed in a later section of this document addressing this projects relationship to the goals and objectives ' of the Bozeman Area Master Plan. 1 • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' BOZEMAN C I T Y—COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE ' CARNEGIE BUILDING - 35 NORTH BOZEMAN P. 0. BOX 640 , BOZEMAN , MONTANA 59715 (406 ) 586-3321 , EXT . 227 ( FAX #587-7785 ) ' CONDITIONAL U S E PERMIT APPLICATION ----------------------------------------------------------------- ' Certain uses , while generally not suitable in a particular Zoni.ng District, may , under certain circumstances , be acceptable . When such circumstances exist, a Conditional Use Permit may be granted ' subject to certain conditions. The permit is granted for a particular use and not for a particular person or firm. No Conditional Use Permit shall be granted for a use which is not ' specifically designated as a conditional use in the Zone Code. ---------------------------------------------I-------------------- 1 . Name and address of property owner: Eugene Craf III ' 4510 Conestoga Circle, Bozeman, MT 59715 Phone : 581-7950 ' 2 . Name and address of applicant: The Overbrook Partnership 45.10 Cones-toga Circle, Bozeman, MT 59715 Phone : 581-7950 ' 3 . Name and address of Engineer/Architect/Planner: Dan Kamp, Cikan Architects, P.C. , 544 E. Mendenhall Phone: 586-3624 t4. Name of project/development: Overbrook at Westridge 5 . Address of proposed development: Fryslie Street, Bozeman, MT ' Amended Plat of Block 9, Figgins Addition, First Phase 6 . Legal description: A trac.t of land beat _d in the E, NE'-,,, Section ?4, T25, RSEP P,M,M, , Gallatin County Montana, t7 . Current Zoning R-2 Land Area 203425 sq. ft. 4.67 acres 8. Describe the proposed development (use additional sheets if ' necessary: A Planned Unit Development of 34, 1200 square foot condominiums as ' described in attached submittal. ' 9 . Review Fee : $220. 00 (add $40 if property is within Historic Preservation , Conservation , or Entryway Overlay District, and ' complete and submit appropriate form) . This application must be accompanied by appropriate fee and 15 copies of a completed site plan ( see submittal requirements) drawn ' to scale on paper not larger than 24"x36" . Application deadline is 5: 00 p.m. every Tuesday . This application must be signed by both the applicant and property owner ( if different) before . the submittal will be accepted . I (We ) hereby certify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my (our ) knowledge. Applicant ' s Signature Property Owner 's Signature 1 • � � _ � 1 1 1 I � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I • ' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST ' File No. Applicant: THE OVERBROOK PARTNERSHIP ' Subject Property Address: Fryslie Street, Bozeman, MT This checklist shall be completed and returned as part of the ' submittal . Any item checked "NO" or "N/A" (not applicable ) must be explained in a narrative attached to the checklist. Incomplete submittals will be returned to the applicant. Fifteen copies of ' the site plan drawn to scale on paper not larger than 24"x36" which contain the following : ' A. GENERAL INFORMATION YES NO N/A 1 . Name of project/development 2 . Location of project by street address ' 3 . Location (vicinity ) map , including area within 1/2 mile of site ✓ 4 . Name and mailing address of developer/owner V ' 5 . Name and address of engineer/architect, landscape architect or nurseryman 6 . Date of plan preparation and changes ✓ ' 7 . North point indicator a/ 8. Scale of 1 " to 20 ' , not less than 1 " to 100 ' ✓ 9 . List of names and addresses of property owners within 200 ' of site, using last ✓ ' declared Gallatin County tax .records 10. Stamped, unsealed plain legal-size envelopes addressed with names and addresses ' of property owners described in #9 11 . Zoning classification within 200' 12 . Phases of development, if appropriate ✓ ' B. SITE PLAN INFORMATION 1 . Boundary' line of property with dimensions /and setback lines of front, rear and side V 2 . Location, identification and dimension of the following existing and proposed data, ' to a boundary of 100 feet outside of site plan boundary unless stated otherwise: a. topo contours at a minimum interval of two feet ✓ ' b. adjacent streets and streets r/w to a distance of 150 feet, except for sites adjacent to major arterial streets where ' the distance shall be 200 feet ✓ c . on-site streets and rights-of-way d . ingress and egress points ' e. traffic flow on-site and off-site f. utilities and utility rights-of-way and/or easements ( 1 ) electric, natural gas , telephone' ✓cable television (2 ) water , sewer (sanitary ,. treated effluent and storm) g . buildings and structures h. parking facilities , including bike racks i . water bodies and wetlands j . streams and irrigation ditches k. grading and drainage plan, including sufficient spot elevations, storm water detention areas and storm water discharge destination . Detailed basin sizing inlet/ outlet details and discharge calcs will be be required prior to final site plan approval �. 1 . significant rock outcroppings M. sidewalks, walkways, driveways, loading ✓ areas and docks , bikeways n . handicapped accessibility provisions o. fences and walls • • 1 1 i II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 0 ' p. exterior refuse collection area and enclosure detail .� ' q . location of exterior lighting, including detail and height r . floor plan ' S. snow removal area t. exterior sign design , including height, size, materials, illumination, security thereof ic4('Uv1 t U . landscaping including plantings , equipment, botanical and common names, size of plantings at time of planting ' and at maturity , type of irrigation Detailed information regarding parking, screening and landscape ' requirements available in Chapter 18. 52 of the Zone Code. All landscape plans shall be prepared and certified by a licensed landscape architect or Montana nurseryman for uses requiring more than fifteen ( 15 ) parking spaces.. t3. Number and size of employee and non-employee off-street parking and loading spaces , existing and proposed V 4. Site statistics including - - site square footage ' - percent of site coverage ( building and parking ) - net dwelling unit density _ t - percent of park or open space 5 . A reproducible copy of the site plan with appropriate signatures (when required ) C. BUILDING INFORMATION (ON-SITE ' 1 . Building elevations of all exterior walls ✓ of all . structures 2 . Materials to be used ' 3 . Height of elevation of lowest floor and location of lot outfall when structure is proposed to be located in a floodway ' or floodplain area D. PERMITS 1 . A list of all required and applicable permits and status of applications ' E. REVIEW FEES 1 . Conditional Use Permit - $220.00 ' 2. Conditional Use Permit within Entryway, Historic Preservation or Conservation Overlay District - $260.00, NOTE: The review of signs in conjunction with this application is only review for compliance with the Bozeman Sign Code. A Sign Permit must be obtained from the City. Building Department prior to erection of any and. all signs. • i • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 BACKGROUND AND EXISTING INFORMATION Owners: ' Eugene Graf III, Tim Dean Construction, and Charlie DiMarco Legal Description, ' Amended Plat of Block 9, Figgins Addition, First Phase, a tract of land located in the E1/2NE1/4, Section 24, T25, RSE, P.M.M., Gallatin ' County, Montana. Gross Acreage: 4.67 acres ' Nature of Interest in Development of the Property: To provide affordable housing in a location that is central to ' employment, education, recreation facilities, and other services while at the same time developing the natural features of the site in a ' manner consistent with the objectives of the community of Bozeman. Ownership Interests: ' Easements to the City of Bozeman for water and sewer along the Southwest boundary, and various utility easements for power. ' Floor Area Ratios, Building Locations, etc. ' The positioning of the structures on the site was patterned around the proposed open space for two reasons. 1) To give the units within the development orientation towards the open space and also towards ' views off of the site. The proportionately large open space proposed for the site keeps the densities relatively low as well as the floor to area ratios. The useable open space consists of 1.3 acres, or 27.8% of the site. ' The perimeter landscape areas constitute .89 acres of the site or 19.1%. The active recreation area, consisting of trails and special buffering landscaping, consist of 3/10ths of an acre or 6.5% of the site. This brings the total landscaped areas to 2.49 acres or 53.4% of the site. The total building coverage is .69 acres, constituting 14.7% of the site while the street and driveways constitute 1.49 acres or 31.9% of the site. The total 1 � • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 number of units is 34. These typical units are 1200 square feet plus h'p q garages and storage area. This creates a floor to area ratio of .2004 and ' gives a density units per acre of 7.28 DUA. The maximum building height is consistent with the adjacent zoning and land uses at 24' except for the properties to the West and Northwest with land uses of ' business park and public lands which allow considerably higher building heights. The total parking spaces provided on the site total 100. 32 visitor off-street parking spaces, 34 parking spaces within the ' single car garages, and 34 driveway parking spaces bringing the total to substantially more than the 76.5 required by the Zone Code. ' Existing Land Used The property is currently zoned R2 and has no current use other than ' the occasional crop of grass hay which is sometimes taken from the property. The Master Plan designation for the site is Urban Residential Infill. This project is ideally suited for that particular Master Plan ' designation. Land Uses Within 114 Mile: The property to the North and on the Northeast Corner are currently ' not in the city limits and have a zoning designation of agricultural suburban. However the Master Plan appears to designate these lands as Urban Residential Infill. The property to the South, Southeast and ' Southwest are all zoned R2 and constitute those properties within the Figgins Addition, a single family development with a density of approximately five units per acre. The property to the West is zoned ' Business Park while the property to the Northwest is public lands and open space while the Master Plan designation for these areas to the West and Northwest are listed as Business Park/Industrial. 1 • • � 1 I � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Eand Map 1 P&Iie Lands / Open Space 5. Urban Residential 3. Rural Residential •. Suburban • Business Park Industrial 4 • OP 1' 1 � i J � � I i J nip , ,.w.us errs��zl's AM � ■'"�i1�r i�i ••n• • • 1 1 i 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1- r� Zoning 1 - _ -, JR. . GRAN TR _ iJ LINCOLN . � -LEI•'' v 7 1 I = I MASON STREET _ rf W.S U Sy I ' —{ FILL,-, MOUSE = f`OVL r (- W v P{ y Q F c p J� - O u ROFFMANin kll KAGY BOULEL 1 / REND K SALES 1 4 t STADIUM ' cl t I' ,MUSEUM OF THE I '4 ROOKIES .a Z HILLp cr AS +: a o. w --- � a r ° r e rsv w z_ p —�VESTRIDGE• tle v 1 r u r ' , t _2 w SO UT a � wE STR. H _ PARK W � JARR.'T SP w ra.. W - ' I ARN STREET+ FL 4 r ' !T O T W EAST GfiAF Y W 0 ' I 1 }.I R -2 I— w > > a a PART _ 7I _ � ' I — Ar a O N J W Y O > aJ U q l C J f:r • E'f!.F S T"t E, 1•"'•. i. i • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Topography- ' The topography of the site is such that the property slopes in both directions to the central drainage area which currently has the rough makings of a stream. There is one particular area that appears to be a ' small spring which, when combined with the drainage from the Figgins Addition by way of their storm sewer emptying under the site, and some water coming from the culvert that comes from the West ' side of Figgins Addition, there is a limited amount of water flow through the site. On the West boundary of the property is the abandoned railroad right-of-way, which the developers have chosen to ' develop into a trail system. It is the intent of the developer to develop the site in a way that compliments the existing topography and enhances the natural elements of the site. Hydrology: ' Although we find no records of wells within 400' of the property, it would seem logical that there is a well associated with the barn and residence to the Northeast. Obviously at the drainage portion of the ' property, there is groundwater in abundance. All structures on the property will be constructed with crawl-spaces, and will be elevated above the existing flood plain and the site contoured to enhance the ' stream and mitigate any moisture problems as they relate to the structures themselves. All surface drainage of the proposed development will be detained on site for removal of sediment before ' being allowed to become part of the drainage system on the site. In addition, the extensive run-off from the Figgins storm sewer system on to the site will be contained within a pond to allow the removal of ' sediments before they can enter into the stream. -� • • 1 1 � , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 To P t�ta2 S C I I T H �ge ��� E�T ' .64XTER DITCH R. 5- EAST MIDDLE CREEK 4o!/er CreekMAYNARD-BORDER DITCH LONER ::---\Boxfer Creek (FARMERS LANAL) SUPPLY DITCH < M,cDono/d or EARNERS CANAL BECK-BORDER DITCH SPRING DITCH Ny/ie Creek �N.F.R.R. /—SLOUGH DITCH (FARN•ERS CANAL) � (N.c NLEY) Eost Dry Creek- =,t LEGEND _ r}r -• � , 9 4{ •;jam _ - ( • � � �; , i i Q FARMERS CANAL CO. ,f HOY DITCH CO. MIDDLE CREEK DITCH CO. • A WEST GALLATIN CANAL CO. (KLEINSCHMIDT) PRIVATE IRRIGATION Middle o/ =���s.. '` ; Cr - ram`.:: L -+`• r " 7_C7OC Hvlite Creek p ��` p er` .� o . 2 C7GC • _ �.. -;11,.......1-'. � �;. �.�,v �" -�--j�'s., .�.i� �uG]DC: CIOGCBOZ£N..CN -a h3. I y DL'O�C _ " ,-.� ' z ■ I ■stU00�C MIDDLE CREEK DITCH y1v;P.ON FERRIS DITCH11 ;, -` ,- .-- '"` - ''O�--IGGC� (LATERAL) COLLETT DITCH4q'r '� �" "'. •. �'��_ i 1 _ z_ are f /' C.N.ST.P. B P.R.R. (BRANCH) Dry Creek C M.ST.P 8 P.R.R. (ERANCH) �_. - �_� ?sc LER y :n 4 HOFFMAN DITCH .4" FARMERS CANAL - - -• j D r _ . I gird Springs Creek HOFFMAN-TODD DITCH+ END OF LEVEP•ICH LATERAL (MYSTIC LAKE DITCH) MARSHALL DITCH }ao i Y MYSTIC LAKE DITCH i. /�` 3 _x • s I a _ s: I (LATERALS) • j:i MAIN OR"66" DITCH T. 2S-R.4E T.35—R.S E —r —__ — - — --— t�' ILEVERICH LATERAL KLEINSCHMIDT CANAL t I1`HOY DITCH I (MYSTIC LAKE DITCH) GOOCH-GANT DITCH - L—HANSEN DITCH MYSTIC LAKE DITCH Dry Creek 4-fiddle or MIDDLE CREEK DITCH TESELLE DITCH Hyolite Creek JOHNSON-PASHA DITCH 37 • i � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r _ �'' .-:� � r ` �rt�� �?�3 E�a ,. < ,�'""�-;,3+}4 ^, ���%`."��•.•1. � .!Q to-� t•--_.� �_ l�. ;� .?.: iY �i 3#•� �'>4 y'' �."_ �`) � Ott �,`3 \' 3 ���_- �. - Y�ka�'_�� �^�Y".�"aP,•���ky / •T� .Lc r�-e�. byy �t.1/�_. ;,F � ,-.!�'f t—w t'��a..� Y]'7•�.r�' {14 �� �Yf q't Yt� �•tet Q}� i �•��� 2J „fir 1 '.� r i� N •l- i .J� '�"�••• � ..wfti fls+�•i'S� ..w y`� � 3�,� ,,t- i y v r, .V -+,�. t•� _ �� .f#•�fP'" � t�r1X t t ��;t's". � ` �i �„r "����,.� �x ��� :cam 7y^�-s- r'"•;;�; �� � ��- r��• ��:s'��fi�_.�!!'�-��" �c��., � ��- ` sib' �x- ���t ,�r� Sr�i•`�`t'�'a'� ►sue r1S. �i ;- s.t4}', fit.- ";-,!} • • � � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r � .A.W �n.p►' n��yr 'wf'-�-w�..�..T y+S. �, ^ � � r7'" i 617'• �r l.riF r'." i+ '"tj'?Y'Y•� I �!5/�''/� yr.lye �C 1 t , x��^w w 41 F •3O f " r :.rr ��.�i,L> �1.. r�fi, F,w �'` 4 Y�gfp'e:Ji.7 >~ Ll�_ • f =�,",� .�1'�E�'�'�`"X,rc�4 '' �ti� �� �•*.fnY`r,f" �J,,`t'.��,7t,r",-..L- LI . + Q � t 'rl �• . . 3'. t}� �1,tA>E'L�«w�) .•r;,t r-,r1�;,' °J xnr� '. ! :?',►!��.!�,{, t�:. y f. �• '.�+YPrS�.'Art� tdF� n •Y.Y'•MR�I�WM�'... .. l � ..�.,wp fw,: C,r^µ. y .�"a' ��• � _'t' .>'. { �„�.!' r� l.df`��'�it�tik%v��at+�r��S gat � .w�jM� _ �! s * w1 �' /1Y,pyK�� yrp ,�..... .. _�1 ,. _ 4 ' ✓ r t� � 'rh yqf•�""`r"••'My. . ,+x=�fi.Wiw+ T'�' y��' �K � r r AI i ` • • � . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F.*A AY 41,1 41 F4 T .0 Ik' to • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Vegetation; The vegetation on the site consists mainly of grasses, weeds, and a few tsmall shrubs along the drainage. Viewsheds• ' Views from the site consist of the Bridgers to the northeast and views ' of the Museum of the Rockies and the Video Lottery Consultants to the west. Views of the site are most prominent from both the Museum and Video Lottery Consultants to the west and currently a view of the project is fairly prominent from the intersection of Kagy Blvd. and ' South 3rd. However, this view of the site will be removed at such time as the vacant pastureland to the north is developed. ' (See Development Constraints Map) 1 1 • � 1 1 i � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 w 4913 All O xst • I � r T� damc D I VEN I M , 10 y I + ' rct � � � � � � � s � � ` � r � � ■� � � � ' Traffic Descriptions: All traffic to the site will come from South 3rd Avenue by way of ' Westridge Drive. The traffic on the site is by way of a private road which is looped through the development. This private road allows for two way traffic, with no parking on the road. All on-site parking will be provided in specially designed off-street parking sites, (see site plan). Pedestrian circulation will be facilitated through a specially designed trail system along the southwest and northwest boundaries of the property. Internal pedestrian circulation will be on the private street of the development. For additional traffic information, see the attached Engineer's traffic study. ' Existing Recreation and Trails: The proposed trail system within the development connects the Figgins Addition with the proposed Galigator Trail System. Currently there is a heavily used path along the southwest boundary of the ' property. This trail is very prone to mud, rutting, and impassibility at certain times. It is the intent of the developer to provide a trail in accordance with the requests and requirements of the parks, open space and trails committee. This trail system will allow the project as well as the Figgins Addition and those adjacent developments that use the existing trail to have a connection between themselves and the Video Lottery Consultants ' building to the west, Museum of the Rockies, as well as the University. The trail is currently being analyzed to determine its routing past the new school. ' Historic Resources: The only historic resource within 400' is the Tinsley IIomestead, which is located on the property of the Museum of the Rockies. ' Development Constraints: See Map for combination of various restraints. • • � 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Figgins Block 1 Lots 1-21 ' 1 . Michele E . Berlot 516 Westridge Dr. 2 . John S . Cherry 510 Westridge Dr. 3. Roger R. Gullickson 506 Westridge Dr. t 4 . Jack 0. Pollari 424 Westridge Dr. 5 . Larry D. Cloninger 418 Westridge Dr. 6 . Alex J. Hudak 410 Westridge Dr. 7 . Fred A. Yates 210 Graf ' 8 . Stephen A. Markle P.O. Box 1866 Bozeman, Mt 9 . Dale L. McGarvey 411 Cutting 10. S . R. Lambers & Lois M. Ringo 415 Cutting ' 11 . Harold B . Whitney, Jr. 421 Cutting 12 . William J. S . Vandenbos 505 Cutting 13. Edward E. Barry 509 Cutting ' 14 . Esther M. Scott 515 Cutting 15 . David W. Cary 514 Cutting 16 . Michael J. Cech 512 Cutting 17 . Merle T . Gustafson 504 Cutting ' 18. Marsha A. Goetting 422 Cutting 19 . Michael P. Vogel 418 Cutting 20. Donald K. McBride 412 Cutting ' 21 . JoAnn Staffanson 404 Cutting Figgins Block 8 Lot 10 and 20-24 ' 10 . Frank J. Murphy 2506 Westridge Dr. 20. William Brotherton 2510 Landoe 21 . Daniel Runyon 2508 Landoe ' 22 . David Barbisan 2410 Westridge Dr. 23. Robert B. Kollmar 2404 Westridge Dr. 24. Paul R. Wylie , Jr. 106 Silverwood Dr. ' Figgins Block 9 Lot 11-20 and 31 & 32 11 . Douglas L. Hanson 2501 Westridge Dr. ' 12 . Jon D . Weidenaar 2413 Westridge Dr. 13. Steven E . Buckner 2409 Westridge Dr. 14 . Claudine R. Stanton 2407 Westridge Dr. ' 15 . John Batson 2403 Westridge Dr. 16 . Vacant 17 . Craig E . Blockey 6060 Browning Lane , Bozeman, Mt ' 18. Kelley J. O 'Conner 505 Westridge Dr. 19 . Jerry A. Furtney 421 Westridge Dr. 20 Leola J. Brelsford 415 Westridge Dr. 31 . Thomas G. Hildner 401 Westridge Dr. ' 32 . A. Reece Summers, Jr. 303 Westridge Dr. 1 • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Figgins Block 2 Lots 1-6 ' 1 . John J. D 'Agostino 308 Westridge Dr. 2 . Jacob C . Fisher 2410 Langhor Ave . ' 3. Bruce Parker 2416 Langhor Ave . 4 . Gene A. Moree 2504 Langhor Ave . 5 . Rodney Schwasinger 2508 Langhor Ave . ' 6 . Glenn Wood 2516 Langhor Ave. South 3rd Ave . Residents Robert Spencer 403 West Jackson. Petersburg, Illinois 62675 Mildred B. Jenni 2221 South 3rd Bozeman. MT t Video Lottery Consultants 2311 S. 7th Avenue ' Museum of the Rockies 600 E. Kagy Blvd. 1 1 1 1 • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .N�! !,,,Yyy�- .lY �St•as,wt;'r.. _ ,.,, �• "W.,`tc[�•� r ..»•--4 '..a .,a r•.t �'3 i � - 1! I 1"ti . r ly �• t 4Cy3' rytl., y: K . A 1 , Sh x... t i, �� t t . r 1 Yn3la sC .Y,,1'1 KL 1 y }yy•• �'x1 #'i{ ti *v i P f 'K Cq f f • dr f.' f I t !'a7 �k K� derdf.I y� )nll�i47 Vp� 3 tr r, ,r• l yatr'�3 � �1L S tii i' d ,Sv 1 r.U„d! ',i, �,I�' 'f . 3, rl r d v ',� � � lY r � (1,J 1 J d �r„� �,tr f f- I , '•'l �• I �ii•11, .�:�;( I • I'' � 'l I I, ` ` �`1 /f4 .'� �Y .4 ff9�� {{y .. AF 1'LCrY �At 1 ��i I ' t^7 �' f r;{Y 4....,lt r. ..t,i,,. ,,.' ri,li f i,,,i � ` �`I:.r rl't.fj�l'•'Y�J..,. � 1�h.t.i���.�•.��' {A,r'�k"v� '�'1d ' t f •Iqt r. d iF' ` I N,89°0400u E 57i?R+44 3t t; , d r, ► . .v 4 , ft ' .late,r, , r,+,- f.' '-;girt U' •r ;f:NY tf�A rY'� 'pit+,. Y t� ,J,� ry ti .r � /�Il•'.e'• •r 1 ,y .4�,"tsk f. �- t 1 i.y���`:,y�'l +�"" d't'�'1�' � I., 3'.t I ' BLOCK g It k t LOT I Area equals 246,626:07 sq. fee•f °r ( , 3 N, �z� • ' . ��•�' 'rrl„ ` �'A'=�'31",OQ�QQ" . t . •' � i r ,, • ar'.'�j,aYx / i-s+ '��t'R A''t k'!H� I 2D7"55' 00"� R - 25Q,00 rt..LC r ,. tit rl - ,; ,r Y t d T�i�,lf ,• \ Y?tl I 614 � 'r"rw T �.., �, •' I�Q r t WET GE `'' ' r. 'ton -.i N O ,18 0 �� .r i t r�': a I, ,• , , .• ' .-�- --►- A 57.29 87.50 79.00 79.00 79 00" co71a.00,.. ;9QLOQ ".% , 114,1 �. r r .F t� r / 30r84 0 2 3 4 8 t °�, , +a;B _ 7 'I «, , 9703iM 9842.75= 8886.60: 8886.60 888 60= B 7;.11. ' 10123.97"Ln Wl A 1 1 ' 213°4 ' 00'r f ri .50! 8750'-' :00'- - r,- --�.- - a- "" 3 I $e2a9 d�K it �I I '007 00 E oo -125.00- - -- - -- - -- - - �• - --- - - -- - ' ,s' a I 47 00 E 13 01 12 0 11 10 9 8 q I 8218.06 87%.59 888&60= 8886,60. 8774.11 a 1 a7 100.50'00" 68.01 14219�85 i c� s R etr , ` 9' to 23'00M W _•���- `qCS`• r�/1 - � r 168.46` 9 ' •79 00�• ...j; .r r t, , t�' d� �•• t {,:�, ' 0.25 0. N� ,N;�giQO F'r :r,vF•�, Q ''► ,•^til, ,,. 1ei±� ••',�'�x�'�rn"�:; ��+• '+e I a, 67.88 79.QQ' 70 0Q O 15 t u�1 a 17, 16 'on 1S = 19 Y 'b�i70 a 21 ` g -: 917678 __ '9281.56 9281.5 8914.24 50.00 '-'125. 0'-----79. 0- rip 27 yqr W r -AI A ice" •eF,8T25 26 0 25 24' 23 221P- 'W �' r 0 28 - N 1135&74p O 9190b3 ^ 9281,56 s 9281.56•= 9164,07 - M 6 I' 18.49' 1t` ^ A.99AZ5' b 68. I79.00! 7 ,rm. , ., by ;:f* rth tla i �D MORR0 N 89°Ig;,0Q.,8 " " 'x�;;`47.Oi4A ' po 67.88 T I,00 -7940,r `7$i b ( *0 N�1206736 71.60: N a, 31 r 32' t3 ,j 3+4 All34"f' iVSI' i."'il J , t I ' h• 8915.15 N 917855 9283.14 928 j ,a916563" "105T�.73��„ w p - ti h N r,.r r C.i 41 N 42� 8C89.12 N .40 .39 38 J��',f., o3 tr r } f ;r � ' "•• lk ti11''l'' C� In 11357.04 0 9192,11 9283.14' 928314 ,. :.918b,63•'s 10�75t7'� �'� ,� 't$. 1 'r,•� t� 6 .18:49' r iY :•Y '� F Yt G ,f r t�iF, '• ,t �,. ' y \�- • O y90 25 h' 68.4 5, T9 Q0',, t'79�00 tit, ,• " p ir-'y O - ti gyp_ ^ ,� �pEt r'I;iN'8A Fig 00..1E i�!RS4, 4 % ,h,.._t 0 !� 67 8! r'79�Opri O43 71.60 .,. Yr4 5 '� St E $ tlyv. {un ' '� ' �rf' as 10996-Uld 11102.32'° 1110232 ,, '10961.7`?,' 128'd8.7 r t f yf T ?.� ! 10624F.;3.f at i f I d fy�l �'Iqt r' I • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 * Deceased,by Annie Mae Ftic ON 3 7 7" p lOT b •`� 0' 6 •h 7900, N \p �` Q `''� - IC` UTILITY EAtDJENT 0o h o •,�� �0 � �� 30.5y 1 � .LOT � � LOT � 4j oo cb• � �� 0\� �oT O � '� o � o 6 Qi 7 LOT ID' I0• UT1 c �a 7Y ;Ty - --7q-q 8 5 `-� G:/��S ►�� •t� SOT , g7EM4°� ��. .Ei9SE�7 47" 7�4.40 ��, 9 g� \:� oo �,��' :�� 0�� mot' - .Z�UT/L/T Y Rs� ; // ' D 8 o Jk �o �' �� � 1DT13 N !-UT ��ZS� .p3; �- � � 9 i O / �4 148.0(. 1 z cb .o G- /,�/ • ,� � •y.� �ti'S o� h D i�.,h ,� ��7 O 8 6 K, B_ cs o• Q i. T ��„ may, I MI�OT !� ��418��- ,ao �? /0�5 p3 �2s s� �� �`'` �• ,� Aigginc Addi' 54.7E 102.00 ,h I 6 c Montana Ma,Bti --- -- 5' 5OD'0700'W' 228Tfo 5� p� -Q for the supp. 5 aorai ao-w �, N3G S9/o E p• s t' L o of The re f ore, a T �, 22 s_ s�visi*m � i - s.B7� 'Lo 23 S k t✓ o107Is , ,,. 'z , , ��. � ,CK .B g N$� .� �� z1 , � �a s3/•¢2c�:E �, 8 �or44 w for h LOT.17 ' h� /8 D 19 m 20y� �� ,CDT o �` �,, 3�. Timis!,BF,/�W /V38/A:E 7,6./S' to' UTILITY EASEMENT SOD O7GY��✓ S 4 S 23 D9Z7 92.59' CERTIFICATE Or SUER =er described lands by and through I , James A. Cummings , a Registered Professional Engineer and Graf, Jr. , and Genevieve S. Graf, do hereby certify that between - -77 and / 77_0 I supe . ____A t__ it-i ___ �____ -_ - - _ . - a _ n't --I-- 17 0 --A . -,-4-4nn of R nr -c F_na ptn i Ln1atted rzrf � ! � 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' PLANNING OBJECTIVES ' Master Plan Statement ' The Site Plan submitted for the Overbrook at Westridge project has taken into account all of the criteria supplied within the background information and provided a workable solution to the various physical constraints of the site ' and at the same time provided a creative project that is responsive to the new Bozeman area Master Plan and Zoning Code. ' 1: There are a number of specific goals of the Master Plan that were taken into account in the planning of this project: ' A: Goal1. IDENTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AND PRESERVE AESTHETIC RESOURCES OF THE BOZEMAN AREA. This project is very sensitive to the constraints of the site and has fully developed the potential of the natural features of the site. It has taken a feature which has been basically altered beyond recognition and which is not currently functioning as it did in it's natural state. It is the intent of the developers in conjunction with the Soil Conservation Service and the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Service to develop this stream back to the potential it was originally envisioned as. ' A: Goal2. SUPPORT THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF ' GREENBELTS AND/OR OPEN SPACE,INCLUDING THE PRESERVATION OF TRAIL AND OPEN SPACE CORRIDORS. ' b. Through subdivision review, annexation and zoning, emphasize the establishment of trails and open space corridors. ' This project accomplishes two specific elements of this articular P J P P P goal. It establishes a trail which is a critical link in the overall scheme of the Galigator Trail concept. Secondly, it develops an open space within the project that not only is of benefit to the ' residents of the proposed project, but is very evident to the adjacent development and accommodates their view concerns and visual aspects of their neighborhood. t • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 A: Goal 6. ' PRESERVE,PROTECT AND PROMOTE HIGH QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE BOZEMAN AREA'S GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER AND AIR. ' a. Encourage stream bank buffer strips for sediment, erosion and water pollution control ' and to protect riparian areas. This project satisfies this goal by two distinct means. 1) It iprovides for on-site retention of storm water from the project itself, allowing for oils and sediment control of its own ' development. 2) It mitigates a negative situation created by the storm sewer run-off of the Figgins Addition. As can be seen in the photographs of the outlet for the storm sewer onto the site. A great deal of sediment has already accumulated on the site and has effectively closed off the outlet to that storm sewer. This development proposes a technique to mitigate the problems ' created by that storm sewer run-off. E. Goal 1. ' ENCOURAGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF BOZEMAN WHERE THERE IS ADEQUATE ROAD,BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS,WITH PROVISIONS FOR SHOPPING AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. Due to the location of this project within the land use designation of Urban Residential Infill, the project satisfies this goal through its bicycle and pedestrian access, adequate roads and its adjacency to employment, recreational facilities, and ' educational institutions. E: Goal 2. ' ENCOURAGE CONSTRUCTION OF A FULL RANGE OF HOUSING, TYPE, SIZES, AND COSTS,. . .,TO ASSURE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR FUTURE RESIDENTS TO OBTAIN A CHOICE OF LIVING ' ENVIRONMENTS. a. Allow for city residential developments that ' compete on a cost and style basis with rural subdivisions. ' This project addresses the current concern for affordable housing. Through its use of existing infrastructure and its unique design characteristics, it offers affordable living units that • � � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' compliment their surroundings and still establish a price range that is affordable for those people desiring to own residences on ' the affordable end of the housing market. E: Goal 3. ' ENCOURAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS AND CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES THAT FEATURE A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES,DESIGNED TO ENHANCE THE ' NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, CONSERVE ENERGY AND TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES. This project, through its clustering techniques along the open space corridor it provides not only enhances the natural environment, but because of it's location and connection by way of it's trail system, helps to conserve energy through the reduced need for the use of vehicles. ' G: Goal3. ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR WITHIN THE BOZEMAN URBAN GROWTH AREA. This project not only occurs with the Urban Growth Area, but is ' adjacent to existing City services and infrastructure, and accommodates the efficient use of said services. G: Goal4. ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF NEWLY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN LOCATIONS WHICH MINIMIZE THE COST AND MAXIMIZE THE BENEFIT OF PROVIDING PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES. ' This project not only utilizes existing services and infrastructure, but through it's design minimizes the impacts of additional development on those services. G: Goal 7. ENCOURAGE IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT WHERE APPROPRIATE TO ' ASSURE MAXIMUM USE OF EXISTING PUBLIC UTILITIES WITHIN THE BOZEMAN URBAN SERVICE AREA AND MAXIMUM COST- EFFICIENCY TO THE CITY AND THE USERS. ' As stated in the previous two goals, this project does in fact maximize use of existing public utilities and does so at a ' maximum cost-efficiency to the city and to the users. In 'addition, the project minimizes its impact on the services it requires, and at the same time mitigates the problems created by • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 ' lack of services in elements that adjacent development depends P P upon, i.e., the trail system, and the storm drain problems created ' by existing development. 2: Open Space, Landscaping,Buffering and Circulation: The project as proposed has laced a great deal of emphasis on the use of its P J P P P g P open space, as discussed in previous sections of this submittal. By taking a ' severely damaged and somewhat ignored element, the developers propose to develop this stream back to a level that encourages a proper environment for the Fish and Wildlife concerns of the governmental bodies involved. The ' open space will be maintained by the Homeowners Association of the development as part of the property. The attached proposed covenants and ' by-laws of the Homeowners Association address those concerns. The landscaping of the project exceeds those standards required in the Bozeman Zone Code, and in fact exceed those requirements by a substantial amount. ' The intent of the landscaping was to provide a natural setting for the open space, and to intensify the buffering of the proposed structures from the existing residential structures in the adjacent existing development. There are, in fact, two adjacent residences that were given special concern in terms of view of open space from those residences thus minimizing the impact on the adjacent development. Circulations within the site was addressed on two levels: Vehicular, in terms of a looped road system that would allow not only the free and efficient ' circulation of vehicles through the site, but also address concerns of emergency equipment circulation through the site which was not adequately addressed in the previous platted development that allowed for circulation by tmeans of a cul-de-sac. 3: Services: ' The sewer and water service to the site is intended to be provided by way of a looped system within the site for water. This loop would connect at both of the accesses to the site and connect directly to the City 10" water main that is currently in Westridge Drive. This looped water system would provide adequate water to the site, not only for domestic use but also for fire fighting ' protection. It is the intent of the developer to provide a well to provide water for the irrigation system for the open space and other landscaped areas of the development. The sewer system as designed for the project will incorporate a ' lift station which will be maintained by the Homeowners Association as requested by the City. 1 • � � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 4: Estimated Number of Employees: ' All services to this development will be contracted b the Homeowners P Y Association and as such this section is most likely not applicable to this ' submittal. 5: Development Phasing Schedule: The r r developer v project a s proposed by the de e oper will be developed over a two to ' three year period starting on the east end of the project and working west. The current construction schedule anticipates the units to the east of the stream being constructed in the first year, with the balance of the units on the west side of the stream being started next year and completed in a one to two year period after that. Development of the stream corridor and plans to develop other site amenities is expected to begin within the first year. 1 • • � i � I � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 !L U1 I � I I bc�� N I RA MI17_D_LE CREEK DITCH LATE /'� _ __ Imo" i. `�,q ' / �� •� ", .I � , 1 / ,. :%i �.y' 4 ___� / 77, f. I 57 _ ot "4e �• v L_OT 18 LOT I LOT 20 QXISTI"UTIL. / - - IW AATEr2r MAIN 10" SEAM MAIN A =90 AND 1LITY V-AS.t'GWr o 10" 5EY'tER MAIN ' L��.4J.. �rssc�sir�•rioty. SIT2 STATISTICS: AA' T Y3'*�.44f,'"3 T^ ^* T USEABLE OFeN SPAce, (21.0%) 1.5 ACRRS PERIMETER LANPSrAPe AREAS, (IM.I%) AM ACRES n • �� * ACTIVE RECREATION AREA(TRAIL)s (6M) .S ACRRs I j, 1 • PGONW LNO UM WWX 11111WI a1TIAL IM9L6 K L'f'IPAMILY WrAL LMO..WW/HA& / MA) _LW s �/ .. AREA FOR STREET AND DRIVES: (31.M%) IAA R4Re9 ?•1p1;ZT}-I TOTAL SUIL.DIN&COVEXAM, (14.M) AM ALMS OPEN SPIACE - ' TOTAL 6 OP UNITS+ 84 _n FLOOR TO AREA RATIO- -2004 v MAXIMUM 9LO6.HE16HTe 24' ��� ARak DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE, '1.20 DUA SUILDIN6 SQUARE POOTAM(TYPICAL)s WdN Lvvm7 2400 OP. +OAPA605 UrrOt LNG.. 2400 OP. +aTORA TOTAi. I600 OP. +—OXIVQRW•OTOKA49 BUFFER KRF-A rAMNS ISTAMT10% Orr-S 1 Y T= 92 rM Es 544 TOTAL, too omamm BY com-*.v 11 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � w � � � r J ' COMMUNITY DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA 1 ALL DEVELOPMENT: Neighborhood Compatibility: ' 1. This p Y extremel project is j ro sensitive to the immediate environment of the site and the adjacent neighborhoods and it's architectural design, ' landscaping, buffering, orientation of open space and it's visual integration into the adjacent neighborhood. ' 2. The design of the project and the specific market that it is targeted for as potential buyers for the project lend itself to a type of owner who will tend to use cars less and rely more on bicycle and walking for transportation to . ' employment either at the University or Video Lottery or to certain recreational aspects. Also because of the type of unit, (at two bedrooms and ' 1200 square feet), there will be either professionals, retired persons, or young couples with a single child that will not tend to create as many daily trips as the project would were it developed as single family lots as it was originally designed. 3. This project has been reviewed as a concept plan by the DRC, Planning Board, DRB and City Commission, and has addressed all of the concerns and impacts discussed by those entities. ' 4. The project is in accordance with the adopted elements of the Bozeman Area Master Plan as listed in a previous section. ' Public Facilities Services and Transportation: 5. The development complies with all city design standards. ' 6. The sewage generated by the development will not exceed the sanitary sewer system's capacity. ' 7. Adequate water supply does exist within the adjacent 10" water main to service the project. 8. Adequate Electrical service exists. • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 9. Based on the traffic figures supplied in the traffic analysis, the City g PP Y Transportation plan will be capable of handling the traffic generated by the ' development. 10. Adequate emergency access is provided from Westridge Drive, and ' because of the looped design system of the road, it's superior to the development that was previously platted on the site that incorporated a cul- de-sac design. ' 11. Adequate lighting for the development will be incorporated into the q g g P P building design using lights that are controlled by photo cells. ' NATURAL RESOURCES: ' 12. The design of the topography around Figgins Creek will be such that it will have a very natural slope to it and will not in any way create a hazard. ' 13. There are no known natural or geological hazards on the site. Any construction on the site will have been designed based on soil bearing capacities. 14. While there is little vegetation on the site to preserve, the project ' incorporates vegetation types that are indigenous to the area and specifically to a stream type zone. 15. Special precautions have been taken and will be incorporated to establish and enhance fish habitat within the stream bed as determined by the government agencies with jurisdiction. ' 16. Not applicable. The project is not within a designated historical district. ' 17. The proposed Planned Unit Development fully meets Master Plan objectives for clustering and typifies the intent of clustering. Specific ' attention has been given to the open space and to its impacts not only to the existing development but to adjacent developments. ' Environmental Standards: 18. The proposed P.U.D. will meet all air quality standards. ' 19. The project will conform to all applicable local, state and federal water quality standards including erosion and sedimentation and run-off control. In addition, the project will mitigate current problems caused by the run-off and sedimentation of the Figgins Addition storm sewer. 1 • � � i � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 20. There are no expected activities which will cause noise generation that exceeds minimum performance levels of the City Ordinances. ' 21. Not applicable. The proposed project is anticipated to produce no glare, heat or direct or reflective light problems. ' 22. Not applicable. The project should cause no vibration. ' 23. Lighting design will be such that there will be no site lighting that will cause glare to adjacent properties or streets. ' 24. All sewage will be treated and disposed of within the city system. SITE DESIGN: 25. The specific elements of the site plan are arranged on the site so as to P P g maximize two critical elements. 1) Open space and 2) Trail Circulation. The ' project itself is oriented to the open space, as well as the open space being open to the adjacent properties and streets. ' 26. The elements of the site plan are designed and arranged to produce an efficient functionally organized and cohesive planned unit development. 27. The design of the site is in harmony with the natural topography of the site, and pays special attention to the water elements on the site, enhancing ' their natural characteristics and developing the amenities to their full potential. ' 28. The design and marketing of the project lends itself to an overall reduction of energy use in that it encourages and facilitates use of non- vehicular transportation, and in the construction techniques of the project, ' promotes energy efficiency within the building envelope. 29. All elements of the building design and site plan are arranged to ' maximize the privacy of residents of the project. 30. The project is designed around the open space therefore maximizing ' the esthetic quality of the site configuration. Over 53% of the project is used for open space, recreation area and buffering of the project. ' 31. The looped road system of the project provides a smooth, safe and efficient movement of vehicles both on and off the site, as reviewed by the development review committee. ' 32. The project, as designed, substantially exceeds the parking requirements of the City of Bozeman by a ratio of 4 to 3. • • � �' i � � � i � 1 � �'�� 33. The active recreational area is designed and located such that although accessible to the residents of the development, it provides full access to the adjacent neighborhoods and developments. Extensive screening is used to buffer this trail corridor from the proposed units as well as from adjacent ' properties. 34. The pedestrian circulation system is designed to ensure that pedestrians can move safely and easily within the site and between units as well as to parking areas. ' 35. Special concern was given to the design of the project so that it would be integrated into the Figgins Addition, and would share some amenities with that development. 36. Extensive landscaping is incorporated into the pedestrian circulation ' system to allow easy access to adjacent parking spaces. 37. The pedestrian bicycle trail system was specifically designed to connect to adjacent development and properties. 38. The landscape plan was designed around the open space, buffering of adjacent properties, and trail system in order to contribute to their usage and visual appearance. ' 39. The extensive landscaping plan greatly enhances the buildings. 40. The landscape plan was designed to screen the circulation and parking areas from the open space, the buildings from adjacent properties, and parking within the development is buffered in such a way so as to minimize the visual impact of said parking. 41. Not Applicable. ' 42. All signs within the project will be in compliance with provisions of the Bozeman Sign Code. Upon a final determination of the various elements of the marketing plan of the project, i.e., color, logos, and graphic design, an ' entrance sign will be submitted to the DRB for a sign permit and review by the DRB for compatibility with the neighborhood. ' RESIDENTIAL: 1. The density units per acre of the project are 7.28 DUA. 2. Each individual unit will have it's own patio or deck. • . � i � � i i i i I The project provides a recreation area for trail corridor and connection to adjacent facilities and neighborhoods. ' 4. The project encourages a mixture of uses in its adjacency to private sector employment centers, the University both as an employer and for educational purposes, as well as adjacency to the Museum of the Rockies. 5. The project is within 2000 feet of a neighborhood service center, a public school, a child care center, major employment center, and institutional playgrounds and park areas. ' 6. The project is not within 4000 feet of a community or regional shopping center. ' 7. The project is within 600 feet of a collector street. 8. This project is not proposing a density bonus. ' 9. Not applicable. ' 10. Not applicable. 11. Not applicable. r 12. Not applicable. t 1 • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 ' PHYSIOGRAPHIC DATA The soils within the proposed development have been described by ' Boettcher, et al. The soils at the east and west margins of the site are the Bozeman Silt Loam Series, while the soils in the middle of the property, along Figgins Creek, are the Huffine Silt Loam Poorly Drained tPhase. The soil description given by Boettcher, et al. follows. The limitations of the Bozeman Silt Loam are slight for foundations ' for low buildings, and considered severe for street construction. The severe rating for street construction is due to the low bearing capacity of the soil and the high potential for frost action. Proper street construction can overcome these problems, however. ' The limitations of the Huffine Silt Loam Poorly Drained Phase are considered severe for both foundations for low buildings and street ' construction. The potential for seasonal ground water being within 3 feet of the ground surface is the reason for the severe rating. The foundations for the proposed buildings should bear on the native gravels to provide adequate bearing capacity. The final ground surface will be raised around ' the proposed buildings, thus giving adequate cover for frost protection of the footings. Vapor barriers can also be placed in the crawl spaces t.o reduce the moisture from the ground water entering the buildings. Proper ' engineering of the street section can also overcome the problems created by the close proximity of the ground water to the ground surface. 1 i I 1 - A • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1.3- iI(n7.O111all Series Ahr Bo7cman soils are most extensive in the vicinity of Bozeman and the south- cast:er.n part- of the valley. These soils comprise about 5 percent of the area . ' Ilu!y developed in calcareous silt loam materials on upland fans and terraces . EInval•J.on rangcs from 4500 to 6000 feet-. Paean annual precipitnt-i.on is 16 to 26 inches. I'liese are well.-drained, dark colored soils . They have a modernt-e.ly Oiick si.l.t loam surface layer and a thick silty clay loam subsoil. Tile subsoil i is underlain by calcareous silt loam to a depth of 60 inches. _Mn) i3ozemnn_si.lt loam. This soil is on upland fans and terraces with slopes (if 2 to 15 percent-. 'the dark colored si.lt loam surface layer is about 8 i.nches ' 011cL. '.I:he silty clay loam subsoil is 10 to 2.2 inches thick. Depth to calcareous material ranges from 1.8 to 30 inches. Included with this soil are small areas less than 2 acres in size of Bridger soils. They occur where the Bozeman and ' Bridper soils have a common boundary. They make up from 5 to 10 percent of the unit. 'I'Iil.s soil :I.s used ,ua:inly for small grain, hay and wildlife. _(k)) Bozeman silt loam, brown phase. This soil is on upland fans and terraces w I t I i slopes of 2 to 15 percent. - It is similar to the typical. Bozeman silt Immi except the subsoil is silt loam and the substratum is very fine sandy loam. This soil is lighter in color than the typical Bozeman silt loam. Included with this soil are small areas less than 2 acres in size of Amsterdam ' sells . Ihey occur where the Bozeman and Amsterdam soils have a common boundary. I:hey make up from 5 to 1.0 percent of the unit. soli. is used mainly for small grain, hay and wildlife. • . ' i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' -17- llu[CI_nc_ Series ' flee lhi.ffi.nc sol.ls are most extensive west and sduL11 of Bozeman and ccnnpri.se ;.►ht1m: /i percent of the area. They developed in calcareous silty material on nl IUvl.nI f.ai►s. Elevation ranges from 4500 to 6000 feel-. Mean annual prcci.pi- knliInti is .1.6 to 24 inches. These are sornewhat poorly to poorly drained dark C(IIored so.( ls . They have a moderately thick gravelly loam or silt loam surface 1 In}cr and a clay loam subsoil which is calcareous in the lower portion. The suhsol.l is underlain by loose sand and gravel. at deptlis between 20 and 40 inches . (III Iln.lI.1.ne gr.ave.11y loam. '.l:his soil is on alluvial. fans with slopes of 0 to 5 prrcenL. 'I'I►e dark colored gravelly loam surface layer is about 8 Inches (-li . 'Ihe gravel ty clay l.onm subsoil is 7 to 12 inches thick. Depth to cal- cnremis miteri.al varies from 15 to 20 incites. 1'hls soil. is used mainly for small grain, hay, pasture and wildlife. sli.^) IluffJnc silt loam. This soil is on broad fan terraces with slopes of 0 to ' 5 pr,► ccnl:. 'the dark colored silt loam surface layer is about- 8 i.nches thick. The r; llty clay l.oaln subsoil is 8 to 1.4 inches thick. Depth to calcareous mots► lnl. varies from 16 to 22 inches. ' I.he main uses for this soil are small grain, hay, pasture and wildlife. �FE QIs.)__I111fflne silt- 1.01111, poorly drained phase. This soil ' is in shallow sloughs , ' deptessi.ons or dr.a Lila geways with slopes of 0 to 2 percent. It is simitir to Iaie lvplcnl. Iluff:ine. silt loam except the surface soil in most places is darker and i.n many places it is shallower and more gravelly. t 'l'he mni.n uses for this soil are grazing and wildlife. 1 • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � .._ „� ', III'• 'r•Iltuu� - � I,j��i�`�''��_! �SyS� li 3/,-//Mzl�l Br 28. / Dr l i _ � R6 I III�Illnl''JI" �.....�'�."_T� �-� � •/,,[,tit f�+„ �Y�d+JJ�� .:; ( 1 I .1 -.��}' .'{ H� / I I;� I'I Illill l✓,,,. 'I -� /j'L' /fi %//^�{'''i�� .�,. BrI\ ; it IIIIr,C"rnr I II• rvG t1N Re .; \ 'g •80 .1, Jfl{ Ij IIII �l� ;.ir s{(71 � i •3�• t• •`, _-•- � ;I(III) ' ilk � , h �', 3ch0o1 �, Hr t� ;(:i%� Ifo a�, - II ��II I. It• TnarN,Cn Snt rfON - i, ---- /.• MIL I I1 1 T113. h _ b -C Flo ,j', ��i , I I i.it 5.�1; c• ._\• ``}} ,•\:: •, ho I: Ili: r, 'II;L,(Ilr ',. �1�' >I;lijl:i: \-.•-� ./ t 1 yl[ `R •'� I,: ;I �� "III';I, s,Gd�a":,i I,,LI,IL;!�1 ' � ' is I I,I ;IIII I' I I• ;_ :3'. _J / _ I t..ii llp �I '! IIII li 4 (1:� II ,II�1•t ,I A ( LLL / / '4' I I �" aii• :�::' •• 10 ( ;.1�.6 I �.", �. +' I, �-:[ � idj �$..:' 9 Bm 10 .Nh i:9.1L,1;.�.*'�-� •+� II', 1 II( j -jl I ' I III .I.J. {{A I;_. ,s ,/ir_.... !� , 1 'u,I !; �:" 1 I• ,i 1 l�,It {{ I 'IIII': E« _ j �. _ •F,• � /. `„q,�• � 12 �j ';I:!.• ','I:C: L.. 'll, I�I'i `tl' I N i , tit ,II T7L JL J( •,J' `:: Y :k I.i ,Il:lli,i• � �' Y � :F q� I, JJ(I7[Ax�] �'.!'•i. �' +'�:: �`� „ .� r n..ych`Ht,�. .I: ,III i.. ` , aII I III I, III II �1`l"(M� _ :l I,AriJI 11� ��i ;����• b �A•=, .. G" ..., �i� _ I t�. i \)'•� � I( � °� - ._�LIJIJII(,I_Jla /'i, ., W- _ , I , _I_ J u JIJ I4 }' �,yl'V'r'% v/��i r�('7tb��..•- lin rlt 1111;11 tlo 1:!�;l!: H�' i'•lil;l:{l li;I !II�IIII�` IIII! II Ill(II A L IIIJI�.:1L11 j � %t i/ 1 I;ul l Dr ` I I Rl I , Rb Rb ronr us 'il. I III(I?I'l'' "' Ei•I!II Il. :� ,IIII!' li!S� dL7 G '.�",=' �- �- IOs'I ,�i/+;. /� I I ,� f10 � I:>\ pD •,. ,• .I• It ';" '',�I�,I'lil'al�l �• �r.� ;.�y'%%� , ,I;I,\ ,,, :'�- - �b.. ! ijl 'i '.lt;t•'I i .r I H� I:IIi �pj I,.,Ip i6.,l�1 f Rb ✓ � tip!;I,. �� \ Rb i •�I•' !IIIIIIiIIIIIII �l'L .�:';11'II{�i I i :IIi I'll! I .11l�l�llllllll!i;iJl4il �'1`!'{`' � /^�II!I�li!!' ` j I I .�' hi , IIII I I li ,N6 •:�II I�1 I ,I! I I( M (I i}(I� II,. Hg ' /. '. Bolo ( \ RD :Br i ,�i• 'I'�1:::11i I'I`' •:•r- t l li, II I!Ili L ' ! i I�n�Iluil�'. ' '..` - ._........... t.. ' fi+.. ;',1., nl ! l I : ll I Dili. I I I'IIIlnlii4 I t a l ' 1 do / Ili�:III III; I„III I' 11II ' ,i lil •' 'll i �jIIII '"��- �II'li G�`„ i.//q I I,Ill! ( � arart Mv. •iil, �i.,!I, ;IIi �ii ''lil (IIII II •II,: ' I IIII IJo IIII ' s✓y ' %/�I I• ' I hi ;I i!. fll ll\\. III Ill!`,I I I! '111) I,II• III I (I I• 12�. t III t .., /�%� jllll b' ''�" J �l B ( Bc ' I'• .Ili( ' 1 ;III 173� ! I- II IiI+P 'm III II� I� �. '/ii Ill li " 'll � � / � 22 ` t I Ili•`. � :. ''!I: .II Ili I, I I,II II , ;v,4' ' /. I ' I r I I / •• i;l' ' B'1 , III Ii 1 f , t .../:•i;i, ,1 L. b .!/ .I:• �. \_ :III' x II{'I�''' �• I �I I,. I I / Ili!Ili J:i jl�'li ! '•: ' RI? Gs I ! .� Srh ol.• I :� (tll� I, „ � IIa,IIk It�j�. ..j , fl. ,, N.. it [::. ,•,.+,•�• .1:. •i!'I 'IJ i I1I� illill I;W ,,.. r6Y � II'�IIIIIIjJ 'IIII. � I I °'�i� I' / Bo .. Ht. ..- , :'' �.• ., _ !„ ,;I)t, •,I (I: II ll I I.I:N ,.,III .-t I il;;l�I�Illl ,'ll' I,j i,: i',!i!, i. L'i�t. I• I I,i, •i: ( ,,� i , t,,.` , � ; qlu I,!,I' !�I:Rb •'r Rrti :l" 7 I')�' •(' 'IIII'1• ,:III, :!II !,, I' i I:!' Iirl 1'i: III y!I {:•. ! I;I��:::il .i I,I!: � D.rp'f'.. .1,,;.,.;;.J; '/ % •`✓y !I _I I,I_ :::; .I,i.I ): I l fli i�1 II! iltlll'I: f'! I,I '� fit i , I.,. I ;i� - /, •,• I,I Ili _tla '�•1 III: III IIII, ,!'4! I r I 3. �. ,\Rb {',79'I .I. I;1�11j�; % �,:., RI� ,i =L•? :7. I •ll :I� •IIi t i I { '�I '�i I l'. -�6 �i q k•�. i it go.� ���c .0(.l .I! ,RD:I,��t I / / :L. '! 'IIII,. 1.` ,I- , IIII it 1 III' ii!j,,l' ,,I. I'i 1:;, '. II. IDr :,VBmii,'� • � R I HY '; IJ. ��,i�..1 II .11' ! II II I�I j �I If g III!.it l!il , I•t Igii Illl,i � Ii / 1 r.,. � , .l I;II :: III i"i ,, r W i I !I I.L. i it / �; •r B:� � [i :, �-:°..-:A:n'.. � _ - aaa c` "i :IIII I Ray (,I Rb i j'YIi ' );I, / B •=i-.- � .. �._. 1 t I« I 1 �• i! ` IIPaI II i li I i '!!.I. / j / E,, �� � I I IT �e / I }r ,t •`1'f ?-i, I .li { n:'ll,l I{• it i ir'11lIIIl'tll�l� li III : I I I 1 j�u _ 'Jl:ill,glll IIII I / t. � �. .fit B/1 j K•Y -x y pti;. ,I •rl 1 I '�I I 1 I I'I V I I I. I Jr I l.___ 'id'O r ,I:iI�Zi I ;i iilr .'; '., I Rb\; ��' I / 1'i3. i i II •! II (35 _� I,I, '� .,),I I ri I I _.I '.il tt ,Il it il,, t\� t'r`•',. y 1 i j,r � ,�' 'li L 4l I'I Y ! ,I. ;I•II ?s1 a 4 II,' Ba (I �', ( ' ��:, I I' Br• 1u,.l+r is I P.D % I'II' Nr II„ b l4n I 119 '. .x' I III I{!i I11I liIiI I Ii �IY ,,, .'1n1i�S 1"���t�t� I '!a- 1' '' � k ' ! 1!I � '•�t{bC1 �4 I I II il'lll IIi I�I III I�!. Br j ilit I .. Rv - ;.�a,,�,,.if `tr.� i�Y!r.2 �11- ll I.�•;I11• col �r HI,,. �7:�''' t?u II11, I. :II!, 1 ,. I , :,:• , y..alsu.�`S�,IIIII !'y" ; �:, i•; ����,+ •IIII! 1 It ll 141 IIIII!il"� ,I'..IIllll,�lil III II,i 4111.IL,IIp:'I,Illi,l'�i'Ijl'�,v \ •,Ii ... f. .r .�{', (I i ,I I I I I , l I '• 1111!I I.p !''' ' !-1 �!I I I I I �I l l ll l 1.11 I l ' Ir'"I I IPI II�.In'i Ii;i.,l:•i II Il,I I IP,i n j 'il lia fG•. �T d`}•1• : i I I. ! r I I ,I,, I I, ,Bm,IIjIIItyI, ,ul"; !ilti I'II � q � I Ili.! I I� I, I .,,llllt I "I II I I!ii'li• , ,,, Rb /. ai •I r .y�, 1. I. I I I e'.,I,I,:II•lii •ilJr.lill'll':Ii !;. ,a:,I•'.Il,r'',ilir;!'1: ;: ,� ;'. I�;, ',►.:IIII II� i• li I I Ii..IhIII..:r1,I; ,..!::L,'i�i!;;I•,: • jlir. \ +'P IIC R. �. L. I•I I:'` .II III IL,lt. I � ,� �t i!ii,'';!L!4I'lilla',';ii�i ):i.: . y`• _ i,o 'N a, w diw I�(i! ( i' Ib'li; 4i;e.l ',/::,.'..� 8• C �n III ' I,, ., ,li:I,P •il I'Iflji�, i:'L;,'. A •O. 17 �• :i;` �u' I l hlltll �'i j''I',il•ll IIII I I;Il.lil)'1 iIII'i' �i'I. a: I I I u „•, II II 1,ll l r.:l I '. lil(i I t pyl= fll_,li,ll li;l ll ,III;I,;.1 .,i,l•ll1 ..� illljllljllll 'II hI.I' • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 5 A3, 4 15 ,71 t ii, ;,////' , Al, rx, lilelknide 39,41 'Q 311 17 4 8�j 9 --- 40( .. 4 59 20.9 p4/ 17 64 car 12.4 V-1 r 19 6.0 5.j 6 1 .41 IS —.m 0 21 5. 402'5 0' 4 11ozemn, 7 '10 4.; �// _ �;� �%% �!.`��(�/ 't.L.% / � /�/f / 'j// — f l-- 1. -.. 1 -- ._. �``�r> -'` �/ C \ U \. ,1'. , /'I/ / 5 i� 'r g/. /l. •S l"- I ! ' 37 le M 26.3 57 A 7- 4 1.5 k 6. 20.9 6.01 5 �-fi ,5 8.Q 1 72 18.6 is 41 151, .9 Big ear o"Polif') Line li 6 r ly 4 F ----,R 5 E� • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Vehicular access to the units within Overbrook at Westridge will be ' via a circular drive connecting to Westridge Drive, west of South Third Avenue. This circular drive will connect to Westridge Drive at two points approximately 500 feet apart. At this time South Third Avenue will be the ' main avenue of approach to the development. In the future, when Arnold Street is extended to South 19th Avenue, this will become another means of access to the property. 1 An estimate of the traffic that will be generated by this development was made using factors based on the total number of dwelling units at full development. The number of trips per day per dwelling unit will vary in 1 relation to conditions such as family income, number of cars per dwelling, etc. The publication Trip Generation, 3rd Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1982, indicates the average weekday ' trips per unit for various land uses. An average of 5 trips per day is listed for condominum developments. This compares with an average of 10 trips per day for a single-family detached dwelling unit. Based on 34 dwelling units, and an average of 5 trips per day per unit, there will be 170 trips per day, to and from the site. This is an estimate of the average daily traffic volume (ADT) that will be generated by the development. ' The peak hour volume may be determined by applying a representative percentage (usually 8% to 12%) to the ADT. For this analysis 12% will be used to calculate peak hour volumes. Because this is a residential development, the peak hour volumes in the morning and in the afternoon should be similar. ' The figures on the following page show the estimated distribution of the average daily traffic, and the estimated distribution of the peak hour volumes from the proposed development. 1 The latest City traffic counts for South Third Avenue, at Kagy Blvd. , are from October of 1986. The Montana Department of Highways lists average ' daily traffic for Willson Avenue, north of Kagy Blvd. , and Kagy Blvd. east and west of Willson, from 1987 to 1990. These traffic counts are listed below. Average Daily Traffic 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 South 3rd Ave. 4792 5511(Est. ) Willson Ave. 4280 5350 4530 Kagy Blvd. (E) 3890 5840 6480 Kagy Blvd. (W) 5440 5170 6420 The average daily traffic for South Third Ave. , south of Kagy Blvd. ' for 1990 was estimated by adding 15% to the ADT for 1986. A previous transportation study for the City indicated that the ' capacity of Willson Avenue, based on Level of Service C, is 10,000 vehicle trips per day. 1 • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I'le OVERBROOK 00 WESTRIDGE DR, �- ' -- 3 161 > 2% 95% Iq M AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 0 OVERBROOK I00 WESTRIDGE DR, 1 J� W 2% 19 � 9 5% o 0 d °\° NI� V ' � M N ' PEAK HOURLY VOLUMES • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • ' It is estimated that the development of Overbrook at Westridge will increase the traffic on South Third Avenue by a total of 158 vehicle trips per day. This is in addition to the estimated traffic of 5511 trips per day. During the peak hours of the morning and afternoon, the additional traffic generated by the proposed development will undoubtedly cause some queuing of vehicles on Westridge Drive waiting to turn onto or cross South ' Third Avenue. The turning movements onto South Third may also cause some intermittent slowing of traffic on South Third. Even with the additional traffic, however, South Third will still be operating at approximately one- half of capacity based on Level of Service C. 1 • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 STREET CR055 - 54CT/ON OVERBROOK AT WESTR IDG E: ,30?,:5MAA/, ,WON7-AIVA s �' covc,4E/-� cufza - sew ry_ 2�z' AZ/-HAI- )-AVEMEA/r SITE PLAN FOR LOCAT/OYV. 3� I"-M/NUS CRUS/NF� GRAVEL G"-M/NUS P/T' RUN GRAVcL NO TES /. 5U43GRAOe-, PiT /?UV AMO C'RU.SNFD GRAVEL SHALL .4' CO/t4PAC7--=D TO 95% OF STANDARD i�ROC7dR CiEW,5/7y. 2. AS/',yA[.T PAVEMPNT S�'A Cl t3/� COti(?AC i f� T O 97 % OF L.ACORA70KY rcNs/TY. P,gSrR fz�O s Y 4OCKY /-IOU/V TA/A/ 4F-A/G11VeeR5 P. J. /50ac e&3 1!302ZMAA/ Mr 5977/ • • I � ' ' DRAINAGE PLAN Figgins Creek flows from southwest to northeast through the ' development. The existing floodway will be maintained through the property. The limits of the floodway will be defined by filling a portion of the flood fringe. The resulting channel will be sized to carry the 100 ' year flow as defined by the FEMA study. The 100 year flow will be routed through the development without increasing the flood elevation on the surrounding properties. After development Figgins Creek will. enter the property and leave the property at the same points as it does at this time. ' Detention areas have been defined to attenuate the additional storm runoff generated by the development. The detention areas have been sized ' to detain the excess runoff from the S year storm, as required by the City of Bozeman Storm Drainage Master Plan. The runoff from the portion of the development west of Figgins Creek will flow easterly across the access drive to one central detention area. Any excess runoff from the access ' drive will also be diverted just west of the creek into two smaller detention area. Runoff from the portion of the development east of Figgins Creek will flow to smaller detention areas located in this part of the development. Each detention area is designed to attenuate the portion of the additional runoff tributary to it. Ultimately all runoff from the development will enter Figgins Creek. � • � � i � i � � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4' 15' 5' 15' 4' s �. .. .�_ 1.0' 0.75' TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION IMPROVED CHANNEL . OF FIGGI.NS CREEK OVERBR00K DEVELOPMENT • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VERTICAL SLOT OPENING s• 'n BERM DETENTION / BASIN 6- PVC PIPE OU i • n . • N OUTLET STRUCTURE. 15' I.D. RCP SET A MINIMUM OF 12' BELOW GRADE (WASHED AGGREGATE SURFACE) FILL WITH CONCRETE TO ELEVATION OF BOTTOM OF DETENTION BASIN. VERTICAL SLOT FOR INLET (WIDTH AS REQUIRED). 6' PVC PIPE. OUTLET. SECTION OUTLET DETAIL FOR DETENTION POND • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �..� - --- 26 27 28 S.I.D. S 9 29 ENGINEERING ANNEXATION FRYSLIE ST. TR. 2A � 25 'RACT I A 24 23 22 1 21 30 32 1393 BLOCK 9 C.O.S. 16 17 18 19 20 31 15 IO#tUK. 10 14 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 13 23 PHASE 1 O 2 12 22 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 3 21 II 4 • 10 10 20 IS 16 I7 18 19 PO 21 9 Q 19 \ 5 `O 9 \> P8 27 26 25 24 / 23 22 rB It 18 S.I.D 52 6 o e m 7 12 17 7 I 7 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 16 BLOCK 1 a 6 ' 13 Y 8 w' U Q 14 15 5 6 BLOCK 8 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 m o IDIAAS1= 4 S.I.Q. 528 9 4 SPRING CRLEK DR. 10 = JARRETT PARK 3 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 II N ANNEXATION 2 12 5 4 3 2 1 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 1 13 • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rr r M M ro -" r r r r r r r r r r r M m H I 26 27 28 29 G ANNEXATION FRYSLIE ST. TRACT 2A 25 24 23 22 21 30 32 �39� �fo 16 17 1 0 K 19 20 31 � S.I.D. a , h 15 " 10 14 24 \,Ij 2 3 4 5 6 7 O . 13 23 131-I S k 1 2 12 22 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 3 II 21 8 Al 4 10 10 20 15 16 17 18 19 �10 21 5 9 19 9 28 27 26 25 24� 23 22 11 IB 6 o e e14 8 m ol 7 12 17 7 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 6 7 13 16 BLOC K I cV a ui x 8 >14 U Q 5 cs 6 BLOCK 815 42 Al 40 39 38 37 36 -J o Ix a PI-IuSI_ 4 Nl; 9 = 4 8 10 = JARRETT PARK 3 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 O II 2 12 S 4 3 2 1 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 1 0 13 I • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i � 1 1 1 1 1 1 � � � • 1 1 II 1 1 1 i � ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �" ' I II o � ���� 1 I� �I .`� II .� �� '. �. .. .. - � .�� � ��;� X it � t �- _. �` ��'� �. ^� �� 1 I �5 i 1� 1 . 11160 O--- 40'[� µ`r0 3 r,�S lD d tQ BARN MIDDLE CREEK ITCH L AL, EXISTING TRPE 161 ° ° O d! �I II III 311 � � m • •S�' ) 1 `a . � �4•�PPr'r ►"► rtll��5�. !!// Np��N �� I f' s p 38aoYr' ►nY RE51DEvGE - inb ,$ �! b 5 i. NOTES: LL STREETS 516NED FOR NO PARKING � \ in POR VICINITY MAP lV/ SEE APPLICATION COVER v _ BUILDING FOUNDATION • �.� SNO �� T' ' �-CJ PLANTIN65 NOT SHOWN P 10W RE V L FOR CLARITY, SEE INDIV. SPACE zp ARE SITE PLAN DRAWIN65 _ / 1 LICIHTIN6 WILL BE AALL MOUNTED ON y obi 3 SPACES 6 SPACES / / I oIT DUAL LgITS AND CONTROL BY WD " '•.r 5 _ N O� 3 SPgGES pp 19 Sy ALL LAND5GAPED AREAS TO 5E �- r 'ED4 SPACE TO BE SUP WITH FROM SYSTEM.WATER TO BE SUPPLIED FROM ON SITE WELL. ..y 59 ilk v [- IPw ydM � nh ! \ �� alvRl )/S`ti� •(`W�� If I __— �-_. s�ACRE 3 v I O • � e 3 5.5UN 00 2 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY I STORY 2 STORY RESIDENCE RESIDENCE RESIDENCE RESIDENCE O, ,r � RESIDENCE mm ,Y�nny^Ipy CQ s GGG ,SQ v y A:• b � �� VJB '1 � O \� LOT I—T LOT 18 LOT _I G LOT , 2 a + LOT I \ t� 10" WATER MAIN � 8e 10" SEWER MAIN 1-1661W ADDITION STORM SGeHM 11 ID) ��-�- Rt7EN510N AND 9GTTLIN6 PONDIE ID) IOII SEWER MAIN 1 ,,unl n,1ryqq ' we ryeelul.h wwc°I�s" uu.rL I=,r•ww.onl NORTH 4y NPiWRMM� In• llk w Ii �o (20) saLlzi 14T n � n1,IP1' (2) 5 G A L 3=: 1" = B O' u •hTMOR6 An11 GOTTOMi58 fA'fTONMOOp 'RA%IWI RMAYLVhfllGA � , � ryWiln x'ewelu•ga p9Y1 (26) v Inks'ie eo rr. ildl aunluNs hBRN I•o�•uwe insnul..olce ,` "";i•s / 1126) I t/a•.so-so' - 1.IW93riVC9T1V9 V (16) }IO OI E,bo rT. 1.OTp1TI1LA,ID-24• w @9t�y'y. Q (55) eveRewmr aMv/s,b-r I' p. j k 0-0 n O b 4 O 4 Q m1 B ARN 1 PLI A-S MUSEUM OF PASTURE //� A-S THE ROCKIES MIDDLE CREEK DITCH LAT AL OXISTIN&TREE PAsruRE ul� 4u I y / � Oo� I ■ ■■■ A-5 -r o RE5II�ENGE ✓ LS /• / � /� �� NOTES: ''nn /■ 00�0 I �� /" I ^O I STREETS SIGNED FOR NO PARKIN6 UI FOR VICINITY MAP / I SEE APPLICATION COVER BP • / /SN W / 6 I BUILDIN6 FOUNDATION PLANTIN69 NOT SHOWN viaeo /• FOR LOTTERY ' M�5 .I+evge �.� SPACE 11WA 1� SITE PLAN DRAWIN6NDIV. CONSULTANTS / 1 LI6HTIN6 WILL 5E WALL MOUNTED ON 0b SPACES Q4 � � 5 SPACES � � / � INDIVIDUAL UNITS AND CONTROL BY PHOTO-CELLS. Iy / 196 �o S - / / p`901 8`-"'ACES S'��p ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS TO BE 4 SPACE IRRIGATED WITH U.6.SYSTEM.WATER - •S TO BE SUPPLIED FROM ON SITE WELL. y • O ® / S Ali/ OV W p•I !- At�9ETBA 01 / \\ ■ /• aim - s I� / /� ��(?\„ I ■� y • I./ FEM_A FL_OODWAY / / /Z - - - - - - -�" - - - - - - - - - - I -`� � I I 2 3a I v �cF C / /�•.. ^� \' FEMA FLOODWPCY-1 -5.5 UNITS/ACRE vvv ` i l � R'T"'/' 2 STORY 2 STORY I STORY � I w 2 STORY I m o� N RESIDENCE RESIDENCE RESIDENCE RESIDENCE 1- RESIDENCE NN CID Al �" I LOT I LOT 1-7 LOT 18 LOT 1�f LOT - - EXI57IN6 UTIL. EASEMENT / 10" WATER MAIN � 10" SEWER MAIN PROPOSED TRAIL--' ACCESS (15' MIN.) AND Rif FISBINS ADDITION STORM SEWN¢ - UTILITY EASEMENT RAN RE7ENSION AND SE7n.INS POND � II H ID (a (20' ON S.W. AND 10' ON N.W.) 10" SEWER MAIN o ( A PUBLIC STREET ) - - - - - - � � L�GA.L TIE=SG}�It�T101�1 SITE STATISTICS: AMENDED SUBDIVISION FLAT OF BLOCK 4,FI66IN5 ADDITION FIRST PHASE (2'1.$%) 1.3 ACRES A TRACT OP'LAND LOGA IN TN=GI/.,NGI/4,and,14,T.$,1¢SC,r.M.M., USEABLE OPEN SPACE: 6 A L L A T I N C O U N T Y M O N T A N A OWNERS:TIM DEAN GONSTRI)GTION, EU6ENE 6RAF III, CHARLIE DIMAROO PERIMETER LANDSCAPE AREAS: (14.1%) .501 ACRES 4510 CONNESTO6A CIRCLE,BOZEMAN MONTANA S9'1I5 ACTIVE RECREATION AREA (TRAIL): (6.5%) .3 ACRES Z PROPOSED LAND USE: URBAN RESIDENTIAL INFILL, MULTII=AMILY TOTAL LANDSCAPED AREAS: (55.4%) 2.441 ACRES ZONED: R-2 REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY: CASHMAN NURSERY AREA FOR STREET AND DRIVES: (51.41%) 1.411 ACRES NORTH SUBMITTED: MARCH 51, IO1°I2 TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE: (I4.79.) .611 ACRES S G ,4 L_ 1=: I" = B O' Q PERMIT9 REQUIRED: BUILDING PERMIT, 510 PERMIT TOTAL SITE AREA: (100%) 4.6"1 ACRES G E 1R T I F° G A T O W N I-E TOTAL # OF UNITS: 31 FLOOR TO AREA RATIO: .2004 -?r61S SF MAXIMUM 5LD6. HEIGHT: 24, it DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE: 7.2$ DUA P L A N N I N G D I R E C T O R S A P P R O V A L 5UILDIN6 SQUARE FOOTAGE (TYPICAL): UPPER LEVMAIN EL. 2400 S.F. +STORAGE Zoe/��e2 TOTAL: 4600 S.F. +6ARA6E5 d STORAGE PARKING STATISTICS: O l^! N E R S G R T 1 1 I G A% T 1 0 NO OFF-5TREET: 32 p AG GE: PTANGE: OF GONn 1 T I ONS DRIVEWAY: 34 6ARA6E5: 34 TOTAL: IOC (REQUIRED BY Gom.•?65) p e op 0 Q Q T n m BARN v �O �m BXISTIN6 TREE MIDDLE CREEK DITG{� L?�T AL631' `�/ .� „r0SD 1 s O ��.• / l v RESIDENCE Ip w ;'r- j ds / I alA" NOTES: u r 6g-q STREETS SIbNED FOR NO PARKING tn FOR VICINITY MAP t s ', /• ate / �' SEE APPLICATION COVER BUILDING FOUNDATION ```` ,/• 11n R, SNOW PLANTINGS NOT SHOWN 1� W� V. POR CLARITY, SEE INDIV. Ial / SITE PLAN DRAWIN65 LIGHTING WILL BE WALL MOUNTED ON b 9PAGES / / INDIVIDUAL UNITS AND CONTROL BY P� 3 SPACES / / s PHOTO-CELLS. 'll or S / 1% ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS TO BE I- •1' �,•k�' i IRRIGATED WITH U.6.SYSTEM.WATER 0'- TO BE SUPPLIED FROM ON SITE WELL. ,� � yI�NJd�1UIInIIIIA ° �.I,M • .i. NAP. o- r ''r 4i'� SS'STRB7kM-6ETB U gym' ,�`i �y IIn y�MPNI •r P pwl ��rOv4 � � ® y I ' • NI �� 9110 .,?} ' ,' / _ 3q I 4.ira "eno� I I I nllr null -E R_2 UNITS/ACRE - 5 2 SJFFJRY 2 STORY 2 STORY I STORY 2 STORY m g "" --& ,!` "0 R SIDENGE RESIDENCE RE51PENGE RE5112ENGE 1— RESIDENCE tit at;-::4 o L 7 1 5 0 IU LOT 1-7 LOT 1 E5 _ LOT I LOT 2a� LOT I 10" WATER MAIN a" '• 10" 5EWER MAIN FI"INS'ADDITION STORM SF_W!R - �'4/N WMISION AND SCMIN6 POND I ICI L\' 7 � � 10" SEWERMAIN 11fL-�Id 4L\1/1 ( A FU5L I G �S597REE7 ) lsx:vL,..em,`p�w`'"'uN°ue°I�"s" wnra I.e,.r vul�l NORTH in'ere,x Leo• (#) eLLlz 114, �dT S G A L I0 " _ o' RECENED By lu EMAN — Ga 'r�;®d OClTy-COUNTY PLANNINC OFFICE i�P, e-i0 ere,eo rr. � �.) rom+ri�u,leas• , D I .nr,• Q. h) .u"Ireles,lo-a4• ATE evenmr>r+emu,a1- (#) car rn��eet o euTaelae W WO V i no,w.a,T„w,ewr . I� •p�`•e RfD£G-bC j -��r..� a R=ac,T -"✓ � ming OffiCC p� I B, f_N l� G' CV ££GO�C NOGC par 75 • c .,r e.Gross oa cc.. o 4 •Q CfC 60^. G QSARN CV � A ' cc cRA o£^wcc ^6!' �o'eNT. '�s j p Q�i, BY�IY- ,,.!� sea•"„se\s 1 -- E-\i5T\5 TCEE fA `�.D p `V; I-E CREEK r;)17C I !—f ',-i~�b;'�!" C-� Daw w I SD i I� r'p �<, , RESIDENCE \ NOTI-:S: - - R NO PARK N6 STREETS SIGNED FOR I[l In FOR VICINITY MAP II SEE APPLICATION COVER PLAN FOUNDATION PLAN s•ccNCPsv eir_v✓,�K w PArtr ol•au TININ GS NOT rz INP � � __��A�___r-_-,__i ../,/ /�� AV7LA�",, \` ��p'� I i �, �✓ FOR CLARITY: SEE5 INDIV. H: ....�\� r"14-, .I' r- Z+`..•„ �� j ..j SITE PLAN DRAWINGS T--�� LI0HTIN6 WILL 130 WALL MOUNTED ON X INDIVIDUAL UNITS AND CONTROL BY \I, 8 BV�AGEB PHOTO CELLS. p I REM�OVAL �`. SNOW ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS TO BE ^J� ' 1 I Ie P1RF:A i _ % -i�' IRRIGATED WITH U.6.5Y5TcM.WATER p -�'.~J .n' a i nm C.. 1i * ....ti.;,,r h „n.r a•`"' _ TO BE SUPPLIED FROM ON SITE WELL. 7 �. p, �y � �-� Y�✓:. h � � � /._ .�'S.m�RS.A SNGW RiLMOVAL �,iP� �' �� ', _-' �`-`5 �f �Gd I f f... t � ' , � \ \ _ 1"�:��91 \p •.\, '`�'Rr,•mR��.�s ���C� ,.7J f� � �, � j SPECIFICS ON D LINAGE, - J � � i RECREATION AREA 3 POND DESIGNSt-ANB--'BLOOD PLAIN I� � p - INFORMATION. SEE ATTACHED P -.SP 4 � ENGINEER'S DRAWINGS �s _ -_� {agp FOPLANNEDE UN TOP �y q' 'f j{}`I`\ DEVELOPMENT NATVC1 CCE ATtQN TO ee s'xr' f+. 'T � r C ALO"CR AI.AM1:0 ALOHO S1"-PCAM A9 RR ... -- • .=' ` �v. :' y\ ,_,. Y.' ':.� '.:� ��\� ,;; .. t•".,I f r 7.� ... '.J,+: �-4 Jam. y y� - I _T__MiG �C "? ,s \ (, ACRE ) f fli t "\, 2 STARY I Y 2 STORY STORY ® 2 STORY �� rc W -RESIDENCE m�GE Ra51DENGE RESIDENCE � i � 4�,r RESIDENCE mN O 85 5Tr qM-gC�B,hGR I� t ry uNIX K LOT 5 I 6 v \ g:' i e , IC LOT I _ --.. I- �' --- - LOT I�I L—O_. _ £aNDAALK MA I- _ - - - .� 5s I 1 s --- - - - - F d - ` nI K REVIEWED 8e COND3i0NALIY APPRAVW f -- — - - — - --- -- --- ro - soz rAN crrY-courrrY PLAr7Nnva \ �\ 10" INATER MAIN- „_ DEPAR'TIONT 8•, ` �-7;"�- ST��' PRIVATE ROAD APPROAf�MC5-GUR6,6UTT2R,9'GRO55 DR41N 10' 5EWER MAIN PRIVATE RO APPROAGHE5-GUR66U R,3�ROSS D(Zp 1N_. �f f _ 6t.IT�5AEO5. ATTACHED SITE c, IN6 R DRAINA6E PLAN) ia�!t'ta/UW" /i3f✓i1�K TO CITY SPGGS(5EE ATTACHCD SITe bRADIN5 l DRAINA6E PLAN) "✓!! A;� ;'�.�� 'YG�,J -- _ ,\- Fl661N5'ADDITION 570RM SEVER _ KMTEN510N AND BETTLIN6 POND V- I PLAN= CTOEi 9/., J i ( A R UDAB 1-Zb-9 3 B G 5 T R E E T ) L I _ I -- -- - - - - - - AMENDED SUBDIVISION PLAT OF BLOCK 9,F1661N5 ADDITION, FIRST PHASE A TRACT Of LAND LOGATGD IN Tf!E GI/O NGI/4,'LTG Off,TG!^,RSG,P.M M, -1- BALL ATI N OtJ MONT ANA Lc SITE STATISTICS: ONNEw5:s!oDE�G6�uNSTiYeoN" r� sPA^ I c l E Acic OPEN SPACE: (32.0%) 1.5 ACRES 4l Go5oRc ai ArMONTAA sa 1 III jl li llpl (LJt z PERIMETER LANDSCAPE AREAS: (!9.1 0) 8�f ACRES PROPOSED LAND USE: URBAN I•'.E5IDENTIAL I`.,'"'_. iiILTIPAMILY ACTIVE RECREATION AREA (TRAIL): (6.596) .5 ACRES ZONED: R-2 TOTAL LANDSCAPED AREAS: (57.6%) 2.641 ACRES ro�>�'."�E�""� NORTH €'.EYIE4*dE0 AND APPROVED BY: C.A,SIHMAN NURSERY AREA FOR STREET AND DRIVES: (51.41%) 1.4&1 ACRES s r � N ,.:, '°" _ *oA�«, S G A L E: I" = 3 O' FINAL SUBMITTAL: JULY Is, laaa PIrrMITS REG?UI{ ED: BUILDING, 510, NATIONAIDr TOTAL BUILDIN6 COVERAGE: (10-SY .44 ACRES R _' *�A^ro oNsma:a v 07/11,93 1I.49 TOTAL SITE AREA: (100%) 4.6? G Ir T I .I= I G A T E: O 1= O del ice_. 7- S H I P TOTAL a OP UNITS: 24 �F r ' FLOOR TO AREA RATIO: 415 �- MAXIMUM BLDG. HEIGHT: 24' ✓j• roe ,� ty .�: —Y- ZZe DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE: 5.15 DU.A C _ ' r-'- - ---"- ��ff /V "'--� -\, BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE (TYPICAL): L. A N N I N G i/ I R M T O J A p P i'� O Y A L 4: GUT ER DETAIL PIWO LN PARK!N6 L NB 9 GONG.PARKING GVRO - la 1 MAIN LEVEL: 2400 SP. +bARA6E5 t UPPER LEVEL: 2400 S.P. +STORA(SE �II TOTAL: 4500 S.F. +6ARA6E5 6 5TORAGE - -- -- PARKING STATISTICS: It - - - — OFF-STREET: ._ t _ E FP T A N C F O F2 Ci O N ='I T I O N S DRIVE�NAY: 24 24 _ I \. � / cnMrG 2 U'�1Q e^v� Z�O�1�3 TOTAL: 6a I • --.__�._ (REQUIRED DY CODE,94) ..^t'-., ••1•' f f1 M I J r STORM WATER MAINTENANCE PLAN Four storm water detention basins are delineated on the PUD and the y Grading and Drainage Plan for the Overbrook Condominiums. The detention e basins have been designed to attenuate the additional storm runoff generated by the development, and to remove solids, silts, oils, grease, and other pollutants from the storm runoff. The detention basins reduce the peak flow of the design storm runoff by collecting the runoff and releasing it through the outlet structure at the historical rate. Any excess runoff is temporarily stored in the basin until it can be released through the outlet structure. The detention basins also remove pollutants by settling and filtration. The storm water that enters the basins must flow through the grassed basins to the outlet structure, allowing the sediment to settle and filtering other pollutants through the grass. The detention basins perform their function with only minor maintenance required. To ensure the proper function of the detention basins, they should be maintained with the other landscaping in the development, and should not be allowed to collect any significant amounts of sediment. The grass within the basins should be mowed on the same schedule as the rest of the landscaping. If sediment does build up in the basins, it should be raked out or excavated so that the bottom of the basin remains at the design elevation. Otherwise the volume available for storm water detention will be decreased. The outlet structures should be cleaned periodically to remove any sediment that has collected. The pipe from the outlet structure should also be inspected at the same time, and any SA sediment or debris should be removed. I . ... "-" , � 1 , I I . �'� � ":. ; " . 1 i - , ,_ .�' I," , . , I I , I .: I . l5 ,�, � ... . .. �. .".'. _- �. .. I J I ;.-._ 1 .<: � p...- - :I I� ..I� � 1 IIIII: � .REV ' ', . - I ... ..1 m .�,. 1 II[ � CONDOMINIUMS : . . i SITE GRADING AN D DRAINAGE PLAN l .� , . - . . . . I . I t . . . . I i � VERTICAL SOT IN . . ! IN.::S LaTURE I I i I ming p1mm . I �. I. . . � I . . I I I . I I L ���� . I I � I.. . . I . I . � . �- 1,IM 1 T S OF I 0'O" Y E A,R . I . I 1­1 I I I I 1 -2 1 ., I 1, �' I I . I I � I -'* . _'D PLAIN I I I . I E',A R N ne I I OUTLET STRUCTURE I I I . � % FI_()(.) . . 15"I.D.R�SET A MINIMUM OF 127 BELOW GRADE � / . i. -T WIDTH FOR OUTLETS (WASHED AGGREGATE SURFACE) � I � . I � . I � ' I. : I .. . � I I I I . . . ' . ,I � I , I , BASIN WIDTH FILL%'M'TH CONCRETE TO ELEVATION OF BOTTOM � I I . I IZ2' OF DETENTION DAMN. I I . . - RTICAL T I . . I � I . � � - i 3 ,- VE SLOT U HT.)FOR INLET TO STRUCTURE. I I I I I I _� : !.. � I i � . 2 6/8 5 . I ff TLjL .. � 1�2 .3*PVC PPE.OUTLET. ,j- ..' 4 1 � I I I . / I I I ,, ;� _/ . I�I. I- � . I I �. . . .. I " C, ------- :'j,�' , � � I . I I . I �_-- - I , I I I - --- J I�I ' I . I I-- , /I /'/ 1 ,�=7::�'_'�;7 ___*_1:7�7____._ _/ -0-_ . � � � -- ��=��­ . - --­1__ __-- ­­ • - 49W. ; ------'4907.7-- i I . Y .e L�' ____�_ I/ I _11' _'pp.� ----� - __ - .I_­ � . --OUTLET DETAIL FOR DETENTION BASIN - ' I ---- __--- -.:.7�__" - - - - - - � . -- I-_.__­______1 - ----"__7___:_ .- S' r--__�, . 8 4 � � . - z� ------a0"----­----- - __1z �, .3 i / I -- \-___________e6 I I I =" =- ��_.S x i _.u..:87,,7 1 � I --. �. I .1 : I " -­ �. -� - _i�- ' -411� --_- - __�_��7 , _�-_--- --- - - I 4 1 - 4- 49 _'�_ - , 1�1 / I - �_� _ i�� ;� �") & - -- - .-- S 4910.i . 0 f 1, I I // - I, 0- 5.0 / I - - I I 11 -1/ x i ) 8.4 8.7 / /-11'e,/ - 0 ( - 1 I I I . 1� ..' DETENTION POND A , - 9.7 9 - -V - x f-OE' . ; .�'�'/ . x x x x 1 7.2 1 � il - 1 J 1 - \ 0 . WATER �, ,' A /I ,' 8.5 ' (9 OUTLET STRUCTURE I //; ;19"A k X* I I -- UR A E EL < ,.I,- I il�\_ ) .. I 1. � � . . _� i // / .11.0 / 10.5 it . I I �' I f I I � I ,. I I/ x / x 9.5 '\ -} I - 9 5.0 ". __j-9-f-.fR%_�___. , ' '--, DETENT11 , 1 #2 �' I (TYPICAL OF 4) 1 It I I , ", /I// /" . I � , . 11 * x­K00, . fr-T. -) %� ,I / :DETENTION BASIN #1 . I . I f- t.0.F.=V0.1 t I F.F.=9.4 I I V. R . f T. I I I DETEN . I t .1 I I I 1 L'�, , , I Ila , 1 I i I I I �; 8.2 - -------,-I 200 CU. FT (MIN) � I ._ I , /, " . " .. :*� // v, , _/ 11 1,15.F',�/l 3.7 T.0.F.=1 0.0 0.0 ' . . . � � 4 IF; ! r- - - . .' 11- ­ � �� I I . . . � I . � I I �' ,//- �'r/ , I ��/ I I ; I : I � , '� ,� F5_8 9 -_1.1:�-_�' - x" � I 1 I .1 I � � I � I , 8.5 1 1 -- 09 --!t)ENL',E I . 1 . I 1. . I , / / ;' I I � , I I - 5 1 - I / / I . T / i RE . I ; . I I ' )/ /co "� - :, I I I ., - 11. T.01.=10.5 ,, I I - - I � I/41�3 11' I I ' i ',?- - .1 '/. A " I , i . I / . " I _ " I- 'r e I ," / - 7'r,I'Q,, I Y I I I � - ,',!--,- y I -rff.-=;11 " I �. o' L ill-, . I /I/ . . f / 1 0.7/ 0 . � I . I . / I ' I --X-� A I . ". I I - - I ­ . I � �- .- � � 1 � I ' /, , , , � /' * I 1. 1, I I S. 1 ! il - 7 /' 5 11 115, !/ 4910.9 I I - . I I 1j // / I" 8.8 I ----" -k- I � I I I y . i � � I I I /I I I 9.6 : " 11 -1 I ... � I � I 1," I . I O.O., ';� . - I- , , � I I .. I x --- I i I I I 11, . ,�. A. � 11 . I . , . . I , I -1-9. I � � I ., . , I I I , 1, , / --- / ,,- 14910 i " I. . � I./ " .. - , ! * '��' - - 1 :1 " I I . � . I / ,,, I I - I � � / V 8.5 -_� f 10.1 I I � I . �.. I. I I � I I .1 I I I I . I .11 I I . , / .' / � . i � "�'I B.75 - ,FL-0 / - x 15'. . ,� I � �I '. I I I �I I I I� I �;",/ / ,,,9, 11. / , . , 8%s .. I I=--- ____ 8.0 '\ x . --- .. ,-- I . I . - I , 1 .W x I I I -11 I � I -_ _'rjR_ -_ ' 75-- 1 1 . I y x I x 4,-/ I I ql � . ,� 1 / 1,- I q J-�:J O0_YRf' ASTER , 1. � I ; / . I I I . , I I , ELEV.sd -SUREACE�\ . , * 10.2 ). � � I . / . ,I/ . . . . I I, / , 1,, , .3()8.3 _:_: /"7* 7.9 � 8.)e - S I I I I �I I .,/NI�"4� - I . I , _1/•1 -2.5x ' 5� 8.6 9.0 . I i � I I I . � . I � I I/ I'//I/ .7p, -.1: I r 10-0 I /­_�%.-I 5--`�--. 8:85 C'' �_' -8--X, - .�.." 7.B5 - --41 2 ". , ms i I a .� I I I I � � I I / / , ; '.. 1 '.4' 1, . x x 8. .1, NO __ _)__ ',' -box Z.b ALU. _"" , ' I ­90111- .57 - I I I I . "--- -_ ­_ - _.B - --*I __4911 - - - I I . I I I I I - ."3 : 00 - z2-Z 1 1 7-7�1 OX CULVERT-- ­­,77, 1 --- 1, I I . 11 . I I �= / 7.85 INV. IN = 3.�Oe �- - U.0 �' I I C, Y, -------m__ 11 I , � 1. .. i I /'/ " // \ 10 ' ' '7 _:� __ ___ - .9,,5 1 - 1, I I / / I /I I .Z+ 70- 11 1 IQ,2 . - ,:., -_ ill- ��- I . I : ,I' I X , / I /I 7.6 3:1. _ I"el - . . . � � I '�/ /� " 'y' , ") . 8.7 .. x \' x FL=O . OUT __ . 9.65 i, I 11�' I . . . � I I I /' ' I I / 11 I "' ._N I 11 I 1­ J / I _� - I , I - I 1 7 . .I�.. . � I . � ill / / ' / .�' I V_� I ..' f 6 5. .- _ � I ... I I . , . \ . . . I/ I % - ' __ / 07 1 ,'07 = 0 �' Z' /_ __ t____ 9.7 1 -,,j ' . . . � . . . 1, -,- � I . , . x '15- __t2=o______ i ', ,. X4.2., _4`,�_ �A' 7, .1 10.65 . �__________ . ! . . , . 49112. i/--'F�2 4 DETENTION BASIN .� �.' / - I . wli:51 . 4912.4, 11 I i I - '� I � .. �� I I I I � I " / e." ru,/ I � . / . . // I, I. � . , I 9 . " I . '/ I _'�d I 0 ",- I __ ' T.O.F.=10.2 ___l, Is)-, I - - I . , z , __ '4' � ____f , � X I _" . 0 . . "_� .. � . FT. (MIN. , 07�,.e I ." It: \ - , L 39. . . k�&6�MIIL`Y 1\ .0' - I I ' - I/ 11 x . �' §1 I I , I , CD I . , I I y I, //, I I I 0.4 1 .' .-O .5 1 .1 10.2.5 1 - . /' k-.. IV �� I I < .� I . I, " / 11.* , x 085 - , , I- -�� ,I 1��F-;�0:Y ------ �� .7 . -1, �� - :*,I.- I . / "�_ / /.. ' -/I k / , il _...I __'.- 6 N - . _ _ 1, '� , I '�' . ..' I / .�.1-// I A,I I I ._(,� ..5 0 1 I,,'F.F=9.4,--- � x "I : 11 x , � - � 11 . � /' .1 �,V ­_' Ir I- I w ___1 96 ' _' 11.85 �\' I . � 1 -7� 1 - - - � � 15� '� ' '' , / , / /1' " I �i I _/11 -_ I i /X 1 k, 19. . /; 11.4.5 11.849129 \ . 1 '21z_'�- . /11 lk_ .. §*' v 1.24%GRADE, ' �" I-- I , � � � I I , 1 . � i: . I / I 1.0 " .�I .,-. ,9 -1 1. I I I __ I , R - 110.00' I /' 0�� _'j I I � .. \\', .. , . "' I I I .. / " // / / -- '; � . , / '5 I ,/,/ � . .1 17)� . "I,--- , I b11;^1.I \V I I / / I I;0 1 OS .. L= 56.11*_.-�--e.f!:�4---F�R�'110.00I I , 019\' _X __.7 ""."-,* -, � -� I I . - . , /' , " "' : I " , I " _�_ ' �', �.. \ ETEN,7M BA ' 8.7 .. q;q-"/-, 'N� \ I . .I . EXISTING CONTOUR -'4dlG*' ,' / � . - 60.14 pN : ,,, I ... _ A2,9..__ I 1� I I R E E" � -11 ., I - /I , 4913.0 . 4912.7 4 � . � I ELEVATION I , I ­_­' I I K ,,'- _11� _' 39G.W. .. . I ,__ X Z..dl-" I, ...4912.0 . ; . . / / -�911.4 ' I I '�.I I ux.0 - I . 14 I I / / �__' 2 \_ V, , I / i6&.4- ",�2M'---�, ' I I � . ." - 0) - x . ' .4�1;_� 1 -T-Ir- . "I .I I ,�r_ 90&o__ .-;.- I / / " . - , - ------ - .. ----.--- __ __491I- - --- __--- . ----�----491&0­11�.�1110 / � I '\ . � ' -- -1 , .' , A _____ ��W_ ��; _ -491T.- -----,---" ­-- ­�t-41h'20--­-- --- � - I � '��91.. - -e..',2. . . � .. � .-'I , . � __ _ '��'0 �. - Do �. - --j --_ IDO . . � I '�/ I . - I - ' ..'. `7 I . .,\ I PROPOSED SPOT `--=_L-4glag'' . I . - I / �'5� - . � - -"'8 - 9"'.1 I_�' � ELEVATION - ­___.­__. . ."I� I � I / I; "'K- 2.2 11 I 11 I r.!,f-- • 51 . . . ,.,4.111_� � ,----___----, 'I -- -,/' � '. ,�.;! L!M 1 T J. C)f"- � � - I �.12'.2 1 , -�- I, ,-- ,. 11 -_:-:'::�_-_4912.4 --- --- .. � --------4914.0 1 1 1 1 1 "�.; ''I � . I "' -0t, ,. . - ----\ '\ � . 10 � \ X .�- ,. . , v ,., . I I I 1 _'�7 , c,i,0 ,. 13.8---- ,__��_��_-_�--_4111Z5 - .r. � � � . . - /I - - '_• J;��_*, :< I � I . I , --- "I ! 1 4. % - I - op, . I \ .t ­ .I - - 6 0) �- -, . \ . \ . -_ I 1. I . I . 1, I 1.� . . i -I .": � ' . * ,It - -' I L t . I � /I . . ..I I OT ELEVATIONS .Qua / . I � . . 'W . AROUND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT I . I. . . -4 !�5 I I ' '-I . • , � . . I .1� , .1 - .. " " ( - '_ _.­ I. ,,---I , ..' I \ I I I . "" S'N.. P D"Osm CONTOU" \ , , . 1 4 . � . ''gi�'Lo ,,, .)f.25 -�, � I%jf-49 3.1 2 � I I - �' \10 .'� I . .. . \ - � � , � ... I . . . I . \ 1'�'I it I I I ENSMNO CONTOURS 'N I . . 1 C'0 YEAR '___�-- "'-.k-6- 1 I , -I_�? -I , I , , . • I I I I . � FLOOD PLAIN 4? ,10'. . . \ � - ---7, 3 �-'�­Tr' . , ',,1.6 ,,' .0.'� I \� I � I � � ikk % I rr, , 8.5'x2.5' ALU \ It ,I � .I . . .p I- ��.. � zl 4, . ­ I I I I .I % R,-If .Do' fr_, I I , I I . � ... SI-IOWN D�ED I 11 . b, I ,� 12. x _[ \' S' BOX CUL­ �,I;kl � I I I . . . I - � 'e . . 1. I . Q,40 0 I- �O: - "!-en, I INV. IN ='7' ', I I I . . . . 1 " " � . . 1. 1;�� � , . . __ J. L - 0 .70 44.0 . � I . � .' I . . 4W47', I � I I I t I . I I I � . I V� ='- 1= __ I -4-- . INV. OUT- 7.25 1 .1i � m � I . I ' .j NG ;�:=':��-_= ,I - __I I � . '11 I : I I � I I I 11 : I . . IV, I . � j I I . ,I I .1 � � I. 11 . . ­_ _.A R, I I . . I I I - . . . "I �' . I � .. -r E�xl!`�==�-- . , 1­IX GRADE' N 11, 0. 1, ,,'I,"q*--Lf m I TS OF 1 1' `�YE: . � . . .. � . _� . . I . ­ . I - I .�" a �_�L=� .11. A , �' __ --, . I I . .1 . . . I . . � I I- I . ... �." I- , lr�. " 11. - __ IN I 14.8 1 . / \, . _�_� - -_jf FLOOD PLAIN ,� � . . I . . 11 �, . ---_ %11 - 41114.4 \ I I . -,;, _ ,-,� I - --_�--- __1! I I � ,. I _ . 1. � . :! . PLACE RIP RAP it - I �. I I ... ., � I .. � . .J- ,I x j,A,2_.:� . --- IQ 15.1 �1: -1 . '­' - . .I - �;� . . . I ALONG NORTH BANK 1, . , , I - .11__1 I _' ­:�_:_: w . I I - �'_� 11 I � .. . � OF CHANNEL FOR .. '.' 4�- " ----I ----- ----- . . . .� .. I I I -- ' u . . .. .� ... . � 1 15' DOWNSTREAM OF �"" 06'.- . I 11 -----___------7-- __ .. . � . .1 , . __ . I 0 � � . . I EXISTING CULVERT , - • " 0--" 0 WESTRIDGE DRIVE --- � I. I. � I , �11 .'�� . .-- . � � � � . . " I . -__� �. __@ I 10'ss - I � I., : . I !0*$S . . I I . . . ... " I I I: - " 11 I ,: , .. . . I "" .% O- . %e* I I � . . . . . . . . . I . I I � - � . . . . � - : "I •- -08.9 7,k"*� I . . I � . . . I I I . I .. I . ,I . _.. . . I � 22 L.F..Alr CMP : 7 � � I I I I ,� -I. � i ' ;p � I . INV. IN = 8.8 ;�' :0-1---I _ . . I � ... �. ;' .I . . . I � . , � 1 4 . I . . � .. I ...'.....' . � . . . . INV. OUT= 8.2 . � 11 � ­11 "cr I I � . I I .. :'.. "" .1 . . I ---> I I . . �- I '. . .I I I . � � : I��;-. ; ..�. . I - . I � . I I -I . .. � .4�_� . . � . . ­! . I 11 . I I 11 . � 1. I � . L . I ... . - . . . I . 11 I .�' . i I � . I. I . .1 I .. I '4� . I .1 � . . .1 I I '.'. I I I I�.� '-L I .� �,�. I . . I . � � I I � . .� I .. � . I .. I I� � � . " . . I . � . � " , : . I � I . . � � I . - . � . . ... . ..... :�..t� .. I . : . ,I . . 26* -, :1, - . �. . I "I ­ I : ,. I� " . . I � . 11 1. . . .1 .. .. .. .. . . ... i . I. .. . ..I . I I. 11 :.' - . .. I 7" I ­ . I . .. . I I .. .. I I 11 I . I . � . I . -.. . . I. .. . - . . :'. . . . I ...... . : � , I I . I I ,,.,INSTALL CITY OF BOZEMAN I I NOTES: I.,11� - ,. � . . I I I I . � I I . PRIVATE . ,I , , I . i : . .. I -.I . I . I � � � . I : � .. .. . . 1. . ! . % , I 'STANDARD TTER , �, ,. I- I . � � I �' .m. , .��- '�.i � .: � I . 1. RIM ELEVATION OF SANITARY SEWER p. I. � . . I . . .. � .1 I � I . � I I .. I . . I I . I I . I .. . .. � . I. , p .: �� ROAD . I .. I I . t .. "1. :r ; . 11 - ,'. . . , I . - 1 � I . I _. I . . , .I.. ..�. I. ..... .. .... .. I . I . . .. , . I . I I - AND FILLE FROM EXISTING ... .. . ­ . .. . I . � . . � . . .. * I . .; . , . I � I � LIFT STATION IS 4908.4, 0.2 FEET I '. � . .,.:. ,'. - ' I I I .. . 1, . . � . I .I . 1 I � . I � . . .. , - . ':-. . IN ; � ... . 1 � I� . . ' - CURB ON WESTRIDGE DRIVE I I I- ti . 1. •.' . :''. - I I � . . I � :. I. , L EW SIDEWALK SHALL I � I . "I I� .11-: .. I ABOVE 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION. !%'4�:'. �' �. ��i.... . . 11. I : I � I, I I � . . I . I �..� , � :I - . . , . I . . , I . � � ..�"� � :�'il . ; , . , - " I I . I I ­ - . .1. . . ' '� I - I I � . . TO NORTH END OF 15' RADIUS.. � , : I I � I-.: .' . HAVE PEDESTRIAN RAMPS � : � �2. BENCHMARK: CITY OF BOZEMAN BENCH MARK -.. , , � , , . .1 : . �. .. � � . .1 . . I �I I � I ,, � . -_ 11 �.' ­ ... . .. . . � I '. 1..:�' � I- �� I . . ' L, ­ .;1 1. . I . I , ' . '_ � , ­ . , . . I . ,.. . . 11 ,. . � I . , - -1 ;. I.. ; I.... .I . : ' 11 ... ­ � .. : /(;R(PICAL. BOTH �: � . - -406, SW BOLT.ON TOP OF FIRE HYDRANT, . .. , ,�,.. . . .. I L. . . .. . - ,.1'1� .' : 11% : - . - .. " . ­ . I . . : : . . :� :!�� . " , : . � INSTALLED,AT NEW CURB. , ., , . _SIDES OF . . I . r. I. .1 I .No. .. . . .: - . .. . .. 1.. . . . 'I . I I. I ... L - '. I .. . . �. . "I. .. , I! - , . . .: � I , � 11 . 11 . . :.��;;.� ­7­1 , 7. _ � - ' I I . . - L :�'- - % - . ., , �-, I �! . ::. - ., . . I .I . .:� I ':�� ,,, " - . ,. �:�. , .� IVATE.ROAD , .. � --- , ­ . . � 4.�I .. I . , ,. ' ' ..So.: . ..'� z" I � .-, - .. . * I . . . . . , . .� - , ,,� . I .I . 1. I ) � I ' . _-1'_­j� !�. . I . .- -: . . . . - . . ''. �� 1. I I I,I # , I . I . . I I SIDE OF WESTRIDGE DRM�ELEV. =.4917,09_�w� �'�':.. , ,�_. _. � , '.1 . . �. .. . � I " 1 . �I � ' . . .I . . .- . .I ., . I I .i , . �. , . - �� . � .. . I i. . . I I . I ' , � � .1 � I ., . . . '. . . ... .. . . . .. .- . .. � � . '' . I . ELEVATIONS-SHOWN _.. I � . - . . - . . . � �'­ , � . I , i;. - .: f 3. THE 100 YEAR WATER SURFACE �- 1. ' J.�'-_".. , '�7��:��'� �­'% _ L; - I 1: .I I I I .. . I (' �'� . .� 1.71 , �.�.. " I I I I ':' 1.:� �.: . ..".. -., I . . . I.. .11, . z .. �� .: " 11 - ­ ­ , -I,, � . : I " - ' q_1 � ' - . " , � ... , . . '�. . .. . , I- '� ., - I - . �� 1 '% , . .-. _ . .. . ..: . � , . � .; ,' 1. . ' - I ;., , , , - . - . . ­ ­ .1 . ­ . ...� ".i I.: .. � ,, ., , . :. -. . . -.. . 1. .. . � �L,; .1 ... . , I I ': . I , . : . �: ... , . . ' . , . , � .�.mm .1 . . % - AT THE ROAD CROSSINGS ASSUME THE CULVERTS . 1, I , .".: ,� � � . . I ' I , - .'... ., � " .'' , , I...' . . - , � �1 �. ..: ­ . .' ' -"- _' .1. ­..- :. . .. . � , �- _� t -!I��'z': ..:'�:. 1. !.. ..��'.'_ I ,. .. . � . � � � ::,.: :., . I . �_ ,� : ..,0. .".. . i .I - - - " ' "I�:"� ,� . .I m:';�."".."�", - :: , I : .. - , . � . . . � � - . I I . . . . .. . . - : - - -- �. . - . I � .p 11 1, . ...: . . . , . � - '_� .'-..:, i 1. I . ",�, �1- . ---" . . ,! : I. , .. I . ': : f . ,:�." . I ". . �,�,� ­ , - 1. I , "11 I - I I I i: "I I - � 11 1. . ­ .Y ., . 14. '' : .;? ., ��� %%�� . .. I .I 1�... I _. � - . I �.:*I . :�. -.1 . ... ,. ,I'll. :. .. . I � -1: - ' �' - : . . I �- - � I 1.. . . , . % . -1 I. . ; ... - '' .. � I I. � _1 . � . ... - JO BE PLUGGED,,AWD THE ENTIRE 100 YEAR,FLOW . . . , ; , ' . '�. - " ' ..... . R PFS I 0 � . . ... I - .. � .. . . .. . . . : -I - __ - m I . . -1 : ' � - .1 -I 1 % c' I . . I. . . � . . . . � . ....;� . � �.,","I. �'--.:.11 -'L� '.�. ­ , . � . . ', I I :.. , � ­1 I I � .' I.� .. . - : 'PASSING OVER THE ROAD. .I - I 11�, �I . .. � : .:.�.. . '. .. . . ,:: , �- . .-, I I . � , , 1, � I..' . . . . - 1. . :.: :. % . � I.; � , , � - ' . . . . 11 - : I. . , . .. ' � - � 1, . . '. 0 1 - ' __ ' .1 . ..' � I . . .�.... �..:. .,.. . :�� , -. .- . ..�, .%.".:..� . � ,.7 � INSTALL 3' WIDE CROSS-DRAIN 11:7 .� . :' "". 1. .. . I 11 '. . . - . I 15 30 - , 60 . : � � !�'r'. - : : .�. � ... :r 1:. : .. . ., ­ . .- . . I ­ . I : . ­1 I � . . ... I .- .... . . .11, 1. . . . I ­',:"�" ­ ." - �_ . . :..., , � , -� � . . . '.. -�6ckv Mounbjin,�' Engi. e 1 I , ; .. 11 . . , . . ., , , . ... . i � . . i' : � ..:.�-'�­ , - - .� ., .. " .. I - L ' , � , - . , .. .. . lit: , � . � .. . � I � � . I . .. . . I . 1. . :'�'_..' � : :': 'L �, , , '% :' _ " . - a I. . •. 1.1;. " .Z. . �2 . .� . 2 ,_ ,'­­" ,: L. . '� I �.. ,� I . ..... r . , ' ' I . - I I I � . I . I � , .. I .:. 11 . . . I r I I I I : 7 -I _ , . . ... . . . . - - k� :.:�' , : I- .� _'; . .BETWEEN FILLETS � - 1, ­�z�' ..:: : x :(. :' � f .�. , 1 . I '.-. 1-1 . . - �' - , . ..' .... ,:: . .. . . 1. I. .. .... 'I.: :. . . ,..; . � .. . . -,. '. z 1�. I- _ ,:., � :' I . .1 . : . . ' -' .I . ':� 1. . - . �... :"�. :' :. - , . ... . :. : ' 'r . ' ' ' ,. �. . ..;." I ",''�, , ,. . 1 I - '�!-, � � ,� - . : :1 - ..... .. .. . . .: I� .. 1�1 � - "�� I I 11 . , . . .I. - I I. : , � 1, � � �", , , . . . 11 .�.;: , , " I I � , . . . .1 . .. . - .. '' I .. r8ozemon. Montano , _ll '�'.1 ., , ,,, .. I SCALE:'11-_30 - - ' , .- .� I � i - . . . �. . . I � . . . . . ­�. I - .., 11 . " . ­ '�,;, . I . "I , . %-,. ..; .1 , � .L� � � � w I .:�! .� . P.O. •.13ox 883i 59771 - � I . '. . : . � � . . ., . . . . . .. .. ; '.­ . .:r .. . . I , - . . .. I '. . d_... ,� . i I�� . ... ..' ... 4 , :r .'.. I - . : , 1:. 1%� I . r., . � ' . . I ' . �: '' ­ . - � , . . .'. , I I.1: ; . -. . - - . - , ,'.'" , , . ..' . . , . I . . � I : :�.. , , . " � 1, .. . . ": . . I ....-. , I .f:"- .-: �'j ." ! ...'.. :, , ­ � d.. -:�. -: I ".. .....11 -- f �' I ...... .m �­����QH DETAI: r .- �' . , . . ., .�� . � ._'.. ' . ..- .. . . . I' ' I., '. ,:� , , n "��; , 1 7 '-, _ . . " � . - ­­ ' , " ­- ���­ . - - �' �,I � �, ' - .7- I j"_ . �_ � � . . -, I­11 I �' 1: '�:L,". I 1. I I ::'-� .. I � e I I .-I I � 1.11 , . I 11 I. .' I . .�'� � ". I �� - . I.. I I ., . ,.I Q ,I F L-J oved i �g oPFict ca G � un 33 o Zj 2 Z3 i 4-° C,04,T -J DID JAI Flu — i I ti I� j, i 7 r-no r EV AT'ON PLr=X EMAN CI RECEIVED BY Y PLANNING BOOFFICE ELEVA i IONS DATE ILI ti i� a d3 j 4'_8" 4_8 2'_'T° 8'-10" 10'_2" - Re pa ` o 0 0 _ F ciq b 6-8 2X12 TRIM CPT. BOARD O .. MASTER 0 I core.E,LIN5 UNIT"B" 7/ BLDRoOM OPTIONAL 1 r---------- (� KI.GLo. - - ADPHRABOVE 3 I 1 I DININ6 n 2-6/a-O 4.4 7_ _M• t IO �cwm UcwN1 OOr,ET eRds O I 10'O-2 23/IfiIIII IIIIiII br"CD LIE1G3ATRO/�b 2_8'-z_1—R�+(IA�I BGa-G oro_5i-b/r„56-'ei.Ha SLOPED -oi6- cPr. SL nLE BATH LIVINGROOP M KITCHEN BEDROOM cPT. 4-0b_0 _TILE ILE IIII 2 Qv 'Ova1- J/4' 0 3 1/2"3 4 B 1/2" CRAYL 6 -8A!32 ------ ABOVE TILE 2- /6-8 BATH b ELEG TILE, T ELEG PANEL ELEC.PANEL BEDROOM/DEN 5TORAGE UNIT"B" STAIRS 'iS 5T IV GARAGE GARAGE FOR UPPER LL/EL I - z Q .0 P O U ry a-0/6-0 U O -- - 4-0/6-0 H'-10" — II'-01/2' 12,_O 14'_H" 14'-O" A II IN UN 1 T "A"I 1502 50. FT. MAIN /• -—--- - FLOOR SCALE 1/4" = I'-O" PLAN UNIT A, N via zc . - 9 /6 v MASTER - - O _ UNIT"B" $EOROOM -I T W.I.CLO. o cPr. 3 I DININb I L — — 2-6/6-9 4.4 Gam' O 2 o/b a VM LIVINC7ROOM BATH 1 I A Jl m O � VAULTED COLINb CPT. $-0/6-9 � m to N ��/ -. KITCHEN (ITS 1 In G 4-0/6-6 CPT. TILE iO m 1 — 10'-2 1/2' '-4" 6'-5 1/21, 5'-3 5'-a 1/2" I '-3 I/2" --- b'� -- 4.4 Q V 1 lu r I I.INEN -------- o �4p ,-�� 9-O/6-6 I I _� $ATH Q G N - TILE LAUN-,RY CPT. TILE O N 1 5-0 b e O 9-0/6-H 1 I ACCESS 2-b/b-8 Y F=7 i 1PANEL ,,OVA^ T - Q 42"HI&H{Y4L.L I in - � STORAGE GpT, BEDROOM TILE CPT. UNIT B" N B 4 . I A4- -J'AAIRSt a TA"STORAGEFUTURE ROOM N F I - Z _ VI I=r=r FL-00M M-AID UN 1 7 "A" I151 50.FT. 14'-0" SCALE. I/4" = I'-0" - UPPER FLOOR PLAN UNIT A 12'_0" 14'-6" . 14,_4" T'-O" 4'-0'. '_ J T_g' y_3, 2,_b" 4,_8' 4'-8„ h I 0 0 O O O BEDRO O . UWT°8' UNIT"B° - _UNIT'A' IT°B°.MASTERDINING - G - - I. GPT, EILIN6 S 2-b/6-a OFT. W.I.GLO. Q 4.4 ALTERNATE FLOOR PLAN — — — — PA UNIT"B"/UNIT."By PARTY WALL I BEAM GPT. LINO - (V r— _ soFFIT LIVIN6ROOM BATH 1 VEILIN6 O O O GEILIN6 N �]J (%yf KITCHEN r0 A I I LI FLUE h1 L.L � _. I .CLEAR O_O ..' GE ILI N6 4-0/6Fa PCD I I 4-O/64 I DROP (V I I BEA� 111 ,L G rnzoN& I ;Q. GPi. 42'HIGH WrW- GRAIW-' TILE SPACE 200M BEL�f' 1 _ lY �`Jp f4f9' _ T 3-0/6-8 3-0/6-9 4-O/be8 I GD21L NG Q ILE CPT. b'-4 I/2" 2'_2" . GAa 6 ELEG METERS UNIT°B'. i IY 2r Ea DEN/BEDROOM 2-a/6-5 ` CPT• :d. '•c:?T. LINO 2-6/b-8 PANED i S-0/6-6 3.-7H LAUNDRY rJ UNIT"B° TILE DROP � � O - _ SEE ALTERNATE FLOOR 20/6-6 �5-0/" PANEL PLAN-THIS SHEET UNIT STORAGE . 'E 101-01 GARAGE GARAGE UNIT 1�AWN L.E!\/?2L. f2--LIDOO7, FLAN r' UNIT 11511 14g5 sa.l=r. MAIN FLOOR SCALE 1/4,, = I'-O" PAN sl'-la' UNIT B t 3 's <'I sr-Ia' �� � 12'-0" i p UNIT"A° �... COFFERED OL6. MASTER ' rvI I DINING I I O BEDROOM - - - I W.I ALO: m . �. LIVING ROOM 2-0/6/8 LINO. I VAULTED CPT. LINO.. BATH ° P t KITCHEN a oia/H O O ry - �c— I LINO. I"CLEAR '�y rtI lool g — r Accic I 0 u- L -1 BEDROOM Q Q V �`JJ 9-O/b/8 S-O/b/H hhh/777�777 OPT. --7 13 2-6/6/H 2-6/b/8 2-6/6/H .� QN DEN/BEDROOM LINO. LINO. m LAUNDRY BATH I �fl 4 w.I.OLo. I 4 1.—1 FE �1 1- - ,NA- HIGH N44LL UNIT'A' O - Z 2-b/6/e 2-6/b/8 I ` Q STORAGE/ PLANT MECHANICAL —' SHELF W-1 9/41 Y'-A 1/4" - LINO. .. " CPT. OPT. I - BEDROOM RJTJRH ROOM TILE C4 v- A UPPE r—L-CO FL-AN Ir-o e'-o" UN 1 T 1115 I I 1845 sa. FT. UPPER r. 4T'-Ia' 5GALE 1/4" = I'-O". FLOOR y. PLAN UNIT 8 s5 Q A On ❑ ❑ �® no'v' Fr Hl 11 O O I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I � ❑ °' I I � I. - — — — — — — — — — — —I— — — — — —. — - — — 1 J — _ i C — — —' — — — — — — —_ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —.— _ ] C I— — — — — —I— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — t � ;., FM ❑ ❑ O M EM 11 11 1 1 IlFrM ,I 0 0 6P9 bI5 1 � 11 11 11 11. mm , I I � I I I � I � I ELEVATIONS I— — — — — — — — — — — 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —'I— — — — — — — — — — — — .J J C I— — — — — — 1 — — — — —i— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — J— — — — —I 7 READ ❑ VA710 51 r ❑EEVA71 ON UNIT DEAN\CD\A45 07/29/92 1I:51 �yq i F i iph lil LM 77-77 _ ADIP6A O O BOARD ' BATTEN(ttp) TO.PLY - ! u- I i I I I I I I I O O _I_ L 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — — — _ — _ _ — — _ --- _1� ' PIZ 12 D O O O O 4 O O Chi a O - � }�iLTt FTIEit O O N - - Hal mom I, 1 I I I I I I I I I AM I ELEVATIONS F i I I I I I I I I — — — — — — — ,— — — — — — — — — — — — — — L — — — — — — — — — — —1 R EAR X A7 I ®N, S I =�I L. X A7 ( ON UNITE 41•.6 a�a Z,_.l,,. H,-101. 101-2" - - 6'_6° wed ante Igo Q j 71-7 Q MASTER BEDROOM 77 VAULTED GClLIN6 O IONAL I ——r— - K1.CLO. 2/6 cpr. 6 F.P. I I r-cor+�IZEo--I I 1 1 I cPri ce1L1NG I I I I I y I I = DINING 216 TILE 2/O ao- O Tile BATH LIVINGROOM LE - GEILIN6 VAULT L` ------, Ln ED 4 --- N _ O ---- ---- iv Q 9/0 4�„ 0+•' — 1 m �- 0++� II o KITCHEN In BEDROOM 4/0 TLE—ill, V-103/4" W-5I/4" 4 21/2" 5'-H 1/2" 16-S1/2. - — 2/6 9/ pOi- 9/O I2/¢ it 6A5 d ELEG Nv/1`I METERS - n O 0 0 I �`- O 9/O I � ELEG.PANEL 6/0 9/O ?J6 Q Q LAUNDRY. 9/0 4/1.7 f ---- - ---- - q 4 a � n _ BEDROOM/DEN I O GPI'. 4/O N - GARAGE 4 4 t 9/O 12'-0" b'-O" H'-H" II'-6I/2" 2'-5I/2° MAIN FLOOR PLAN MAIN F%-00K PLAN 3.2 51NCGLE 6 a � m Ci Pfia 12 .. _ . 12 BOARD<SATTEN(TYP) Y� _ a8 O O O GOLOR-LOK - - ❑ 51DIN&(TYP) " all - - tu ci F M ONT 37 I ON 5GAL% 1/4" = V—O" � 'L77 12 8� 12 as s L COLOR-LOK SONS(TYPE Li 77 BOARD d BATTEN CrcPJ _ REAR ELEVATION 5GALE 1/4" = P-O" ELEVATIONS 4.1 SINGLE T. u � Z ro 1 l a 5 E . O 510IN6(71'P) LLdBOARD 6 BATTEN(TYP) SIDE ELr\/A71ON w SCALE 1/4" = 1.-O" 0 Pl e BOARD d BATTEN(TYP) L ULIt i I LLL Eil E E --- SIDING(TYP) . _ BOARD 8 BATTEN(TYP) (a ---------------- ELEVATIONS SCALE 1/4" = P-O" `L SINGLE BOZEMAIAR, i CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE BOZEMAN 35 NORTH BOZEMAN AVENUE CITY-COUNTY P.O. BOX 640, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 PLANNING OFFICE PHONE:(406)586-3321 Ext. 227 Dan Kamp Cikan Architects 544 East Mendenhall Suite A Bozeman , MT 59715 1 July 1992 RE: requested modification to approved Overbrook PUD plan Dear Dan, I am writing to inform you that on Monday, 29 June , 1992 , the Bozeman City Commission decided ( by a 3-2 vote ) that the requested modification to- condition 422 to allow three single story , single family residences ( in lieu of two ) along the south property line of the site was not within the intent of the original PUD approval . Therefore , the Planning Office may not in good faith approve the requested modification. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns. Otherwise , . we look forward to receiving the Final Plan. Sincerely, Kevin Wall , CDT Associate Planner/Urban Designer cc : Overbrook Partnership, 4510 Conestoga Circle MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION BOZEMAN, MONTANA June,29, 1992 i i The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in regular session in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, June 29, 1992, at 3:30 p.m. Present were Mayor Swanson, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Vincent, Commissioner Knapp, City Manager Wysocki, City Attorney Luwe and Clerk of the Commission Sullivan. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. None of the Commissioners requested that any of the Consent Items be removed for discussion. Minutes - June 22, 1992 It was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Stiff, that the minutes of the regular meeting of June 22, 1992, be approved as submitted. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Vincent, Commissioner Knapp and Mayor Swanson; those voting No, none. Request for modification of Condition No. 22 for approval of Overbrook Planned Unit Development City Manager Wysocki noted that,included in the Commissioners' packets, was a memo from Associate Planner Kevin Wall, dated June 24, along with a copy of a memo from Dan Kamp, representing the applicant, dated June 19. Planner Kevin Wall reminded the Commissioners that at their meeting of May 18, they conducted the public hearing on the conditional use permit for the Overbrook at Westridge Planned Unit Development, under Application No. Z-9230; and at their meeting of May 26, they voted to approve that application, subject to 41 conditions. He then stated that under the City's zone code, minor changes may be made administratively; however, the Planning Director is seeking Commission direction prior to making a decision on this request. Planner Wall reminded the Commissioners that Condition No. 22, which was attached to the approval of the subject application, reads: 06-29-92 - 2 - 1� 22. That the two buildings abutting Lots 19 and 20 be reduced to one- story, single-family structures; The Planner reminded the Commission that under the original plan, the structures abutting Lots 19, 20 and 31 were proposed to be two-story structures; however, the Commission attached conditions which limited them to one-story, single-family structures to minimize impacts on the existing single-family residences. He then forwarded the applicant's request and revised site plan, which would include three one-story, single-family structures on the parcel abutting Lots 19 and 20, rather than the two which had been approved. He noted that the applicant has stated his intent to adhere to all other conditions, including the limitation of 24 units. He stated that the applicant has indicated that under the Commission's original approval, three single-family and 21 multi-family dwelling units were allowed. He noted that to allow four single-family and 20 multi- family units would make design of the structures much easier. Responding to the City Manager, Planner Wall stated that originally, there were four lots platted behind the existing single-family lots. Commissioner Vincent noted that under this proposal,three single-family residences would be constructed in essentially the same amount of front footage as the two single-family residences fronting on Westridge Drive. He noted that either means that the homes would be small, or the spacing would be tight. Commissioner Knapp stated she had requested that the structures in this subject portion of the site be reduced to one-story, single-family structures to ensure that like housing backed up to like housing. She noted that even if three single-family structures are constructed on this portion of the site, they will be required to adhere to all of the zoning regulations for spacing and setbacks; therefore, she feels that this is a reasonable request. Commissioner Vincent stated he does not feel that the request is unreasonable; however, he did note a desire to hear from the residents in the area. Commissioner Stiff expressed concern about allowing three residences in the subject portion of the site. He then noted his reluctance to remove one unit from the back row initially, stating that he' still feels it would be better to retain the additional unit in the back than allow it to be moved to the front portion of the site, where it would abut the existing residential development. He also noted that, given public testimony during the public hearing, he does not believe that the neighbors would be receptive to this requested change. 06-29-92 Commissioner Frost stated he feels that this requested modification meets his intent in approving the application. He noted that the lots are small, and berming will further reduce the size of the back yard. He noted that, given the nature of the project, he feels that the modification is acceptable. He also indicated that, with the reduced number of dwelling units, the project is much more open in appearance; and he feels that the modification is appropriate. Mayor Swanson stated he does ,not support the proposed modification, because it is his firm intent to provide maximum protection for Lots 18, 19, 20 and 31. He stated that to add another single-family home would crowd the area substantially and negatively impact those lots immediately to the south. Responding to Mayor Swanson, City Attorney Luwe stated that the zone code provides that minor changes to a planned unit development may be made administratively by the Planning Director, in writing. He noted that in this instance, the Planning Director is seeking Commission direction. He stated this can be accomplished without conducting any additional public hearings. He cautioned, however, that if the Commission seeks input from anyone, it-must seek input from everyone in attendance who wishes to speak. Mayor Swanson then indicated his intent to keep the discussion at the dais, rather than seeking additional public comment unless a majority of the Commissioners disagreed; a majority of the Commissioners concurred in his position. It was moved by Commissioner Knapp, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that the Commission approve the modification of Condition No. 22 for approval of the conditional use permit for the Overbrook at Westridge Planned Unit Development, under Application No. Z-9230, to read: 22. That the t three buildings abutting Lots 19 and 20 be reduced to one-story, single-family structures; and with all other remaining conditions to be met. The motion failed by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Knapp and Commissioner Frost; those voting No being Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Vincent and Mayor Swanson. Review of master plan for Graf Parks City Manager Wysocki noted that a copy of the revised master plan for Graf Park was included in the packets, along with a copy of a letter from Don Weaver, 2404 Spring Creek Drive, dated June 3. He then distributed to the Commission copies of a letter from Don and Gloria Kreitz, 06-29-92 r 2001 Fairway Drive, dated June 29. Mr. Gaylen Black, member of the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board, reminded the Commission that the initial master plan for Graf Parks was submitted to the Commission at their May 18 meeting. He further reminded the Commission that, following extensive public comment and discussion, they had referred this plan back to the Board for further review and recommendation on specific items. Mr. Black stated that at their June 8 meeting, the Board considered the issues of (1) the status of the old road bed, (2) a nature preserve in the creek area and (3) deletion of dots indicating trails on the west side of the creek. He then reviewed how the Board addressed these items, as follows. (1) The Board determined that the old road bed should be planted, with a new access into the park being provided as recommended by Dick Pohl, because the'old trail is much too steep and provides poor access. (2) The Board felt that the term "nature preserve" is too vague, and decided instead to encourage more natural plantings along the creek area. (3) The Board decided that the dots on the west side of the creek should be deleted, because they reflected possible places where people might walk, rather than actual proposed trails. Mr. Black stated that members of the community were present at the June 8 meeting; and they were provided an opportunity to provide input before the Board made its decisions. He then encouraged the Commission to adopt the master plan as forwarded. Mrs. Joyce Lee, 2101 Fairway Drive, stated that she attended the Board meeting on June 8. She then noted a difference of opinion on whether public comment was sought. She stated that, rather, the Board asked Dr. Brian Rogers questions for clarification purposes, but sought no information from others present. Mr. Don Weaver, 2404 Spring Creek Drive, presented a rather lengthy history of the Sourdough Trail and the Rotary Club's involvement in that trail. He noted that the trail provides an opportunity for those who wish to walk through more natural areas. He stated it has taken a substantial amount of time and effort to keep this project focused since he first undertook it in 1976. He also noted the importance of following an established procedure to develop a plan, and the importance of documenting the process. He expressed concern, however, that during the I formal process which has been established for development of master plans for each of the parks in the community, certain public input and involvement has been ignored. Mr. Weaver stated that, at the Recreation Superintendent's request, he encouraged the '�. 06-29-92 MEMORANDUM ------------------------------------------------------------------ TO: BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION FROM: KEVIN WALL, ASSOCIATE PLANNER/URBAN DESIGNE DATE: 24 JUNE 1992 RE: OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CUP/PUD APPLICATION #Z-9230 ; REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION TO CONDITION #22 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The applicants for the Overbrook at Westridge PUD have requested a modification to condition of approval #22 . The condition reads as follows : That the two buildings abutting Lots 19 and 20 be reduced to one-story, single family structures . The applicants propose to site three one-story, single family structures in this area of the site . The applicants stated they will limit the total number of units on the site to twenty four as required by condition #24 . The applicants have stated that the condition "left three single family homes and twenty one multi- family. It seems logical to us to do four single family and twenty multi-family, which would divide evenly into five four-unit buildings" ( see attached memo ) . When viewing the project in its entirety, Staff does not view the requested modification as a substantive change . This item will appear on the Monday, 29 June 1992 , regular agenda. Please call me if you have any questions . RECEIVED BY BOZEMAN MEMO : CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE DATE To: Andy Epple City County Planning Director From: Dan Kamp Cikan Architects, P.C. 544 E. Mendenhall Bozeman, Montana 59715 (406) 586-3624 586-3630 FAX Re: Overbrook P.U.D. Attached are the preliminary revisions to the Overbrook PUD based on our understanding of the motion of conditional approval by the city commission. The main concern we had was the motion calling for single family units behind lots 19 and 20, as well as changing the duplex behind lot 31 to a single family. However, doing so left 3 single family homes and 21 multifamily. It seems logical to us to do 4 single family and 20 multifamily, which would divide evenly into five 4-unit buildings. We understand the other conditions and will submit those changes on the final site plan to reflect them. Please let me know if this meets the intent of the motion, as the owners would like to proceed as quickly as possible. T goo-xdOxpvO of 10 E;4 Cl 1. V.-T,r.n Ur en-x C,Zt'- s I JG Tr ijo.;--ja 71i 2- ri wo ac? 5,iazd, r tq.:11 qrnala lot 7�0110,m ndi Saw b-,4f1 airm llow es OS bvb Q! alol br.-'Acd alinij %rilras'll ai� p�alcb '18vi"Ifoti '.%.Y.rjm-kA F,,IznOz z O:t i-r- -101 h1lip%'d X.Z;IC;41b bnr;. asmoll tzI!,,n'j*"A`, 01pnI.P. 1ir,,f br.,Z yjj.-rr U,,U Q:f IV!Dvr;" abivlb DawL'i .1,1nclua IAL I b.!.s ex"c"ki Ln;n .3w pn1*1J 'to jr..j om- aJ,.I!:t II wc'm! c-I -j ., : F—"D, - f(fI -!;Idlaanq se 88 b3a:)C-,'Xq 0:7 S.'Zil 51110'IT City's c ondo compromise hurts. homeowners,., A public letter to our city commission Letters ers: Your final decision on the Overbrook PUD. in Figgins subdivision was not a Solomon-like compromise. It was an abro- I hope this decision be- gation of duty.It is clear that this PUD did comes a warning signal not meet the Master Plan requirements for . neighborhood compatibility. If it had, the to every homeowner in extensive conditions of approval would not-have been necessary.' I Bozeman. It won't.matter Commissioner Vincent tried to point out what,the zoning1S On to the others of you that this decision failed both the developers and the homeowners. that Vacant land by their The developers have no more clear picture of what can be expected under current homes. planning than the homeowners. Their ma- jor argument for this development was its one of you to vote the critical issue of pub- affordability. How affordable do you think lic trust.As for the rest of you—you blew E it will be in t}ie form you have approved? it! ' The,homeowners will have to put-up with 1 the'unwanted condos in a single-family Marti Elder ' neighborhood and through your indeci- 2611 Westridge siveness, have lost any rights of review Bozeman over a radically altered project. This Master Plan/PUD review process is too subjective to work for anyone. The city planning process is worthless if it rests solely on the interpretive reading skills of 5 elected individuals.I hope this decision be- comes a warning signal to every homeown- er in Bozeman. It won't matter what the zoning is on that vacant land by their homes. You have the power position, backed by an obscure document and an equally obscure process, to cast favors as you please.You seem to have dealt so long with the ideals of grand planning that you have forgotten the government exists to serve the people,.not for the people to serve government. Mayor Swanson. the real capper for me was when�you addressed the "larger con- stituency" of the Master Plan. The neigh- bors of Figgins and Westridge, more than 100 households in opposition to this pro- ject, are what the Master Plan is supposed to be all about.John Vincent was the.only' . �.:.' .'. ... ..... . . • ••,'' .. .. , • .. .. 'J.'..... .;ti. •r •1 ti' , .. . .. • ..•. . . ,• .. . 1 .. 4k- Things Mother Never Taught Me about Buying a Home,,Developers and City Government jj Check the zoning of and around a house and neighborhood before buying. ■ Don't expect a developer.to develop. as zoned. ■ Developers are in their business to make money. ■ Don't expect the city to follow their own criteria for developments. ■ Don't expect the developer to follow all the laws and regulations unless you point them out. ■You may be.the only one who cares about wetlands, riparian,areas, wildlife habitats and water rights. ■Don't expect anyone but you and your neighbors to care about local-traffic and safety problems. ' ■ Don't expect,anybody-else to repre- sent your views. There is,currently a proposal fora planned unit development (for about 30 condominiums) to be built on about 5 acres north of Figgins Addition and south of the Museum of the-Rockies,(south of Kagy and west of Third).This is zoned as R-2, meaning single-family, medium-densi- ty.(single houses). Traffic will•increase on Third and on Wes tridge'Drive. There will be a loss of wetlands and riparian wildlife habitat.There is concern over property val- ues and aesthetics. There is concern over setting a precedent for further planned unit developments in the area. If.you are interested, please attend the public meetings, May 5 and May 18 at 7• p.m. at.Bozeman City Hall, 411.East Main Street,•regarding the proposal for this planned unit development and give your views and opinions` Marion Cherry 510 Westridge Drive C12 Bozeman 4Tuesd'ay, 1 June 2, 992 OUR OPINION City, warning shot? Decision about City Commission not to allow the condominiums to be built.They Fl ggl n s Could make believed the city would protect homeowners sleepless their neighborhood from unwant- ed development, and that's what 0 nce upon a time, a develop- they told the commission in over- er created a new subdivi- whelming numbers. sion on raw, undeveloped But the City Commission relied land south of the Museum of the on nationwide traffic averages that ` Rockies. It promised a welcome say condominiums produce only h respite to crowded,city neighbor- half as much traffic as do single- hoods with jammed'parking,and family homes.They required the tightly packed homes. developers to reduce the number The Figgins subdivision was im= of units by 10, allowing only 24 mediately popular and quickly units to be built in hopes of reduc- filled with people who built their ing traffic. dream homes and looked forward- Neighbors said condominiums } to raising their families.The peo- are typically built near a city cen- t ple who live there call it a chil- ter and that's why they produce dren's neighborhood. Children less traffic.These condominiums play in their parents'front yards, are on the outskirts of the city and neighborhood dogs mosey along the neighbors don't believe traffic the quiet residential streets. will be less. ` Figgins residents enjoyed their The City Commission,with neighborhood, safe in the city's Commissioner John Vincent dis- assurance only single-family senting, approved the scaled-down homes would be built there. project.Vincent said the approval But Bozeman is a dynamic city, sends the wrong message to city growing and changing.The devel- residents.And it goes against rep- �° oper and his two partners asked resentative democracy where gov- zhe city for special approval to con- ernment listens and responds to 'struct a 34-unit condominium pro- the people.The primary support- ject consisting of 10 buildings, in- ers for the project were real estate ;stead of the 11 homes planned for sales people; the overwhelming the site.They argued the condos testimony came from Figgins area would help answer the need for residents who opposed it. more affordable housing: They trusted the city to protect The Planning Board also recog- them with zoning that preserved nized the need for affordable the integrity of their neighbor- housing and considered the con- hood. Instead, there may be con- Oominium project attractively de- dominiums where single-family signed.The units were estimated homes should have been. to cost about$85,000, certainly up- Sure the city needs affordable 'scale housing.The board unani- housing—although one has to mously approved granting the de- wonder how affordable$85,000 is velopers'plan. — but it also needs, perhaps FiggiTAr, sidentsmere aghast more importantly to,stand by.its T.+ NO �Fr'_t1f ,rr� f+tea 1�`t' a+N 1 he city a vouldtf6venfconsider+ word so.residents can plan their changirig'the'u'se for this'tract. j"."""'lives'with some measure of,.cer-. They%uglit'and built there after ' 'tainty. Maybe Vincent was right- checking the zoning that limited this was the.right project,at the development to only single-family right time,but at the wrong loca- homes.They didn't realize the lion. zoning allows the City Residents in other parts of the Commission to approve larger city should sleep less comfortably. projects under special circum- That vote for condos may have stances. been a warning shot across the The neighbors pleaded with the bow of your neighborhood. of a downtown business Monday in preparation for the College National Finals r com an closes, its doors, -company t to.be identified. 'There-is some fiscal impact, although we any president Gene Pipinich did not re- haven't been able to determine how much yet," sages. she said, adding that so far she has only found er former employee,Cris Carson of He- only$5,000 worth of prepaid contracts. d CSM had been extremely good to "The'only damage is going to be if (an agen- left for another job with state govern- cy) has to go out and contract with somebody before the layoffs began. else," said Gary Willems, purchasing agent for thi ow too the state' P BOZEMANO CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE BOZEMAN 35 NORTH BOZEMAN AVENUE CITY-COUNTY P.O. BOX 640,BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 PLANNNG OFFICE PHONE:(406)586-3321 Ext.227 Overbrook Partnership 4510 Conestoga Circle Bozeman, MT 59715 2 June 1992 RE: Overbrook at Westridge PUD and Preliminary Plat applications and petition to vacate Fryslie Street Dear Overbrook Partnership, . I am writing to inform you that on Monday, 26 May 1992 , the Bozeman City Commission approved the Overbrook at Westridge PUD and Preliminary Plat applications , and the petition to vacate Fryslie Street. The approval of the PUD aaplication is contingent upon the following conditions: 1 . That the applicant' s professional engineer shall _ prepare a formal analysis of the development' s impacts on the intersection of South Third Avenue and Westridge Drive prior to final plan approval . If the intersection' s level of service drops below C, the applicant must mitigate the situation after 51 percent of the units are occupied; 2 . That a waiver of right to protest the creation of a special improvement for improvements to South Third Avenue must be signed by the owner( s ) and filed with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder; 3 . That the private drive approaches and sidewalk adjacent to Westridge Drive shall be constructed in accordance with the City' s standard approach ( i . e. , concrete apron and sidewalk section) and shown as such on the final plan. City curb cut and sidewalk permits shall be obtained prior to final plan approval . Additionally, a sidewalk and drop curb (handicap) access shall be provided from Westridge Drive to the trail at the southern property corner; 4 . The following shall be provided in relation to paving : A. Curbing shall be provided and depicted on the final PUD plan around the private street and all parking areas; B. Typical curb details ( i .e. , raised and/or drop 1 i_ curbs) shall be provided; and C. The asphalt section shall comply with Section 16 . 26 . 050 , Surfacing, of the City ordinance unless designated in accordance with the Asphalt Institute ' s Manual for which a detail shall be provided to , and approved by, the City Engineer; 5 . That the applicant shall install stop signs on the private drive at Westridge Drive; 6 . That the site triangles at the intersections of the private drive and Westridge Drive shall not be restricted; 7 . That a minimum of four disabled parking spaces must be provided in accordance with the ADA. These spaces shall be signed as per the zoning ordinance; 8 . That bicycle racks that provide parking for at least eight bicycles shall be provided. Bicycle parking shall be dispersed through the development; 9 . That the total number of parking spaces shall be reduced to twenty percent more than what is required for 24 units , and the remainder of this space shall be designated for landscaping ; 10 . That the landscape island in the intersection of the trails shall be eliminated; 11 . That plans and specifications for the water and sewer main extensions and lift station, prepared by a professional engineer (P.E. ) , shall be provided to, and approved by, the City Engineer and the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences . The applicant shall also provide professional engineering services for . construction, inspection, post-construction certification and preparation of mylar record drawings; 12 . That sewer and water services shall be shown on the final PUD plan and approved by the Water/Sewer Superintendent. City of Bozeman applications for service shall be completed by the applicant; 13 . That the following shall be provided in relation to storm water: A. A storm water plan and system design ( i .e. , . unit sizing ) shall be detailed in the PUD report and the specific engineering calculations supporting the design be included as an appendix to the report; 2 B. A detailed storm water maintenance plan for the storm water system (designed to remove solids , silts , oils, grease, and other pollutants ) be provided to , and approved by., the City Engineer prior to final PUD approval ; C. The final plan shall include adequate spot elevation information on the roadway and detention pond basins and structures ; D. Typical curb and depressed curb ( for drainage ) details be provided; E. The overall storm water plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to final plan approval ; 14 . That the following shall be accomplished in relation to the floodplain: A. A flood plain development permit must be obtained from the City Engineer prior to final plan approval . No filling , or other construction activities , shall be initiated prior to issuance of the permit; B. The 100-year flood plain boundary and the 100- year flood elevation cross sections must be depicted on the final PUD plan; C. Culvert sizing design calculations shall be provided for the stream crossing ; D. All buildings must be flood-proofed to at least 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation. Elevation certificates must be provided for each building following completion of construction; 15 . That the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, SCS, Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences , and the 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 plan approval ; 16 . That the final PUD plan shall include adequate dimensioning. The private street width and parking area configurations must comply with the zoning ordinance , unless deviations are obtained from the City Commission; 17 . That the two structures immediately north of Lots 19 and 20 on Westridge Drive shall be separated by a minimum of 16 3 feet; 18 . That architectural treatments shall be diversified from building to buildin.g , by way of differing gable treatments , window sizes, rooflines , adding jogs in the front and rear facades, and/or similar treatments. The side elevations which are visible off-site shall incorporate windows ; the use of window . bays should be considered. The final elevations shall be subject to review and approval by the DRB prior to final PUD approval ; 19 . That the landscape planting list shall be revised to limit the use of the patmore green ash by providing comparable alternatives ; 20 . That the applicants shall coordinate the location and type of mail boxes with the U. S. Postal Service prior to final PUD approval ; 21 . That all buildings will meet the R-2 zoning regulations for setbacks and height; 22 . That the two buildings abutting Lots 19 and 20 be reduced to one-story, single-family structures ; 23 . That the duplex north of Lot 31 be reduced to a one-story, single-family structure ; 24 . That the PUD will be limited to 24 units , without major alterations to the existing footprints or substantive alterations to the site amenities ; 25 . That a 5-foot delineated pedestrian pathway be designated on the north side of the private drive through the use of different materials from those used for the roadway ; 26 . That two additional street trees be provided in the Westridge Drive street right-of-way, and that they be clustered, preferably on the we.stern side, to provide a more natural and open space appearance ; 27 . That all signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to final plan approval ; 28 . That appropriate native streambank vegetation be used along the streambank to assure water quality and the continuation . of riparian habitat ; 29 . - That all improvements to the streambank and open space landscaping be installed with Phase I ; 30 . That the trail system for this PUD be reviewed and approved 4 by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board; 31 . That the developer be required to place $5 , 000 in escrow, upon sale of the tenth unit, to assist the neighborhood with improvements to South Third Avenue; 32 . That the developer shall be responsible for placing "bouncing ball" . signals at the intersection of South Third Avenue and Westridge Drive ; 33 . That one copy of the Homeowners ' Agreement shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director prior to final plan approval ; 34 . That the right to a use and occupancy permit shall be contingent upon the fulfillment of all general and special conditions imposed by the Conditional Use Permit procedure ; 35 . That all of the special conditions shall constitute restrictions running with the land use and shall be binding upon the owner of the land, his successors or assigns ; 36 . That all conditions specifically stated under any conditional use listed in this ordinance shall apply and be adhered to by the owner of the land, his successors or assigns; 37 . That all of the special conditions shall be consented to in writing by the applicant; 38 . That seven copies of the final site plan, containing all of the conditions , corrections and modifications approved by the City Commission, shall he submitted for review and approved by the Planning Director within six months of the date of City Commission approval . Signed copies shall be . retained by the City departments represented on the Development Review Committee , and one signed copy shall be retained by the applicant; 39 . That the applicant shall enter into an Improvements Agreement with the City to guarantee the installation of required on-site improvements at the time of final site plan submittal . Detailed cost estimates , construction plans and methods of security shall be made a part of that Agreement ; 40. That the first building permit must be obtained within one year of final site plan approval . Building permits will not be issued until the final site plan is approved. No site work, including excavation, may occur until a building permit is issued; and 41 . That if occupancy of the structure or commencement of the I 5 use is to occur prior to the installation of all improvements, the Improvements Agreement must be secured by a method of security equal to one and one-half times the amount of the estimated cost of the scheduled improvements not yet installed. Said method of security shall be valid for a period of not less than twelve ( 12 ) months ; however, all on-site improvements shall be completed by the applicant within nine ( 9 ) .months of occupancy to avoid default on the method of security. The Preliminary Plat application was approved with the following conditions : 1 . That the applicant shall maintain the remainder of the Fryslie Street public right-of-way; 2 . That final plat, approval will not be granted until the corresponding PUD application has received final approval ; 3 . That the final plat shall be revised, as necessary, to reflect any of the 41 conditions imposed on the PUD in the above agenda item; 4 . That a weed control plan for the proposed subdivision must be approved by the County Week Control Officer prior to final plat approval ; 5 . That the following shall be provided on the final plat in relation to easements: A. A 30-foot-wide easement(s ) shall be provided for the water and sewer mains and hydrants necessary for the PUD; B. A 10-foot-wide utility easement shall be provided along the northern property line; and C. The trail and utility easements on the west side of the tract shall be distinctly separate, and the individual notations for these easements shall be delineated within the easement boundaries on the final plat; 6 . That the Certificate of Surveyor shall be revised to explicitly reference "Overbrook at Westridge" Subdivision on the final plat. The Certificate of Clerk and Recorder shall be revised on the final plat to fully reflect the Bozeman Area Subdivision Regulations ; and 7 . That the 100-year flood plain and the 100-year floodway shall be designated on the final plat , as recommended by the Acting City Engineer. 6 In addition, the vacation of Fryslie Street is contingent upon the filing of the Final Plat for the Overbrook at Westridge Subdivision. Please call me if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance. Sincerely, 4CL Kevin Wall , CDT Associate .Planner/Urban Designer cc: Dan Kamp, Cikan Architects Ray Center, Rocky Mountain Engineers 7 i MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION BOZEMAN, MONTANA June 1, 1992 The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in regular session in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, June 1, 1992, at 3:30 p.m. Present were Mayor Swanson, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Vincent, Commissioner Knapp, City Manager Wysocki, City Attorney Luwe and Clerk of the Commission Sullivan. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. Mayor Swanson asked if any of the Commissioners desired that any of the Consent Items be removed for discussion. City Manager Wysocki requested that the request for authorization to call for bids for the mini-pumper truck be removed from the Consent Items be removed for discussion. Minutes Mayor Swanson deferred action on the minutes of the regular meetings of May 18 and May 26, 1992, for a period of one week. Clerk of the Commission Sullivan requested that the Commissioners review the proposed revisions which have been forwarded by various Commissioners regarding the minutes for that portion of the May 26 meeting pertaining to the Overbrook PUD. Commissioner Frost reminded the Commission that he had made the motion. He then stated support for the revision of one of those conditions and the addition of another condition, noting those were simply oversights. He noted that the discussion contained in the minutes reflects the full intent of the Commission that those items be included in the conditions for approval. The Commissioners then indicated their concurrence in accepting the minutes for this portion of the May 26 meeting, as amended to reflect the revisions which had been forwarded. - -92 i ���B02�, • THE CITY OF BOZEMAN 411 E. MAIN ST. P.O. BOX 640 PHONE (406) 586-3321 * _ * BOZEMAN. MONTANA 59715-0640 'Cr�r_ - o��� May 29, 1992 TO: City Commission FROM: Robin L. Sullivan Clerk of the Commission RE.• Draft minutes for May 26 meeting Attached, please find a copy of the draft minutes for the first portion of the May 26 meeting. Since this is a short week, l am unable to complete the minutes from Tuesday's meeting. However, the applicant and Planning staff have requested a copy of the minutes for the Overbrook portion of the meeting, so they can see the conditions which were finally attached. l would respectfully request that each of the Commissioners carefully review these minutes to ensure, that l have accurately recorded the Commission action. if you have any revisions to this portion of the minutes, l would request that you forward those revisions and corrections as if this were a completed set of minutes, so that what l give to the applicant and the Planning staff is correct. Thank you. HOME OF MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY GATEWAY TO YELLOWSTONE PARK �� p��� y p y'• A 6.ca.r�iF i MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION BOZEMAN, MONTANA MAY 26, 1992 I The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in regular session in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, May 26, 1992, at 3:30 p.m. Present were Mayor Swanson, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Vincent, Commissioner Knapp, City Manager Wysocki, City Attorney Luwe and Clerk of the Commission Sullivan. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. None of the Commissioners requested that any of the Consent Items be removed for discussion. Minutes Action on the minutes for the regular meeting of May 18, 1992 was deferred for one week. Decision - Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development -Overbrook at Westridge -to allow construction of 34 condominium units on Lots 16 and 21 through 30, Block 9, Amended Plat of Figgins Addition This was the time and place set for the decision on the Conditional Use Permit for the Planned Unit Development to be known as Overbrook at Westridge, to allow construction of 34 condominium units on Lots 16 and 21 through 30, Block 9, Amended Plat of Figgins Addition, under Application No. Z-9230. City Manager Wysocki reminded the Commission that they had conducted their public hearing on this item at last week's meeting; and a copy of the draft minutes have been submitted for Commission review. He then noted that, included in the Commissioners' packets, were memos from Planning Director Epple and Associate Planner Wall regarding this item. Responding to Commissioner Frost, Associate Planner Wall confirmed that the SCS has approved the 310 Permit, with the condition that the 35-foot setback from the FEMA corridor be .maintained. He noted that two of the units in the building located in the southwest corner of the site do encroach into that setback. Commissioner Frost noted that he has attended two DRB meetings, two Planning Board meetings and two Commission meetings at which this item was reviewed and subjected to public 05-11-92 N �� �,•'•Ctw?ii•Lns� tlit'isi Pil:,�` {�°pig testimony. He further noted that under the City's zoning ordinance, planned unit developments must comply with the intent of the master plan and the zoning ordinance, and are subject to i conditions which will ensure compatibility with the surrounding area and uses. He stated that he I feels this project is sensitive to the neighborhood; however, he feels that additional conditions would help to ensure its compatibility. He then forwarded the following proposals for additional conditions, noting that a number of them result in a reduction to the total number of units that would be constructed within this planned unit development. Commissioner Frost noted that with the elimination of the two units at the southwest corner of the site which encroach into the 35-foot setback, the total number is reduced from the requested 34 units to 32 units. He then proposed that a new condition be added, as follows: 29. That all buildings will meet the R-2 zoning regulations for setbacks and height, noting that this would ensure compatibility with the neighborhood. The Commissioner then suggested that, given the concern about scale and proximity of the development to existing homes, the following conditions be added: 30. That the two buildings abutting Lots 19 and 20 be reduced to one-story structures, reducing the total number of units to 28; and 31 . That the duplex north of Lot 31 be reduced to a single-family structure; reducing the total number of units to 27'. He also suggested that a condition be added, as follows: 32. That one of the three units in the building on the north side of the road, immediately west of the streambed, be lowered to one story, thus reducing the total number of units in the development to 26. Commissioner Frost then suggested that the following conditions be added to address some of the concerns which were raised during the public hearing: 33. That a 5-foot delineated pedestrian pathway be designated on the north side of the private drive through the use of different materials from those used for the-roadway, 34. That two additional street trees be provided in the Westridge Drive street right-of-way, and that they be clustered, preferably on the western side, to provide a more natural and open space appearance, 35. That all signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to final plan approval, 36. That appropriate native streambank vegetation be used along the streambank to assure water quality and the continuation of.riparian habitat, 05-11-92 • - 3 - • ;�, rt..j E� ��.�..A4tT.t .�5%`' '!�i.ib,.e it .,. '�S 37. That all improvements to the streambank and open space landscaping be installed with Phase 1, 38. That the trail system for this PUD be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Commissioner Frost noted that the traffic projections for the remaining 26 units is 130 ADT's, compared to the 110 ADT's for the 11 single-family residences that could be constructed under the original plat. He further noted that, under the originally platting, a maximum of 23 units could be constructed on this subject site. He then indicated that, with these recommended conditions added to the original 28 conditions, he can support the requested PUD for four reasons: (1) it generally meets the criteria of the master plan and the zoning ordinance; (2) the conditions address the concerns raised by the neighborhood pertaining to compatibility, traffic safety, pedestrian safety and property values; (3) it allows for the enhancement of the trail system; and (4) it allows for preservation and enhancement of the amenities which the residents of the area desire, including the stream. Commissioner Stiff reiterated his concern that to dramatically decrease the number of units allowed within this planned unit development.could actually eliminate the project. He noted, however, that he would be receptive to eliminating one more unit, thus reducing the total number to 25. He also questioned why the one unit should be eliminated in the back row, as suggested by Commissioner Frost. Commissioner Stiff then cited the extreme amount of public concern raised and the safety issues which must be addressed. He suggested that in an attempt to address those concerns another condition should be added which would stipulate: 39. That the developer shall be responsible for placing "bouncing ball" signals at the intersection of South Third Avenue and Westridge Drive, noting that those lights would draw attention to that hazardous intersection. Commissioner Stiff also noted a desire to amend Condition No. 2, to provide that the units constructed within this planned unit development would pay a proportionate share of the costs incurred for the improvement of South Third Avenue rather than being subsidized by the single- family residences in the subdivision. Commissioner Stiff also indicated his interest in revising the condition pertaining to the trail system to require that the developer provide gravel trails, and that the Homeowners' Association be responsible for their maintenance. 05-11-92 �'"'�'' a.�_o 4ys'�•� is_.. .:: y j: Responding to Commissioner Vincent, Planner Wall stated that the Figgins Subdivision was originally platted in the Spring of 1980. He stated that when the City signed the plat, it was with the understanding that an SID would be created for all improvements; however, the district was never created. He noted that this has resulted in a recorded subdivision with no improvements; and that subdivision still exists. Commissioner Vincent suggested that with the number of conditions which are proposed, the original proposal has been so substantively changed that it is essentially a new proposal. He then expressed concern that under the Commission's rules of procedure, they cannot accept any input from'the public or the developer on whether these conditions result in an acceptable project. He also expressed concern that the Commissioners have just received these proposed additions to the conditions, and are expected to vote on them very shortly. Commissioner Vincent then stated that he will vote against the project because the City must remain consistent to be credible; and this site is zoned R-2, which is single-family residential. He noted that many people testified at last week's meeting that they had purchased in this subdivision with the assurance that it was for single-family development only. He then characterized this proposal as "the right project at the right time in the wrong place". Commissioner Vincent stated he' assisted in writing of the public interest criteria for the 1975 Legislature, and assisted in getting it passed by that legislature. He then stated he does not i believe that this project is compatible with the neighborhood, as originally proposed or with the proposed conditions. He noted the great amount of expressed public opinion, noting that opinion must be carefully weighed in the decision-making process. Commissioner Knapp noted the major areas of concern identified during the public hearing included the water course, affordable housing and housing values. She then stated that she feels that if the number of dwelling units were reduced to a level close to the 23 units that would be i allowed, through use of a density bonus, under the R-2 zoning, she could support this application. She then suggested that Condition No. 30 be revised to allow for "one-story, single-family structures behind Lots 19 and 20", thus reducing the total number of dwelling units to 24. Commissioner Knapp then stated an interest in revising Condition No. 1 to provide a time certain for completion of an analysis of the intersection of South Third Avenue and Westridge Drive. She also suggested that another condition be added which stipulates: 40. That one copy of the Homeowners' Agreement shall be submitted for review 05-11-92 �'.f•G:; -' `?,`1, :.`. ., ' 3 , and approval by the Planning Director prior to final plan approval. Commissioner Knapp stated that with these conditions, which protect those residences abutting the project and reduce the total number of units allowed, she feels it is compatible with the neighborhood. She noted, therefore, that with all of the conditions which have been set forth, she can support approval of this application. Commissioner Frost stated support for the revision proposed to Condition No. 30. Mayor Swanson stated he had originally felt that a density of 22 units would be acceptable, since it would generate the same amount of traffic as the 11 single-family units that could .be constructed under the current platting and zoning; however, he finds a density of 24 units acceptable, with the additional conditions suggested. He also suggested that Condition No. 9 be revised to provide for a reduced number of parking spaces, in keeping the with reduced number of units. He suggested that the parking be enhanced by 20 percent, as required in the original condition, with the remainder of the area to be turned into landscaping. Commissioner Stiff expressed concern about lowering one section in a building of three units in the back row, and elimination of one unit. He suggested it may be more appropriate to have a solid line, rather than a broken one; and he further suggested that one additional unit could make or break the project at this point. Mayor Swanson suggested the possibility of simply establishing a 24-unit limit, allowing the developer to determine how those could be best placed on the site. He noted, however, that single-family, single-story units should be required on those portions of the site abutting Lots 19, 20 and 31 . Mayor Swanson stated that, while he recognizes Commissioner Vincent's comments regarding his constituency, he feels.that the conditions imposed address the major concerns of the neighborhood. He further noted that this application meets the stated goals of the master plan, which was supported by an even larger constituency. He then indicated his support of the project, with the conditions as set forth in this discussion. Commissioner Frost stated support for the additional conditions recommended by Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Knapp and Mayor Swanson regarding the installation of caution lights at the intersection of Westridge Drive and South Third Avenue, the requirement that the Homeowners' Agreement be submitted for review and approval, and limiting the density to 24 units. He then noted that a review of the written and verbal comments received revealed that over 05-11-92 one-third of the people mentioned the streambed and riparian habitat; and this proposal ensures those concerns will be met. Responding to Commissioner Stiff, the City Manager reviewed the methods of assessment for special improvement districts. He then asked that if the Commission wishes to pursue the idea of this project paying is fair share, staff be 'provided a five-minute recess to develop appropriate language for a new condition. The City Manager then cautioned the Commission that, given the fixed costs associated with this project, it may not be possible for the developer to provide the housing at the cost which he quoted during the public hearing. The City Manager then suggested that, rather than requiring that the trail be improved to a gravel standard, it would be more appropriate to refer this item back to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, for their determination of what would be most appropriate. Commissioner Vincent reiterated his interest in receiving additional public input, and suggested that the Commission conduct another public hearing, on the conditions which have been forwarded. Break - 4:29 to 4:34 p.m. Mayor Swanson declared a break from 4:29 p.m. to 4:34 p.m., in accordance with l Commission policy established at their regular meeting of March 14, 1983. Decision -Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development - Overbrook at Westridge -to allow construction of 34 condominium units on Lots 16 and 21 through 30, Block 9, Amended Plat of Figgins Addition Commissioner Stiff requested that, rather than revising Condition No. 2, as he had suggested above, a new condition be added, as follows: 41 . That the developer be required to place $5,000 in escrow, upon sale of the tenth unit, to assist the neighborhood with improvements to South Third Avenue; It was moved by Commissioner Vincent, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that the Commission, pursuant to Section XIV, Sub-section 7, of its rules of procedure, call for a new public hearing, properly noticed, for the purpose of accepting public input on the conditions of approval J which have been forwarded during this meeting. The motion failed by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being.Commissioner Vincent; those voting No being Commissioner Frost, 05-11-92 • 7 - commissioner Knapp, Commissioner Stiff and Mayor Swanson. It was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Stiff, that the Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit for the Planned Unit Development to be known as Overbrook at Westridge, to allow construction of 34 condominium units on Lots 16 and 21 through 30, Block 9, Amended Plat of Figgins Addition, under Application No. Z-9230, subject to the following conditions: 1 . That the applicant's professional engineer shall prepare a formal analysis of the development's impacts on the intersection of South Third Avenue and Westridge Drive prior to final plan approval. If the intersection's level of service drops below C, the applicant must mitigate the situation after 51 percent of the units are occupied; 2. That a waiver of right to protest the creation of a special improvement for improvements to South Third Avenue must be signed by the owner(s) and filed with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder; 3. That the private drive approaches and sidewalk adjacent to Westridge Drive shall be constructed in accordance with the City's standard approach (i.e., concrete apron and sidewalk section) and shown as such on the final plan. City curb cut and sidewalk permits shall be obtained prior to final plan approval. Additionally, a sidewalk and drop curb (handicap) access shall be provided from Westridge Drive to the trail at the southern property corner; 4. The following shall be provided in relation to paving: A. Curbing shall be provided and depicted on the final PUD plan around the private street and all parking areas; B. Typical curb details (i.e., raised and/or drop curbs) shall be provided; and C. The asphalt section shall comply with Section 16.26.050, Surfacing, of the City ordinance unless designated in accordance with the Asphalt Institute's Manual for which a detail shall be provided to, and approved by, the City Engineer; 5. That the applicant shall install stop signs on the private drive at Westridge Drive; 6. That the site triangles at the intersections of the private drive and Westridge Drive shall not be restricted; 7. That a minimum of four disabled parking spaces must be provided in accordance with the ADA. These spaces shall be signed as per the zoning ordinance; 8. That bicycle racks that provide parking for at least eight bicycles shall be provided. Bicycle parking shall be dispersed through the development; 9. That the total number of parking spaces shall be reduced to twenty percent more than what is required for 24 units, and the remainder of this space shall be designated for landscaping; 10. That the landscape island in the intersection of the trails shall be eliminated; 05-11-92 FtT luo"'I 11 . That plans and specifications for the water and sewer main extensions and lift station, prepared by a professional engineer (P.E.), shall be provided to, and approved by, the City Engineer and the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. The applicant shall also provide professional engineering services for construction, inspection, post-construction certification and preparation of mylar record drawings; 12. That sewer and water services shall be shown on the final PUD plan and approved by the Water/Sewer Superintendent. City of Bozeman applications for service shall be completed by the applicant; 13. That the following shall be provided in relation to storm water: A. A storm water plan and system design (i.e., unit sizing) shall be detailed in the PUD report and the specific engineering calculations supporting the design be included as an appendix to the report; B. A detailed storm water maintenance plan for the storm water system (designed to remove solids, silts, oils, grease, and other pollutants) be provided to, and approved by, the City Engineer prior to final PUD approval; C. The final plan shall include adequate spot elevation information on the roadway and detention pond basins and structures; D. Typical curb and depressed curb (for drainage) details be provided; E. The overall storm water plan shall be approved by the City -Engineer prior to final plan approval; 14. That the following shall be accomplished in relation to the floodplain: A. A flood plain development permit must be obtained from the City Engineer prior to final plan approval. No filling, or other construction activities, shall be initiated prior to issuance of the permit; B. The 100-year flood plain boundary and the 100-year flood elevation cross sections must be depicted on the final PUD plan; C. Culvert sizing design calculations shall be provided for the stream crossing; D. All buildings must be flood-proofed to at least 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation. Elevation certificates must be provided for each building following completion of construction; 15. That the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, SCS, Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, and the 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 plan approval; 16. That the final PUD plan shall include adequate dimensioning. The private street width and parking area configurations must comply with the zoning ordinance, unless deviations are obtained from the City Commission; 05-11-92 • - 9 - . 17. That the two structures immediately north of Lots 19 and 20 on Westridge Drive shall be separated by a minimum of 16 feet; 18. That architectural treatments shall be diversified from building to building, by way of differing gable treatments, window sizes, roof lines, adding jogs in the front and rear facades, and/or similar treatments. The side elevations which are visible off-site shall incorporate windows; the use of window bays should be considered. The final elevations shall be subject to review and approval by the DRB prior to final PUD approval; 19. That the landscape planting list shall be revised to limit the use of the patmore green ash by providing comparable alternatives; 20. That the applicants shall coordinate the location and type of mail boxes with the U.S. Postal Service prior to final PUD approval; 21 . That all buildings will meet the R-2 zoning regulations for setbacks and height; 22. That the two buildings abutting Lots 19 and 20 be reduced to one-story, single-family structures; -` 23. That the duplex north of Lot 31 be reduced to a single-family structure; 24. That the PUD will be limited to 24 units, without major alterations to the existing footprints or substantive alterations to the site amenities; 25. That a 5-foot delineated pedestrian pathway be designated on the north side of the private drive through the use of different materials from those used for the roadway; 26. That two additional street trees be provided in the Westridge Drive street right-of-way, and that they be clustered, preferably on the western side, to provide a more natural and open space appearance; 27. That all signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to final plan approval; 28. That appropriate native streambank vegetation be used along the streambank to assure water quality and the continuation of riparian habitat; 29. That all improvements-to the streambank and open space landscaping be installed with Phase I; 30. That the trail system for this PUD be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board; 31 . That the developer be required to place $5,000 in escrow, upon sale of the tenth unit, to assist the .neighborhood with improvements to South Third Avenue; 32. That one copy of the Homeowners' Agreement shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director prior to final plan approval; 33. That the right to a use and occupancy permit shall be contingent upon the fulfillment of all general and special conditions imposed by the Conditional Use Permit procedure; 34. That all of the special conditions shall constitute restrictions running with the land use and shall be binding upon the owner of the land, his successors or assigns; 05-11-92 35. That all conditions specifically stated under any conditional use listed in this ordinance shall apply and be adhered to by the owner of the land, his successors or assigns; 36: That all of the special conditions shall be- consented to in writing by the applicant; 37. That seven copies of the final site plan, containing all of the conditions, corrections and modifications approved by the City Commission, shall be submitted for review and approved by the Planning Director within six months of the date of City Commission approval. Signed copies shall be retained by the City departments represented on the Development Review Committee, and one signed copy shall be retained by the applicant; 38. That the applicant shall enter into an Improvements Agreement with the City to guarantee the installation of required on-site improvements at the time of final site plan submittal. Detailed cost estimates, construction plans and methods of security shall be made a part of that Agreement; 39. That the first building permit must be obtained within one year of final site plan approval. Building permits will not be issued until the final site plan is approved. No site work, including excavation, may occur until a building permit is issued; and I 40. That if occupancy of the structure or commencement of the use is to occur prior to the installation of all improvements, the Improvements Agreement must be secured by a method of security equal to one and one-half times the amount of the estimated cost of the scheduled improvements not yet installed. Said method of security shall be valid for a period of not less than twelve 0 2) months; however, all on-site improvements shall be completed by the applicant within nine (9) months of occupancy to avoid default on the method of security. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Knap p and Mayor Swanson; those voting No being Commissioner Vincent. Decision - Preliminary plat - aggregation of Lots 16 and 21 through 30, Block 9, Amended Plat of Figgins Addition, to form one lot This was the time and place set for the decision on the preliminary plat, as requested in Application No. P-9210, to provide for the aggregation of Lots 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, Block 9, Amended Plat of Figgins Addition, to form one lot. The City Manager reminded the Commission that they had conducted their public hearing on this application at last week's meeting. He then recommended that, in light of the previous action, the Commission approve this preliminary plat, contingent upon finalization of the conditional use permit for the planned unit development. It was moved by Commissioner Stiff, seconded by Commissioner Knapp, that the Commission approve the preliminary plat, as requested in Application No. P-9210, to provide for 05-11-92 the aggregation of Lots 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, Block 9, Amended Plat of Figgins Addition, to form one lot, subject to the following conditions: 1 . That the applicant shall maintain the remainder of the Fryslie Street public right-of-way; 2. That final plat approval will not be granted until the corresponding PUD application has received final approval; 3. That the final plat shall be. revised, as necessary, to reflect any of the 40 conditions imposed on the PUD in the above agenda item; 4. That a weed control plan for the proposed subdivision must be approved by the County Week Control Officer prior to final plat approval; 5. That the following shall be provided on the final plat in relation to easements: A. A 30-foot-wide easement(s) shall be provided for the water and sewer mains and hydrants necessary for the PUD; B. A 10-foot-wide utility easement shall be provided along the northern property line; and C. The trail and utility easements on the west side of the tract shall be distinctly separate, and the individual notations for these easements shall be delineated within the easement boundaries on the final plat; 6. That the Certificate of Surveyor shall be revised to explicitly reference "Overbrook at Westridge" Subdivision on the final plat. The Certificate of Clerk and Recorder shall be revised on the final plat to fully reflect the Bozeman Area Subdivision Regulations; and 7. That the 100-year flood plain and the 100-year floodway shall be designated on the final plat, as recommended by the Acting City Engineer. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Knapp, Commissioner Frost and Mayor Swanson; those voting No being Commissioner Vincent. Decision - Commission Resolution No. 2859 - intent to vacate Fryslie Street This was the time and place set for the decision on Commission Resolution No. 2859, entitled: I COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2859 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, DECLARING IT TO BE THE INTENTION OF SAID COMMISSION TO VACATE AND ABANDON THAT PORTION OF FRYSLIE STREET ADJACENT TO LOTS 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 AND 30 OF THE AMENDED SUBDIVISION PLAT OF BLOCK 9, FIGGINS ADDITION, PHASE I. City Manager Wysocki reminded the Commission that they had also conducted the public 05-11-92 • !!.,7,'"'i> .-"e'er^ :�' s :Y ::� - 12 - t hearing on this item at last week's meeting. He then reminded them that the street was platted in 1980 and lies within the planned unit development which was just approved. He then recommended that the Commission authorize vacation of this street, subject to completion of the planned unit development and finalization of the plat in accordance with the previous two Commission actions. City Attorney Luwe reminded the Commission that an ordinance of street vacation must be brought back for adoption before this item is finalized. It was moved by Commissioner Knapp, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that the . Commission authorize staff to proceed with the necessary steps for vacation of that portion of Fryslie Street to vacate and abandon that portion of Fryslie Street adjacent to Lots 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the Amended Subdivision Plat of Block 9, Figgins Addition, Phase 1, contingent upon filing of the final plat. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being'Commissioner Knapp, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff and Mayor Swanson; those voting No being Commissioner Vincent. Request for Commission re-statement of fair market values for Lots 3B, 4B, 5B and 6B. Block 1, Valley Unit Subdivision City Manager Wysocki indicated that this item has been placed on the agenda due to issues which have been raised since the fair market values of all eight lots were set. Administrative Services Director Gamradt submitted to the Commission a memo dated May 26, along with a listing of the revised market values which he is seeking and a copy of the sale bill which is being distributed. He then noted that in the original calculations, he utilized an incorrect acreage figure for Lot 313, which in turn produced an incorrect fair market value. He then stated that since the Commission's action to place these lots for auction sale, the Montana Department of Transportation has expressed a possible interest in bidding on the "B" lots. The Administrative Services Director then requested that, in light of these two facts, the .Commission re-state the fair market values for Lots 36, 46, 513 and 6B. He stated that if the Department of Transportation does attend the auction and state its intention to bid on the "B" lots, they will be sold in a block, with the "A" lots being sold individually. He noted, however, that if the Department of Transportation does not attend the auction or indicate an interest in bidding, the lots will be combined and sold as 3A and B, 4A and B, 5A and B, and 6A and B. He further noted 05-11-92 f City cuts condo --th ird tplan By AL KNAUBER among the five-member com- , Chronicle Staff Writer mission.Vincent said commis- sion loses its credibility by allow Developers of a proposed ing the site to be used for condo- . condominium complex near the miniums instead of single-family Figgins subdivision will have to homes. . , scale back their plans by almost. "That sends a wrong mes- one-third. sage,"Vincent said."I thinkthat Bozeman's City Commission is bad long-term policy." approved plans for coridomini- ' And Vincent said the commis- ums Tuesday,but decided to re- sion shouldn't base its decision quire developers to reduce the on what it wants,but on what number of units from 34 to 24. the people want.Testimony The commission's approval from area residents at previous came despite neighborhood ob- public hearings was overwhelm- jections that the roughly 4.1 acre ingly opposed to the condomini site,zoned for single-family ums. homes,should only have single Because there was no oppor- tunity for residents or the devel-, Charlie DiMarco, opers to comment Tuesday on who along , the commissions changes,Vin- with Tim Dean and Gene Graf cent called for another public are proposing the project,de- hearing.But the request wasn't ; clined to say after the decision if supported by other commission- they will still build the condo- ers. miniums,which were.slated to The commission reduced the sell for about$85,000 each.He number of units to,reduce the said they need to consider the anticipated traffic.National commission's changes before statistics used to project traffic ' deciding. indicated that 22 condominium Commissioner John Vincent units would generate the same ; was the only dissenting vote traffic as 11 single-family homes. � f ,l r MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION BOZEMAN, MONTANA MAY 26, 1992 The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in regular session in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, May 26, 1992, at 3:30 p.m. Present were Mayor Swanson, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Vincent, Commissioner Knapp, City Manager Wysocki, City Attorney Luwe and Clerk of the Commission Sullivan. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. None of the Commissioners requested that any of the Consent Items be removed for discussion. Minutes Action on the minutes for the regular meeting of May 18, 1992 was deferred for one week. Decision - Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development - Overbrook at Westridge -to allow construction of 34 condominium units on Lots 16 and 21 through 30. Block 9, Amended Plat of Figgins Addition This was the time and place set for the decision on the Conditional Use Permit for the Planned Unit Development to be known as Overbrook at Westridge, to allow construction of 34 condominium units on Lots 16 and 21 through 30, Block 9, Amended Plat of Figgins Addition, under Application No. Z-9230. City Manager Wysocki reminded the Commission that they had conducted their public hearing on this item at last week's meeting; and a copy of the draft minutes have been submitted for Commission review. He then noted that, included in the Commissioners' packets, were memos from Planning Director Epple and Associate Planner Wall regarding this item. Responding to Commissioner Frost, Associate Planner Wall confirmed that the SCS has approved the 310 Permit, with the condition that the 35-foot setback from the FEMA corridor be maintained. He noted that two of the units in the building located in the southwest corner of the site do encroach into that setback. Commissioner Frost noted that he has attended two DRB meetings, two Planning Board meetings and two Commission meetings at which this item was reviewed and subjected to public 05-11-92 • - 2 - • testimony. He further noted that under the City's zoning ordinance, planned unit developments must comply with the intent of the master plan and the zoning ordinance, and are subject to conditions which will ensure compatibility with the surrounding area and uses. He stated that he feels this project is sensitive to the neighborhood; however, he feels that additional conditions would help to ensure its compatibility. He then forwarded the following proposals for additional conditions, noting that a number of them result in a reduction to the total number of units that would be constructed within this planned unit development. Commissioner Frost noted that with the elimination of the two units at the southwest corner of the site which encroach into the 35-foot setback, the total number is reduced from the requested 34 units to 32 units. He then proposed that a new condition be added, as follows: 29. That all buildings will meet the R-2 zoning regulations for setbacks and height, noting that this would ensure compatibility with the neighborhood. The Commissioner then suggested that, given the concern about scale and proximity of the development to existing homes, the following conditions be added: 30. That the two buildings abutting Lots 19 and 20 be reduced to one-story structures, reducing the total number of units to 28; and 31 . That the duplex north of Lot 31 be reduced to a single-family structure; reducing the total number of units to 27. He also suggested that a condition be added, as follows: 32. That one of the three units in the building on the north side of the road, immediately west of the streambed, be lowered to one story, thus reducing the total number of units in the development to 26. Commissioner Frost then suggested that the following conditions be added to address some of the concerns which were raised during the public hearing: 33. That a 5-foot delineated pedestrian pathway be designated on the north side of the private drive through the use of different materials from those used for the roadway, 34. That two additional street trees be provided in the Westridge Drive street right-of-way, and that they be clustered, preferably on the western side, to provide a more natural and open space appearance, 35. That all signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to final plan approval, 36. That appropriate native streambank vegetation be used along the streambank to assure water quality and the continuation of riparian habitat, 05-11-92 - 3 - • 37. That all improvements to the streambank and open.space landscaping be installed with Phase I, 38. That the trail system for this PUD be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, t Commissioner Frost noted that the traffic projections for the remaining 26 units is 130 ADT's, compared to the 110 ADT's for the 11 single-family residences that could be constructed under the original plat. He further noted that, under the originally platting, a maximum of 23 units could be constructed on this subject site. He then indicated that, with these recommended conditions added to the original 28 conditions, he can support the requested PUD for four reasons: (1) it generally meets the criteria of the master plan and the zoning ordinance; (2) the conditions address the concerns raised by the neighborhood pertaining to compatibility, traffic safety, pedestrian safety and property values; (3) it allows for the enhancement of the trail system; and (4) it allows for preservation and enhancement of the amenities which the residents of the area desire, including the stream. Commissioner Stiff reiterated his concern that to dramatically decrease the number of units allowed within this planned unit development could actually eliminate the project. He noted, however, that he would be receptive to eliminating one more unit, thus reducing the total number to 25. He also questioned why the one unit should be eliminated in the back row, as suggested by Commissioner Frost. Commissioner Stiff then cited the extreme amount of public concern raised and the safety issues which must be addressed. He suggested that in an attempt to address those concerns another condition should be added which would stipulate: cwmr-s 39. That the developer shall be responsible for placing bouncing ball signals at the intersection of South Third Avenue and Westridge Drive, noting that those lights would draw attention to that hazardous intersection. Commissioner Stiff also noted a desire to amend Condition No. 2, to provide that the units constructed within this planned unit development would pay a proportionate share of the costs incurred for the improvement of South Third Avenue rather than being subsidized by the single- family residences in the subdivision. Commissioner Stiff also indicated his interest in revising the condition pertaining to the trail system to require that the developer provide gravel trails, and that the Homeowners' Association be responsible for their maintenance: 05-11-92 • - 4 - Responding to Commissioner Vincent, Planner Wall stated that the Figgins Subdivision was originally platted in the Spring of 1980. He stated that when the City signed the plat, it was with the understanding that an SID would be created for all improvements; however, the district was never created. He noted that this has resulted in a recorded subdivision with no improvements; and that subdivision still exists. Commissioner Vincent suggested that with the number of conditions which are proposed, the original proposal has been so substantively changed that it is essentially a new proposal. He then expressed concern that under the Commission's rules of procedure, they cannot accept any input from the public or the developer on whether these conditions result in an acceptable project. He also expressed concern that the Commissioners have just received these proposed additions to the conditions, and are expected to vote on them very shortly. Commissioner Vincent then stated that he will vote against the project because the City must remain consistent to be credible; and this site is zoned R-2, which is single-family residential. He noted that many people testified at last week's meeting that they had purchased in this subdivision with the assurance that it was for single-family development only. He then characterized this proposal as "the right project at the right time in the wrong place". Commissioner Vincent stated he assisted in writing of the public interest criteria for the 1975 Legislature, and assisted in getting it passed by that legislature. He then stated he does not believe that this project is compatible with the neighborhood, as originally proposed or with the proposed conditions. He noted the great amount of expressed public opinion, noting that opinion must be carefully weighed in the decision-making process. Commissioner Knapp noted the major areas of concern identified during the public hearing included the water course; affordable housing-and housing values. She then stated that she feels that if the number of dwelling units were reduced to a level close to the 23 units that would be allowed, through use of a density bonus, under the R-2 zoning, she could support this application. She then suggested that Condition No. 30 be revised to allow for "one-story, single-family structures behind Lots 19 and 20", thus reducing the total number of dwelling units to 24. Commissioner Knapp then stated an interest in revising Condition No. 1 to provide a time certain for completion of an analysis of the intersection of South Third Avenue and Westridge Drive. She also suggested that another condition be added which stipulates: 40. That one copy of the Homeowners' Agreement shall be submitted for review 05-11-92 • - 5 - • I and approval by the Planning Director prior to final plan approval. Commissioner Knapp "stated that with.these conditions, which protect those residences abutting the project and reduce the total number of units allowed, she feels it is compatible with the neighborhood. She noted, therefore, that with all of the conditions which have been set forth, she can support approval of this application. Commissioner Frost stated support for the revision proposed to Condition No. 30. Mayor Swanson stated he had originally felt that a density of 22 units would be acceptable, since it would generate the same amount of traffic as the 11 single-family units that could be constructed under the current platting and zoning; however, he finds a density of 24 units acceptable, with the additional conditions suggested. He also suggested that Condition No. 9 be revised to provide for a reduced number of parking spaces, in keeping the with reduced number of units. He suggested that the parking be enhanced by 20 percent, as required in the original condition, with the remainder of the area to be turned into landscaping. Commissioner Stiff expressed concern about lowering one section in a building of three units in the back row, and elimination of one unit. He suggested it may be more appropriate to have a solid line, rather than a broken one; and he further suggested that one additional unit could make or break the project at this point. Mayor Swanson suggested the possibility of simply establishing a 24-unit limit, allowing the developer to determine how those could be best placed on the site. He noted, however, that single-family, single-story units should be required on those portions of the site abutting Lots 19 and 20. Commissioner Frost . � .V Break - 4:29 to 4:34 p.m. Mayor Swanson declared a break from 4:29 p.m. to 4:34 p.m., in accordance with Commission policy established at their regular meeting of March 14, 1983. Decision - Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development - Overbrook at Westridge -to allow construction of 34 condominium units on Lots 16 and 21 through 30, Block 9, Amended Plat of Figgins Addition , Commissioner Stiff requested that, rather than revising Condition No. 2, as he had suggested above, a new condition be added, as follows: 05-11-92 • - 6 - is 41 . That the developer be required to place $5,000 in escrow, upon sale of the tenth unit, to assist the neighborhood with improvements to South Third Avenue; EC m G 6 iovedb, It was Commissioner Vincent, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that the Commission require . The motion failed by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Vincent; those voting No being Commissioner Frost, commissioner Knapp, Commissioner Stiff and Mayor Swanson. It was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Stiff, that the Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit for the Planned Unit Development to be known as Overbrook at Westridge, to allow construction of 34 condominium units on Lots 16 and 21 through 30, Block 9, Amended Plat of Figgins Addition, under Application No. Z-9230, subject to the following conditions: 1 . That the applicant's professional engineer shall prepare a formal analysis of the development's impacts on the intersection of South Third Avenue and Westridge Drive. If the intersection's level of service drops below C, the applicant must mitigate the situation;, so CIF Pct 2. That a waiver of right to protest the creation of a special improvement for improvements to South Third Avenue must be signed by the owner(s) and filed with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder; 3. That the private drive approaches and sidewalk adjacent to Westridge Drive shall be constructed in accordance with the City's standard approach (i.e., concrete apron and sidewalk section) and shown as such on the final plan. City curb cut and sidewalk permits shall be obtained prior to final plan approval. Additionally, a sidewalk and drop curb (handicap) access shall be provided from Westridge Drive to the trail at the southern property corner; 4. The following shall be provided in relation to paving: A. Curbing shall be provided and depicted on the final PUD plan around the private street and all parking areas; B. Typical curb details (i.e., raised and/or drop curbs) shall be provided; and C. The asphalt section shall comply with Section 16.26.050, Surfacing, of the City ordinance unless designated in accordance with the Asphalt Institute's Manual for which a detail shall be provided to, and approved by, the City Engineer; 5. That the applicant shall install stop signs on the private drive at Westridge Drive; 6. That the site triangles at the intersections of the private drive and Westridge 05-11-92 I • Drive shall not be restricted; 7. That a minimum of four disabled parking spaces must be provided in accordance with the ADA. These spaces shall be signed as per the zoning ordinance; j 8. That bicycle racks that provide parking for at least eight bicycles shall be provided. Bicycle parking shall be dispersed through the development; 9. That the total number of parking spaces shall be reduced to twenty percent more than what is required for 24 units, and the remainder of this space shall be designated for landscaping; 10. That the landscape island in the intersection of the trails shall be eliminated; 11 . That plans and specifications for the water and sewer main extensions and lift station, prepared by a professional engineer (P.E.), shall be provided to, and approved by, the City Engineer and the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. The applicant shall also provide professional engineering services for construction, inspection, post-construction certification and preparation of mylar record drawings; 12. That sewer and water services shall be shown on the final PUD plan and approved by the Water/Sewer Superintendent. City of Bozeman applications for service shall be completed by the applicant; 13. That the following shall be provided in relation to storm water: A. A storm water plan and system design (i.e., unit sizing) shall be detailed in the PUD report and the specific engineering calculations supporting the design be included as an appendix to the report; B. A detailed storm water maintenance plan for the storm water system (designed to remove solids, silts, oils, grease, and other pollutants) be provided to, and approved by, the City Engineer prior to final PUD approval; C. The final plan shall include adequate spot elevation information on the roadway and detention pond basins and structures; D. Typical curb and depressed curb (for drainage) details be provided; E. The overall storm water plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to final plan approval; 14. That the following shall be accomplished in relation to the floodplain: A. A flood plain development permit must be obtained from the City Engineer prior to final plan approval. No filling, or other construction activities, shall be initiated prior to issuance of the permit; B. The 100-year flood plain boundary and the 100-year flood elevation cross sections must be depicted on the final PUD plan; C. Culvert sizing design calculations shall be provided for the stream crossing; 05-11-92 i - 8 - D. All buildings must be flood-proofed to at least 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation. Elevation certificates must be provided for each building following completion of construction; 15. That the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, SCS, Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, and the 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 plan approval; 16. That the final PUD plan shall include adequate dimensioning. The private street width and parking area configurations must comply with the zoning ordinance, unless deviations are obtained from the City Commission; 17. That the two structures immediately north of Lots 19 and 20 on Westridge Drive shall be separated by a minimum of 16 feet; 18. That architectural treatments shall be diversified from building to building, by way of differing gable treatments, window sizes, rooflines, adding jogs in the front and rear facades, and/or similar treatments. The side elevations which are visible off-site shall incorporate windows; the use of window bays should be considered. The final elevations shall be subject to review and approval by the DRB prior to final PUD approval; 19. That the landscape planting list shall be revised to limit the use of the patmore green ash by providing comparable alternatives; 20. That the applicants shall coordinate the location and type of mail boxes with the U.S. Postal Service prior to final PUD approval; 21 . That all buildings will meet the R-2 zoning regulations for setbacks and height; 22. That the two buildings abutting Lots 19 and 20 be reduced to one-story, single-family structures; 23. That the duplex north of Lot 31 be reduced to a single-family structure; 24. That the PUD will be limited to 24 units, without major alterations to the existing footprints or site amenities;�_ � � � 25. That a 5-foot delineated pedestrian pathway be designated on the north side of the private drive through the use of different materials from those used for the roadway; 26. That two additional street trees be provided in the Westridge Drive street right-of-way, and that they be clustered, preferably on the western side, to provide a more natural and open space appearance; 27. That all signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to final plan approval; 28. That appropriate native streambank vegetation be used along the streambank to assure water quality and the continuation of riparian habitat; 29. That all improvements to the streambank and open space landscaping be installed with Phased; 30. That the trail system for this PUD be reviewed and approved by the. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board; 05-11-92 • - 9 - • . 31 . That the developer be required to place $5,000 in escrow, upon sale of the tenth unit, to assist the neighborhood with.improvements to South Third Avenue; 32. That one copy of the.Homeowners' Agreement shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director prior to final plan approval; 33. That the right to a use and occupancy permit shall-be contingent upon the fulfillment of all general and special conditions imposed by the Conditional Use Permit procedure; 34. That all of the special conditions shall constitute restrictions running with the land use and shall be binding upon the owner of the land, his successors or assigns; 35. That all conditions specifically stated under any conditional use listed in this ordinance shall apply and be adhered to by the owner of the land, his successors or assigns; 36. That all :of the special conditions shall be consented to in writing by the applicant; 37. That seven copies of the final site plan, containing all of the conditions, corrections and modifications approved by the City Commission, shall be submitted for review and approved by the Planning Director within six months of the date of City Commission approval. Signed copies shall be retained by the City departments represented on the Development Review Committee, and one signed copy shall be retained by the applicant; 38. That the applicant shall enter into an Improvements Agreement with the City to guarantee the installation of required on-site improvements at the time of final site plan submittal. Detailed cost estimates, construction plans and methods of security shall be made a part of that Agreement; 39. That the first building permit must be obtained within one year of final site plan approval. Building permits will not be issued until the final site plan is, approved. No site work, including excavation, may occur until a building permit is issued; and 40. That if occupancy of the structure or commencement of the use is to occur prior to the installation of all improvements, the Improvements Agreement must be secured by a method of security equal to one and one-half times the ' amount of the estimated cost of the scheduled improvements not yet installed. Said method of security shall be valid for a period of not less than twelve (12) months; however, all on-site improvements shall be completed by the applicant within nine (9) months of occupancy to avoid default on the method of security. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Knapp and Mayor Swanson; those voting No being Commissioner Vincent. Decision - Preliminary plat - aggregation of Lots 16 and 21 through 30, Block 9, Amended Plat of Figgins Addition, to form one lot This was the time and place set for the decision on the preliminary plat 05-11-92 • - 10 - It was moved by Commissioner Stiff, seconded by Commissioner Knapp, that the Commission approve the preliminary plat , subject to the following conditions: 1 . That the applicant shall maintain the remainder of the Fryslie Street public right-of-way; 2. That final plat approval will not be granted until the corresponding PUD application has received final approval; 3. That the final plat shall be revised, as necessary, to reflect any of the 40 conditions imposed on the PUD in the above agenda item; 4. That a weed control plan for the proposed subdivision must be approved by the County Week Control Officer prior to final plat approval; 5. That the following shall be provided on the final plat in relation to easements: A. A 30-foot-wide easement(s) shall be provided for the water and sewer mains and hydrants necessary for the PUD; B. A 10-foot-wide utility easement shall be provided along the northern property line; and C. The trail and utility easements on the west side of the tract shall be distinctly separate, and the individual notations for these easements shall be delineated within the easement boundaries on the final plat; _ , 6. That the Certificate of Surveyor shall be revised to explicitly reference "Overbrook at Westridge" Subdivision on the final plat. The Certificate of Clerk and Recorder shall be revised on the final plat to fully reflect the Bozeman Area Subdivision Regulations; and 7. That the 100-year flood plain and the 100-year floodway shall be designated on the final plat, as recommended by the Acting City Engineer. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Knapp, Commissioner Frost and Mayor Swanson; those voting No being Commissioner Vincent. Decision - Commission Resolution No. 2859 - intent to vacate Fryslie Street This was the time and place set for the decision on Commission Resolution No. 2859, entitled: COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2859 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, DECLARING IT TO BE THE INTENTION OF SAID COMMISSION TO VACATE AND ABANDON THAT PORTION OF FRYSLIE STREET ADJACENT TO LOTS 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 AND 30 OF THE AMENDED SUBDIVISION PLAT OF BLOCK 9, FIGGINS ADDITION, PHASE I. City Manager Wysocki reminded the Commission 05-11-92 i United States Soil 601 Nikles Drive Department of Conservation Box B Agriculture Service Bozeman, MT 59715 RECEIVED BY BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE May 1, 1992 DATE To: Kevin Wall, Associate Planner Bozeman City-County Planning Office 35 North Bozeman Avenue P 0 Box 640 Bozeman, MT 59715 RE: Subdivision Plat to Vacate Fryslie Stree.tQ �) Dear Mr . Wall : Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on the subdivision near Figgins . I have enclosed a copy of the soil map and descriptions of this area . The two soils located here are Farland silt loam (50B) and Vastine loam (542A) . The Vastine loam is located in the coulee bottom . Building and other development needs to be avoided in this area due to the high water table. The upper terraces are Farland silt loam . These soils have low strength and slow permeability. Larger footings may be required to support the buildings on these soils . A thick layer gravel should be placed under sidewalks and roadways to avoid problems of frost heaving and high shrink-swell potential . If you need more information, call me at 587-6929 . Sincerely, Gordon .7 Hill Bozeman SCS Field Office a >,• }a •r � %+5 f �t=� :?j} 1�, �'• �`.�.� �.- �� �, <4 ;�'✓ � ,: IZ:F,('... ,��� f�,•+.•ayi ��..'i�)�r t .l�� j,y �+: �. � �y � i.�:• �ti,aF�C.�� 1 ;r,� /(�•+. y �j, 1. �1t,t:r� a oLf!�� 't.-k - i+'�• �� {�Al ,� t:'�w•' � S* 4v+• r k ;� 1• WA _ '� 1 1. '{ r .r 17 iF �'T{,rq� iq` ' !,; ry°•Nit �_ �x,~y r t ;�' ! ..s A , �• � 'S�i't l a �''l t)'���SL � � �r I�yt e., � � � / � r.�.)N.}� � ;��1 �, i' 'W ti'.t• r .g r t`r i �i } .� ,, t �: �S• � � J.\.,�y�7 ff 4 f •.�}; 1� A. 1 yr� M :•'a-�'-t7'b f r r,} i.q,.. r, { ��;1, t�' yrt �,_9�, y '� _ •1tIF�„`�.y '+.ll.A` F •t e t + r•t TJ q tiT l t w �K}-,�,,Fy` �t ,d r ^`Fl tr. i-; ,I '.•� 1'•.. � K n �F �A�r F, i� ,�J�(J� • 1 �, ,� ' i,1 rt r , �lr.j' ,.• � �, �.�'N t 1, � C I l "1OitL t �5'y"1•r �7'ji�.,yi\77 `__ r ,��f, � rS i ..����{�, I f ^t' 'q ...j `e1 t~.. ,� � � •�'{ -,i, r �y, F d ,�:yl t� .t P' ' i�' � t``> x w 'I ' t .4'Yf II � � 1•.°� ,r�1�'. Y� •, r. e.Y ,� �i r1. :1r r �r 1'' ',.rat t� ! r�f",i`' �' ,•�t tl a� r � r •t.,�'� r 7•� t ``!! >n �, F3 ii+ ,� �j t ,rr; ��•� 'F r �(,. �' ;f�t� 'e:�y,'� � •r (.>:.:j ',. � r " �'� y'�S a ~ '� .6. • .4">><�r.'� e• �'r e���•� a,iSi�t• '�' �'�•I i�i S o .r d 1��`J''a .t f i , �• N''?1 1 +,, 1' 1Sib -� tL'''"' �� 1 ` f 'c. ,,I �'�'j ♦�`S,vr +�� I J �,e 5 u~f ' 1 CYI f xh,! _ ,{ y r �_ �• t � , 1, f,lx r 9r, ; '*}�ti�.r. �j•I 1 � .•�. trl ({Ml.e;�`• -, Y q,t I ( S ''•, �'�a^•i 'Sr+.Y v � �. 1' c _ C�• ��y t �t ��, � r } �• ��� a eJ ',��l`� ,f'•y"R�C w".'+ 't, >�...•r tstf �' �;..a.�, � 'r.• �„ '..�:" � {F �' ••�� � t J. �1� k•� �. r ti.IZ ���. , '� '!� � y It ' is ,/•� '+.f + r r !�� , ,� ( 'r'Y r 'b `�� Ir_ ' s •" (S C, +at ;'���il ./'�/ •'J '�,�t'�>:�'�'+�;.r i' �. �Y � fa ,k. .� ',y.; •,, •.r �+_ r- r(' w + %.• , •yv`.i �:;5 ':,J�`���� � •,i � r��C.•'�g i .a;c ��rr s �, -e1{ + c: I r � �yi Y{ . < * i.- 4 j��:`�, 1, •+tr.r ;e � - n t+ 1 + 94�te�er• r �r��t,,,��ax.� �.yeed���� �t•F^ .� 1 ��'I � `, •>'fiy..•r ''S `i S'.'w t��`t ..yT/�� '� '»,Y t..�. +',.QI�'..: I�Mi�'yjM✓ 4, I .��'�t.,�'Y `s7 Y+y •�./� tI +I j -![" 1• C1L� .} M ;Y. r ..r/..-�l yam-.• '1 115. ,f.• .-r'G 1'C'r .I'� �� r "+ fIa• )� i/^y� 9 v , �r i .i'r; �/ya(i ! �F 'rYl��yj:+a�- a� r; I (^�'�l y4,`„!y � `, Mtr�f �, ,. 11^ { ,�3. +'^r �y ri •clr �'�i� V�`r' �e •.,S��rtl,��'{ . `• ��l;, • 4v.� } i` S•� ••: J l t ti-t• it 7� ri'.� c � ryl ��� `N \!.t,e �� • ('.:� :.�f'� 4S�i �'�� ,.(��, { .1%,:`1• R}r � w}��� a �• Uj 1 I , ,�.f 1�.�r _� '��,_� t�I J.d•'Z r[. r 7., _ •i �',r (,'r ��';►���a �,J��l'•`?'-� ..•as""•^• i�-,tR,.`�O � ..�� s�r,�` ,�,� �-;;�'y. ..� e. ti-. � . (,1j�j 4j ry '.,�'r��. ..+ �; S x�" `• . r;,,y y j •- f_1 .. . ,�i. i~�jc �T+ f '�(l,�v^ .+,i } (h 1 `i,. e•.. ' 'r �r;� .",,,n�"'9'cy.r rrY •. �i l ts..F <'7Y'a�� :\ .r, .. .,'.7':.t'. T .,• t .•' � .1 '` '`. tM . �`i'11 t�,:.i>�a''S � y - -. " f; r.�.w .ty.^yy ,r ;s... , .. io �(•v {n"'y1 • �w.1. l• _ "d^ ! l _ ,`a .r• ', d...•1t'S��FS/� t.. �(.'' tn�'\ Yi Z�, ��' i?��1•'(�,•f'•\' �1y :�! f Y .4,; ,y. 't►�• �I'` �a'I ; `{y' i 'y. i�•..•+�, 4r". Mi.,rF.. '^.'hF• ,' t C ~ - ` . Gallatin County APSoi | Survey (February 1989) ' 508--Far\und silt loam, 0 to 4 percent s |opeq , Composition Far | and soil and similar inclusions: 90 percent Cootrastin8 / nc | usions: 10 percent Setting mainly in the central and oorth central parts of G.a| | atio County fa/, terraces 0 to 4 percent WHOM 4500 to 5100 feet ' 15 to 19 inches rrWAMA2020 90 to 110 day/ Typical Profile 0 to 6 inches - brown silt loam 6 to 19 inches - brown and light yellowish brown silty clay | vam 19 to 60 inches - very pale brown silt loam Soil Properties and Qualities D��th-11 ,1±1 deep ( 60 inches or more) well drained calcareous loess Ftnatibi|ityl moderately slow mainly 10.5 inches slow ' ~ ' . Ga| |atin County Al Soil Survey (February 1989) ��� 2 _ Inclusions * soils that are limy throughout profile * soils thAt are on slopes greater 4 percent * so i | s that have 15 to 35 percent rock fragments throughout profi | u Uses of the Unit ' * nonir/ iUated cropland * irrigated crop | and / Cropland .� * nooirri8ated - spring wheat, winter wheat/ barley * irrigated - spring wheat, barley, alfalfa, grass hay, ( and potatoes in the Amsterdam area) APAi1itYMAIMMAtRm'', * IIIe, non irrigated * IIIe/ irrigated * potentiul soil b |owin8 * potential erosion by water- * restrictive permeability �� Gallatin County Area Soil Survey (February 1989) Rangeland w Range.•-`_ i te; G i I ty, 15- to 1':)- i nch prec i p i tat i cin 7-cone Dom i nant_v_egcetati on_i-n_potential El aLiL c -mmun i ty: rough fescue, b l uebunch wheatgrass, C: I uull. i a need I egrass, Richardson need I egrass and Idaho fescue ;f decreasers - bluebunch wheatgrass, rough fescue, Columbia needlegrass, Richardson need I esrass # increasers - Idahc. fescue, big sagebrush, fringed sagewort, prairie junegrass t!1(:I-:y bluegrass, broor0 snak-eweed, cheatgr-ass br-ome, spotted k:nal_�w�c Range_ i n_pr �duc_L )_;n_ij.'_air—dry you3e tat i-c.n_(1si-und5_ 1tt_age)_ years of abovL-averap precipitation - `l- )( i years of beIaw-average p,recIpItatIcn 1500 Windbreaks W i ndbreak:_su i tab i i i t;__:ir_ruE'_- 3' 1 I.. ',.�-�' Gallatin County Area Soil Survey (January 1990) 542A 1 �. 542A--Vastine loam, 0 t 2 percent slopes �1 GGI tJS Composition Vast ine sr. i I and sirni Iar- inclusions: 85 percent -Inclusions: 15 percent Setting Lacat i r,r;_i n_sur_v_ey_ar_ea_ mainly in the western and central part of Gallatin County Landfor_rn: low terraces fft��F8 Sinne ran e: 0 to 2' percent EI evat i tn: 4100 to 5200 feet Mean_annual_Er_eciEitation_ 1'2' to >4 inches i Fr_c st-f r ee_Eer_i od_ 90 to 110 days Typical Profile it to 10 inches - very dark grayish brown I tarn 10 to 24 inches - very dark- grayish brown loam and sandy clay learn 4 to r_Cl inches - variegated extremely�l loamy sane Soil Properties and Qualities DeL,th_cIass_ very deep ('sir to 40 inches over sand and gravel ) Dr_ainage_class_ poorly drained Parent material : mixed alluvium ---------------- DeEth_tr,_water_table: 18 to inches Permeability: moderately slow in the upper '4 inches and rapid below Av_aiIable_water_caEacity: mainly 5 iriches Potential_r_c,,t i r,a_depth_ 1_: to _'6 inches i Runr�ff_ very slow Gallatin County Area Sail Survey (January 1990) 542A 2 Inclusions * sails that have a water- table at less than IS inches * soils that have a water table at greater- than 36 inches Uses of the Unit Ma or current uses: * -range I and * pastureland i Cropland CaEability_classificati_,n_ * IIIw, nonirrigated Main soil limitations and hazards- * potential soil blowing * potential erosion by water * limited available water- capacity * water- table Rangeland Range_site: Wet Meadow, 15- to 15P- inch precipitation zone Dc,in i nar:t_vea tat i c-n_i rl_tr-tent i a I_El jnt_coremun i ty: * late successional - tall reedgrasses, rnannagrasses * mid successional - tufted hairgrass, rushes, sedges * early successional - Kentucl::y bluegrass, redtop, baItic rush, iris Ra-' -e- In q:=o-d-u-c-t-I=o-n of air-dry ---- -2 n-. --a-c-r-e-) ---e ------- -ye et2 --c - --F-- years - of above-avera3e precipitation - Overflow, 15- to 19-inch prec i p i tat i c-n zone Windbreaks 41 i ndbreal_:_su i tat i l i tY_3raue_ * L.W BOZEIUTA CITY-COU Y PLANNING OFFICE BOZEMAN 35NORTH BOZEMAN AVENUE CITY-COUNTY P.O. BOX 640, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 PLANNNG OFFICE PHONE:(406)586-3321 Ext. 227 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MEETINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND A SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of public meetings and public hearings to be held before the Bozeman City-County Planning Board at 7 :00 P.M. , Tuesday, 5 May 1992 , in the meeting room of Bozeman City Hall , 411 East Main Street, Bozeman, Montana, and a public hearing and public meeting before the Bozeman City Commission at 7 : 00 P. M. , Monday , 18 May 1992 in the meeting room of Bozeman City Hall for the review of a Conditional Use Permit Application for a Planned Unit Development and a Preliminary Plat review for a Major Subdivision requested by the Overbrook Partnership,. 4510 Conestoga Circle , Bozeman, Montana, pursuant to Section 18. 54 of the City of Bozeman Zoning Ordinance and the Bozeman Area Subdivision Regulations . The Conditional Use Permit application would allow the applicant to construct 34 condominium units among 10 buildings, and the Preliminary Plat would permit the applicant to aggregate 11 lots and cause the vacation of Fryslie Street. The subject property is described as Lot 1 6 , and Lots 21 through 30 of Block 9 , F i gg i ns Addition , Bozeman , Gallatin County , Montana, and more commonly known as 517 Westridge and all parcels which front on Fryslie Street. Said property is zoned "R-2" ( Residential , Single-Family , Medium-Density ) District and is approximately 4 . 67 acres . Oral and written testimony will be taken at the public hearings before the Bozeman City-County Planning Board and City Commission . Final decisions of the Development Review Committee and Design Review Board pertinent to the Conditional Use Permit may be appealed in accordance with Chapter 18 . 58 of the Bozeman Zoning Ordinance . Maps and related data regarding this application may be reviewed in the Bozeman City-County Planning Office , 35 North Bozeman Avenue , 586-3321 , Ext. 227 . Andrew C. Epple Planning Director 1 � L' � •ES'p.• Proposed CUP/PUD & subdivision a r z^J MEMORANDUM TO : JIM WYSOCKI , CITY MANAGER FROM : ANDY EPPLE, PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE : MAY 21, 1992 RE : OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE ----------------------------------------------------------------- As you requested , here are some density comparisons which the Commission may wish to consider as they prepare to take action on Overbrook at Westridge . First , Figgins Addition consists of a total of 77 acres (gross) and contains 245 lots as currently platted . This works out to a gross density of 3 . 18 dwelling units per acre . Assuming approximately 25% of the total development is devoted to streets and parks, we have an approximate net density of 4 . 22 du 's per acre (245 lots divided by 58 acres) . Overbrook is 4 . 67 acres in size . It was originally platted with eleven single-family lots, or a gross density of approximately 2 . 36 du 's per acre . Densities in this portion of Figgins were presumably somewhat lower than the rest of the development due to environmental constraints and irregular shape . To stay at the same densities as exist in the rest of Figgins, the 4 . 67-acre Overbrook area would need to provide approximately 15-16 du ' s . R-2 zoning requires a minimum of 7 , 000 square foot lot size (net) . If a 4 . 67 acre tract of ground were regularly shaped, flat , and had no floodplains to contend with, it could accommodate approximately 23 dwelling units (4 . 67 acres x . 82* = 3 . 8 ac . net; 3 . 8 ac . x 43, 560 divided by 7, 000 sq . ft . = 23 . 64) . Twenty three dwelling units in Overbrook would equate to 4 . 92 du 's per acre gross, or 6 . 05 du ' s per acre net . I The Master Plan calls out "Allowable HtResidential Densities" (underline added) in Urban Residential Infill areas as 3-6 du 's per acre for single family development, and 6-20 du 's per acre for multi-family development . The project as proposed would result in a net density of approximately 8 . 95 du ' s per acre (34 units divided by 3 . 8 acres) . Should you have any questions about this information , please let me know. *A review of five recently-approved residential subdivisions reveals that on average, approximately 18% of the area of a subdivision, after parkland dedication is taken out, is devoted to roads; hence, multiplying the total acreage (after parkland dedication is taken out) by 82% gives us an approximate estimate of net acreage which can be devoted to lots . MEMORANDUM ------------------------------------------------------------------ TO: BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION FROM: KEVIN WALL, ASSOCIATE PLANNER/URBAN DESIGNE DATE: 21 MAY 1992 RE: OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE - CUP/PUD APPLICATION #Z-9230 AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #P-9210 ; ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM PLANNING STAFF ------------------------------------------------------------------ In response to specific questions or issues which were raised at Monday night' s public hearing, the Planning Staff offers the following: Existing 11 Lot Subdivision Plat and Lack of Improvements: The 11 lot plat currently in force for the project site (attached) was allowed to be filed under the premise that the City would create a SID for a water main, sanitary sewer, storm drain, paving and the construction of Fryslie Street . Although the minutes from the 26 November 1980 Commission meeting state that the Commission approved the creation of the SID ( #628 ) , it in fact was never created or assessed to the property owner( s ) . These parcels are subject to a number of other SIDS which involve other portions of the Figgins Subdivision as well as the subject site . These other SIDs do not include infrastructure specifically for the lots which front on Fryslie Street. Status of 404 Permit Application: On Wednesday, 20 May 1992 , the Army Corps of Engineers Office in Helena stated that a final determination had not been reached as to whether a 404 Permit , or any other permit issued through the Corps , would be necessary for the project . Condition #15 recommended by the Planning Board would require that any applicable permit be obtained from the applicable agencies prior to final approval . Status of 310 Permit and 35 ' Stream Corridor Setback: As stated by the applicant, a 310 Permit has been granted. The Soil Conservation Service has informed the Planning Office that the permit was granted with the contingency that a 35 foot setback from the FEMA Floodway (versus "highwater mark" as stated in the Zoning Ordinance ) be observed. Several units as depicted encroach into the existing floodway, and would need to be eliminated for the 310 Permit to be valid. This restriction would still be in force should a FEMA map amendment result from the proposed stream alterations . 1 / I • • Flooded Area of Site Shown in Slide: The precise time and circumstances in which the slide was taken, and the extent of the flooding , is unknown to City Staff. A Flood Plain Development Permit will need to be issued before any construction may take place in the FEMA floodplain ( refer to recommended condition *14 A) . Mechanisms Limiting the Number of Rentals, Capping the Cost of Units, and Number of Tenants: First, the City Attorney concurred with the Planning Staff that limiting the number of rentals through a zoning review is inappropriate because it raises constitutional issues and would likely be a violation of the Fair Housing Act . In addition, placing a cap on the cost of the units is inappropriate because the applicants do not have any type of assistance pending j from the City. The City Attorney also concurred with the Planning Staff that the definition of "family" in the Zoning Ordinance is sufficient to limit the potential number of tenants per unit. The relevant portion of this definition states that a family is a group of not more than four persons (excluding servants) who need not be j related by blood or marriage, living together as a single non- profit housekeeping unit. " Play Area or Equipment for Children: As stated in the Staff Report , the parkland dedication for this site was satisfied with the filing of Phase I of the Figgins Subdivision (East Graf and Jarrett Parks) . This proposal is not required to provide any play areas or equipment for children residing either in the development itself or in the adjacent neighborhood. Piecemeal Trail Dedication: The Gallagator Trail is currently proposed to be extended through this area. The "piecemeal approach" of trail acquisition is endorsed by both the POST Committee and Charles Little (author of "Greenways for America" who lectured in Bozeman a few weeks ago) so that an opportunity will not be lost. Although a link may not occur to the north of this site , opportunities exist to the south. The link to Westridge Drive could then provide access to the southern leg of the Gallagator. j Densities of Similar Developments Mentioned at Public Hearings: Although the comparison of the densities of other condominium units in Bozeman is an interesting exercise, Staff does not find it pertinent because the other developments are in other locations and were approved under varying circumstances. Staff will be present at Tuesday' s meeting should you have any questions . i i I 2 I - Notes: Public Hearing, May 18, 1992, County Commission Meeting Room Public Hearing - CUP for PUD - Overbrook at Westridge - to allow construction of 34 condominium units on Lots 16 and 21-30, Block 9, amended plat of Figgins Addition (Z-9230); preliminary plat- aggregation of Lots 16 and 21-30, Block 9, to form one lot (P-9210)(North Figgins Addition) This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the CUP for PUD for Overbrook at Westridge to allow construction of 34 condominium units on Lots 16 and 21-30, Block 9, amended plat of Figgins Addition under Application No. Z-9230 and a preliminary plat of aggregation of Lots 16 and 21-30, Block 9, to form one lot under Planning Resolution P-9210 (North end of Figgins Addition). Mayor Swanson opened the public hearing and explained the City procedure for public hearings to the public. Associate Planner Kevin Wall presented the staff report. He explained that there were two applications, one for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development and a major subdivision preliminary plat review. Planner Wall stated that the Conditional Use Permit application is to allow 34 condominium units in ten buildings on 4.67 acres currently zoned R-2 (Residential, Single-Family, Medium- Density) District. The buildings are generally four-unit buildings with one six-unit and one duplex located on the outer periphery of the site. Entrance will be at the intersection of Westridge and Grizzly Streets. Figgins Creek runs through the building site. The developers propose to develop Figgins Creek with grading and stream bed work. Parking will be located in individual garages connected to the buildings with individual driveways leading up to the garages. The applicants have proposed a total of 100 parking spaces (34 in garages, 34 in private driveways and 32 along the communal driveway.) The zone code requires 76.5 spaces under the conventional provisions of the zone code. In addition, the applicants are proposing two trail dedications. One runs along the west boundary which would be an extension of the Galigator Trail and the other is a connector trail which runs between Westridge and the extension of the Galigator Trail. Planner Wall then reviewed the plan's proposed relaxation of the Zoning Ordinance provisions through the PUD process contained in the Staff Report. Dan Kamp, Architect for the Applicant, then presented his report. He stated that it was previously reviewed in its conceptual form by the Planning Review Board, Development Review Committee and the City Planning Staff. Due to the conceptual review the original 38 unit plan was reduced to 34 units. This project has been through six DRC meetings, five DRB meetings, three neighborhood meetings, two planning board meetings and this is the second City Commission meeting plus several meetings with the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Corps of Engineers and other agencies. He stated the applicant has two options. There is the original approved subdivision that is in place and can be done and there is the present PUD proposal before you which we think addresses a lot of the underlying elements of the Master Plan and how a PUD is supposed to function. The idea of the whole PUD process is that if you submit mitigating and hopefully positive solutions to the site, that you if fact, can receive additional densities or other design considerations. Basically, that's the reason I'm before you tonight, is to present to you what we feel constitutes an improvement over what's already been approved and hopefully you and some of the neighbors will come to agreement with us. He then stated the original subdivision was approved in 1980 and filed at that time. The original intention was where the springs occurred and storm drainage problem existing in the Figgins Addition would all be moved to the west and the area would be filled. In addition to moving the water source to the West, there were no provisions for the trail, no easements allowed for that either along the old Milwaukee road right-of-way or along the edge of the property that is now being used as trail access. The original acreages for the park were donated to the subdivision of Figgins. Basically there are were three design concepts. The first was the design of the site itself, second the design in relation to the neighborhood, and the third was the design in relation to the community and its relationship to the Master Plan. He explained that in the Overbrook plan four things will be incorporated that were not in the original 1980 plan. 1) All storm drainage that empties onto the site will be remedied 2) To leave the stream "as is" in its own stream bed and in a more natural setting in conjunction with the FWP and the Corps of Engineers 3) We want to develop the unimproved trail that runs along the southwest side of the property which crosses where the Galigator Trail will eventually run along the Milwaukee right-of-way. 4) We feel that the landscaping is critical. We have more than doubled what is required. Our intention was not to try to make any particular point, but to address each aspect of the relationship of the site to the neighborhood. The second aspect of the design is its relationship to the adjacent neighborhood. We particularly paid attention to the architecture of the buildings so that it would not look like a condominium project. The concern was that the buildings relate more to single-family dwellings and to duplexes. We have worked extensively on the roof form. Rather than singular roof form that ran the width of the building, we broke the ends of both buildings the other direction so that relationship between buildings would appear more separated. Interior stair accesses were developed so there would be no appearance of external stairways. Also there are interior entrances from the garages to the foyer. Garages are offset so not to give a continuous garage door affect. In the current plans the traffic movement pattern is approved. We have met all criteria of the staff report. The developer plans on selling each unit in the range of $75,000-$80,000. We feel we have met the goals and policies of the Master Plan. Mr. Kamp then presented slides depicting the landscape character of the site along with slides of the stream etc. In response to Commission questions Associate Planner Wall responded that the staff and the DRB recommended approval of the preliminary plat to the City-County Planning Board. That in the site plan as approved, the stream bed will be moved to the west and a culvert utilized. Commissioner Knapp questioned the difference between the original plat review and the present one? In reply to Commissioner Stiff, Planner Wall explained that by keeping sixteen feet between the two buildings, it would give a larger open area feeling on the site. In answer to Commissioner Knapp, Planner Wall replied that the duplex behind Lot 31 will be two stories. Commissioner Vincent questioned previous expressed public opinion to this preliminary plat. He noted there had been some opinion, but none opposed to it. Planner Wall stated that before the public hearing of May 5, there hadn't been expressed public opinion against the preliminary plat, however there had been expressed public opinion against the planning and development and that expressed opinion is a part of the record. In response to Commissioner Vincent, Ray Center, Rocky Mountain Engineers stated that he prepared the traffic study taken on South Third and on So. Willson Avenues and that his figures were taken directly from County and City traffic counts. He explained that possibly the discrepancy in the count on So. Willson just north of Kagy Boulevard in 1988 of 5,350 and the count in 1990 of 4,280 could be explained by the improvements being done on Kagy Boulevard during the 1990 count. In response to Commissioner Knapp, Planner Wall stated that the original plat is still viable if the street were improved and the original plat could be completed. Planning Director Epple stated that these plats are done in phases according to City standards; the original plat is of record, the public right-of-way exists, the lots exist and all that would be needed to develop it in accordance with that plat would be for the street to be built. Director Epple stated that this project is pre-dated to Planner Wall's and Director Epple's association with the Planning Staff. Gene Graf, applicant, stated that the original plat was started in 1979-1980. In response to Mayor Swanson, Architect Kamp stated that the developers want the stream corridor to stay in natural landscape as much as possible and that the trail that ran along the stream would be moved to the west and not run along the stream. He noted they established this from various views they have received. Mayor Swanson called a five minute break at 8:12. p.m. in accordance with Commission policy established at their regular meeting of March 14, 1983. Mayor Swanson called the public hearing back to order at 8:19 p.m. The Mayor stated that the spokesperson(s) in support of the project could not be from the development team and cannot speak for more than 20 minutes total. Joe Deeson, 6008 Skyline Lane, stated that currently in Bozeman there is what they call multiple listing service which lists properties in areas. Area No. 1 is primarily Bozeman proper. At this point in time of homes priced at $70,000 to $93,000 there were 24 active listings. As of today there are three of those for sale that. will qualify for FHA loans. Three others are all older homes needing structural work which changes the type of loans available making it out of reach for those people they are trying to attract. He then quoted parts of a real estate article from the April 10, 1992, Bozeman Chronicle stating that in Bozeman real estate is at the highest level in the state. He stated the article said that by 1999 the median income in Gallatin Valley will be $29,379 which will qualify applicants to buy homes in the range of these condominiums. He then noted the down payments and monthly payments on houses in the $70,000 to $93,000 range. Bozeman growth is good and the competition is good. I am in support of this complex. Sue Frye, 3060 Tumbleweed, realtor, stated that she was in support of this project and that there is really a need for affordable housing. She compared the difference in densities in several present condo complexes in Bozeman and that Overbrook has the least density and then compared the prices of different condo complexes. Pat Tietz, 2000 W. Dickerson, realtor, stated that she is in support of Overbrook. She noted that condo living is in great demand and is popular. She notes she lives in Southbrook complex where there are no students, where the average age of inhabitants is 50-55 years, and there is a waiting list for occupancy. She stated she believes that Overbrook is a well-planned complex and she recommends it. It will not ruin the Figgins Addition. Architect Kamp requested that Tim Dean, builder be given 10 minutes to talk about affordable housing. The Mayor denied the request. Tamy Wittren, 120 South Black, stated she is in support of the Overbrook complex. She noted that she has attended several of the planning meetings for this project during all phases. She believes that the project takes into effect the wetlands, wildlife, trails, stream and allows for the open space effect. She believes the developers have gone beyond the required criteria for the Master Plan. Dan Kamp, architect, stated that he wanted read into the record that the applicant team did not receive notice of the change in time allotted for speaking. Mayor Swanson then called for testimony from the opposition. Marty Elder, 2611 Westridge, stated that she is opposed to this project. She stated that she does not believe this project accomplishes the requirements of the new Master Plan and the zone ordinance. She believes it will make a negative impact on the neighborhood and the community at large. This negative impact has not been mitigated by the developer as required. In addition, the developer's claim that this project contributes to the goals and objectives of the Master Plan is simply not true. Most of the criterion for the wetland area will be eliminated due to the way the stream will be changed and the planned settling pond. She referred to a letter from Richard Vincent, fishery biologist, FWP, regarding construction setbacks. He stated that the 35 foot setback must be observed. This project includes two three-foot encroachments, one of which is being resolved and the other is not. The one that does not puts the building 23 feet into the water course setback. Clearly, this is not in compliance with the intentions of FWP. This brings up the question as to whether the stream bed can be re-directed. The wetlands are not exempt from the federal Clean Water Act. The developers have failed to obtain federal permits under 404 for permission to alter wetlands. My information from the Corps of Engineers is that the final decision for the project will not be available for another week. After permission is given there is a one month given for public comment. This plan is already in violation of .the water course encroachment limitations as defined in federal permit 310. These requirements would also pertain to the original plat. Three of these buildings will be in the floodplain. This project includes land that is in the 100 year floodplain that has a very high water table. The neighborhood wants to be assured that displacement of the water table will not cause flooding to neighboring residences and that re- routing won't result in flooding downstream. We also want to be assured that the surrounding neighbors who have wells will not be effected by the alterations and, to be assured that the run-off from Figgins will not effect downstream water. Open spaces provided in this development do not satisfy the Master Plan mandate by providing for future needs of the public. The open spaces do not provide playground needs. Public access will be denied to the watercourse area in order to preserve its natural state. There are no provisions for the public as the site will be owned by an association. In summary the neighborhood would appreciate answers to the following questions: 1) Will the watercourse and flood plain encroachment regulations be observed? 2) Will approval be withheld pending final review by the Army Corps of Engineers? 3) Will a playground be included on site for the children of this development? Alex Hudack, 410 Westridge Drive, stated he believes that the plan is inconsistent with criteria 4 of the urban residential section•of the Master Plan. By using drawings, he compared the size of the condominium unit buildings with the neighboring single-family residences stating the condo units were larger and fail to meet the air space and light standards of the Master Plan. The surrounding property areas will be negatively effected by a higher traffic volume and an additional entrance will cause a safety hazard. We feel that with this project the real estate value of the surrounding property will be negatively impacted. For the record - how will the developer modify the structures or eliminate them to blend in with the Master Plan and not adversely effect the present neighborhood? How do the developers plan to mitigate the traffic problem that will be created by this project? Dean Drenk, 221 Westridge, stated that he is opposed to this development, and in his opinion, these units will sell for more than $80,000, and therefore will not be considered affordable housing. The proposed trail system will actually be 300 feet in length and is isolated with no access from the north or the south. The east-west trail that the developers are speaking of will actually end on private property to the west. Finally, I question the traffic impact predicted by the developers from this project. There is not access to Bozeman from the south except for South Third Avenue. It is the developer's duty under the Master Plan to mitigate the traffic problem that this project will cause to South Third Avenue. He then showed a colored chart of the Figgins Subdivision pointing out the 70 percent of the residents are in opposition to this plan. The physical characteristics of this plan are contrary to the R-2 zoning for this area. Kelly O'Connor, 505 Westridge Lot 18, stated that he is in opposition to this project. He stated reference to the May 5th minutes of the Planning Board meeting, page 16, last paragraph and quoted the statement by Planning Board member Russ McElyea. Mr. O'Connor believes that this is not a statement of fact, but of opinion. He noted his great objection to the traffic problem this project will cause and that he does not object to this concept as a whole, but there are some compromises to be made by the developers. Jack Pollari, 424 Westridge, stated he, along with other concerned residents have been in. contact with the Acting Director of the Museum of the Rockies requesting information from the museum concerning the impact this trail system may have on them. He has learned that the Museum is concerned regarding the impact of the placement the proposed trail system will have on the Museum's Tinsley House in the future. Robert Spencer, 2303 South Third, stated that his property backs up on two sides to the Graf property. He noted that the Museum of the Rockies in interested in developing a living historic farm showing the technology of the early 1890's and that the land possibly proposed to be used would be the entire property of his own and the Graf's which are adjacent. I do not feel that a living historic farm should have a condominium complex next to it. My second concern if for the children as there are no provisions in this project for children. Steve Cherry, 510 Westridge Drive, stated that he is opposition to this project and that he requests the 35 foot setback variance be clarified. He stated that he believes that a federal 404 permit is required. When the City-County Planning Board told the developers that they could put that 23 feet encroachment into the floodplain they simply Leola Brelsford, 415 Westridge Drive, owner of Lot 20, stated she thinks the extra traffic will have quite an impact on the Figgins Addition. She stated that she works at MSU and drives to work because the available trail and the private road are dusty and the traffic is very heavy. Maria Visscher, 2803 Langohr, Lot 9, stated that she moved to Bozeman in 1981 . Her family picked the Figgins Addition to reside in for the single-family dwelling zoning and a nice place to raise children. We were notified by you that we had to put in sidewalks by July 15 or we would have them put in for us, and we did. I question the sidewalk problem having to do with private drives and feel that everyone should have to follow the rules. I am also curious why the cul-de- sacs do not have to put in sidewalks although I know the reason goes way back to when this addition was developed. Steve Custer, 511 W. Spring Creek, stated that he is in opposition to this project. Mr. Custer showed two slides of a flood in the area of the creek in 1985. He stated that this area is really a flood area. He then stated that everyone in Bozeman should be treated equally as far as respect. There is no mixed use in this area; we represent a neighborhood. Our neighborhood should be preserved like an historical district, Figgins is an historical district. Jim Devitt, 613% South Willson Avenue, stated that he is neutral regarding the Overbrook project, but wanted to address Commissioner Vincent's question regarding the South Willson Avenue traffic counts. In 1981, the Bozeman Transportation Plan traffic count for So. Willson Avenue just north.of Kagy Boulevard was 3,000 per day. In 1992, the traffic count was 4,800 per day in the same place. And in 1981 just north of W. College the count was 9,400 per day and the 1992 count is 11,000 per day, with projections that by the year 2000 will be 14,000 per day. I have no answers for the inconsistency in the traffic counts that Commissioner Vincent questioned, but feel that research should be done on them. Harold Billings, 2806 Langohr, stated that his family lives in Figgins Addition because it is a family community and we like to live there. I am opposed to developing a condominium complex in a single-family development area would be detrimental to this community. I rely on the Commission to make the right decision and protect this community. Jerry Fortney, 421 Westridge Drive, stated that he is opposed to this project. The encroachment of the buildings on this site are behind my lot. This project has been planned with the minimal distance required for property lines. I don't believe the developer realizes how compact this plan is. Privacy berms are not the answer. I believe that a project of this density demands a certain amount of landscape settings that satisfactorily interface with our neighborhood. The eight- family units are planned in a space that should be for two lots and two families. I appeal to the Commission to not allow this encroachment to occur. Nat Kutzman, 2717 Langohr, stated that he lives between five and six blocks from the Overbrook site. He noted that his family bought in the Figgins Addition because it was zoned R-2. I request that you do not allow a single-family area to become a high-density condominium area. Joyce Hynes, 2900 Secor, stated she moved into the Figgins Addition in 1991 after living for eight years in a high-density condominium area in Wildwood Condominium complex at 17th and Olive. I left that area partially because of the high-density problem and the unsolvable living conditions and the students living in the complex. I do not want to see the same thing happen in this neighborhood. I urge you not to approve this PUD. Edith Spencer, 2303 South Third Avenue, stated that she is opposed to this project and is mostly concerned for the safety of the children. I foresee a problem in the Condo Association owners group will have to be dealt with as a group instead of on an individual basis. Supposedly there will be a condo manager, however, I would rather deal with single-family resident neighbors than an owners group. Debbie Miller, 2903 Westridge Drive, stated that when they were looking at lots in Figgins Addition, their real estate agent advised them to be sure and check the zoning, which they did and found it was single-family and presumed it would remain such. I believe this plan should be developed as eleven single-family resident dwellings and not as a condo unit development. Bryan Robertus, 2708 Langohr, stated that he opposes this PUD. He believes that it is very possible that these could become rental units. If so, being so close to the University, there will be lots of college students taking advantage of it since there is such a rental crush right now. I just graduated from MSU two years ago and am very familiar with student life. I do not wish to have the worry of the added traffic impact and we must think of the safety of the children. Sue Hudak, 410 Westridge Drive, stated that she opposed this project. There already is a traffic problem on Westridge. If this project is allowed, it follows that the school will be requesting a stopsign at South Third and Arnold because of the heavier yet traffic. With no further public comments, Mayor Swanson called for questions from the Commission. Commissioner Knapp said she wondered if there was a mechanism available to limit the residents allowed in the condominium. complex and keep rentals from occurring. Commissioner Vincent commented that he is anxious to learn more about the status of the original plat, especially in relation to the stream: Mayor Swanson called for rebuttal by the supporting team. Charlie DiMarco, stated that he is a member of the group that is trying to help develop this property. We, as'developers are approaching you for a change to what was previously approved. Everything is constantly in a change process. Our developers possess an impeccable reputation in the community. The Corps of Engineers' required obligation has been met. This development has been under heavy scrutiny and has received 46 out of 48 votes of approval on the project. We respectfully submit this project to you and ask for your approval. In response to Commissioner Frost, Architect Kamp replied that the developers have received the 310 permit and it has been approved. The Federal 404 permit is in for a review of the site, indicating that the documents are correct and within limits of the permit. Mr. Kamp stated that the developers should receive permission in writing. In response to Mayor Swanson, Builder Dean replied that the condo units will be offered at $75,000 to $80,000 to the buyer, but the developer cannot control the selling price of the buyer when he/she chooses to re-sell. The City Manager stated for the record that the Commission has received all of the information from the Planning Board hearing prior to the City Commission hearing. We have received a letter from Bryan and Margaret Robertus, dated May 13, and received today, May 18. A letter from Robert L. and Mary Ann Brown, dated May 18, which was received tonight at the public hearing. A petition in opposition, dated May 9 (4 pages) received after 8:00 p.m. May 18. City Attorney Luwe stated that the record of the Planning Board is available as part of this record for your consideration. In response to Commissioner Vincent, the City Manager stated that the letter from the Robertus's is in opposition to this project as is the one from the Brown's. It was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Stiff that the public hearing be closed. Unanimous vote. Mayor Swanson requested a motion on whether or not to waive the one week waiting period. Commissioner Stiff moved that because of the high percentage of expressed public opinion for the public safety the project be denied. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vincent. City Manager Wysocki brought up the "point of order" that the Commission has not been able to see the latest public opinion documents received at the public hearing. He stated that the Commission must wait one week for a decision to have time to peruse the latest documents received. City Attorney Luwe advised the Commission that all the evidence was not before them at this point, therefore they will need to consider these latest received items before making a decision. Commissioner Stiff withdrew his motion to deny and Commissioner Vincent withdrew his second to the motion. Mayor Swanson stated to'the public that the Commission would except no new input between this public hearing and the decision in one week. Responding to Mayor Swanson, the City Manager requested two weeks time for the decision. Commissioner Stiff stated that he did not want to amend the motion to two weeks. It was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Vincent, that the Commission delay for one week the decision to allow construction of 34 condominium units on Lots 16 and 21-30, Block 9, amended plat of Figgins Addition (Z-9230); preliminary plat - aggregation of Lots 16 and 21-30, Block 9, to form one lot (P-9210) on the CUP for PUD at Overbrook at Westridge be delayed one week.. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Vincent, Commissioner Knapp, and Commissioner Frost; those voting No, Mayor Swanson. Mayor Swanson thanked the public for their participation and declared a recess at 9:55 p.m. I � Award bid -expansion of water treatment plant: Diamond Construction Helena Montana - Base bid of $1.041.700.00 Reguest for closure of Main Street for Taste of Bozeman - Wednesday August 5 1992, from 5:30 to 10:00 p.m.; waiver of open container ordinance from 7:00 to 9:00 for seated guests only Deviation from side yard setbacks to allow 4%-foot encroachment into 8 foot side yard set back - Terri and Peter Wolfgram, 712 So. 10th Avenue- per DRB recommendation It was moved by Commissioner Vincent, seconded by Commissioner Knapp, that the Commission approve the Consent Items as listed, and authorize and direct the appropriate persons to complete the necessary actions. The motion carried.by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Vincent, Commissioner Knapp, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff and Mayor Swanson; those voting No, none. Recess - 5:45 p.m. Mayor Swanson declared a recess at 5:45 p.m., to reconvene at 7:00 p.m. at the County Commission Room, Gallatin County Courthouse,for the purpose of conducting the scheduled public hearings. Reconvene - 7:00 p.m. - County Commission Room County Courthouse Mayor Swanson reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. at the County Commission Room, Gallatin County Courthouse, for the purpose of conducting the scheduled public hearings. Public Hearing�CUPTfor PUD-Over"brook at-Westridg_e--to-allow-construction 0-34-cond6minium units on Lots 16 and 21-30,-_Block 9 amended plat of Figgins Addition (Z-9230)•`preliminary=ph t'-a la_ —egation of Lots 16'and 21-30::Block=9r to form one lot (P=9210)(North Figgins Addition) --� This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit for the Planned Unit Development for Overbrook at Westridge to allow construction of 34 condominium units on Lots 16 and 21-30, Block 9, Amended Plat of Figgins Addition, under Application No. Z- 9230, and a preliminary plat for the aggregation of Lots 16 and 21-30, Block 9, located at the north end of Figgins Addition, to form one, lot under Application No. P-9210. Mayor Swanson opened the public hearing and explained the City procedure for conducting public hearings. Associate Planner Kevin Wall presented the staff report. He explained that there were two applications, one for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development and one for a major 05-18-92 8 subdivision preliminary plat review. Planner Wall stated that the Conditional Use Permit application is to allow 34 condominium units in ten buildings on 4.67 acres currently zoned R-2 (Residential, Single-Family, Medium- Density) District. The buildings are generally four-unit buildings with one six-unit and one duplex located on the outer periphery of the site. Entrance will be at the intersection of Westridge and Fryslie Streets. Figgins Creek runs through the building site. The developers propose to develop Figgins Creek with grading and stream bed work. Parking will be located in individual garages connected to the buildings with individual driveways leading up to the garages. The applicants have proposed a total of 100 parking spaces (34 in garages, 34 in private driveways and 32 along the communal driveway.) The zone code requires 76.5 spaces under the conventional provisions i of the zone code. In addition, the applicants are proposing two trail dedications. One runs along the west boundary which would be an extension of the Gallagator Trail and the other is a connector trail which runs between Westridge and the extension of the Gallagator Trail. Planner Wall then reviewed the plan's proposed relaxation of the zoning ordinance provisions through the PUD process, as contained in the staff report. Dan Kamp, architect, then presented the applicant's report. He stated that this development was previously reviewed in its conceptual form by the Design Review Board, i Development Review Committee, and the City planning staff. Due to the conceptual review, the original 38-unit plan was reduced to 34 units. This project has been through six DRC meetings, five DRB meetings, three neighborhood meetings, two Planning Board meetings, and this is the second City Commission meeting, plus several meetings with the Department of Fish, Wildlife and i j Parks, Corps of Engineers and other agencies. I Mr. Kamp stated the applicant has two options. There is the original approved subdivision that is in place and can be implemented and there is the present PUD proposal now before the Commission, which the applicant believes addresses a lot of the underlying elements of the Master Plan and how a PUD is supposed to function. The idea of the PUD process is that if the applicant i submits mitigating and hopefully positive solutions to the site, and in exchange may receive additional densities or other design considerations. Basically, that's the reason the developers are before the Commission tonight, to present what they feel constitutes an improvement over what's already been approved; and hopefully the Commission, and some of the neighbors, will agree. Mr. Kamp then stated the original subdivision was approved in 1980 and was filed at that 05-18-92 time. The original intention was that where-the springs occurred and the storm drainage problem existing in the Figgins Addition would all be moved to the west, and the problem area would be filled. In addition to moving the water source to the West, there were no provisions for the trail, no easements allowed either along the old Milwaukee road right-of-way or along the edge of the property that is now being used as trail access. The original acreages for the park were donated to the Figgins subdivision. Basically there are were three design concepts. The first was the design of the site itself, second the design in relation to the neighborhood, and the third was the design in relation to the community and its relationship to the Master Plan. He explained that in the Overbrook plan four things will be taken into consideration that were not in the original 1980 plan: 1) all storm drainage that empties onto the site will be remedied 2) To leave the stream "as is" in its own stream bed and in a more natural setting in conjunction with the Montana Department offish, Wildlife and Parks and the Corps of Engineers, 3) to develop the unimproved trail that runs along the southwest side of the property which crosses where the Gallagator Trail will eventually run along the Milwaukee right-of-way, and 4) the landscaping is critical. The developer has more than doubled what is required; and the intention was not to try to make any particular point, but to address each aspect of the relationship of the site to the neighborhood. The second aspect of the design is its relationship to the adjacent neighborhood. The developer particularly paid attention to the architecture of the buildings so that it would not look like a condominium project. The plan was that the buildings relate more to single-family dwellings and to duplexes, and extensive work has been done on the roof form. Rather than singular roof forms that run the width of the building, the developer has broke the ends of both buildings the other direction so that relationship between buildings would appear more separated. Interior stair accesses were developed so there would be no appearance of external stairways. There are interior entrances from the garages to the foyer. Garages are offset so they don't give a continuous garage door affect. In the current plans, the traffic movement pattern is approved. The developer has met all criteria of the staff report. The developer plans to sell each unit in the range of $75,000- $80,000 and feels he has met the goals and policies of the master plan. Mr. Kamp then presented slides depicting the landscape character of the site along with slides of the stream, etc. In response to Commission questions, Associate Planner Wall stated that the staff and the DRB recommended approval of the preliminary plat to the City-County Planning Board. He also 05-18-92 i 0 noted that in the site plan as approved, the stream bed will be moved to the west and a culvert utilized. Commissioner Knapp queried the difference between the original plat review and the present one. In reply to Commissioner Stiff, Planner Wall explained that keeping sixteen feet between the two buildings would give a larger open area feeling on the site. In answer to Commissioner Knapp, Planner Wall replied that the duplex behind Lot 31 will be two stories. Commissioner Vincent questioned previous expressed public opinion on this preliminary plat. He noted there had been some opinion, but none opposed to it. Planner Wall stated that before the public hearing of May 5, there hadn't been expressed public opinion against the preliminary plat, however there had been expressed public opinion against the planning and i development and that expressed opinion is a part of the record. In response to Commissioner Vincent, Ray Center, Rocky Mountain Engineers stated that he prepared the traffic study taken on South Third Avenue and on Soouth Willson Avenue and that his figures were taken directly from County and City traffic counts. He explained that possibly the discrepancy in the count on Soouth Willson just north of Kagy Boulevard in 1988 of 5,350 and the count in 1990 of 4,280 could be explained by the improvements being done on Kagy Boulevard during the 1990 count. Responding to Commissioner Knapp, Planner Wall stated that the original plat is still a viable plan if the street was improved and the original plat could be completed. Planning Director Epple stated that these plats are done in phases according to City standards; the original plat is of record, the public right-of-way exists, the lots exist and all that would be needed to develop it in accordance with the original plat would be for the street to be built. Director Epple stated that this project is pre-dated to Planner Wall's and his association with the Planning staff. Gene Graf, applicant, stated that the original plat was started in 1979-1980. In response to Mayor Swanson, Architect Kamp stated that the developers want the stream corridor to stay in natural landscape as much as possible and that the trail that presently runs along the stream would be moved to the west and not along the stream. He noted they established this from various views and suggestions they have received. 05-18-92 - 21 - Break - 8:12 p.m. to.8:19 p.m. Mayor Swanson declared a break from 8:12 p.m. to 8:19 p.m., in accordance with Commission policy established at their regular meeting of March 14, 1983. Reconvene - 8:19 p.m. Mayor Swanson reconvened the public hearing at 8:19 p.m. for the purpose of conducting the scheduled public hearings. The Mayor stated that the spokesperson(s) in support of the project could not be from the development team and may not speak for more than 20 minutes total. Joe Deeson, 6008 Skyline Lane, stated that currently there is a multiple listing service in Bozeman which lists properties in areas. Area No. 1 is primarily Bozeman proper. At this point in time, of the homes priced at $70,000 to $93,000, there were 24 active listings. As of today there are three of those for sale that will qualify for FHA loans. Three others are all older homes needing structural work, which changes the type of loans available, making it out of reach for those people they are trying to attract. He then quoted parts of a real estate article from the April 10, 1992, Bozeman Daily Chronicle stating that in Bozeman real estate is at the highest level in the state. He stated the article said that by 1999 the median income in Gallatin Valley will be $29,379, which will qualify applicants to buy homes in the range of these condominiums. He then noted the down payments and monthly payments on houses in the $70,000 to $93,000 range. Mr. Deeson stated that Bozeman growth is good; the competition is good; and he is in support of this complex. Sue Frye, 3060 Tumbleweed, realtor, stated that she was in support of this project noting there is really a need for affordable housing. She compared the difference in densities in several present condo complexes in Bozeman and noted that Overbrook has the least density. She then compared the prices of different condo complexes. Pat Tietz, 2000 West Dickerson, realtor, stated that she is in support of Overbrook. She noted that condo living is popular, and in great demand; and she lives in Southbrook complex, where there are no students, where the average age of inhabitants is 50-55 years, and there is a waiting list for occupancy.. She stated she believes that Overbrook is a well-planned complex and she recommends it; noting that it will not ruin the Figgins Addition. Architect Kamp requested that Tim Dean, builder be given 10 minutes to talk about affordable housing. The Mayor denied the request. 05-18-92 - 22 - • Tamy Wittren, 120 South Black, stated she is in support of the Overbrook complex. She noted that she has attended several of the planning meetings for this project during all phases. She believes that the project takes into consideration the wetlands, wildlife, trails, stream and allows for the open.space effect. She believes the developers have gone beyond the required criteria for the master plan. Dan Kamp, architect, stated that he wanted read into the record that the applicant team did not receive notice of the change in time allotted for speaking. Mayor Swanson then called for testimony from the opposition from the audience. Y Y PP Marti Elder, 2611 Wes tridge, stated that she is opposed to this project. She stated that she does not believe this project accomplishes the requirements of the new master plan and the zoning ordinance. She believes it will make a negative impact on the neighborhood and the community at large. This negative impact has not been mitigated by the developer as required. In addition, the developer's claim that this project contributes to the goals and objectives of the master plan is simply not true. Most of the criteria for the wetland area will be eliminated due to the way the stream will be changed and the planned settling pond. Ms. Elder referred to a letter from Richard Vincent, fishery biologist, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, regarding construction setbacks, noting that the 35-foot setback must be observed. This project includes two three-foot encroachments, one of which is being resolved and the other is not. The one that does not puts the building 23 feet into the water course setback. Clearly, this is not in compliance with the intentions of FWP. This brings up the question as to whether the stream bed can be re- directed. The wetlands are not exempt from the federal Clean Water Act. The developers have failed to obtain federal permits under 404 for permission to alter wetlands. She stated that her information from the Corps of Engineers is that the final decision for the project will not be available for another week; and after permission is given, there is a one month period for public comment. This plan is already in violation of the water course encroachment limitations as defined in Federal Permit 404. These requirements would also pertain to the original plat. Three of these buildings will be in the floodplain. This project includes land that is in the 100-year floodplain and has a very high water table. The neighborhood wants to be assured that displacement of the water table will not cause flooding to neighboring residences and that re-routing won't result in flooding downstream. They also want to be assured that the surrounding neighbors who have wells will not be affected by the alterations and that the run-off from Figgins will not affect downstream 05-18-92 - 23 - water. Open spaces provided in this development do not satisfy the master plan mandate by providing for future needs of the public. The open spaces do not provide playground needs. Public access will be denied to the water course area in order to preserve its natural state. There are no provisions for the public as the site will be owned by an association. In summary, Ms. Elder stated that the neighborhood would appreciate answers to the following questions: 1) Will the water course and flood plain encroachment regulations be observed? 2) Will approval be withheld pending final review by the Army Corps of Engineers? 3) Will a playground be included on site for the children of this development? Alex Hudack, 410 Westridge Drive, stated he believes that the plan is inconsistent with criteria 4 of the urban residential section of the master plan. Using drawings, he compared the size of the condominium unit buildings with the neighboring single-family residences, stating the condo units were larger and fail to meet the air space and light standards of the master plan. He stated the surrounding property areas will be negatively affected by a higher traffic volume, and an additional entrance will cause a safety hazard. Mr. Hudack felt that with this project the real estate value of the surrounding property will be negatively impacted. Mr. Hudack then asked how the developer will modify the structures or eliminate them to blend in with the master plan and not adversely effect the present neighborhood, as well as the developers plan to mitigate the traffic problem that will be created by this project? Dean Drenk, 221 Westridge, stated that he is opposed to this development. He noted that in his opinion, these units will sell for more than $80,000 and, therefore, will not be considered affordable housing. The proposed trail system will actually be 300 feet in length and is isolated with no access from the north or the south. The east-west trail that the developers are speaking of will actually end on private property to the west. Finally, he questioned the traffic impact predicted by the developers from this project. There is no access to Bozeman from the south except for South Third Avenue. It is the developer's duty under the master plan to mitigate the traffic problem that this project will cause to South Third Avenue. He then showed a colored chart of the Figgins Subdivision pointing out that 70 percent of the residents are in opposition to this plan. The physical characteristics of this plan are contrary to the R-2 zoning for this area. Kelly O'Connor, 505 Westridge, stated that he is in opposition to this project. He referenced the May 5 minutes of the Planning Board meeting, page 16, last paragraph and quoted the statement by Planning Board member Russ McElyea. Mr. O'Connor believes that this is not a 05-18-92 - 24 statement of fact, but of opinion. He noted his great objection to the traffic problem this project will cause and that he does not object to this concept as a,whole, but there are some compromises to be made by the developers. Jack Pollari, 424 Westridge, stated that he, along with other concerned residents, has been in contact with the Acting Director of the Museum of the Rockies requesting information from the Museum concerning the impact this trail system may have on them. They have learned that the Museum is concerned about the impact the placement the proposed trail system will have on the Museum's Tinsley House in the future. Robert Spencer, 2303 South Third, stated that his property backs up on two sides to the Graf property. He noted that the Museum of the Rockies is interested in developing a living historic farm showing the technology of the early 1890's and that the land possibly proposed for this historic farm would be all of his property and the Graf's, which is adjacent. He does not feel that a living historic farm should have a condominium complex next to it. Mr. Spencer's second concern was for the children as there are no provisions in this project for them. Steve Cherry, 510 Westridge Drive, stated that he is opposition to this project and requested that the 35-foot setback variance be clarified. He stated that he believes that a federal 404 permit is required. Leola Brelsford, 415 Westridge Drive, stated she thinks the extra traffic will have quite an impact on the Figgins Addition. She stated that she works at MSU and drives to work because the available trail and the private road are dusty and the traffic is very heavy. Maria Visscher, 2803 Langohr, stated that she moved to Bozeman in 1981 . Her family picked the Figgins Addition to reside in for the single-family dwelling zoning and being a nice place to raise children. She stated her family was notified by the City to put in sidewalks by July 15 or would be-installed by the City, so we installed it. She then questioned the sidewalk problem having to do with private drives and felt that everyone should have to follow the rules. She stated that she was alos curious why the cul-de-sacs do not have to put in sidewalks, although she understood the reason goes way back to when this addition was developed. Steve Custer, 511 West Spring Creek, stated that he is in opposition to this project. Mr. Custer showed two slides of a flood in the area of the creek in 1985. He stated that this area is really a flood area. He then stated that everyone in Bozeman should be treated equally as far as respect. , There is no mixed use in this area; we represent a neighborhood. Our neighborhood 05-18-92 I S - 25 - should be preserved like an historical district; Figgins is an historic district. Jim Devitt, 613%Z South Willson Avenue, stated that he is neutral regarding the Overbrook project, but wanted to address Commissioner Vincent's question regarding the South Willson Avenue traffic counts. In 1981, the Bozeman Transportation Plan traffic count for South Willson Avenue just north of Kagy Boulevard was 3,000 per day. In 1992, the traffic count was 4,800 per day in the same place. And in 1981 just north of West College the count was 9,400 per day and the 1992 count is 11,000 per day, with projections that by the year 2000 will be 14,000 per day. He stated that he had no answers for the inconsistency in the traffic counts that Commissioner Vincent questioned, but felt that research should be done on it. Harold Billings, 2806 Langohr, stated that his family lives in Figgins Addition because it is a family community and his family likes to live there. He stated that he is opposed to developing a condominium complex in a single-family development area as it would be detrimental to this community. He then stated that he relies on the Commission to make the right decision and protect this community. Jerry Fortney, 421 Westridge Drive, stated that he is opposed to this project. The encroachment of the buildings on this site are behind his lot. He stated this project was planned with the minimal distance required for property lines. He does not believe the developer realizes how compact this plan is. Privacy berms are not the answer. He believes that a project of this density demands a certain amount of landscape settings that satisfactorily interface with the neighborhood. The eight-family units are planned in a space that should be for two lots and two families. Mr. Fortney then appealed to the Commission to not allow this encroachment to occur. Nat Kutzman, 2717 Langohr, stated that he lives between five and six blocks from the Overbrook site. He noted that his family bought in the Figgins Addition because it was zoned R-2, and requested that the Commission not allow a single-family area to become a high-density condominium area. Joyce Hynes, 2900 Secor, stated she moved into the Figgins Addition in 1991 after living for eight years in the high-density Wildwood Condominium complex at 17th and Olive. She stated that she left that area partially because of the high-density problem, the unsolvable living conditions, and the students living in the complex. She does not want to see the same thing happen in this neighborhood and urged the Commission not to approve this PUD. Edith Spencer, 2303 South Third Avenue, stated that she is opposed to this project and 05-18-92 '0 is mostly concerned for the safety of the children. She foresees a problem in the condo owners association in that it will have to be dealt with as a group instead of on an individual basis. Supposedly there will be a condo manager, however, she would rather deal with-single-family resident neighbors than an owners group. Debbie Miller, 2903 Westridge Drive, stated that when they were looking at lots in the Fig gins Addition, their real estate agent advised them to be sure and check the zoning, which they did and found it was single-family; they and presumed it would remain such. She believes this area should be developed as eleven single-family resident dwellings and not as a condo unit development. Bryan Robertus, 2708 Langohr, stated that he opposes this PUD. He believes that it is very possible that these could become rental units. If so, being so close to the University, there would be lots of college students taking advantage of it since there is-such a rental crush right now. He stated that he just graduated from MSU two years ago and is very familiar with student life. Mr. Robertus does not wish to have the worry of the added traffic impact, noting that one must think of the safety of the children. Sue Hudak; 410 Westridge Drive, stated that she opposed this project. There already is a traffic problem on Westridge. If this project is allowed, it follows that the school will be requesting a stop sign at South Third and Arnold because of the yet heavier yet traffic. With no further public comments, Mayor Swanson called for questions from the Commission. Commissioner Knapp asked. if there was a mechanism available to limit the residents allowed in the condominium complex and keep rentals from occurring. Commissioner Vincent commented that he is anxious to learn more about the status of the original plat, especially in relation to the stream. Mayor Swanson called for rebuttal by the supporting team. Charlie DiMarco, stated that he is a member of the group that is trying to help develop this property. He stated that the developers are approaching the Commission for a change to what was previously approved and that everything is constantly in a change process. He noted that the developers possess an impeccable reputation in the community. Mr. DiMarco stated that the Corps of Engineers' required obligation has been met. This development has been under heavy scrutiny and has received 46 out of 48. votes of approval on the project. He then stated that the 05-18-92 development group respectfully submits this project to the Commission and ask for approval. In response to Commissioner Frost, Architect.Kamp replied that the developers have received the 310 permit; it has been approved. He noted that the Federal 404 permit is in for a review of the site, indicating that the documents are correct and within limits of the permit. Mr. Kamp stated that the developers should receive permission in writing. In response to Mayor Swanson, Builder Dean replied that the condo units will be offered at $75,000 to $80,000 to the buyer; but the developer cannot control the selling price of the buyer when he/she chooses to re-sell. The City Manager stated for the record that the Commission had received all of the information from the Planning Board hearing prior to the City Commission hearing. Also received was a letter from Bryan and Margaret Robertus, dated May 13, and received today, May 18; a letter from Robert L. and Mary Ann Brown, dated May 18, which was received tonight at the public hearing; and a petition in opposition, dated May 9 (4 pages) received after 8:00 p.m. May 18. City Attorney Luwe stated that the record of the Planning Board is available as part of this record for the Commission's consideration. In response to Commissioner Vincent, the City Manager stated that the letter from the Robertus's is in opposition to this project as is the one from the Brown's. It was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Stiff that the public. hearing be closed. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Vincent, Commissioner Knapp and Mayor Swanson; those voting No, none. Mayor Swanson closed the public hearing. The Mayor requested a motion on whether or not to waive the one week waiting period. Commissioner Stiff moved that, because of the high percentage of expressed public opinion for the public safety concern, the project be denied. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vincent. City Manager Wysocki interjected a "point of order"that the Commission has not yet been able to see the latest public opinion documents received at the public hearing. He stated that the Commission must wait one week for a decision to have time to peruse the latest documents received. City Attorney Luwe advised-the Commission that all the evidence was not before them 05-18-92 - 28 - at this point, therefore they need to consider these latest received items before making a.decision. Commissioner Stiff withdrew his motion to deny and Commissioner Vincent withdrew his second to the motion. Mayor Swanson stated that the Commission would except no new input between this public hearing and the decision in one week. Responding to Mayor Swanson, the City.Manager requested two weeks' time for the decision. It was moved by Commissioner Stiff, seconded by Commissioner Vincent, that the Commission delay for one week the decision on the CUP for PUD to allow construction of 34 condominium units on Lots 16 and 21-30, Block 9, amended plat of Figgins Addition (Z-9230) and the preliminary plat for aggregation of Lots 16 and 21-30, Block 9, to form one lot (P-9210). The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Vincent, Commissioner Knapp, and Commissioner Frost; those voting No, Mayor Swanson. Mayor Swanson thanked the public for their participation. Break - 9:55 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The Mayor declared a break from 9:55 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., in accordance with Commission policy established at their regular meeting of March 14, 1983. Reconvene - 8:19 p.m. Mayor Swanson reconvened the public hearing at 10:00 p.m. for the purpose of conducting the scheduled public hearings. Public Hearing - Commission Resolution No. 2859 - Intent to vacate Fryslie Street_ This was the time d lace set for the public hearing on Commission Resolution No �,P P 9 2859, as reviewed by the City Atto`r ney, entitled: COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2859 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, DECLARING IT TO BE THE INTENTION OF SAID COMMISSION TO VACATE AND ABANDON THAT PORTION OF FRYSLIE STREET ADJACENT TO LOTS 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 AN6�-,30 OF THE AMENDED SUBDIVISION PLAT OF BLOCK 9, FIGGINS ADDITION-,,PHASE I. E ' 05-18-92 ���� �1 ��� � � �.�-� �� � ���� 2>> -� � �7 � car-cc�� `�H I/ � � �t —cam K�c�'� �tt� ���t�=cam � �� �r �' ��cc�t�c�C� � �,�� �`� �O c� c SS �� is ���j �-' �� cam. � If ij • I T <_ i t fi AAA t+ h} - r i y I. II -Pz t�_e_ .... P�SZ 1<24 Ilr_7000 „��= ZZ w�✓ i I 4 1 l � T • i � a 4 1 T S6�eS t i i i 11 I �l LL _ s eW�(T ? - IA � � i �� - �� _ _ ;� �� }1 ._ �_ - _ - - _ - _ - - - - - „ .. _I+ V_ �.. � - --- ---- - _ � - - - - - t+ I - - - f- - I' - - - - --__ _-__� - y ' . .�, _ _ _. _ . w — — -- -- —-- -- • — - — -- — t — — - — -- • — - i — — ---•— —-- - — —— — 4 . r I a - 4 �i Jf F7 alAv 1-0 I 1 I e oN i* ,ay i i i t .. 1. � > A 1 . r� • i 3 r „'t • 0 MEMORANDUM ------------------------------------------------------------------ TO: BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION FROM: KEVIN WALL, ASSOCIATE PLANNER/URBAN DESIGNER DATE: 13 MAY 1992 ITEM: OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE - #Z-9230 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 34 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND #P-9210 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION TO ALLOW THE AGGREGATION OF 11 LOTS AND THE VACATION OF FRYSLIE STREET; PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 16 , AND 21 THROUGH 30 , BLOCK 9 , AMENDED PLAT OF FIGGINS ADDITION, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 517 WESTRIDGE AND ALL LOTS WHICH FRONT ON FRYSLIE STREET; "R-2" (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY, MEDIUM-DENSITY) DISTRICT ------------------------------------------------------------------ The above referenced applications will appear before the City Commission on Monday, 18 May 1992 on the Public Hearing Agenda. Previous actions for the PUD application include recommendations of conditional approval from both the Development Review Committee and Design Review Board (conditions stated in the Staff Report) , and conditional approval from the City-County Planning Board. The Planning Board recommends the conditions stated in the Staff Report be imposed with the exception that #17 be altered to state that the two structures immediately north of Lots 19 and 20 shall maintain at least 16 feet separation from one another (maintain two "R-2" District side yard setbacks versus eliminating the structures completely) . Additionally, the Planning Board eliminated Staff Report condition #20 ( requiring a trail along the stream) in their recommendation. In relation to the Preliminary Plat application, the Planning Board found that the proposal is in conformance with the eight public interest criteria and has recommended approval of the application with the conditions recommended by City Staff and other relevant agencies . The Staff Report and supporting materials were distributed in the 5 May 1992 Planning Board packets . Minutes from the 5 May 1992 Planning Board meeting , Planning Board Resolutions #Z-9230 and #P-9210 , site plan and submittal information, and written public comment received to date are attached. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns . i ors.iNei hbgearu . for battle over condo development g p syALHI Staff Developers Tim Dean, Gene Graf and Charlie DiMarco are development could occupy nearby vacant . Chronicle Staff Writer proposing the condominiums on about 4.7 acres near the cor- The possibility that zoning could allow Several residents of Figgins subdivision ner of South Third Avenue and Westrid a Drive originally In unanticipated development leads her to say are battling a proposal to build condomini g g y "I'm real afraid of what kind of door this ums on land there'formerly slated for single- tended for 11 houses. opens" for developing other vacant land family homes. there. And they're accusing the Bozeman City She's critical of the Planning Board. County Planning Board of turning a deaf ear will add to their traffic woes.,Myers looks to miniums,Kamp said. "Their attitude was this stuff happens and it to their concerns that the 10 buildings'that the transportation plan being prepared for "I think there's a lot of positives there the was a real tough-luck attitude,"she said. will contain 34 condominiums will change the city to reduce the traffic. neighbors are choosing to ignore," Kamp Alex Hudak, who bought his home on their neighborhood. The Planning Board is Developers Tim Dean, Gene Graf and said. Westridge Drive in 1987,agrees. recommending the City Commission ap- Charlie DiMarco are proposing the condo- But members of the city's Design Review "They made a unanimous decision rela- prove the project.The commission will hold miniums on about.4.7 acres near the corner Board had some concerns with the project. tively quick. They knew exactly what they a public hearing May 18 on the condomini- of South Third Avenue and Westridge Drive Bud Kumlien said he was concerned by the wanted to put into the motion,"Hudak said. ums. that was originally intended for 11 houses. number of units in the project and he didn't Hudak and his neighbors expected sin- But Planning Board Chairman Bill Myers Dan Kamp, project architect with Ciskan like two of the buildings. Nick Davis said the gle-family homes to be built on these lots but said board members listened to the neigh- Architects, said they've tried to protect the project would change the character of the now are faced with buildings that would be bors and read the letters opposing it. The stream that runs through the property,and community. almost twice the size of a home, he said. He problem was the Planning Board's recom- wildlife habitat there that area neighbors The city's planning office has received isn't complaining about the condominiums' mendation of approval that neighbors op- prize. about 25 letters from Figgins residents who design. Hudak is angry with the Planning posed. Kamp anticipates many of the people who 'oppose the project. A petition signed by Board's decision and said "... It's our neigh- Figgins subdivision and other area resi- live in the condominiums won't rely on their about 75 people also asks that the project not borhood,not theirs." dents have been prodding the Bozeman City cars, but will walk or ride bicycles along a be allowed. Hudak promises a battle if the City Com- Commission to widen South Third Avenue,a trail that connects to another city trail. Hav- Marti Elder lives on Westridge Drive and mission approves the project. "We will, as a narrow two-lane blacktop road that gets ing the 11 lots that were previously approved checked the zoning in the area before buying neighborhood, fight it," Hudak said. "We're heavy use. Now they fear the condominiums for the site would be worse than the condo- in August. She wanted to know what type of not going to let them do it." I 1 I P w Planning board niotingA040'ghf ion housing issue Bozeman's City-County Planning Board will meet tonight at 7 to hold public hearings on two housing developments., Comments will be taken"on Qverbrook at Westridge,a 10 building de- velopment slated for 34 condominiums.The development is located near Westridge and Fryslie streets.Both the City Comiriission and Planning ' Board have viewed it.and commented favorably..Tlie project is to be built. during a two or three year-period: i Also to be`reviewed during a public hearing is a proposal to create 30 lots in a subdivision just north of Kirk.Park and bordered by Beall Street and Durston Road.The,subdivision was approved in 1986,but a final plat wasn't filed within three years so approval must be reissued for the pre= liminary"plat:The planning staff is recommending the subdivision be ap- proved. - S �S -q2 ITEM 4. NEW BUSINESS �F_ -_ =R�B­bok ATE A. OVERBROOK AT E.�_:�t�DG --_ foning Application LB L 'UB _�I C . HEAR -Application For a Planned !fZ-92-0 -_ACondi_t-:Cdr!Wl-Use Permif Unit Development To Allow 34 Multi-Family Dwelling Units To Be Constructed On A 4.67 Acres Site; AND Planning Application #P-9210 - A Preliminary Plat Application Which Would Allow The Aggregation Of 11 Lots For Said PUD Located At 517 Westridge And All Lots Which Front On Fryslie Street, Located In A "R-2" ( residential , Single-Family, Medium Density) District President Myers explained the procedures that will be followed during the public hearing , noting that the time limitations set forth in Planning Board Policy Resolution P-9201 will be followed . Planner Wall reviewed the Staff Report (on file in the City- County Planning Office) . He also read into the record the names of those persons who sent letters to the Planning Office concerning this proposal since the time the Planning Board packets were sent out. All letters received were in opposition to the proposal (on file in the City-County Planning Office) . Planner Wall stated that it has been determined that the proposed Planned Unit Development is in compliance with the regulations and a conditional approval of the proposal is recommended . In response to a question from Jane Newhall , Director Epple state that the public parkland dedication occurred through the original platting of Figgins Subdivision , adding that the open space requirement in this PUD is basically for those living within the PUD. Jane Newhall stated that it would seem that there would be too much impact on the streambed should the stream corridor be part of the trail system. Responding to Russ McElyea, Planner Wall stated that the PUD application does not correlate to the first guideline under D. "That the proposed use shall be in conformance with the Bozeman Area Master Plan" because a mixed-use PUD is not proposed . However, he stated that the proposal does meet three and one-half of the five given criteria. Director Epple stated that the Master Plan does not require that all five of the guidelines be met. He further stated that had Figgins Subdivision originated with a mix of single-family, multi-family, and neighborhood commercial uses, then the entire subdivision would have been a "mixed-use development" . He stated that the proposal before the board tonight is standing on its own and is not in conjunction with the Figgins Subdivision . Dan Kamp, architect, briefly described the project. He stated that the conceptual review of this proposal consisted of Planning Board - May 5, 199 2 38 units, however, taking in account the information received from the various committees and boards during the Concept Plan review, the Overbrook Partnership decided it would be more appropriate to reduce the density to 34 units to address renovation of the stream corridor and riparian areas. Dan Kamp stated that the original subdivision was approved and platted in 1980 with the intent to reroute the stream in a culvert fashion along the west side of the property. He stated that the owners felt this was inappropriate with the springs occurring in the area and felt a better design solution must be possible. Dan Kamp further stated that all trail areas would be closed off under the original approved subdivision as residential lots abutted other residential lots. He also stated that the acres from the original subdivision were allocated with the parks that were donated with the original Figgins Addition . Dan Kamp stated that the developers asked him if there could be a better solution , adding that the partnership felt there were 3 critical design concepts that needed to be addresseds 1 ) sensitivity to the site; 2) relationship to the neighborhood ; and 3) impact to the community as a whole and how the project fits into the Master Plan and development guidelines. Dan Kamp stated that the most difficult problem to the site is storm drainage at the southwest corner. He stated that they have tried to find a way for the residue and silt to settle out prior to entering the stream as it does now. Dan Kamp stated that the second problem is the water body that occurs in that area. They are trying to restore it to a more free flowing stream. Mr. Kamp stated that all of the necessary agencies have looked at the proposal , and the project has been issued a 310 permit. He stated it has been reviewed by the Army Corp of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife and their initial determination is that the amount of water flow is substantially less than the minimum required for a permit, and also the amount of fill that would be done is substantially less than the amount of fill that would be required before a permit is triggered . Dan Kamp stated that, under the existing plat that is currently in force, the stream would be eliminated altogether. Dan Kamp stated that the applicants believe that the development of a trail at the southwest end of the site would be an asset, adding that they are proposing to develop it to the north, connecting with the Galligator Trail system. He stated that this would provide a useful connection for the project and the neighborhood to Video Lottery Consultants, MSU Stadium, and the University. Dan Kamp further stated that the landscaping was given a great deal of detail using mature vegetation and the landscape proposal substantially exceeds the guidelines. Planning Board — May 5, 1992 3 Regarding the project' s relationship to the neighborhood , Mr. Kamp commended the developers for concern with neighborhood input, adding that two neighborhood meetings were held to convey the project to the neighborhood . He stated that they have tried to tie into the neighborhood architecturally by giving the buildings an appearance of a large single-family home. Mr. Kamp stated that roof lines have been broken up and edges softened . He further noted that exterior stairs go up a half level only and garages are grouped together and offset to eliminate long linear sections of garage doors. Dan Kamp stated that the City' s traffic analysis figures the ADT' s (Average Daily Trips) will increase from 110 to 170. He stated that, under the old proposal of 11 single-family homes, all 110 ADT' s would have used the one entrance at Fryslie Street but this proposal provides two access points for 170 ADT' s. Dan Kamp further stated that he believes the units will sell to people who work nearby and who will leave their car in the garage a great deal of the time, adding that this needs to be factored in statistically. Dan Kamp stated that the developers are also concerned about the relationship of the project to the community as a whole in regard to affordable housing . He stated that they have tried to address how to properly finance the cost of repairing the stream and keeping the units affordable, adding that the key is in the number of units proposed . Dan Kamp referred to the Overbrook PUD guidelines submitted with the application (on file in the City- County Planning Office) and reviewed how the proposal meets the goals and objectives of the Master Plan . Dan Kamp stated that he believes if this land is allowed only 11 family dwellings rather than 34, the remaining 23 units will be constructed somewhere else, probably further south on South 3rd Avenue, which would still not mitigate traffic problems. Mr. Kamp then presented slide pictures of the proposal and the site as it now exists. Dan Kamp stated that the buildings will be maintained by the Home Owner' s Association . Regarding the quality of construction , Mr. Kamp stated Tim Dean would be contractor for the development and that Mr. Dean ' s execution of projects has always been exemplary. Tim Dean , contractor, stated that the Overbrook Partnership is proposing to build a quality, well-built, affordable project for the City of Bozeman . He stated that from the early stages of the partnership they agreed to develop quality affordable housing project that would enhance the area. Tim Dean further stated that each time he has been before the City Commission he guarantees quality and carries through with it . Planning Board - May 5, 1992 4 Tim Dean stated that they have never desired to maximize the density of the area but instead have reduced the density from what is allowed . He stated that the buildings will fit the neighborhood architecturally and will be energy efficient and environmentally sound . Mr. Dean stated that this land is not a swamp, adding that it needs to be developed , cared for, and nurtured . He stated that currently the water flows into the path of least resistance; they want to channel the water and put it into a stream bed. Tim Dean stated that too much emphasis has been put on what the land is now and little value has been placed on what they are doing to perfect the stream. Tim Dean stated that they have tried to be up front with the neighbors and have held two neighborhood meetings. He stated that two people attended the first meeting and twenty attended the second meeting and they basically heard no negative comments. Tim Dean further stated that he feels there is a misunderstanding of what they are proposing . He stated that it seems the neighbors are envisioning condominiums as apartments, but they are single-family homes and the owners will have the same -pride in ownership as those owning homes in Figgins Subdivision do. Tim Dean stated that affordable housing in slowly becoming a thing of the past. He noted three newspaper articles regarding the shortage of habitat and how the "American Dream" is being tarnished . He also referred to a book entitled , "Not In My Back Yard" and stated that instituting this "syndrome" will only make the affordable housing problem worse. Tim Dean stated that this PUD is needed badly in Bozeman and asked the Board to recommend approval of it. Kris Dunn asked if there could be a compromise in the design structure as to the height of the units next to Lots 19 and 20 along Westridge Drive. Tim Dean stated that they need to have all 34 units to maintain an affordable project. Dan Kamp stated that all of the units proposed in the development are already at two-stories. He stated that in building a one-story structure rather than two, there would still be the same amount of foundation and roof but half of the square footage, therefore those units would have to cost more. Mr. Kamp stated that if the original subdivision was developed , there could be four two-story homes along that section . Dan Kamp further stated that they originally proposed a 15 foot setback for those structures and have moved that back to 20 feet to be in compliance. He further stated that the they are seeking a variance to encroach 23 feet into the watercourse setback where the water comes out of the culvert. In response to a question from Clark Babcock , Dan Kamp stated that they are trying to keep the cost of the condominiums at $75,000 each. At this point, someone from the audience spoke Planning Board - May 5, 1992 5 out. President Myers informed this individual that he would be � able to speak when the public portion of the hearing is opened . Responding to Russ McElyea, Gene Graf stated that the 310 permit was approved as presented . Russ McElyea further asked if . siltation is going to fill the pond at the southwest corner of the site. Dan Kamp stated that it will occur at times and that the Homeowner' s Association will have to see that it functions properly. In briefly reviewing the recommended conditions of approval , | Dan Kamp stated that they provided a large number of parking spaces to guarantee that no parking occurred on Westridge Drive ! but they are willing to change that they are required to. He ! further stated concern with Condition #20, requesting a trail along the stream corridor through the center of the site. Dan Kamp stated that there will be a sign marking the development which will be submitted to the DRB for review once a proposal has been prepared . ' Responding to Kris Dunn , Ray Center of Rocky Mountain Engineers stated that a preliminary analysis of traffic at the intersection of Westridge and 3rd was done and also on the amount of traffic that would be coming out of the two accesses from the development onto Westridge Drive. He stated that the preliminary analysis shows the level of service at a high C / low B. Ray Center stated that they will be doing a more formal analysis as review of the project continues, although he does not anticipate the service level to drop below a C. Kris Dunn asked if the new school in the area was included in the analysis. Ray Center stated that if there is an increase shown in relation to the new school it would be caused by the school and not by the development. He further stated that if a problem does occur, a four-way stop sign could be installed at South 3rd and Westridge, | however, he does not believe that will be necessary. � . Responding to Jane Newhall , Gene Graf stated that he owns the property west of the railroad He stated that the POST Committee has requested that the trail be extended along the railroad . He stated that he is illi to rerouteit to go along the Allison Annexation, which will still bring it to the south but not along the actual railroad . Gene Graf stated that the railroad is now owned by the abutting property owners. There being no further questions from the Board , President Myers OPENED THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING. Jack Pollari , 424 Westridge, stated he has attended five formal meetings, two by the developer and three which were part uniqueof the formal process. He stated that this area is a and important area in Bozeman , adding that the Museum of the Rockies has received national recognition in Sunset Magazine, which is 6 0 one of many different articles about the Museum. He stated that this development will not only affect the neighborhood , but it would be seen throughout the United States as people observe the Museum. Mr. F'ol *L...xri further stated that this project has been viewed as separate from Figgins Subdivision yet earlier in the evening it was stated that the dedicated parkland for the subdivision meets the needs of the proposed development. He stated that they reviewed the zoning when -they bought their home on Westridge and found that it was consistent with the Figgins Subdivision with single-family dwelling and that is what they wanted . Jack Pollari also stated that this development, COUIDled with the addition of -the new school will , add a tremendous amount of traffic to South .---rrd Avenue- . He also stated that the two buildings behind Lot 19 and 210 are very large, adding that one member of the DRE: recommended that those two buildings be eliminated . He also expressed concern that -the development will be "a wall of houses" . Vincent Smith, 506 Westridge Drive, stated that t h e additional traffic is a concern in connection with the children who live in the area. Mr. Smith stated he is a professional economist and gave his credentials. He stated that he has been at previous meetings in which unit prices were quoted at $80,000- 85,000. He stated that the medium income of a "Montanan" is $13,000, which does not support the purchase of a $75,000-80,000 house. Mr. Smith stated that incomes at the average level in Gallatin COUn ty range at about $18,000 a YL-,--Xl-. He stated that a family with - a single income cannot afford one of -these units, adding that more than half of the professors that work at -the university have incomes that would riot Sustain one of these units. He stated that these units are likely to be sold and rented out to those that will have the 1(--)-12 ADT' s per day associated with single-family housing . Mr. Smith stated that this development cannot be called affordable housing in the corite,.,,t of the aver-age citizen in Gallatin Valley. Nancy Hildner, 401 Westridge, stated she feels the additional traffic would CaUSe an increase in safety hazard , especially with children getting on and off school buses. She stated -that she attended the City Commission meeting the previous night with regard -to plans for South 3rd Avenue and it was estimated that approximately 40 children' will be crossing -the street at South 3rd and Westridge. She stated that the children will be routed down Westridge, which currently has no sidewalks. Ms. Hildner stated that -there will be a bottleneck of traffic between the new street into the proposed development arid Langohr Street. She stated -that she feels there are too many units for the available space and Would like to see the single-family home -theme maintained in the area. Planning Board - May 5, 1992 7 Alex Hudak , 410 Westridge Drive, submitted a letter from Karen Black , 416 Springcreek Drive. Mr. Hudak stated that he knows that Tim Dean and Dan Kamp are reputable and do good projects, adding that his contention is not with the quality and design, He stated that he purchased his property realizing that the undeveloped land near it was zoned for single-family dwellings; had that not been the case, they might have looked somewhere else for a home. Mr. Hudak stated he does not believe the development is compatible or affordable. He stated that if the ownership factor is removed , the units would become apartments and he feels they would be rented to college students and traffic will be increased . Alex Hudak further stated that Planner Wall told him in a previous conversation that trips per dwelling unit could be as high as 6. 1 rather than the 5 used in the traffic analysis. This would bring the (DDT' s up to 207 rather than 170. He further stated that the area is platted for one cul-de-sac on Fryslie Street and if the PUD is developed there would be as many dwellings on that Street as there are presently on Cutting, Morrow and half of Springcreek Drive. Leola Brelsford , owner of lot 20, stated she was one of the two persons attending the first meeting sponsored by the developers. Ms. Brelsford that the unit proposed to be built behind her home is bigger than her entire lot and would create a wall effect behind her home. She stated that the house on Lot 31. (on the east side of Fryslie Street) has been devalued because of this massive unit and has lost its view. Ms. Brelsford stated she is against this development because she understood it was part of Figgins Subdivision and would be single-family. She further stated traffic is a problem at South 3rd and Westridge. Leola Brelsford stated that at one time people in the area tried to go together in buying this property to be part of the Westridge area and possibly have the Museum of the Rockies write a grant in order to maintain it as a bird refuge. Debie Miller, 2903 Westridge, stated she is a first time Home buyer and had checked the zoning in the area and chose to live in Figgins Subdivision because it was zoned for single- family dwelling units. She stated that Mr. Dean ' s idea differs from her idea of what Montana should be stating she would rather look at the hill than the mansion on the hill , and she would rather look at the field than the $80,000 unit on the field . Ms. Miller stated that she believes condominiums are selling for $160,000 at Westbrook and she does not believe it is possible for the proposed condos to be affordable. She stated concern with the type of people that would be brought into the neighborhood and with the concern the development would have in respect to the museum. Ms. Miller also stated that she does not want this development to create a wall atmosphere. She stated that she believes traffic will increase and the condominiums will compound the problems Figgins Subdivision already faces. Planning Board - May 5, 1992 8 Robert Spencer, stated he owns the house on the one acre plot fronting South 3rd with two sides abutting the land which the proposed PUD would be on . Mr. Spencer asked what would happen to his property and the neighboring properties to the north and east should this development go through. He stated concern with the impact the development would have on their water supply if chemicals are used on the lawns within the development and if the aquifer is pulled down due to another well used for pumping water to irrigate the lawns. Mr. Spencer further stated that livestock are pastured in the area regularly and should not be jeopardized with the runoff coming down Figgins Creek . Robert Spencer also stated concern with the proposed pond , asking that it be kept shallow enough for the safety of the children in the area. Sue Frye, ERA Landmark , 3060 Tumbleweed Drive, stated that the Southbrook Condominiums are similar in design to the proposed Overbrook Condominiums and she has been told they are selling in the price range of about $75,000. In comparing the proposed development with similar ones in Bozeman , Sue Frye stated that the Southbrook development has 88 units on 7.25 acres, giving a density of 12. 14 units per acre. She stated that the average age group at Southbrook is 55-75. Sue Frye also stated that the Cedarwind Condominiums have 68 units on 6. 15 acres, giving a density of 11 units per acre. She further stated that the Woodbrook Condominiums consist of 58 units on 7.84 acres, giving a density of 7.4 units per acre. Sue Frye then stated that the Overbrook PUD proposal has 34 units on 4 .67 acres, a density less than any other condominium development within the city at 7.2 units per acre. Sue Frye stated that the average sale price of homes in Figgins Subdivision is well above what the proposed condominiums will be priced at. She stated that the other condominium projects she referred to do not have college students living in them, adding that they are very quiet places due to the older group of people owning them and many residents being gone during the winter months. Sue Frye stated it is a shame that people are not aware of the housing problems in Bozeman , Joe Deason , Broker with ERA Landmark , stated he attests to the fact that there is a housing shortage here, adding that at this time there are only about 7-8 properties on the market that are in the $75,000-80,000 price range. Mr. Deason stated that the by-laws can address the student issue, e.g . prohibiting parents from buying condominiums for their children in college. HE stated that people have a right to live here but there is no place for them to live. Jerry Fortney, 421 Westridge Drive (Lot 19) , stated that when hewbought his house, he noted that the plat depicted single- family homes to be behind them. He stated he would prefer four Planning Board - May 5, 1992 houses behind him rather than two tall units. Jerry Fortney stated that there is only 8 feet between the two units proposed to be behind his home which will leave a wall the entire length of his lot. Mr. Fortney further stated that he believes 90% of the neighborhood opposes the development. He stated that the land is zoned for single-family structures and he opposes the PUD proposal . Marion Cherry, 510 Westridge Drive, read into the record a letter signed by herself and Steve Cherry (on file in the City- County Planning Office) . The letter addressed five concernsg 1 ) loss of wetland/riparian habitat; 2) traffic increase; 3) property values; 4) water quality; and 5) compatibility in the R-- 2 Zone. Marion Cherry concluded with a proposal that the area be considered for protection as a Park , stating this would implement the goals and objectives on page 42 of the Master Plan . Ms. Cherry further stated that she received no invitations to the meetings held by the developers. Dean Drenk , 221 Westridge Drive, stated he would like to address this proposal from the perspective of the entire city and city planning . He stated that an exception to city planning and zoning is being asked , adding that exceptions to allow higher densities can be made if positives are shown to be greater than negatives and if the immediate area is not impacted , which he does not believe this proposal does. Mr. Drenk questioned the testimony that affordable housing can only be accomplished if a greater density is allowed . He stated that he has figured that the density from Bozeman into the center of town is about 3 people per acre. Mr. Drenk stated that if a two-mile radius, beginning at this proposed plot and into the center of the city, had the density this proposal would have, there could be more than 100,000 people within that two mile radius. He further stated that, at three persons per acre, a two-mile radius from the proposed development out to Goldenstein and Hitching Post Roads would support 100,000 people. He stated that if that same area were allowed three to four times that density, it would support 400,000 people. Mr. Drenk stated that he is not against high-density developments but the area this development is proposed to be in is not the right place as it has been established for single-family housing . He further stated that high-density development ought to be near places people can walk to and frequent, adding that this area is one mile to the University, with no streets or sidewalks leading to it. He stated that this area is not the proper place for high density nor is another two miles out, and that high-density should be nearer to the center of the city. Marti Elder, 2611 Westridge, stated that the price range of these units are in the range that are likely to become rentals and rentals would change the character of the neighborhood . She stated that the Overbrook PUD would not be a development like Planning Board - May 5, 1992 10 Riverside Condominiums and the neighborhood would have no guarantee as to the upkeep and maintenance that would be carried out. Ms. Elder stated that there has been some emotionalism shown tonight about housing but added that housing can also be provided with single-family residences. She also stated that she did not receive an invitation to the meetings given by the developers. Ms. Elder stated that the area is zoned for single- family housing and she believes that consistency should be maintained . She stated that paths are being added to promote the multi-family dwellings but paths can also be provided with single-faWly homes. She stated that the neighborhood realizes; there are going to be houses around them and they are just asking that the original zoning plan be maintained . Nathaniel Kutzman , 2717 Langohr, stated that affordable housing places do not look like the pictures shown on the slides and questioned how nice the units will look at $80,000-85,000 in today' s condominium market. He also stated concern that visitor parking for the development would occur along Westridge Drive. He stated that a lot of dirt will be needed for the berming and filling , and that a manhole in the area has been depressed over 3" into the street as gravel has been hauled to the school . He stated that sidewalks are needed to get to the park and those who live in the area will need help paying for them. Mr. Kutzman also stated that bankers will require flood insurance and when insurance companies see the area is in a floodplain , costs will go up. He further stated that he believes once this area is developed into multi-family, the same will happen to the area north and west of it. Sue Kudak , 410 Westridge Drive, stated she has heard testimony comparing the proposed units to that of Woodbrook , Southbrook , and Riverside. She stated that the Overbrook units are proposed to be about 1200 square foot and the others are considerably larger. She asked if the Overbrook units will have the same interior amenities as the ones they were compared with,, as that will effect who buys them. Lee Spangler, 515 Morrow Street, stated there are a number of neighbors who could not come to this meeting or who left early that have expressed similar concerns about the original zoning being R-2 and concerns with traffic in addition to the school traffic . He stated that he believes the traffic studies were unrealistic and that the school will bring a lot of traffic into the subdivision . He asked how anyone can determine whether or not to buy a lot they are looking at if previous zoning is ignored , adding that the homeowners cannot trust the city. Jim McKenna, 505 Arnold , stated the following concerns; 1 ) this area was planned and zoned for single-family residences and if something other then that is wanted , it should be built in and Planning Board - May 5, 1992 11 planned for; 2) Ps proposed development jilt not meet any of the five criteria in the Master Plan , and 3) if approved , multi- family units could surround the single-family neighborhood . Steve Custer, 511 West Springcreek Drive, stated that the #1 required criteria for all development is neighborhood compatibility. He stated that the City can choose to maintain the historic district that is beginning in the Figgins wanted to buy a 1111in the proposed develojok but could not as the developer did not want to put in a street. Mr. Batson questioned if the owner had this PUD development planned a long time ago. Steve Custer stated that those in Figgins will be installing sidewalks, adding that he does not see any in the proposed development. There being no one else present to speak in behalf of or in opposition to the i Overbrook at Westridge proposal , President Myers CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF -THE HEARING. The developers were offered an opportunity to rebut comments made during the public hearing . Gene Graf stated that this proposal was not planned when the subdivision was platted and that they have decided the PUD development would be a better use for the property and that it was better than what was designed in 1979/1980. He stated that the land was not improved as platted due to Valley Unit, adding that the improvements were "eating developers up" . Gene Graf stated that affordable housing should not be confused with low income housing , adding that with the poverty level at $13,000 he was not attempting to supply homes for that income range. He stated that the assessed value of 28 homes surrounding block 9 average at $74,200, adding that the assessed value is increased by transactions turned in with transfers of deed , and he believes the homes are selling for more than that now. Mr. Graf stated that he believes the Overbrook units are comparable to the Southwood Condos and , at 1200 square feet, the interior will be an improvement. He stated that the developers are trying to sell units at the same price as the surrounding community. Gene Graf stated that a lot of people are walking rather than driving , especially people at the university. He also stated that he does not believe there is any more danger of the condos being rented out as there is with any single-family home in the subdivision . Gene Graf stated he has listened to the transportation consultant several times and the consultant has South 3rd Avenue recorded at having 5,800 vehicle trips per day. He stated that the consultant has also said that four-lane construction is needed once a road reaches 9,000-12,000 vehicle trips per day. Regarding the Homeowner' s Association Fees, Mr. Graf stated that Southbrook ' s fees are $40 per month, and they hope to be under that by using maintenance free exteriors almost exclusively. Charlie DiMarco, partner in the development, apologized to those who did not receive an invitation , stating it was an error Planning Board - May 5, 1992 13 Lots 19 and 20 on Westridge Drive. Planner Wall stated that DRB ' the site lowers Alt gets further away from & street. He also stated that only one DRD member asked for removal of the two buildings and that after the DRB' s motion was made and passed , a number of people voted in favor of the motion , stating they did not particularly want the buildings removed but felt that being lower to scale would work , however, they did not want to vote against the project. In response to a question from Clark Babcock , Planner Wall stated the area is buildable as currently platted and that infrastructure would need to be installed . Clark Babcock stated that the Board is not reviewing this proposal as opposed to leaving it the way it is but they are reviewing it as platted, which would have an equal amount of lawns with chemicals supplied to them and an equal number of buildings which are going to be about the same size as single- family homes would be. He stated that the area is not going to remain as the neighborhood park and that the way it could be developed is much worse that what is being proposed . MOTION - It was moved by Kris Dunn , seconded by Clark Babcock , to follow Staff ' s recommendation and grant the waiver of an Environmental Assessment and Community Impact Statement as all information can be found in the Bozeman Area Master Plan and the PUD submittal information supplied by the applicant. The motion unanimously carried . Kris Dunn stated that she agrees with Clark Babcock regarding the PUD. She further stated concern with traffic at South 3rd and Westridge and that it is to her understanding that the traffic at this location must be mitigated before any structures are built. Kris Dunn further stated that it concerns her when fill is put in before the City' s approval has been given and she does not like to see work being done on land when nothing has been approved . Russ McElyea recommended that Condition #20 be changed to state that the trail system shall not be extended along the stream corridor through the center of the site to the north boundary of the lot. Several members agreed . In regard to Condition #9, that the total number of parking spaces be reduced by 10 . . . , Planner Wall stated that this was suggested to reduce the visual dominance, adding that nearly 20% more parking spaces would be supplied than what is required by Code. Noreen Alldredge questioned why bicycle racks are being required in a condominium development, stating that most people would put bikes away in their garages. Some discussion followed , Planning Board - May 5, 1992 15 however, the Boa did not choose to re he recommended condition . III Air t Bob Bullock stated that Condition #17 is too restrictive and asked 'if a compromise could be reached , such as a reduced scale or perhaps single-story dwelling units. President Myers, referring to Clark Babcock ' s argument, stated that houses could be built on that land the same size and height as what is being proposed for the condominiums. Russ McElyea asked Mr. Kamp if it would be possible to manipulate the roof structures. Dan Kamp stated that it would be difficult, unless it could be determined that the units could be lowered due to topography. Noreen Alldredge asked if it would be possible to make the footprints smaller on the two structures north of Lots 19 and 20, having three units per structure rather than four. Dan Kamp stated that it would be possible to provide additional space between the units. Director Epple stated that two single-homes would have to be separated by at least 16 feet. Charlie DeMarco stated that he believes 20 feet could be between the two structures by moving the west unit further to the west. Kris Dunn questioned the statement Marion Cherry made from her letter that a 5 foot setback for natural vegetation along watercourses is being ignored . Planner Wall stated that the 5 foot vegetation setback is within the 35 foot setback from a watercourse, of which the applicant is requesting permission to encroach 3 feet into that the setback . Kris Dunn also questioned the liability factor and safety for the children with a retention pond on the site. Planner Wall stated that it is not a pond but more similar to a depressed area in the lawn . MOTION - It was moved by Bob Bullock , seconded by Kris Dunn , to recommend approval of application #Z-9230 with the conditions recommended in the Staff Report and the following changes: 1 ) change condition #17 to state "That the two structures immediately north of Lots 19 and 20 on Westridge Drive shall be separated by a minimum of 16 feet. " ; 2) removal of Condition #20 which stated , "The trail system shall be extended along the stream corridor through the center of the site to the north boundary of the lot. '' Russ McElyea stated that he is going to vote to approve the PUD application as he finds it progressive and innovative for this particular piece of property. He stated that his decision is based upon that fact that it is innovative and something that needs to be seen in Bozeman more frequently. Russ McElyei�_i further stated that he understands that many residents of Figgins Addition did their research and made a decision to buy at that location based on the single-family zoning , however, this is something one is always subject to when buying property. Russ McElyea further stated that he feels this kind of housing is Planning Board - May 5, 1992 16 ' desperately needed in Bozeman . Jane Newhall concurred with Russ McElyea. The motion carried , 7-0, with those voting Yes being Russ McElyea, Bob Bullock , Noreen Alldredge, Bill Myers, Jane Newhall , Kris Dunn , and Clark Babcock ; those voting No being none. Before voting on a recommendation for the preliminary plat, Planner Wall requested that a sixth condition be added to the conditions of approval on the preliminary plat which would request that a 100-year floodplain and floodway be designated on the plat as requested by the Acting City Engineer. MOTION - It was moved by Jane Newhall , seconded by Kris Dunn , to recommend approval of Preliminary Plat Application #P- 9210 with the five conditions recommended in the Staff Report and | with the following changes: 1 ) the addition of a sixth condition requesting that the 100-year floodplain and the 100-year floodway be designated on the Final Plat as recommended by the Acting City Engineer; 2) the deletion of Condition #4.D. , requesting a 15 foot wide easement for a trail along the stream corridor ( the Board is not recommending a trail along the stream corridor) . The Motion carried, 7-0, with those voting Yes being Bob Bullock , Noreen Alldredge, Bill Myers, Jane Newhall , Kris Dunn , Clark Babcock , and Russ McElyea; those voting No being none. The Overbrook at Westridge PUD and Preliminary Plat Application will be heard before the City Commission on May 18, 1992. s RESOLUTION #Z-9230 RESOLUTION OF THE BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF APPLICATION #Z-9230 FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE) TO ALLOW 34 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN A "R-2" DISTRICT ON A 4 . 67 ACRES SITE ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 16 AND 21 THROUGH 30 OF BLOCK 9, AMENDED PLAT OF FIGGINS ADDITION , CITY OF BOZEMAN , GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 517 WESTRIDGE AND ALL LOTS WHICH FRONT ON FRYSLIE STREET ---------------------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS , the City of Bozeman and the Gallatin County Commission have adopted a Master Plan pursuant to 76-1-604 , M .C . A. , 1981 ; and WHEREAS, the Bozeman City-County Planning Board has been created by Resolution of the Bozeman City Commission as provided for in Title 76-2-307, M .C . A . , 1981 , and a jurisdictional area created under 76-2-310, M .C . A. , 1981 ; and WHEREAS , the Bozeman City-County Planning Board has been designated by the City Commission to serve .as the Bozeman Zoning Commission ; and WHEREAS , the proposed Conditional Use Permit application has been properly submitted , reviewed , and advertised in accordance with the procedures of Section 18 . 52 . 020, and 18 . 52 . 030, of the City of Bozeman Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the ' Bozeman City-County Planning Board held a public hearing on May 5, 1992, to receive and review all written and oral testimony on the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development ; and WHEREAS , the Bozeman City-County Planning Board finds that the application complies with each of the approval criteria established in Chapter 18 . 53 and Chapter 18 . 54 . of the Bozeman Area Zoning Code ; and NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bozeman City-County Planning Board recommends to the Bozeman City Commission that the application for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development be conditionally approved with the following conditions : 1 . The applicant ' s professional engineer shall prepare a formal analysis of the development ' s impacts on the intersection' of South 3rd Avenue and Westridge Drive . If the intersections ' level of service drops below C, the applicant must mitigate the situation . 1 ..~.... .._-. .- .-----_----_---.-- _ ----- - - '----' - — --- - ------'- -- '---` -- ~ � ` 2 . A Waiver of Right-To-Protest creation of a Special Improvement District for improvements to South 3rd Avenue must be signed by the onoar(e) and filed with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder . 3 . The private drive approaches and sidewalk adjacent to Weetridge Drive obolI be constructed in accordance with the City 'o standard approach ( i . e . ' concrete apron and sidewalk section ) and be shown as such on the Final Plan . Cit}, curb out and sidewalk permits shall be obtained prior to Final Plan Approval . Additionally, a sidewalk and drop curb (handicap) aoueoo shall be provided from Westridge Drive to the trail at the southern property corner . 4 . The following shall be provided in relation to paving : A . Curbing shall be provided and depicted on the Final PUD Plan around the private street and all parking areas . B . Typical curb details ( i . e . ' raised and/or drop curbs) shall be provided . C . The asphalt section shall comply with section 18 . 26 . 050 SURFACING of the City Ordinance unless designed in accordance with the Asphalt Iomtitute ' a Manual for which a detail shall be provided to and approved by the City Engineer . 5 . The applicant shall install stop signs on the private drive at Weotridge Drive . ' O . The site triangles at the ioteroeotiooa of the private drive and Westridge Drive shall not be restricted . 7 ' 8 minimum of 4 disabled parking spaces moot be provided in accordance with the aua . These spaces shall be oz|goeg as per the Zoning Ordinance . O . Bicycle racks that provide parking for at least O bicycles shall be provided . Bicycle parking shall be dispersed through the development . S . The total number of parking spaces shall be reduced by 10' and the remainder of this space shall be designated for landscaping . 10 . The landscape island in the intersection of the trails shall be eliminated . 11 . Plans and specifications for the water and saner main extensions, and lift station prepared by a professional 2 engineer (P .E . ) shall be provided to and approved by the City Engineer and the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences . The applicant shall also provide professional engineering services for construction inspection , post-construction certification , and preparation of mylar record drawings . 12 . Sewer and water services shall be shown on the Final PUD Plan and approved by the Water/Sewer Superintendent . City of Bozeman applications for service shall be completed by the applicant . 13 . The following shall be provided in relation to storm water : A . A Stormwater Plan and system design ( i . e . , unit sizing) shall be detailed in the PUD report and the specific engineering calculations supporting the design be included as an appendix in the report . B . A detailed Stormwater Maintenance Plan for the stormwater system (designed to remove solids , silts , oils, grease , and other pollutants ) be provided to and approved by the City Engineer prior to Final PUD Approval . C . The Final Plan shall include adequate spot elevation information on the roadway and detention pond basins and structures . D . Typical curb and depressed curb ( for drainage) details be provided . E . The overall stormwater plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to Final Plan Approval . 14 . The following shall be accomplished in relation to the flood plain : A . A Flood Plain Development Permit must be obtained from the City Engineer prior to Final Plan Approval . No filling, or other construction activities shall be initiated prior to issuance of this permit . B . The 100 year flood plain boundary. and 100 year flood elevation cross sections must be depicted on the Final PUD Plan . C . Culvert sizing design calculations shall be provided for the stream crossing. D . All buildings must be flood-proofed to at least 2 feet above the 100 year flood elevation . Elevation 3 Certificates must be provided for each building following completions of construction . 15 . The Montana' Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks , SCS , Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, 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 Plan Approval . 16 . The Final PUD Plan shall include adequate dimensioning . The private street width and parking areas configurations must comply with the Zoning Ordinance, unless deviations are obtained from the City Commission . 17 . The two structures immediately north of Lots 19 and 20 on Westridge Drive shall be separated by a minimum of 16 feet . 18 . Architectural treatments shall be diversified from building to building, by way of differing gable treatments, window sizes ,, rooflines, adding jogs in the front and rear facades , and/or similar treatments . The side elevations which are visible off-site shall incorporate windows; the use of window bays should be considered . The final elevations shall be subject to review and approval by the DRB prior to Final PUD Approval . 19 . The landscape planting list shall be revised to limit the use - of the patmore green ash by providing comparable alternatives . 20 . The applicants shall coordinate the location and type of mail boxes with the US Postal Service prior to Final PUD approval . 21 . The right to a use and occupancy permit shall be contingent upon the fulfillment of all general and special conditions imposed by the Conditional Use Permit procedure . 22 . That all of the special conditions shall constitute restrictions running with the land use and shall be binding upon the owner of the land , his successors or assigns . 23 . That all conditions specifically stated under any Conditional Use listed in this Ordinance shall apply and be adhered to by the owner of the land, successors or assigns . 24 . That all of the special conditions shall be consented to in writing by the applicant . 25 . Seven copies of the Final Site Plan containing all of the conditions, corrections, and modifications approved by the 4 City Commiss.ion shall be submitted for review and approved by the Planning Director within six months of the date of City Commission approval . Signed copies shall be retained by the City departments represented on the Development Review Committee , and one signed copy shall be retained by the applicant . 26 . The applicant shall enter into an Improvements Agreement with the City to guarantee the installation of required on- site improvements at the time of Final Site Plan submittal . Detailed cost estimates, construction plans and methods of security shall be made a part of that Agreement . 27 . The first Building Permit must be obtained within one year of Final Site Plan Approval . Building Permits will not be issued until the Final Site Plan is approved . No site work, including excavation , may occur until a Building Permit is issued . 28 . If occupancy of the structure or commencement of the use is to occur prior to the installation . of all improvements , the Improvements Agreement must 'be secured by a method of security equal to one and one-half times the amount of the estimated cost of the scheduled improvements not yet installed . Said method of security shall be valid for a period of not less than twelve ( 12 ) months ; however , all on site improvements shall be completed by the applicant within (9) months of occupancy to avoid default on the method of security . DATED THIS 5th Day of May, 1992 Resolution #Z-9230 lei Andrew C . Epple , Director Bill Myers , President City-County Planning Office_ City-County Planning Board i 5 } BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING BOARD STAFF REPORT ------------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM: "OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE" CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION *Z-9230 FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW 34 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON A 4 . 67 ACRES SITE; PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #P-9210 WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE AGGREGATION OF 11 LOTS FOR SAID PUD; PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 16 AND 21 THROUGH 30 OF BLOCK 9 , AMENDED PLAT OF FIGGINS ADDITION AND MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 517 WESTRIDGE AND ALL LOTS WHICH FRONT ON FRYSLIE STREET, LOCATED IN A "R-2" ( RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY, MEDIUM DENSITY ) DISTRICT APPLICANT: THE OVERBROOK PARTNERSHIP, 4510 CONESTOGA, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 DATE/TIME: CITY-COUNTY PLANNING BOARD: TUESDAY, 5 MAY 1992 AT 7 : 00 P.M . IN THE MEETING ROOM OF BOZEMAN CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN, BOZEMAN, MONTANA CITY COMMISSION: MONDAY, 18 MAY 1992 AT 7 : 00 P. M. IN THE MEETING ROOM OF BOZEMAN CITY HALL REPORT BY: CITY-COUNTY PLANNING STAFF (WALI, ) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Location/Description The property in question is described as Lots 16 , and Lots 21 through 30 of Block 9 , Amended Plat of Figgins Addition, and more commonly known as 517 Westridge Drive and all lots which front on Fryslie Street ( no street addresses assigned ) . Please refer to the map below. LBP c WESTRIDG_E ' -Tr proposed CUP/PUD , & Preliminary Plat - y I I r' � �J W - " P4F• I f f _ 771 I i a :4. s s Proposal This application is for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development to allow the construction of 34 condominium units among 10 buildings on a 4 . 67 acre site. The property is zoned "R-2" (Residential , Single Family, Medium-Density, ) District , thus , a multi-family development is a "use out of district" allowed only through a approved Planned Unit Development . Because the proposed use is not allowed under the conventional provisions of the R-2 District, this proposal was previously reviewed at the concept level by both the City-County Planning Board and City Commission and generally received favorable comments . Additionally, a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat application to allow the aggregation of the existing 11 lots, abandonment of several easements, and the vacation of Fryslie Street (a paper street which ends in a cul-de-sac ) is also under consideration. The Preliminary Plat will be reviewed in Section II of this report and is to be considered as a separate application from the CUP/PUD application. The applicants propose to phase the project over a two to three year period. The units east of the stream are anticipated to be constructed in the first year, and the remainder are to be constructed in a one to two year period afterwards. Development of the stream corridor and other site amenities is expected to begin in the first year. i The proposed PUD incorporates a driveway which loops through the property. Parking -will be located directly off of this communal driveway, in the driveways of individual units , and in garages ( 76 . 5 spaces required - 100 proposed) . The property is currently fairly swampy and acts as a storm drain outlet for the Figgins Subdivision; there is also a live stream on the property. To alleviate the surface water issues , the applicants propose to create a defined stream bed, with appurtenant detention areas, to act as a centerpiece to the project. The applicants propose to include two trail dedications as part of the project. The first would act as an extension of the Galligator Trail along the western boundary of the site and the second would act as a connector between the Galligator and Westridge Drive (this link is existing in somewhat of a legitimized trespass manner) . The landscape plan includes a variety of planting materials including weeping birch, patmore green ash, scotch pine , colorado spruce, laurel leaf willow, cottonless cottonwood, quaking aspen, potentilla, junipers, and other unidentified evergreen shrubs . The proposed buildings are generally located along the outer periphery of the site ( immediately abutting the adjacent B-P and A-S Districts) with the exception of two four unit structures which are proposed to be located behind Lots 19 and 20 (refer to site plan) and a duplex behind Lot 31 . The buildings will generally be arranged so that there are two units on the ground floors and two ' I J 36i r 1 on the upper floors. Access into the units will be provided from the exterior and from the interior of the garages. The building design incorporates multiple ridge lines and gable ends . Shed roofed gables and porch coverings, and extended eaves are also included. The predominate exterior building material is lap siding (applicant has stated that they propose to use 8" Colorlock siding) , and other proposed materials include selective use of wood shingles for siding and a board-and-batten-type siding. The applicants propose to alter siding treatments somewhat from building to building. The window openings are generally rectangular with a trimboard (scales to approximately 4" wide ) . The windows are generally single sashed. The entries into the individual units include paned glass doors and a liberal amount of glass in the vicinity of the doorways to emphasis the entry. The plan has proposed relaxations of the following Zoning Ordinance provisions through the PUD process : A. 18 . 16 . 020 PERMITTED USES (R-2 District, page 35 ) - proposal entails multi-family development in a single-family district. B. 18 . 16. 050 YARDS (R-2 District, page 35 ) - two 2 foot encroachments (buildings ) into the required 20 foot rear yard along northern property line ; two 5 foot encroachments ! (buildings) into the required 20 foot rear yard along property line separating Lots 19 and 20 from the subject property; one 2 foot encroachment (parking lot) into the required 8 foot side yard along the east property line . C. 18. 16 . 060 BUILDING HEIGHT (R-2 District , page 35 ) - building height shown on the elevations is approximately 25 . 5 feet not accounting for the topography; the maximum allowed is 24 feet. D. 18 . 50 . 060 .D Water Course Setbacks (pp. 120 & 121 ) - 35 feet required, building at southwest corner of the site encroaches by 23 feet , a parking area and the building to the west of the stream at the northern part of the site both encroach by 3 feet. E. 18 . 50 . 1.00.D. 5 .e STREET FRONTAGE LANDSCAPING REQUIRED (pp. 134 & 135 ) - one large canopy tree installed within the r. o.w. per 50 feet of street frontage; one is proposed for 211 ' of street frontage. F. 18 . 50 . 120 .B. 11 PARKING LOT CURBING (page 152 ) - the applicants propose to install curbing around the parking spaces themselves and landscape peninsulas and provide landscaped drainage gutters adjacent to the driveways. G. 18 . 50. 120.F. 3 DISABLED ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES (page 152 & UBC Table A-31-A) - two disabled spaces have been proposed, four are required; because this is a ADA •, , �. ,. • . , � t �, � _ • � � . . '� i _ �, � ,� � � - r � 1. ;� � � - 1 �_ _ _ j �(`t. � � ' � ' � • l: J � ' � • r • � - .� ' • • � � � ' �:, r. _ t ' " . . �.. �, -. , . + r � 1 � s � a.' ., � 1 ' � � . . r , •J , ; '. .1 �1 � t � 1 � f I •� 1. .I . � , { , � `! .. mil` ;? � ii � � �i 1 i i• � .;�. � � � , �' � �� I A it requirement, it can not be waived through the PUD process. H. 18 . 50 . 035 .R BICYCLE RACKS REQUIRED (pp. 117 & 118 ) - bicycle racks for 8 bicycles are required ( 10% of required auto spaces) , none have been proposed. These relaxations have been reviewed by the Development Review Committee, Design Review Board, and Planning Staff. Recommendations regarding these relaxations are outlined in this report for consideration by the Planning Board and City Commission. Because this proposal entails applications for both a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development and a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat, and many issues pertinent to both applications overlap, this report generally focuses on the PUD application ( Section I , pages 2 - 18 ) and gives attention to issues pertinent only to the Preliminary Plat near the end (Section II , pages 18 - 22 ) . Adjacent Land Uses The uses adjacent to the site include an undeveloped pasture (A-S zone) which is located between Kagy Boulevard and the subject site from north to south, and between South 3rd Avenue and the abandoned Chicago , Milwaukee, St. Paul , and Pacific railbed from east to west. The Westridge Subdivision (R-1 zone) is located across South 3rd Avenue to the northeast, east, and southeast. A church is located to the east-northeast on the east side of South 3rd Avenue . The Figgins Subdivision (R-2 zone) is mostly located to the south between the subject site , the abandoned railbed, and the north- south and east-west sections of South 3rd Avenue. There are also several single family residences immediately to the east of the subject site along on the west side of South 3rd Avenue. A large undeveloped tract (R-2 zone ) is to the southwest of the site , and immediately to the west of the Figgins Subdivision. The Summit Engineering Annexation is located directly to the west (BP zone , Video Lottery Consultants and Skyland Scientific) . The Reno H. Sales Stadium is to the west-northwest and the Museum of the Rockies is located to the northwest of the site in question, just west of the previously mentioned A-S zoned pasture . Staff Findings for CUP/PUD The proposed Planned Unit Development has been evaluated against the criteria set forth in Section 18 . 53 . 030 CITY COMMISSION CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS (Conditional Use Procedure chapter) and Section 18 . 54 . 100.E DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA EVALUATION FORMS (Planned Unit Development chapter) of the Zoning Ordinance. After consideration by the Development Review Committee , Design Review 4 • � • r • j •1 •t' 1 ♦ f 1 ' i1 F. . . 1 1 II' 1 � � t • � 17 c + I ` � � r r I r 1 ! �'� �. � I 1. � + y I ' .r T i � f � r r r -_ i � r 1 r . 1 - � ' � i ., 1 ,r 1 1 r 1 . I is 1 � �:; r � r � r ? r• 1 1 J F• ' ., r � 1. ' r • ' r 1 a � � n � 1 ' 1 � r F' , 1 r � 1 .'. ,_.r ,, 1 i � 1• t1 +. ' � 1 I + • .. — r . e .� 1 I F II i Board, Planning Staff, and other agencies ( such as the POST Committee and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, �and Parks) the following comments are offered. Conditional Use Permit Criteria A. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and topography to accommodate said use, and all yards, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading and landscaping are adequate to properly relate such use with the land and uses in the vicinity. The site in question is approximately 4 . 67 acres, which equates to approximately 7 . 28 dwelling units per acre . The topography of the site is gently rolling , with the lowest portions being along the stream bed which bisects the site. As mentioned previously, several setback encroachments are illustrated on the site plan. As the proposed dwelling unit density on the site does not present problems, the Planning Staff and the DRB are both concerned about the relationship of the two buildings immediately north of Lots 19 and 20 and the adjacent neighborhood. The Planning Staff recommended that these two structures maintain the height and rear yard setbacks of the R-2 District, and the DRB has recommended that these structures be eliminated completely in order to reduce impacts associated with multi-family developments . While the Planning staff concurs that many of these impacts would be reduced, Staff would purport that the development would better correlate to the Figgins Subdivision if these two structures were included ( i .e. , regularized siting of individual structures) , but followed the same rules under which the adjacent structures and neighborhood was developed ( i .e . , setbacks, height, and small-scaled character of R-2 zone) . In addition, the Planning Staff recommends that all of the structures follow the R-2 District setback and height requirements because these apparent relaxations are not integral to the project as a whole and the project would be more physically compatible with the remainder of the R-2 District (Figgins) . Also in relation to setbacks, the plan proposes to encroach into the 35 foot stream setback in three places - one building encroaches 23 feet and a building and parking area encroach 3 feet each. These encroachments were not viewed as detrimental by the DRC when considering the stream bed improvements which are proposed. In addition, the applicants' representative has stated that the final stream design is not completed as of yet , and it is not their intention to encroach into the stream setback. Although the 3 foot encroachments appear to be easily eliminated, the 23 foot encroachment (building at the southwest corner of the site) could be further minimized but 5 i t t ' • . # ,'Y r tl i �• k.r,:i,a f ,. , i•#Ct t.n � t t' � ! is � Jf, �'1 ,.'�1 # � �" . � . i'•Is, / , rt 0 f I . i does not appear that it could eliminated completely, unless the building was down-sized, because of the placement of an existing storm drain outlet. The applicants have proposed a total of 100 parking spaces ( 34 in garages , 34 in private driveways, and 32 along the communal driveway) , and 76 . 5 parking spaces would be otherwise required. Though the applicants intended to provide enough parking so that residents and any visitors to the development would not park on Westridge Drive, the Development Review Committee has recommended that 10 parking spaces be eliminated and the space remaining be delegated to landscaping so that open parking on the site was less prevalent. If this condition were incorporated into any approval of this application, the project would supply some 18 percent more parking spaces than required. In addition, the applicant is required to provide a minimum of 4 disabled parking spaces - because this is an ADA requirement it can not be waived through the PUD process . The DRC has recommended that the applicant should provide bicycle racks for 8 bicycles on the site in accordance with the City' s standards ( 10% of required auto spaces) . Because the proposed use is strictly residential , no loading areas are proposed. Also pertinent to parking, the applicant proposed to install curbing only around the on-site parking areas and landscape peninsulas and leave landscape drainage gutters along the communal driveway. The DRC has recommended that curbing be installed along paved driving and parking areas so that storm drainage is more readily controlled. The DRB stated that they did not believe that this curbing was necessary but did not incorporate a recommendation regarding curbing in their motion. The landscape plan as proposed complies with almost all of the normally mandatory landscape requirements and has earned 55 performance standards points ( 23 required) . The conventional landscape requirement which has not been fulfilled is "street frontage landscaping" where a minimum of one street tree in the public right-of-way per 50 feet of street frontage is required (proposal includes one per 211 feet of frontage ) . The landscape plan proposes to include fairly continuous screening along the outer periphery of the site ( including berming along Lots 19 and 20) , and use the stream corridor as focal point of the landscape/open space plan and the site design as a whole. Additionally, the plan includes a fairly extensive amount of plant materials along the paved areas . Though the landscape plan was found to be acceptable during the pre-hearing review of the project, the Planning Staff 6 • . ' I r 1 i t 1 , F 1 LT r . I • Iti .. ' + t 11 +• r ' t concluded that two to three more street trees should be included in a cluster( s) arrangement to better correlate to the "natural" design of the landscaping and stream corridor open space. Also, the DRB concurred with the Planning Staff that the plant list should be diversified in order to limit the use of the patmore green ash. No walls or fences have been proposed, however, they were not been deemed necessary during the pre-hearing review due to the extensive landscape screening and buffering proposed. B. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. Access to the site is proposed from two driveways on Westridge Drive which are approximately 500 feet apart. At the request of the DRC during the concept review of the project, the applicants have proposed that these two accesses be constructed as driveway curbcuts versus streets per se to elude to the perception of a private, low speed roadway instead of a public street . The following is a comparison of the number of potential vehicular trips from the proposed development and the current subdivision as platted for single family residences based on the Institute of Traffic Engineer' s Trip Generation, 3rd Edition: 34 units X 5 ADT (condo) = 170 ADT OR 34 units X 6 . 1 ADT (apartments) = 207 ADT VERSUS 11 single family res . X 10 ADT = 110 ADT The factors of "condominium" and "apartments" are both used to provide a scenario of what the amount of vehicular trips could be under differing occupancies as the main difference between these categories deals with whether or not a unit is owner occupied or not , which in turn deals with differing lifestyles. Because "condominiums" are being proposed, it would be fair to assume that the proposed ADT from the site would be closer to 170 trips than the 207 trips for apartments. Thus , the proposed development would conceivably have 60 more vehicular trips per weekday than if all 11 lots were developed with single family residences as normally allowed under the R-2 zoning. The Public Service Director has stated that this additional amount of traffic is not expected to cause an unacceptable drop in the level of service for the area' s roadways. However, he did note that the traffic report supplied by the applicant made no formal analysis of the 7 • r I J .1 ' a ) i f i � f � 1 t � ! 1� 1 i r r i 1. � I . _ � ' . � � I 1 . I � i � r i /1 . Y ., n.l �. � h�� ,'] .1 �� ' � • tom .I./ '� .' �' • _ , • .'. .. 1 I - ,/ t 1'' 1� f t . r �• � I t n ft - • j � � i .� ' � . � • I�� _ � 1 .I a � - 1 I�� i i + a l 1 t � r t .. f .. ' J . 1 •• f r t ' I 1 f { �� .• 4 i I + 1 1 ` � 1 � ' 1 1 i . - a r .. i t r 1 I / • I t � / t � 1 � ` intersection of South 3rd Avenue and Westridge Drive, which is the key intersection that the development will impact. Based on this conclusion, the DRC has recommended that an analysis of the impacts on this intersection be performed by the applicant ' s engineer prior to final approval , and if the intersection' s level of service drops below "C" , the applicant must mitigate the situation. Also in relation to traffic, the DRC has recommended that the applicants be . required to sign and file with the Clerk and Recorder a Waiver of Right-To-Protest the creation of SIDs for improvements to South 3rd Avenue. The DRC has also recommended that the applicants be required to install stop signs on the private drives at the intersections with Westridge Drive, the drive approaches be designed to City standards and approved by the City Engineer, and the site triangles at the private drive approaches not be restricted. Of particular relevance to this proposal is the proximity of the site to the university, Morning Star School , and the trails extensions, therefore , a larger number of pedestrian and bicycle trips could be expected instead of only automotive trips . C. That the proposed use will have no adverse effect upon the abutting property. Other than the increase in vehicular trips and the possibility of increased noise associated with the additional number of dwelling units , the only potential adverse effects upon abutting property that has been identified by Staff deal with compatibility with the adjacent uses and built environment. No factors which would lead to unacceptable noise levels have been identified. Compatibility issues will be discussed further under the Planned Unit Development Design Objectives and Criteria later in this report . D. That the proposed use shall be in conformance with the Bozeman Area Master Plan. The Master Plan designated the area in question as "Urban Residential Infill . " The document describes this land use designation as the following . ft . areas within the current City limits where residential development at urban densities is appropriate; primarily, these areas will develop at single family densities of 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre ; multi-family residential development ( 6 - 15 dwelling units per acre) may be appropriate where: 1 . part of a mixed-use planned development, 8 , I I t =j t C: ! 1 i . 1 i [II .. �I I' , r II L 2 . fronting on or near principle or major arterials , 3 . acting as a buffer between single-family residential and commercial/industrial uses, 4 . near Montana State University, but not adversely affecting the character of existing single-family neighborhoods , or 5 . concentration of residential density on a parcel will preserve sensitive natural resources such as stream corridors or steep slopes . " Because the proposal entails multi-family development, the determination as to whether the use complies with the Master Plan land use designation is contingent upon fulfilling numbers 1 through 5 above. Because the document states "may be appropriate where, " it eludes that the use could be (and not necessarily "would be" ) appropriate if any one of the five guidelines are fulfilled. I First, the project site is within two lots of South 3rd Avenue, thus, is near a designated major arterial . Second, the proposed use would act as a transitional use (or buffer) between the single family residential subdivision which is generally to the south and the "B-P" (Business Park) to the west. In relation to #4 , the project site is near Montana State University, however, the final determination as to whether the character of single-family neighborhoods would be adversely effected will have to be made by the Planning Board and City Commission. As to the last guideline , the proposal is intended to enhance the stream corridor, which the existing j 11 lot subdivision essentially ignores . The application does not correlate to the first guideline because a mixed-use PUD is not proposed. Additionally, the "Planning Objectives" section of the bound document supplied by the applicant responds to nine goals set forth by the Master Plan (pages 42 - 54 of the Master Plan) . Staff is in general agreement that the proposal furthers these goals and would urge the Board and Commission to give particular attention to this portion of the document supplied by the applicant. E. That the Conditional Use has complied with all conditions stipulated in Section 18. 50 of this Ordinance. No additional conditions are outlined in section 18 . 50 for this Conditional Use . F. That any additional conditions stated in the approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. Such conditions may include but are not 9 1 1• ( .t r i 1 ' i I r • r 1 • 1 ' 1 I • I, ,r f t r t I I .1. 1 r� � I a• <i1Tr.J. .. .. �. .(,+ til( a �i3;a t.� ' r t 1 . + . S •1 is f.l 1. t `in I { .1+• ■ r 1 t i Y !..."{`i F „r limited to: 1 . Regulation of use 2. Special yards, spaces, and buffers 3. Special fences, solid fences and walls 4. Surfacing of parking areas 5 . Requiring street, service road or alley dedications and improvements or appropriate bonds 6. Regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress 7. Regulation of signs 8. Requiring maintenance of the grounds 9. Regulation of noise, vibrations, odors 10. Regulation of hours for certain activities 11 . Time period within which the proposed use shall be developed 12. Duration of use 13 . Requiring the dedication of access rights 14. Other such conditions as will make possible the development of the City in an orderly and efficient manner A full listing of recommended conditions is provided at the conclusion of the CUP/PUD portion of this report. Planned Unit Development Design Objectives and Criteria Pages 221 through 226 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines objectives and criteria that proposed Planned Unit Developments must fulfill . The pertinent criteria in this instance, found on the "All Development" and "Residential" checklists , have been reviewed by the Development Review Committee, Design Review Board, and Planning Staff which found that the proposal was in general compliance with these criteria. An overview of the findings is provided below. All Development - Neighborhood Compatibility (pg. 221 ) Overall , the development is compatible with the adjacent areas. The architectural treatment generally respects the adjacent areas, particularly the Figgins Subdivision, however, the DRB and Planning Staff identified several factors which should make the proposal more compatible with Figgins and more "low-key. " First , it was concluded that the overall architectural theme made the development appear cohesive at the district scale, but the individual buildings should have differing (yet similar) treatments as was eluded to in the elevations provided by the applicant . Thus, the DRB and Staff recommend that the final building elevations incorporate varying detail treatments , such as different window shapes from building to building, wood shingles in gables on some buildings and not others , et al . Additionally, the more visible side elevations ( such as at the southwest corner of the site by the trail intersection) should incorporate windows, and consider the use of bays, to provide architectural definition. It has been recommended that all final 10 1 f I r .5 f 7J f ttl tT rit { 1 I;.a a 154 1 r rfFS°i rt, t.' tlT L t i �•' },.� 5 1, .,ri r I •t i t • ,y t f i fi 1' tJ. I rti. c building elevations be subject to DRB review and approval prior to Final PUD Approval . As mentioned under letter A of the CUP criteria, there was concern expressed about the two buildings just north of Lots 19 and 20 . The DRB recommended that these two buildings be eliminated completely, and the Planning Staff had recommended to the DRB that all buildings on the site , including these two, conform to the height and setback requirements of the R-2 District, mainly because Staff believes that the project would have less of a "fit" with the Figgins Subdivision if these buildings were eliminated. Staff would request that the Planning Board and Commission consider whether these buildings should be retained or not, and if downsizing them so that they more closely resemble the mass and scale typically found in the Figgins Subdivision would be a viable alternative. Landscaping, traffic, and Master Plan goals, objectives, and policies have been discussed previously. Public Facilities. Services. and Transportation Adequate public facilities and services are available to the site for the proposed use. The applicants have complied with the DRC' s request from the Concept Review to loop the water line . At this time the DRC has stated that it is necessary that construction plans and specifications for both water and sewer lines be reviewed by the City Engineer, Water/Sewer Superintendent, and Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences before Final PUD Approval is granted. Additionally, the DRC has recommended that the water and lines be shown on the Final PUD Plan. In relation to other utilities, no comment was offered by US West or Montana Power Company. The Bozeman branch of the US Postal Service has requested that the applicants coordinate the placement of mail boxes and discuss the use of communal boxes with the Post Office prior to the finalization of the development plans. The Planning Staff believes that this would be a reasonable condition of approval . The DRC raised the issues of an adequate stormwater drainage plan and floodplain development and protection. The DRC has recommended conditions #13 and #14 which would require the applicant to supply a fairly extensive amount of information regarding stormwater drainage and floodplain development subject to the City' s review and approval prior to Final Approval . In relation to the proposed trails , the POST Committee and the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board have reviewed the proposal and found that the trails meet their objectives. In addition, the POST Committee has asked that the Board and Commission consider requiring the applicants to provide public access along the stream 11 r , .1 1 I corridor. In order to improve trail safety, the DRC has recommended that the landscape island in the trail intersection be eliminated. I The issue of streets has been addressed under letter B of the CUP criteria. The City Fire Marshall has stated that the proposed on- site circulation would provide adequate emergency access . Natural Resources The issue of natural resources is of major concern, particularly when a portion of the site is a riparian area and is reported to be a habitat for a wide variety of wildlife . The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks has reviewed the site and has stated that they have no problems with the plan as shown, but mentioned that the stream is worth preserving with the 35 foot stream setback. The applicants have stated that they generally intend to comply with 35 foot setback, however, they would prefer to leave the southwestern-most building in the proposed location because it is adjacent to a formal storm drain outlet instead of a natural stream; this building encroaches 23 feet into stream setback as shown on the site plan. As mentioned previously, the DRC did not express opposition to this encroachment . The application has proposed to focus on the stream corridor (by clustering a higher density of units) , and improve the stream' s fishery and drainage capabilities. Although the plan seems to be protecting the stream, the DRC recommends that the applicant be required to contact the State Department of Fish, Wildlife , and Parks, SCS, Department of Health and Environmental Sciences , and the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the project. Additionally, any required permits, such as 310 , 404 , or Turbidity Exemption, shall be obtained prior to Final Approval . i Environmental Standards Because the proposed use is strictly multi-family residential , no factors which would compromise applicable environmental standards in addition to the issues discussed above have been identified. Site Design The site design as a whole clusters the proposed structures around the outer periphery of the site along a looped communal driveway. The proposal uses the stream corridor as an open space amenity and also includes a segment of the Galligator Trail and a trail link between the Galligator and the Westridge Drive . The trail extensions should serve to tie the development to the surrounding uses. The site design as a whole fulfills the objectives of this section, however, a few issues were raised during the pre-hearing review. 12 • • 1 � - i ✓ .. li• Y t j F 1 1,` t i r t {� �1 1' 'r •i .�� 'r. t ' 1i , , , [.� ' � ., tip 1 i 1 . z � 1 ._ 't . ' r t .. � ' , it � _. I. • ' � .t � � r I . } t , r '� 1 �1' 1 I 1 , I i r r . �1 , 1 t' a '.• j r � (( .� . ' 11 1, � First, as mentioned several times earlier, the DRB and Planning Staff drew differing conclusions as to whether the buildings just north of Lots 19 and 20 should be eliminated. It was commented through the DRB' s review of the project that the placement of the buildings along the outer boundary of the site created a "building wall , " however, it was not viewed as detrimental due to the open space amenities being provided. The landscape plan was considered to be appropriate for the proposal by the DRB and Planning Staff. The Planning Staff recommended to the DRB that more street trees be supplied by the applicant in the Westridge Drive right-of-way; this recommendation was not included in the Board' s motion. Additionally, the DRB has recommended that the plant list be revised to diversify planting materials and limit the use of the patmore green ash. Also , the DRC has recommended that 10 parking spaces be eliminated to reduce the amount of open parking areas and the remainder of this space should be dedicated to landscaping . In relation to signage, the applicant has stated that all signage will conform to the Bozeman Area Sign Code , although no design has been submitted for review at this time. The Planning Staff recommended that the DRB recommend that all signage be subject to review and approval by the DRB. This recommendation was not incorporated into the Board' s decision. Residential - Required Criteria (page 225 ) The plan as proposed. is in general compliance with the "Residential" objectives and criteria. The project meets the density guidelines, provides private outdoor areas for the residents via balconies and porches , and encourages outdoor recreation through the proximity to the trail . Of substantial importance to the project is whether the proposed use "encourages the juxtaposition or mix of uses , " especially because it is a single use PUD. The project site would encourage the juxtaposition of uses by creating a transitional land use between the R-2 District to the south, R-1 District to the east, B- P District to the west, and PLI District to the northwest. It should prove to create a buffer use with a substantial amount of open space , and provide an opportunity to establish more dwelling units within the Urban Service Boundary. The one objective that the proposal does not fulfill is "project within 4 , 000 feet of an existing or approved community/regional shopping center. " However, the Planning Staff has not identified any rationale as to how this objective is directly applicable to the proposal at this specific location. 13 1, + � .. ' , ,. �� , , . . .t , 1 r � r -- .." � � � � ' i � 'a f u(j '7 t 1. f ... - 1 ,� r ,1. .. � �, r .. 1�r .'1 .i a �� �. i � ' i � 1 3 i � ! t i a'1 . - , , - 't • . . � , ._ ', 1 G. a � � •� � Ili 1 1 .r Conclusion of CUP Section Upon the conclusion of the review by the Development Review Committee, Design Review Board, and other applicable agencies , it has been generally determined that the proposed Planned Unit Development is in compliance with the criteria set forth in Section 18 . 53 . 030 CITY COMMISSION CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS (Conditional Use Procedure) and Section 18 . 54 . 100 .E DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA EVALUATION FORMS (Planned Unit Development) . Therefore , the DRC and DRB recommend approval of this application with the following conditions : Development Review Committee 1 . The applicant' s professional engineer shall prepare a formal analysis of the development' s impacts on the intersection of South 3rd Avenue and Westridge Drive . If the intersections' level of service drops below C, the applicant must mitigate the situation. 2 . A Waiver of Right-To-Protest creation of a Special Improvement District for improvements to South 3rd Avenue must be -signed by the owner( s ) and filed with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder. 3 . The private drive approaches and sidewalk adjacent to Westridge Drive shall be constructed in accordance with the City Is standard approach ( i .e. , concrete apron and sidewalk section) and be shown as such on the Final Plan. City curb cut and sidewalk permits shall be obtained prior to Final Plan Approval . Additionally, a sidewalk and drop curb (handicap) access shall be provided from Westridge Drive to the trail at the southern property corner. 4 . The following shall be provided in relation to paving : A. Curbing shall be provided and depicted on the Final PUD Plan around the private street and all parking areas . B. Typical curb details ( i . e. , raised and/or drop curbs) shall be provided. C. The asphalt section shall comply with section 16 . 26 . 050 SURFACING of the City Ordinance unless designed in accordance with the Asphalt Institute ' s Manual for which a detail shall be provided to and approved by the City Engineer. 5 . The applicant shall install stop signs on the private drive at Westridge Drive . 14 I . • +l. + .r .F t it. f I �*• , It ., - . ., - �� L � i 6 . The site triangles at the intersections of the private drive and Westridge Drive shall not be restricted. i I 7 . A minimum of 4 disabled parking spaces must be provided in accordance with the ADA. These spaces shall be signed as per the Zoning Ordinance. 8 . Bicycle racks that provide parking for at least 8 bicycles shall be provided. Bicycle parking shall be dispersed through the development. 9 . The total number of parking spaces shall be reduced by 10 , and the remainder of this space shall be designated for landscaping. i 10 . The landscape island in the intersection of the trails shall be eliminated. 11 . Plans and specifications for the water and sewer main extensions, and lift station prepared by a professional engineer (P.E. ) shall be provided to and approved by the City Engineer and the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences . The applicant shall also provide professional engineering services for construction inspection, post-construction certification, and preparation of mylar record drawings . 12 . Sewer and water services shall be shown on the Final PUD Plan and approved by the Water/Sewer Superintendent. City of Bozeman applications for service shall be completed by the applicant. 13 . The following shall be provided in relation to storm water: A. A Stormwater Plan and system design ( i .e. , unit sizing ) shall be detailed in the PUD report and the specific engineering calculations supporting the design be included as an appendix in the report. B. A detailed Stormwater Maintenance Plan for the stormwater system (designed to remove solids , silts , oils , grease, and other pollutants) be provided to and approved by the City Engineer prior to Final PUD Approval . C. The Final Plan shall include adequate spot elevation information on the roadway and detention pond basins and structures. D. Typical curb and depressed curb ( for drainage ) details be provided. E. The overall stormwater plan shall be approved by the City 15 11 .4 • • r . Y • � ' i r tit v I 1 i v Engineer prior to Final Plan Approval . 14 . The following shall be accomplished in relation to the flood plain: A. A Flood Plain Development Permit must be obtained from the City Engineer prior to Final Plan Approval . No filling, or other construction activities shall be initiated prior to issuance of this permit. B. The 100 year flood plain boundary and 100 year flood elevation cross sections must be depicted on the Final PUD Plan. C. Culvert sizing design calculations shall be provided for the stream crossing. D. All buildings must be flood-proofed to at least 2 feet above the 100 year flood elevation. Elevation Certificates must be provided for each building following completions of construction. 15 . The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks , SCS , Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences , 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 Plan Approval . 16 . The Final PUD Plan shall include adequate dimensioning. The private street width and parking areas configurations must comply with the Zoning Ordinance, unless deviations are obtained from the City Commission. Design Review Board 17. The two structures immediately north of Lots 19 and 20 on Westridge Drive shall be eliminated. These units may be located elsewhere on the site if feasible . 18 . Architectural treatments shall be diversified from building to building , by way of differing gable treatments , window sizes , rooflines, adding jogs in the front and rear facades , and/or similar treatments. The side elevations which are visible off-site shall incorporate windows; the use of window bays should be considered. The final elevations shall be subject to review and approval by the DRB prior to Final PUD Approval . 19 . The landscape planting list shall be revised to limit the use of the patmore green ash by providing comparable alternatives. 16 • • 1 �{ � - • , I ! . u ! 1 _ I ' . t r � - _ � I f ! � t 1 i .r ., 1 I t 1 � � � _ - � . t.. i I''� ' .. 1 I . I ' - 7 IGJ ff � • 1 ? •.r .I Y � •I 1 r - • .1 J f. r � 1 .l' tl • I • � • • _ lid ' Ir I � I. .t 'a It � ri � � . � r r I i it � � 1 IJ' ? I / � r ' 1. ri r I POST Committee 20. The trail system shall be extended along the stream corridor through the center of the site to the north boundary of the lot. US Post Office 21 . The applicants shall coordinate the location and type of mail boxes with the 'US Postal Service prior to Final PUD approval . CUP Conditions Required by Section 18 . 53 . 030 .G j22 . The right to a use and occupancy permit shall be contingent upon the fulfillment of all general and special conditions imposed by the Conditional Use Permit procedure . 23 . That all of the special conditions shall constitute restrictions running with the land use and shall be binding upon the owner of the land, his successors or assigns . 24 . That all conditions specifically stated under any Conditional Use listed in this Ordinance shall apply and be adhered to by i the owner of the land, successors or assigns . 25 . That all of the special conditions shall be consented to in writing by the applicant. Boiler Plate Conditions 26 . Seven copies of the Final Site Plan containing all of the conditions, corrections, and modifications approved by the City Commission shall be submitted for review and approved by the Planning Director within six months of the date of City Commission approval . Signed copies shall be retained by the City departments represented on the Development Review Committee , and one signed copy shall be retained by the applicant. 27 . The applicant shall enter into an Improvements Agreement with the City to guarantee the installation of required on-site improvements at the time of Final Site Plan submittal . Detailed cost estimates , construction plans and methods of security shall be made a part of that Agreement. 28 . The first Building Permit must be obtained within one year of Final Site Plan Approval . Building Permits will not be issued until the Final Site Plan is approved. No site work, including excavation, may occur until a Building Permit is issued. 29 . If occupancy of the structure or commencement of the use is to 17 • • � �. 1 tt .t r I l i a � .. 1 t ` 'r ' " 1 } �. _ �t i•� i. r r . I I � r � I . � I � ! ' 1 [ � s r �. � I v .� ) r i � r ,r + r is -. I r. 1 t. 7 l � r r - e .l ' .. ' I r . A r t?' rJ. ri . .. '' I .. �r ' t � , - ,. I 't rl ? � 1 � t f — r _ ♦ 1 . �. 1 I c�r T( (� � . 1 ' occur prior to the installation of all improvements, the j Improvements Agreement must be secured by a method of security equal to one and one-half times the amount of the estimated cost of the scheduled improvements not yet installed. Said method of security shall be valid for a period of not less than twelve ( 12 ) months ; however, all on-site improvements shall be completed by the applicant within ( 9 ) months of occupancy to avoid default on the method of security. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #P-9210 i Proposal i As mentioned previously, a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat application for Overbrook site is under consideration to allow the aggregation of the 11 lots into a single lot and the abandonment of several utility easements and Fryslie Street, a paper street. The easements in question are currently not used. The proposed aggregation, which is necessary to construct the PUD as proposed, is called "Overbrook at Westridge" subdivision. All improvements are part of the CUP/PUD application, thus , none are subject to the Preliminary Plat review. Because the proposed subdivision is intended to serve only the proposed Overbrook PUD, this portion of the report will focus on those aspects pertinent to the subdivision only. The other j factors , such as compliance with the Master Plan, wildlife, traffic , and floodplain issues, have been discussed previously and are more contingent upon how the site is developed rather than how it is platted. Environmental Assessment/Community Impact Statement The Planning Office granted a waiver of the Environmental Assessment and Community Impact Statement (EA/CIS) requirements because this is the third subdivision review in the past 15 years for the site, and because the CUP/PUD submittal requirements largely cover EA/CIS submittal requirements . Parks The parkland requirement for Overbrook at Westridge Subdivision was satisfied when parkland was dedicated for Phase I of Figgins Subdivision. Vacation of Fryslie Street The Public Service Director has recommended that Fryslie Street be 18 i 1'. .t•I '.� � IA' tF ).1 I ! • � • f 1 r .� . . 'r, j 1 a • � r r � r l I I }. 1 i j vacated from the north property lines of Lots 20 and 31 to the end I of the platted cul-de-sac . The applicant may develop the private I drive ( reduced driveway standard versus a public street ) to the intersection with Westridge Drive , however, the applicant should be required to maintain this remainder portion of the Fryslie Street right-of-way. Subdivision Design City Staff provided subdivision comments through the PUD Concept Review, and the applicant has made several design changes since that time . Because of the size of the proposed lot within an R-2 District, it is essentially designed to accommodate the Overbrook i PUD exclusively. Therefore , the Planning Staff recommends that Final Plat Approval will not be granted until the CUP/PUD has received Final Approval so that a platted, otherwise developable tract would not be eliminated. Weed Control A Weed Control Plan for the proposed subdivision must be approved by the County Weed Control Officer prior to Final Plat Approval . Easements The Planning Staff and Public Service Director have noted the following in relation to easement: A. A 30 foot wide easement( s) shall be provided for the water and sewer mains and hydrants necessary for the PUD. I B. A 10 foot wide utility easement shall be provided along the northern property line . C. The trail and utility easements on the west side of the tract are unclear on the plat. These easements shall be distinctly separate , and the individual notations for these easements ishall be delineated within the easement boundaries on the Final Plat . D. If a trail along the stream corridor is required for the CUP/PUD application, then a 15 foot wide easement for this trail shall be provided on the Final Plat. j Certificates I The certificates generally reflected the Subdivision Regulations . However, the Certificate of Surveyor on the Preliminary Plat needs to be revised to explicitly reference "Overbrook at Westridge" j Subdivision. A revision of the Certificate of Clerk and Recorder is in order so that it fully reflects the Bozeman Area Subdivision Regulations . 19 • { 1 7 � � .� r .. ��. . . • �i. ..'i. ' � ., � � � � 1 �� _ � � � , • �� � t � +� t �. i � r � t � p _ F � � . � i 1 + � .. � � �t . t '� i t r � . ti � �•i � � � � � s l , r '.t.� a i' � � � f u _. • � � � i ). a_ Public Interest Criteria The Planning Staff has reviewed the proposed subdivision in light of the eight public interest criteria identified in the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act and offers the following comments: 1 . Basis of Need for the Subdivision Because criteria for identifying need have never been established, Staff assumes the basis for need is expressed by the developer' s desire to create and market the units proposed in the PUD application. 2 . Effects on Agriculture Because the R-2 District does not allow agricultural uses , the proposed subdivision will have little effect on agriculture . No factors have been identified which would adversely effect the agricultural area to the north. 3. Expressed Public Opinion Although the Planning Office has received a number of letters and a petition in opposition to the proposed PUD, and a number of neighboring property owners attended the Development Review Committee and Design Review Board meetings on the PUD, no public opinion on the Preliminary Plat application per se has been received as of the date of this writing . 4. Effects on Local Services The City of Bozeman can provide adequate public services to the proposed subdivision. Both police and fire protection can be provided, and adequate water and sewer service are available . Waiving the right-to-protest the creation of SIDS for improvements to South 3rd Avenue and requiring the mitigation of any undue impacts on the intersection of South 3rd Avenue and Westridge Drive through the PUD process will contribute to the more effective provision of services. 5. Effects on Taxation Because the existing 11 lot subdivision currently has no improvements ( i . e. , street or buildings) the proposed subdivision will increase the taxable value of the tract when it is developed. Additionally, because 34 units are proposed, the taxable value should prove to be higher than for the existing 11 lot subdivision. 6. Effects on Natural Environment Several issues have been identified through the PUD review which would effect the natural environment, particularly the role of the 20 I ,r L ' { i. r. stream corridor, the floodplain, and the corresponding riparian area. Generally, it was concluded that the proposed PUD, for which this subdivision is contingent upon, would respect the natural environment more appropriately than the existing subdivision. However, as stated previously, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife , and Parks did state that the stream corridor is worth protecting with the 35 foot stream setback. 7. Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks reviewed the Preliminary Plat and did not note any significant concern for wildlife impact. 8. Effects on Public Health and Safety In order to bring attention to the possibility of flooding, the Acting City Engineer has requested that the 100 year Flood Plain and 100 year Flood Way be depicted on the Final Plat . The most apparent effect on public health and safety will be from traffic volumes on the surrounding street network. In this regard, requiring the applicant to agree to a Waiver of Right-To-Protest SIDs for improvements to South 3rd Avenue, and mitigate any substantial problems created by the development at the intersection of S . 3rd Ave. and Westridge through the PUD should help lessen traffic impacts . Conclusion of Preliminary Plat Section I The Planning Staff and other applicable Staff and agencies have reviewed the Preliminary Plat application for Overbrook at Westridge Subdivision and have found it to be acceptable. Therefore , because the plat has been found to be in general compliance with the Bozeman Area Master Plan, Bozeman Area Subdivision Regulations, and the Zoning Ordinance if the PUD is approved, it is recommended that the subdivision be approved with the following conditions: 1 . The applicant shall maintain the remainder of the Fryslie Street public right-of-way. 2 . Final Plat Approval will not be granted until the corresponding PUD application has received Final Approval . 3 . A Weed Control Plan for the proposed subdivision must be approved by the County Weed Control Officer prior to Final Plat Approval . 4 . The following shall be provided on the Final Plat in relation to easements : 21 • • r ' � r i „t r . � ,. a 'E .` ��1. i , : � .! t � � t � III ' i � f s c� ' , e • � , ' � • '� • � c ��. � � � � � ��� , .. 4 1 ' .t ,t - i ' � � i , - ii is � � � i� ��t �. III ' � � �._ ., ;', l r�' , � •� 1 . � !� . / , � � . .. � 1 � ' , t ( f r r . � - r f f, ' � � .L `�� �• .a ' i � � � � ; 1 r , A. A 30 foot wide easements ) shall be provided for the water and sewer mains and hydrants necessary for the PUD. B. A 10 foot wide utility easement shall be provided along the northern property line . C. The trail and utility easements on the west side of the tract shall be distinctly separate, and the individual notations for these easements shall be delineated within the easement boundaries on the Final Plat. D. If a trail along the stream corridor is required for the CUP/PUD application, then a 15 foot wide easement for this trail shall be provided on the Final Plat. 5 . The Certificate of Surveyor shall be revised to explicitly reference "Overbrook at Westridge" Subdivision on the Final Plat. The Certificate of Clerk and Recorder shall be revised on the Final Plat to fully reflect the Bozeman Area Subdivision Regulations . Staff Notes The Planning Staff recommends that the Board waive the Environmental Assessment and Community Impact Statement requirements as all information can be found in the Bozeman Area Master Plan and the PUD submittal information supplied by the applicant. If the Board agrees with Staff' s recommendation, a motion should be made to grant a waiver of these documents prior to voting on the subdivision. Preliminary approval of a subdivision shall be effective for not less than three ( 3 ) calendar years nor less than one ( 1 ) calendar year. At the end of this period the City Commission may, at the request of the subdivider, extend its approval for not more than one ( 1 ) calendar year. attachements : - site plan, Preliminary Plat, elevations , submittal document - DRC and agency comments - minutes from 4/21/92 DRC meeting - Planning Staff summary to DRB - minutes from 4/21/92 DRB meeting - written public comment 22 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MEETINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND A MAJOR SUBDIVISION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of public meetings before the Development Review Committee at 10 : 00 A.M. on Tuesday , 21 April 1992 and the Design Review Board at 4 : 00 P.M. on Tuesday , 21 April 1992 in the conference room of the Old Carnegie Library , 35 N. Bozeman Avenue, Bozeman , Montana, and public hearings to be held before the Bozeman City-County Planning Board at 7 : 00 P.M. , Tuesday, 5 May 1992 , in the meeting room of Bozeman City Hall , 411 East Main Street, Bozeman , Montana, and a public hearing and public meeting before the Bozeman City Commission at 7 : 00 P.M. , Monday , 18 May 1992 in the meeting room of Bozeman Ci y Hall for the review of a Conditional Use Permit Application for a'Planned Unit Development and a Preliminary Plat review for a Major Subdivision requested by the Overbrook Partnership;- 4510 Conestoga Circle , Bozeman , Montana, pursuant to Section 18. 54 of the City of Bozeman Zoning Ordinance and the Bozeman Area Subdivision Regulations. The Conditional Use Permit application would allow the applicant to construct 34 condominium units among 10 buildings, and the Preliminary Plat would permit the applicant to aggregate 11 lots and cause the vacation of Fryslie Street. The subject property is described as Lot 16 , and Lots 21 through 30 of Block 9 , Figgins Addition, Bozeman , Gallatin County , Montana, . and more commonly known as 517 Westridge and all parcels which front on Fryslie Street. Said property is zoned "R-2" (Residential , Single-Family , Medium-Density ) District and is approximately 4. 67 acres. Oral testimony will not be taken before the Development Review Committee and Design Review Board . However , written testimony will be considered . Written comments shall be directed to the Planning Director and received by the Bozeman City-County Planning Office no later than 5 : 00 P.M. , Thursday , 16 April 1992 . Oral and written testimony will be taken at the public hearings before the Bozeman City-County Planning Board and City Commission . Final decisions of the Development Review Committee and Design Review Board pertinent to the Conditional Use Permit may be appealed in accordance with Chapter 18. 58 of the Bozeman Zoning Ordinance . Maps and related data regarding this application may be reviewed in the Bozeman City-County Planning Office, 35 North Bozeman Avenue, 586-3321 , Ext. 227 . Andrew C . Epple Planning Director I _T I i 1 --- Proposed CUP/PUD' subdivision jAM PS O; i O'LLATIN CONSERVATION DISTRICT 601 Nikles Drive, Box B Bozeman, MT 59715 587-6929 PLANNING OF ICE G1T`f-COI�NTY April 29, 1992 DAB Mr . Eugene Graf, III P. 0. Box 906 Bozeman, MT 59715 RE: 310 Application GD-14-92, Figgins Creek Dear Mr. Graf : The Gallatin Conservation District Board of Supervisors reviewed the above application at their meeting on February 19, 1992. A team inspection was held on March 3 . After a design was submitted this month, approval was granted to construct storm retention basins within the stream to control runoff . # There will be a 35 ' setback from the FEMA floodway for all new construction . The stream flows about 1/10 to 3/10 cfs . The majority of the flow is generated from springs adjacent to the stream on the property: The storm water enters the stream from culverts and pipes draining the existing Figgins subdivision . No fish habitat work is to be done as described in the application . The stream is too small for i habitat work to be feasible. Enclosed is a copy of Form 270, Form 272, and Form 273 for your records . 'Sincerely, Bonnie Elmore District Clerk Gallatin Conservation District cc: Richard Vincent, MT Dept . Fish, Wildlife and Parks Matt Weaver, FWP Rep. Foam 270 Fu62 STATE OF MONTH A NATURAL STREAMED AND LANIIWESERVATION ACT APD•No. -9� NOTICE OF PROPOSED PROJECT Date Re'd 8 X NOTE: SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED 1. a. Name of Ap2licant Address ,0a 9 City or Town State = Zip Code T-5� -7 71 Telephone NoaM -_7 2�0 b. Name and address of owner of site:(it different from applicant) . Telephone No c. Name,address and title of applicant's authorized agent for permit application coordination:(attorney, business manager,etc.) Telephone No 2. Name of stream at location of activity:f� � County: Location of the proposed activity: 1/4 6E 7a -'r_t/4 Section Z-y Townshlp-?_;L�Range 3. Describe proposed activity,type of structure,method of construction,materials and equipment to be used: �9 /1,,oAW ' 4. Date activity Is proposed to commence: �/7r1�te activityty Is expected to be completed: ,g'Z 5. Names and addresses of surrounding property owners and those whose lands adjoln the stream near the point of ac vi j;upstream,downstream,across) 77y&,,-R d / ZAAk1<W A-v.B_ SZoa !J14,A cvcr v 40.1 � �-� Fr ELF ���►.�-,F9s' ' �o� � aPaJ .v6 .LF�A _QlI E.I.CY ON�1/O i /Pia_IV r�°- �v 6. H�aK;,<genty der�ed approval for the icfivity&sc� hereln or for Rny a 4 Arerate9to t ie activity described herein?_Yes o If yes,explain further on separate sheet. 7. THE APPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT THE STATEMENTS APPEARING HEREIN ARE TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE TRUE AND CORRECT,AND HER AUTHORIZES THE INSPECTION OF THE PROJECT SITE BY INSPECTING AUTH Signature: Dale: 7 RETURN COMP D FORM T R LOCAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT OFFICE Fomt 271 RM . THE FOLLOWING i T EMS ARE TO BE CUMPLt t to eY)r1e,(;L1NbLHVAf tON DISTRIGr BOARD The application proposal s )not)a project as defined by the Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act. Reasons: i • If the application is not a project as defined In this act,applicant may proceed with proposal. CONSERVATION DI B RD ATURES: Date. 'fir/9—cf 2— Dale this determination forwarded to applicant and to /J the Montana Department of FIsh,Wildllfe,and Parks: �- STATE OF MONTANA ApplicalionNo.. Form 272 A182 NATURAL STREAMBE*AND LAND PRESERVATION ACT TEAM MEMBER REPORT 1. Applicant gori&_ QrTJ Address Qc7 Bdc qu, �Myy]61411 M-T 5Q731 Name of Stream Location of Stream allocation of activity County Location of proposed activity t/4_�V t/o,Section Z1_Township Z- Range j`- 2. An on-site inspection has been requested.You and your representative are required to meet at the project site on r 3 l9Q 2 at ! (date) (lime) I 3. Recommendation(check one): Approval LI Denial ❑ Approval with modifications ❑ Waiver of parlicipation CI Request time extension Dale Reasons: �jIL !rom C'Jm"'U A;scl.nad SY`kz- F ;Ns tree K a1 *fe SVIM *tic neo PwPosacl s�b�iv�sbr, appi",-0,4 W'A aev'54"'.4 Ae+w. bo'siv.s Sties Lo c er.'�ro� Cv�n o 4� . 'rticr4 ,a;"1 b� c. 3 5 I bo�bc.�ck rtDvv� (ry 4. TEAM MEMBER'S SIGNATURE Dale &qli,49 /_.V 5. Date this report transmitted to Conservation.District Board 902- TO BE REVIEWED BY TEAM MEMBERS BUT COMPLETED BY DEPARTMENT OF FISH,WILDLIFE,AND PARKS PERSONNEL ONLY I have reviewed the above project pursuant to MONTANA SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS SHORT-TERM TURBIDITY EXEMPTION ARM 16.20.633(3)(a)as it applied to TURBIDITY ONLY: This project will not result in a significant Increase in turbidity.Upon recommendation of DFW&P,(ite Deparlhienl of Health and Environmental Sciences,Water Quality Bu- reau hereby grants this turbidity exemption for the above-described project in accord- ance with all attached recommendations. This project will result in a significant increase in turbidity.A turbidity exemption will a not be granted using the proposed construction plan.The APPLICANT should imme• diately contact 11to Doparlinenl of Health and Environmental Sciences,Water Quality Bureau,A-206,Coysw Id/.(406.449.24 6),Helena,MT 59620 to discuss options for compliance with M an a e at Quali Standards. DFW&P Representative's Signature. _Date 9 Z s ►„ a-YA z 1. Fi ;vLg 6Jl�c��Vts� { 1'Pti� NID a5 c1ajhc.rN c) �'Y• �l�- P�� � i f` Form 273(Rev.9182) Application No. GD-14—9 2 STATE OF MONTANA NATURAL STREAMBED AND LAND PRESERVATION ACT BOARD'S DECISION Name of District(or County if applicable) Gallatin Conservation District Address 601 Nikles Drive, Box B, Bozeman, MT 59715 Telephone Number 587-692q Name of Applicant EUGENE GRAF, I I I Board Decision(circle): Approval Denial Approved with Modification Board's Signat � e i i Date Transmitted to Applicant and Department Team Members "Approval" permits applicant to proceed with project 10 days after receipt of this decision unless arbitration is re- quested by the Department of Fish,Wildlife, & Parks within five days. No work may begin on any project "approved with modification" unless written permission is given by all team members within 15 days or if arbitration is requested by the Department of Fish,Wildlife & Parks within five days. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . To be filled out by applicant and returned to the supervisors within 15 days.(Please sign and return entire form.A copy will be mailed to you.) I hereby agree to proceed with the project in accordance with the approved application contained herein and will permit follow-up inspection. ❑ I hereby agree to proceed with the project in accordance with the proposed board modifications contained herein, and will permit follow-up inspection. ❑ I prefer to go to arbitration (notice wi days). v Signature of Applicant: Printed or Typed Name: E ne G I I I __.._..____..__..__._... �.._...__..__... ._...__ ce AMENDED SUBDIVISION PLA : T A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE E 1/2 r: O F/CG//V.�' • 30" ,S'TO.S'.110Tr,4//VE�ISE.t7EiYT alp DEgh,B _ ¢ 9 p Ih l> DD Y F/VD L u. P i u r A . 0 G -'0:°; :;?:`; �:` �:::? :���:�:�o� ��•�:' :�: ''�� �`'� �.•'����^ LOT � .o� or27�,i D � � G oT ze �� :� � � �?gf�.�.i6�;��:�f'::`:::';:~;:;•:'•.�� �� � �?• E2.3•s�S.f.�� � 9/�o.f3S.F \•.�\ � �—E.4SE.NE.VT .::��� :�:':•�`:`�'�'•`:`�:�;`. ���:;'�' �`::�:::`:�:-:;'�?::�:�.:;'�?��:�`�`': �::' �`.?-`ems O �� I LOT25 I �- : :•:'::::G:.;:::::':::.::::'::; :�::':`::�: :°:;::;`: :'.:; "', q2 ::_j 19•..PD.-.,. 6 1 :B(o.0a'...,.� I:;...6y _ 0' , 9. I ' lei Qp 'ems se9 /8'oo" 0 - -�`; ?'�;` t Q F.4Y6'L/ STREET � ���� �`•����• � \ . .. � eaz r \ aC (n �`.•'`:-.:'�::.:�-�•`,:':'':`;::.:.:::::'•:.:::::�::.:j,,.: � :C� . LD � 0. � LOT23 p0 LD 22 0 LD / �,. N_ ,.� -• - - - --�N 'ti ' -s'o.:. :•..•..:'... . ...•.. .. ,..%y:•. . . 7 (0 3 F. V n 7S/4.8gs F. 7GSO.DDS.F. nI 0 51�97. •:-"h?��a::r`i>:r::;'.��:::.:•:::.:;: ::' �,.. .. p �.- .���•�-� :�;:f B9°/8`Oq'- •: 0 0 ,,,� - -_p -- - ��:: - .5.4.�46�i�i�S9'�v h 'O• --- .�'+'-e.. <:r{�—• ---..,y,. — — --f .�. �:r.ZT �x:,n.•.'. .iro. :a i',ey' I . i000_'_ 99. 74__i -----99. >¢--- - -- - -- 9-5. 74'-- - ---.9594 -- �: :.: .:: GOT LD7"2C 1 ti p p i t ,� 9_1 46 5'F $ q9/9.�OS.F. 79y9.40 S'F. Q 7'979.st0 SF. D D y9s�2./sr�.F. 4} 0 LOTS/ p ::•. .. ..... iN on. 9 74 9 9.7 Z 9 9.74 9 9. 7S' ..f; 51. 6�.9_ � .-�• � N'EST.4i06E OR/YE- � � - • /; Cl/•Q/�E Oil TA 60' � �/w G'URYE L�4T.4 BC ' � Q=3/OD'DD" F/ll,'//YS �40D/T/O/V G=90°DO 00 "• '. � •b,:: 1 " x u: ►� ►_- v i r v 'Ai i�S p ti ApptiCal anNo.. �� Form 272 R182, � . . � .• NATURE STREAMI3ED AND :1�ND PRESERVATION ACT"' , TEAM MEMBER REPORT 1. AppIicanl_s��►�_GC_a Address _ C) 1 MT 5-(?171 Name of Stream! Location of Stream at location of activity County Location of proposed activity____1/a_E '/Z--ALr/n,Section-i�l _Township ?S Range_ _ 2.. An on-site inspection has been requested.You and your representative are required to meet at the project site on—/y1erch 3 MI? F a( J. I (date) (time) 3. Recommendation(check one): Approval L_I Denial O Approval with modifications 0 Waiver of participation ❑ .Request time extension Date Reasons: liu1gSkwCr'�l 0� G0. 6ub(AN1S;r), =� C''CaM4 `w Yl11 V, Oriek- %s cvrra-�� Atscl�ar�tcl � (11 SyNkz' ,''(��v s cree K as � s;�Ca c4 -eke. r Lo progoSecl st�lcr�;�tS�Ur . `T a�(pJl;ca,.}- bas►vl.s C.ev.�t'ol �-�' '�tia,ra. w:\� ba c. 3 5 1 60 �l��ck trow� A\,.a (=FIhA o& .n�J 4. TEAM MEMBER'S SIGNATURE Date o!.1 11145'Z 5. Dale this report transmitted to Conservation.District Board TO BE REVICWEU BY TCAM MCMRCRS BUT COMPLETED BY DEPAFITMLNT OF FISH, WILDLIFE,AND PARKS PERSONNEL ONLY I have reviowed the above project pursuant to MONTANA SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS SHORT-TERM TURBIDITY EXLNIPTION ARM 16.20.633(3)(a) as'it applied to TURBIDITY ONLY: This projecl will not result in a significant Increase in turbidity. Upon recommendation f�IQ- m4Jo-r� Q�(1S�►�' �1 1_ U . Design Review Bqard - April 21 , 1992 Members Presentg Ron Hess, Keith Swenson , Bud Kumlien & Nick. Davis. Staff Presentg Kevin Wall & Terri Snyder. ProQc!-RUVTew­_0verbrocT_at WesTrYd-ge-7 CUP for a PUD consisting of 34 condominium units. Members of the public presenti Alex Hudec , Marion Cherry, Carol wester, Debbie & Jerry Funey. Planner Wall stated that these would be multi-family dwellings within an R-2 district. He stated that stream work will be done to clean up storm drainage, and that the applicants are proposing two trail links to galigator and public trail by trespass. Wall noted that the proposed landscape plan uses a variety of trees, and that the applicants have submitted concept elevations. These concept elevations incorporate ridge lines and gables and alter detailing from building to buidling . He stated that the current plan is to use wood shingles, and either borden/batten siding or lap siding . Planner Wall stated that the Code exceptions noted are permitted uses, there is a few small encroachments to yards, the building height is 1 1/2 feet too high, and there are a couple of encroachments to the water core setbacks. He stated that the rest of report is as noted in the Staff Report, and that public opinion was in letter form in the DRB packets. Planner Wall stated that Staff finds the project as conforming to PUD criteria as it is discussed in the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that the plan has earned over 50 points for landscaping when only required to meet 23. Wall stated that Staff recommendiii-, approval - based on : maintaining minimum setbacks and maximum height in the R-2 ( in order to maintain neighborhood compatibility) , they would like them to provide at least 2 additional trees in the Westridge street area, reduce parking and designate the additional area to landscaping , that the orientation of the building to the north of 19 and 20 be shifted a bit so the building masses don ' t appear so repetitive, and that the architectural treatments be diversified with the more visible side elevations should including windows and possibly window bays. Planner Wall stated that final design of all elevations and signage should be subject to review and approval by DRB before final project approval . He stated that Staff also recommended that a comparable alternative to green ash be found , such as flowering trees or shrubs at the entry drive. Ron Hess asked if there was a suggestion on lighting . Planner Wall stated that they planned to use building mounted photocell. lighting . Dan Kamp stated that they show the 35 foot setback for the stream based on the centerline, and they will hold that setback from whatever the final determination is on the stream. He noted that they are asking for a variance on the 35 foot setback from the culvert, as that accomodated two additional units. Dan Kamp stated that extensive burming was shown on the house side in the beginning of the proposal , and it was at the 15 foot setback , they would be willing to pull it back an additional 5 feet. He further noted that building height will be in compliance with code in the final analysis. Dan Kamp noted , in response to Wall ' s request for Boulevard trees, that those had originally been planned for, but that they were pulled back out so neighbors could see the open space, he is open to clustering trees in replacement of that., Planner Wall stated that neither Phill Forbes or Craig Brawner were bothered by the stream corridor setback encroachment. Gene Badgley stated that there concern is low maintenance exteriors and the treatment of the buildings will be with that in mind . He! noted that they will probably use colorlock siding , and he believes that the 8" will be fine on this size building . Nick Davis stated that the roof height seems high, and he wondered what the purpose of the lofty roof was. Dan Kamp stated that the pitch was in relation to the massing of the buildings. Nick noted that it seems to creat a wall of buildings blocking all of the scenery behind it. Keith Swenson stated that a lower pitch would be outside the Design Objective Plan guidelines. Dan Kamp stated that they wanted a flow, and that lowering it would mainly lower the ridge. Tim Dean stated that the lower the pitch of the roof , the more apartment looking they get and they are trying to avoid that. Tim Dean noted that they hope to use the same color siding with different accents on the buildings. Kevin Wall and Keith Swenson had no problems with that, as it would help to maintain some uniformity among the buildings. Keith Swenson read a variety of letters from the neighbors in the area. (Letters are on File at the City-County Planning Office) . He stated that the major concerns werem traffic flow issues, destruction of the wetland , Core of Engineer 404 permitting issues, type of architecture, multi-family occupancy rather than single family as originally intended , increased area population , natural resource concerns, Master Plan issues of safety and welfare of the area. 0 Planner Wall stated that the applicant needs to apply for the 404 permit. Dan Kamp stated that they are in the process of checking in to the 404 permit to see if it is applicable to the project. They don ' t feel that it is applicable, but the Core of Engineers will review the project and let them know. Bud Kumlien stated that he has done a lot of site work throughout the years, and there is a couple of philosophical problems with the project. He noted that he doesn ' t believe it is possible for the property to remain in the status quo no matter how it is petitioned . He stated that the owner is entitled to develop it,, it has been platted , so some changes are going to occur. He stated that he is very touchy about the wetlands area of it, he would like to see the stream flow protected . He feels the proposed plat will be less destructive to the wetlands than what was originally platted . Bud Kumlien stated that he is bothered by the number of units, but the rest of the layout is positive. Bud further noted that the traffic problems are going to be intensified , however that is a problem for the City of Bozeman to address as it is happening all over Third Street. He stated that his major problem with the project is density, and the two units on the north side of Westridge are the ones that bother him. Keith Swenson asked Bud to comment on the Staff ' s recommendation to reduce the number of Green Ash. Bud stated that Green Ash is over planted everywhere because they grow easily, he felt that more variety should be considered . Nick Davis asked for a summary of the Mission statement of the Design Review Board . Keith Swenson provided that for him. Design Review of buildings and site design , as well as their relationship to the surroundings. In that role they are to reflect the intent and statements set forth in the Master Plan . They are also to listen to the issues raised by the applicant and the neighbors in terms of interpretting their value. They are to protect existing character of the community as they interpret it. Nick Davis stated that he finds this a tremendous change in the character of the entire community. He feels that it is designed to the minimum. I He stated that he feels the change to the residential character would be very dramatic , and he can ' t believe that they are not being more sensitive to that. He feels this takes a rural community and makes it nearly urban . Nick Davis said that the proposal puts a wall of buildings between the community and some attractive public facilities. He doesn ' t find this at all tasteful . Ron Hess stated that he agrees more with Bud Kumlien . He stated that the architecture is fairly consistent in terms of character and quality with the, buildings in the Figgins Addition . �.-1 E.ul 1:�?t..i-.:) a s a-,..1-.1 a t..1 c.) I]I'T m P E)m 0 T T U? A71.T S U a T.F':::,T-1.a-A CIE)L.1 a L.1'-I C)q ..4 a�:.5 C)T a q p 1 T--I(.:)im A a t..l S)XD.A 1-) :1 -1-1.s A tv e j. �.:.i f.*..,)U T S. a"- T UJ a L.1'_� a'.',I P 11) C) " -- a si S.1 A . I ()--- �R 6T' 7.).T i AC -. T U I'l 8 Ul'-I MCI c) a q p I.-I o m F.-3 A T-.1.Y-P LIJ E7.)"I.'[V? _J a LI 0 U C) p a'.-.1 El'_J.S ED I I E.) T.s 0-q-:I. c) a-lotli -.1.1-lo c)-.j. auoI:.l C.-)C..! c.3 T. A cl T k.i I I c M 7.1. E-)L.1-1 FD U'1.1.12 U T W T-[-3 A CI r)a D I'l p E?L.1 1. ..,10 C)_�` ;2 6T S' )I.-I s FA'T-'-4-T 1'T q s c)d 0 m -4 U I'l 4.C.) ..'lac.1wrlu i*)W-l- "I T I J E)L4 4 T H I'D T 11C.)Ni F. a Cl 1:)1-V)CD M a L.1 LI.1 r.)G)7+CD U U0SUBN-`I,,, LJ-41�8-:,j STL.I-.j LiO A'-'I.T S U 69 ID 1C) SWj..AE3-I. U'T.' �:=_V W_l'1LIJTXekLl E.)L.1 1. 7.).lk'�Ul M A F�A Gj A 1. Ll E)T'[S AlL.10 ST _4A.H-.,ujd0TBAap STL.I�. Pt"-4PTATP o s T a a:� a.,l o rI In s 0 i C::kp (1)s s e o SI...-T w_I a d bUT-L.IC-3-1 E-3 L.1'..). J.C) U.T.- aCI ea-AIP LHDC.I0 a t..l-:1. .,10 J. S.m 0 -e s a-1 5 a F-I - UO'r-4�?.-)T I-cl d'e a L.1-1. UI 'T M u)a-r.q(..)..A d 'a a A 1-2 L.1 1. ',J S --)0 ID a L.1 s b i..j T ID-r.-.r.I-I q C'.)(W-1. ED t-5 0 L4'-I LI IF LI -A a L4-.1.0 .11?t4-.1, 4 1"10 CI'C� �3 J 1-1'-E -1.C)U S T B LI F)'r 10 S .1.V?-A.0 BE U 8 La .3 a -,i t-:?d s-e imi a u-v I a:)u aj. -i C)U) L.1 0 i ---:I k4 4 .10 T a 14 C) E b r_');� S U A a A -1 a'4-.1. r.)a'.'jSV? LJOSU&IMC-3 Ll-1.T EY 4 1.T cl v..? j. q A o uj e..):D u 1---? si,-I.-p-) :,I. S a S 1")C)L.1 aB J Ll 1. xj s n LI o 5 ue'r.d a _f S a AV?L.1 Q(J F.)T F) A a L.1 p 7. S Cl U.)IF.!-.,,I ue Cl E CH.)S Y-1 C UI T UJ I-? Ba.,R.41 D a-I-ff)U'T.'a J-V t.4 s u C)-r-:�e 1.a-,I at..17.1. L.I�._AOI\j F-)Ul q u c) s E,)ul-c p-I- n cl p a ocl(D-i d a ul:I. u a a m:I a q c a ul -1 0 p a u-,I a,-)u c) S.;1, (..1 -.1.v)(..I 0_1 d B L.1 J C)A 17?J. p T.1-1 o m a:_3'E?Cl E', U a CA C) a L.I-1. c.) u c)-T.j.--i a q c)-A d p t..i it- LI 0 T 71.V?A..A F.3 S FDJ d LI I. IDI"IG PLJIF U C)�J t4 I.T m ,C.a..,I f)�- SaIDTAO-ld 8-1.d .1.1-n Ili a L.1.1 1. T -3 2 at..! uosuam�--:) S75ED"I-I- A A_..).T Ull"11.1ill)OD I I V-?J EiAC) LI M '.'�Ua-.1 S S UO-1 s U) -.1 T. a r,i..1-.1. t..l-I.- LI T F?UJI ENUT'..]. R L.1-.1. 71.E? p Li E? p t..I-F 4.0 a 1---5 Y.) '.--JENDS 0-I. sT Ue-,.j at-1-1- UT paj.-eqs a LI C) a Ll Fe S Ll a UJ UJ 0 S 'D V.?-r-)a-I d cl�._? Fz)k4 V-'?Ul-1. 1:1 E:)'4 U!I.s LI OS LIB M T ': �5­1 0 Cl L.1 f)T-0 U aL.1'-I. L.1 M 5- lt2 FJtLJ-T-"--I- A.-t-2 (4"I.-ACIN ssn I-)a-1.s a E)F)I-I ., p u a t-I LI c.:) Om_-l- a L-I I. t4-.1 T Ml �5UJaj'C:IC)..ACJ IDIF�L.I AF3L.I..). D, -11. FE-)F-I s p u-e 1--.1 a m aq:j. PLAIE' a-DE-CIS, Ll G3 d C) J.'a �-)SUFDS _Aa'_j.X-_8..Ab IF? U T -.1.U T'G-U I CJ A a 1:3-1 CD U I-T. 6 B-v s L 1 .5 a 1::) tu :.J.-Turl.......c rI III a(..! ul-1 -.1.t4 19J 0 CD Cl UJI-I C:).J- A.A V?Ll tlj-.F-f Eo_i d J ED A I.? U T U)C.9 LI a..A C)J.a C:I S 1-72 M S,T Ll 7.1.1--LI 1.1 a-.1.V?-.).s; u C.)s k..l a m�_­ t4 I.T'a*,,I ID a A I C)A LI'r S V.?'_�S T A A0J. F)kJTj.'8,_):j. a(l f3j)"10M a..A8L.j-1 U T r.:)-1.'T 11 Cl c-) I.' 'r.VP M B(..I'.'.I J.0 3 --.)1: -_11 .4 rr T 1:3 Ll P a U 0 a CI S ED U.)O"'S.- J C) t. N1 C) r. T.v? o 1:1&Y.-I.V-.-'U'T.'U)T'[8 -3 1:1"CE'S ci:)TAIE�CT T :I at.-Fl. J-0 0 N14 .-A C-) , u 0 T 5 U T -e-1 a p C9 UJ-B LI D a t4 I-a(.4 -1..-C S LA a p S"f.14'.1,. --1.V?Ll-.1 S-I-a C3.4. S S iz) u e(..I L.1-.�e-A Fj ar'l-LIT' F)a A 0 Ul e.) I J a(l Ol qeLI_-'.j. Sa-]Y-:.(:IS j:Ja.j.SaI"Ib8..A at..I- V-2 li-51E..)a.l. av-1 "S_.1.01 (.-)'T t4-I­Tm a(l P'1*1-lc:)m -1-T ULPLIJ Ja_-'�-4aCl 151' Ll a d C) 1 -3 c) u I-I c In v:.� a(..I i U El 81' s'l C 4 6T E--,5 Ul T f.)T. T YI C G M a UI'..). J.0 T III T C)J Cl a C)I-D a L.1 Ll 'T M IOS U.)a I Cl C.).A 01 L sv- ssal I LI v i E.IJ OW L.1:-.)1-1 U.) S .j.�c)-iciche? F7jA_T_--'j-TsLlF-)c -E 'T 71T E-;'faa� E)11-1 "SER)SI-10LI EiIE)LITS C_)T LIVN41 ST STLIJ. -.1'k-2 L4-). S'.',I LI T LI-4. B1­1 u IV,cl p a'[lL?::)S aLl-1. f)UT._4CI ID-1-1 10 T.T.U?--18 1:3 1.1 LA I-' S(VI 0[:)U T M J.C.) U C)T-4 T P 1:3 u at-F). Pup Iskmal.clo-id sac)p at-I 0 0 1,:'e i t I Swenson asl,.ecl ��.ibout one otl­)er bUildil-Ig loc-.,.i.-ation . Dan P"all'Ap e x I.)I r-)(....?cJ thi-.at. tl i i:..: c)c a-t i c....! mandii-ilted -to s t o r-m s e IA)e r-- eaxsc--�menl- in -the a-ti-ea.. St-jer--ison sl­atc-�cj tl­iat 1--ie was r-m-t. I cj w i t!--I a I,-b i-t.I,-va I,--y Z o n J r-i g s t,-..i n.d a I,--d s w fi e n d e a 1 i n g w i t h a FU D, wi-t h t h e e x c.e r.'-)t i 0 r-) cj 1: t 1--i e AVA HE� S t�.!'t 2 CI t 1-I&.,,t has t-..A -J I i t 1--i e ID�.a I,--k i n g a I-e a, h e WOUld r­,athiet- see p I,--c.)L)1 R III w i c Lt I,--b i n g 1 ess C-_'Lt I,--b i I--)g t 1--i a n mor-e -to a 11.-c)1..\l f cj r b I en di n g n d 1-1 El t Lk I`-i:'A cl I-ai r-)a g e to be 1--iar-icllecl une v)ay -L-1--ie o t I-I e I--, a n d C U r--b i n g ta k e s t!-I e w EA t e I,-- t..o a diffei-F.-�nt ID o i I t f C)!,- di-i-a-illage �-and makes it eetsiei­ tcJ i-efriov--p sr-lov). l<)-tunlien stated thiat I")G' W 0 U 1 d I i k e t o t r-a d e t 1--i e c-,n the two units', ar-id add I,n i t s SOME'l.-JI-121-CR else tc) j::)F­2!:*.�er--vc--_, w e t 1. -:,r-i cJ 5. D a n l(,a III r.:) s a i c:I t 1--i e o I,-e t i c:a IL I y t h e I,-I-, C_­OUlc_-I be -f CD Lt r 1.c)-L s b Lt i 1 t w h e r-e t 1--i e y a I,--e I-igI.-It now. 1<.'ed.t h S w�e n s o n F.:� i d t!-I e c.I i f f e I,--e I that t.'.I­)G_�I­Cn' WOUld IDED bl"ElakIE; J.r-I ID e t w e e n thcise fC)UF­ LAI—)i tS He said height di--or_-) (:I ..L .1 L)c..--a El 11"2 i.,A S::i C)rl a LI I E, C 0 ITI p r-oat i v-.�e i r-I lhj ml i n cl t o he I p b a I a n c e -L-.Vi e I-I e i g I..)b c)I--h 0 o CA Dan K.*afyip, F-.3aid tl i ey IT)a CJ &.1 S t.I-c)n g I--f f o I-t t c) L)1­1.1­19 t h e e n d s, o-f t h e b Lt i 1.cJ i n cl,�-., 1::)a c-k. i I"I , 1:5 C) V B LUR y I.-I e I-e vj I c)L. a solid ;­idge ll.ine t)etwieen I'DUildings. 1S �R I"LAI-El'.1. Ekl'­2,�I, i t i S thi-at he dC)2Srl ' -L thir-ik tl i i--� a. s t..t L)Lt r-b a n za r-e�a and -this woulcl a. subur-bam addit.-ic-in ., Ej t..t d KLA IT)1. '.i.E I'l IS a i Cl i t i s r-I c)t i r-i t h 2 i I- r.)0 W E.-?Y­ 't CD p r-e s e I,--v(Z..) I-I E- !.3 t.iR t UE5 CI Lk 1\1 i c k D a v i s s�.�t a t e cl t hia t t I")(-'-'IV C 0 Lt'I d EXC e I"'C S El S C)(1)e C 0 r'I o a I i d 1--i e X. I [�.�ci�1.!:5 t I.-I t t h y ShOLO.C.] l'i Lk I-Dj C9 C'.'t t C) f LA r---t I ie I-- i IT)P 1­0 V e IT)e I'l t 11") I--e g a I-d S t 0 t.hl a r-- J d e n t i a I (:---1--i a I,--ca c t e I--. F`I ia n n e r-- W a 11 i:3 �.-.x t cl t.-J.)at -this 9 C)C--,'--; t c) the F:1-ainr-iir-ig Doar­d t-l-tc.? fir-st- Tuesday J.T.-I Motion — BLACI l<'.UfTI]._iE:-?n moved for.. appl-oval of -,Lhe [wased or-I c 1--i at n g E, t c) tl­ie f FR Z-A t Lt F-e S, thC)S2 IDC22illg 1-00-flil IE�S al i Cj a r-i d vi A 11 s, at o c.1 i-f i c--r.x t.-.i o r-i to the J:A�-ant li.5-t. and -t!te c)f units dir-ectly r-Ioi-l-f-) of 'lots 19 ar-)cl 20 fi-om the plat.. tric-.ition vjztc5 ..--:�ecor-ided by F-U)n I I e s . ­F,h e III C)t-.i C)1-1 C:e,I`I"1.2 d . B Lt d 1'."Llrillien cloaifyici�mted that ther--e wats 1-1--ie possil-.)ijity o!f ackling -Ac d i t i on,a I Lt Il i t.-.5 Orl t';-I e r-I o r-- h e a s t s i d r::� o-f -the p I--c.)p e r--t y . -t c) sc,-mL:�,whiat c-iffse-t. t1he c-In tl le SOLIthi sid(=� wot..tld r­edt..tct-_� -the r"I EP't I C)5 S 1".0 6.) C.j WEA. 1 i 171 g Utn,.-.i.ts 'T.ifyi s:ti-a t cl t I")at. I I e W C)Lt 1.C-I .11 kE 4-o be al lowed -to have thf('? fC:)UF­ WE'l-GH., I:)li.-A'lu-tE­C_'I . BUCI SEA.-i.C.1 his is that thal"C'? is too f'f)aV')y Urlit5 Orl the. pr-operty atr­icl I I E? VJ 0 Lt*I.Cl I JC)t CO 'fC)i,-- sc-neir-)g jUSt the eleviat.icm dr--opI-_-)ed (-)I--) tl­ie t.vic) i on thie r-ic)r--(-.J-) cr.ide., t..tnless they v)ant t_c) I--:)i--ing pr--c).jc-.-.-)c::t in fi-cu-It ol' them agail -that 1-1�...AV 4 r-,C, thi.is site 1--A.an I I Lt III E-1 1"0 Lt 1": -1--i fyi e s E� jUElStic)r-m-z-!cI ,ql (-.T�t f-I e I,-- t I JPY C_.0UlCI g a i n !::)a c k the If.:)S.[,- Lln.-.i.ts 1-.jy PLAttillg SOMethil-Ig on the nor­thj(­�ast cc_)v--ner- of the I-.)r-opE-?r--ty. Keith Swenson stated that they could come back to DRB with a new site plan showing lowered elevation on those units. Planner Wall stated that they would have to come back after City Commission , and it would have to be a condition of DRB approval . Dan Kamp said they don ' t have time to come back with an alternate site plan . Dan Kamp did comment that originally they had 38 units on the property and now they are down to 34, and the question of density was not a concern at the Conceptual Review. He stated that it would have been helpful to have those comments at that time. Keith Swenson stated that the point is well taken , and he voted for the motion on the floor, but feels some consideration might be given to lowering the number of units in those two structures, as dropping back 8 units is not necessarily consistent with the intent. Development Review Committee - April 21 , 1992 Members Presents Kyle Harlan , Craig Brawner, Dan Figgins and Roger Sicz . Staff Presenti Dave Skelton , Kevin Wall & Terri Snyder. Dan Kamp, Tim Dean & present. Planner Skelton stated that this is a PUD and preliminary plat application for a major subdivision to allow the construction of 34 condominiums and the aggregation of 11 lots. The purpose of the meeting is to make a formal motion to the Planning Board & City Commission . He noted that the applicant and his representatives can respond to questions. He noted that concerns from the public should be made note of by them, and then they should prepare something to give to Planner Wall by Monday for inclusion in Planning Board packets. Planner Wall stated that this is a use out of district, but that the density is in conformance with the Master Plan designation . Planner Wall noted that he has received a number of comments from Staff not present. He stated that the bulk of his comments are in the DRD packets, and deal in that realm. Planner Wall stated , for the public , that his concerns related to: encroachments to permitted uses, water core setback issues, relaxation of landscaping within the public right of way, curbing for the project, parking for handicapped and bike racks requirements. Planner Wall noted that they are proposing to access off a private drive, so he doesn ' t see a problem with stacking of spaces. Planner Wall noted that he is recommending 4 condtioks to DRC. ' Those conditions being the need for 4 Disabled spaces, bike racks / for at least 8 to be provided (calculated at 10% of auto parking requirements) , reduction of parking by 10 spaces as they have proposed 1/3 more parking they need and that the landscape island � in the middle of the trail should be eliminated . | Craig Brawner read Phill Forbes comments, those being that he does not feel that this addition will cause an unexpected drop in | traffic services, that no formal intersection analysis has been ! made and the applicant should address this, waivers should be � signed for improvements to South 3rd - paving , curb and gutter and that storm improvements must be filed . Craign Brawner read Fred Shield ' s comments, noting that plans and specs for water and sewer must be provided , and that some problems with water and sewer are noted , but will be addressed in the future in the plan and spec review. C; a a.g 1­3 r,a w n e I,-- s a t CI I.-Ii.in: c In m e ri s o I--) t.1--i e I,-o j t Fie rioted tl--Ii=it a s t.o I,-fp watei- plan and sys-i-_e�in desigri must be detail(-:..!d in the PUD I,--e 1-3 o I,--t a I d c s n e d t ci 1::)e I,-o v i d e d a i:5 a n appendi.- to t h E, I--e p c-i I,--t I n c.I ut d CI in t!--I s a 1.c s s I iout].d br- 'E. st..tflIrniim'--y o f 11--1 a sli n si Z i.n g a ri(J d i s c h a I,-g e r-a i.g s o rioted t ha t. a:k d e-'I-.a i led 7::,t o I-fil [)].,.-.An desinged to r-emoved scillids iiit n d Si I t (Y)Us U s t be pr-ovl; dc.-.--?cJ t(D 1--iim befor-e fir)al appr-oval . Cr-a.ig Br-awner- stated tha-t'. the Final Site Plan. rut,-eds 1-0 elc--�vation and an over-all. --stor-m wF.iter- pla.n iz-k p P r-C)v-a 1 st.ated that t1--tey will m,?ed to coriti-ac-L-. PE sei-vicces f 0 1"' inspecti(::)1­1 ea of Mylar­s, sidew'�.-.-tlk. s e c t i(---)n a n d a p p r-(::),a(---I--i e s need to be t(..) City S tan r-d , and a r-zunr.:) -fr-(:-.)fn W(-,stv---.i.dge -to tl iE...! t.I'' on the (..)-41 the pi-oper--ty will be r-eqUired . C F..,R i(-.:I f t..t I,--t 1--i e I,-- n o t e d t I i c utr- I)Q 0 I'l 1:-.)1,--i.v a t e s t I,--e e t a n d is 11 p a I,--k i n g a I,*,e a s will be I--e q U i r--e d w i.t f-I t y p i c a IL c u I,--b d e. t a i 1)r-o V..A;.(J d s d t h a t s r-.)I...'.t.I'I.i.-. fn t..t 1L.,t comr..A.y vji-t.-.h City arid set-jer- arid vlater- sl--iot..t.l.d be sl­iown on t 11 e i.ri z(J. si.t p 1 a n Br-avqrler. ar) for- will be p I'-.J_C)I- t o i n s t a 1. 1 a t J r)n a I d they S 110 U l d c o i--i t a c-t thie I--o 'U. a I--)d a s t-. p 2(DID.I.2 I'­(-_-?g a g t I'l E D 1:1 i'"C.)P 0 i.5 e Cl Ia n I,-- (--I t..t i.I,--e d p e I,--mJ 1-s a.I--L=� b e 1--)t.a i I ied p--r-i.o I,-- t •o a 1:)1:3 1`0 V�A I , i I-)Cl I U O"i I i g 'flood plain p e r f7vi.t s. F-I I (:.I t(.-.,d t.. t the I.C.)o year -flood plain sHC':T_j..(:) .3 .... ...... lar-I , al:5 1::)oun(Jaj­y and ris fnm.u: t E e- sl--i(- t.-\iri si f-ri., as tl-ie issue of haridling tl ie cr-ossirig . "r h c--, ID U j.1 Cl i.1-1 g 1:5 W 4 11. 1")e EA CI t o In e e t 11:1.o o CI p I-(D f i r)g S t a n d a I-d s a I.-I d the F i n al S i te F"I a I St I iCjUld i.nclu(Jc--? adeqt..tat.c--_-- Ig a I!d (TILISt COMply w i t h Z C)1")2 Code unless, devi.,F.xti(-.3ns ai-e r-ecf3ived . P I a ri I----er- W is 11 s t a t e d t.I iat h(-7.- 1­1a d se v e r--a I (::(")fnfnL':2r)ts to Ile rI Cl t e d t hi a t t h e F-iec-r-ea-!Cion Depar-trfient -thiat the plan was r-e v i e w e(:-.1 as n d -t.-J-ie-y feel. i.t -f.its vv1.t.1 t h p a I,-k 1::)-1 a r) s I.-I W i 'L d I i.-f e a.I--,,d G a fn E, i.r-I s I e t--e c I the site arid rioted that the !-Lmlall H, t -I y s1t.-J-e,�mn 1--ias fn i n i.fn t..t f7i -f J. .5 1 e r-1; e s a n d S Il 0 U.1.d b e 1D I-C.)t E?C t P Cl b u t I 1--i a v e i--i o p I,-o b.1.E-.-�ins-i w i t f-i t h.e ID-1 a n a s s h o w n . L_zi E.nl 'I.y F`J.a n n e.I,.. "A a 1. '1. 1:S t t e(J t I i a t. F'0 S T s-1C.a l..e d f t..t 1. 1 s u r.:)I.-.)o r-A:. f(---)I,-- t I e t.F-a i I system p,I-o po s e d . A d d-i t i o I--,,a 11 y they favor' exteruJing ti-i_-kil sya;t(­.--)m along cor-r-idor- and along the r)oi-ther'n bCRAI'*lr_Iar-y as il.'. WOUld c-AllOW je easier- acx-ess to GalA.i.gi:-:ttoF­ and if extera-led t(D tfle I i0l"'til 'thE? ti-ail VJC'_'UlCI SUbstitUt.E-) fC)I-' -'L-1--ie lack. (:.-f in the ar-ea. 'C)ST is t a t CI t 1 t! e r-e in a-t y I De soinc.--- impacts or? vj i 1.d 1 i.f e. a n d VegJA'_-E-.lti.C:)r) bUt -I--I-I e y c I:)t..t 1(J be p r-(­)t e c t e d . I..I..fey iiii t..k 1::)p 0 1­t I.-h c 1.t..t S t.e r-1 ri g C:),t L-Duildings the increased open space offered . T 1--)e y I­2C:0f7IfT)',.i?nd utS-.ie of i-­izAti.v(-..-? -I-I-e i-- a r-I d g r-a s it.; s.. i.-t I-)d I o t(_sd t 1");'R t i=l 1 t I iC:)UgI'-I t.1 j s t I,--e a fn J.. n o t o f hi i g 1--i e s t q U i.A 1.i t y i.t. [-.)I,--o v j.d e s c.1 o c.,d ri a t t..t r-e iar`easq a n d they s 1--)o i..t 1 d t r-y t o rn i t J g a t e-' d ZA In ira g e as In u(----h as J-D C.)=S i ID 12 0 Dan Kamp clarified for Roger Sic z that garbage will be in the garages. Roger Sicz stated that stop signs will be required on both ends of the private drive to help out Westridge Drive, an d that they should make sure that the approaches are non---- restrictive to the site triangle. Dan Kamp stated that the rest of their issues have been discussed with Planner Wall . Planner Wall asked if there are comments on II the preliminary plat that they be forwarded to him in the next day or two. He stated that since park land has been taken care of - this would be an amended plat. Planner Skelton noted that if one person wold like to represent the public they could read a statement into the record , otherwise the appropriate place for public comment is the City Commission and Planning Board meetings. Planner Skelton stated he has no problem with parking recommendation , but Craig expressed that he feels the more parking the better. Dan Kamp satted that the main reason additional parking was shown is so that parking would not end up on Westridge Drive. Don McBride from the public stated that he feels that the area is too crowded already. Planner Wall clarified that the encroachments on setbacks and height included two-two foot encroachments and two-five foot encroachments with buildings and a two foot encroachment involving one parking area, the total height is 1-1/2 foot over- regulation . Planner Wall stated that they are recommending conformance. Recommendation - Planner Wall recommends that DRC approve the PUD to the planning Board and City Commission with comments and modifications noted , and he asks that they consider the comments provided by the POST committee. Roger Sicz seconded the motion . The motion carried . , De, e _ 4 . � t r � � i + _ . t f I . S j � � _ Y " � � _ 7 t. f � ` f — �i� —_ '� --- p 1� 1 ---- E`r o. Aw a 44 r(o Comae sTogtl C rzc(r I r. _ � , i * � - - - _ �. '� "' Y � i �i K R �; � -- -+ .�`�. �f:--�•� .--� ' iYs , �' }' ..._{—�+_ } .� �-.� `+ t_.. -.� `mot ` 't 1 i. / � � .. 1 > _ _ 1� �.� r� � /: . e •ti � s f !� W ! 1 \ � MEMO April 21, 1992 RE CQUN�'� P1-ANNIN� pA1E TO: Development Review Committee FROM: Phillip J. Forbes, Director of Public Servic RE: Overbrook PUD The following conditions of approval should be included in final action on the referenced project. �1 Using trip generation figure from ITE, this PUD will generate approximately 97 additional trips per day more than the existing subdivision if developed as platted. It is not expected that this will cause an unacceptable drop in the area's roadways service levels. However, while the submitted traffic analysis addresses the intersection of Westridge Drive and South 3rd, no formal intersection analysis is made. This must be done by the applicant's engineer. if the intersection's level of service drops below C, the applicant must mitigate the situation. V21. A waiver of right-to-protest creation of a Special Improvement District for improvements to South 3rd must be signed by the owner(s) and then filed with the County Clerk & Recorder. cc: Craig Brawner, Acting City Engineer i RECEIVED BY BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE gf-IL DATE To: Development Review Committee From Craig E. Brawner , Acting City Engineer Re: Overbrook at Westridge - PUD Date: April 21 , 1992 The following should be included as Final Site Plan (FSP) conditions for any approval of this project : AStorm water: a) That the Stormwater Plan and system design (i . e. unit sizing) be detailed in the PUD Report and the specific engineering calculations supporting the design be included as an Appendix in the report . b) That a detailed Stormwater Maintenance Plan for the stormwater system (designed to remove solids , silt , oils , grease, and other pollutants) be provided to and approved by the City Engineer prior to FSP approval . . c) The FSP include adequate spot, elevation information on the roadway and detention pond basinis' and structures . d) Typical curb and depressed curb" (for drainage) details be provided. e) That the overall stormwater plan be approved by the City Engineer prior to FSP Approval . Plans and Specifications for the water and sewer main extensions, and lift station prepared by a Professional Engineer (PE) shall be provided to and approved by the City Engineer and the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences . The applicant shall also provide Professional Engineering services for Construction Inspection, Post-Construction Certification, and preparation of mylar Record Drawings . �3 . The private drive approaches and sidewalk adjacent to Westridge Dr . shall be constructed in accordance with the City ' s standard approach (i . e. concrete apron and sidewalk section) and be shown as such on the FSP. A City Curb Cut and Sidewalk Permit shall be obtained prior to FSP approval . Additionally , a sidewalk and drop curb (handicap) access shall be provided from Westridge Dr . to the Trail at the Southern property corner . V . Paving: a) Curbing shall be provided and depicted on the FSP around the private street and all parking areas . b) Typical curb details (i . e. raised and/or drop curbs) shall be provided. c) The asphalt section shall comply with section 16 . 26 .050 - Surfacing of the City Ordinance unless Designed in accordance with the . Asphalt Institutes Manual and shall be provided to and approved by the .City Engineer . Page 2 Overbrook PUD 4/21/92 y 5 . Sewer and water services shall be shown on the FSP and approved by the Water/Sewer Superintendent . City of Bozeman Applications for service shall be completed by the applicant . ✓6 . The Montana Fish Parks and Wildlife, SCS, Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences , and Army Corps of Engineer' s shall be contacted regarding the proposed project and any required permits (i . e. 310 , 404, Turbidity exemption, etc . ) sahll be obtained prior to FSP approval . i `�. Flood plain: _ a) A Flood Plain Development Permit must be obtain from the , City Engineer prior to FSP approval . No filling , or other construction activities shall be initiated prior to issuance of this permit . b) The 100 year flood plain boundary and 100 year flood elevation crossections must be depicted on the FSP . c) Culvert sizing design calculations shall be provided .for the stream crossing. d) All buildings must be flood-proofed to at least 2 ' above the 100 year flood elevation. Elevation Certificates must be provided for each building following completions of construction. 8 . The FSP shall include adequate demensioning . The private street width and parking areas configurations must comply with the Zone Code , unless deviations are obtained. from the City Commission. Bog 0 THE CITY OF BOZEMAN -- U 411 E. MAIN ST. P.O. BOX 640 PHONE (406) 586-3321 ' * BOZEMAN. MONTANA 59715-0640 88 CO.�"°� RECEIVED BY BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE t DATE TO: DRC Committee FROM: Roger W. Sicz, Street/Sanitation Superintendent RE: Overbrook at Westridge-Fryslie Street .of Westridge Drive DATE: April 21 , 1992 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Street/Sanitation Department has the following concerns and/or comments regarding the above referenced project: vi) Applicant shall install stop: signs on private .drive at Westridge Drive. , ) Curb cut permits are required for all street approaches . All approaches entering the public street right-of.-way shall be approved by the Engineering Office and be designed to meet City Standards . 3i--�TA �T a r+-;:,� 4 ) Make sure intersections are not restricted ( sight triangle ) at private driveway approaches . I f HOME OF MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY GATEWAY TO YELLOWSTONE PARK -._.. . , ; � � . i i MEMORANDUM ------------------------------------------------------------------ TO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE FROM: KEVIN WALL, ASSOCIATE PLANNER/URBAN DESIGNER6*'LL DATE: 21 APRIL 1992 RE: OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE PUD APPLICATION ------------------------------------------------------------------ The following comments are made in relation to the following application. First , the following zoning relaxations are suggested by the plans submitted: A. 18 . 16 . 020 PERMITTED USES (R-2 District , page 35 ) - proposal entails multi-family development in a single-family district . B. 18 . 16 . 050 YARDS (R-2 District , page 35 ) - two 2 foot encroachments (buildin.gs ) into the required 20 foot rear yard along northern property line ; two 5 foot encroachments (buildings ) into the required 20 foot rear yard along property line separating Lots 19 and 20 from the subject property; one 2 foot encroachment (parking lot) into the required 8 foot side yard along the east property line . C . 18 . 16 . 060 BUILDING HEIGHT (R-2 District , page 35 ) - building height shown on elevations is approximately 25 . 5 feet ; the maximum allowed is 24 feet . D. 18 . 50 . 060 .D Water Course Setbacks (pp. 120 & 121 ) - 35 feet required, building at southwest corner of the site encroaches by 23 feet , a parking area and the building to the west of the stream at the northern part of the site both encroach by 3 feet . E. 18 . 50 . 100 .D. 5 . e STREET FRONTAGE LANDSCAPING REQUIRED (pp. 134 & 135 ) - one large canopy tree installed within the r. o .w. per 50 feet of street frontage ; one is proposed for the 211 ' of street frontage . F. 18 . 50 . 120 .B. 11 PARKING LOT CURBING (page 152 ) - the applicants propose to install curbing around the parking spaces themselves and landscape peninsulas and provide landscaped drainage gutters adjacent to the driveways . G. 18 . 50 . 120 . F. 3 DISABLED ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES (page 152 & UBC Table A-31-A ) - two disabled spaces have been proposed, four are required; because this is a ADA requirement, it can not be waived through the PUD process . H . 18 . 50 . 035 . R BICYCLE RACKS REQUIRED (pp. 117 & 118 ) - bicycle racks for 8 bicycles are required ( 10% of required auto spaces ) , none have been proposed. I . 18 . 50 . 120 . J STACKING OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES - plan proposes to stack required off-street parking spaces in the individual driveways and garages ; this is normally allowed only for single family residences , and townhouses and duplexes with physically separated driveways . The Planning Staff has made recommendations regarding letters B, C , E, to the DRB. Comment regarding D and F have been deferred to other DRC members . In relation to letter I , the Planning Staff is not opposed to the stacking as proposed because the parking spaces are located on driveways which are accessed by a small-scaled, low speed, private drive versus a public street . The following recommendations for conditions of approval are offered for the DRC' s consideration: V1 . A minimum of four (4 ) disabled parking spaces must be provided in accordance with the ADA. These spaces shall be signed as per Ordinance . '/2 . Bicycle racks that provide parking for at least eight ( 8 ) bicycles shall be provided ( 10% of required auto parking ) . Bicycle parking should be dispersed through the development . ✓3 . Because the applicants have proposed 1/3 more parking spaces than required, Staff recommends that the total number of parking spaces be reduced by ten and designate those areas to landscaping (this would leave 20% more spaces than required) . The Planning Staff is also making this recommendation to the DRB. `4. The landscape island in the intersection of the trails should be eliminated due to potential safety hazards from varying circulation patterns and different types of users (walkers , runners , and bikers ) . 2 � This project is sensitive to the physical environment and to the surrounding neighborhood. street and driveways - 31 . 9 % open space & trails - 34. 3 % . building coverage - 14. 7% . landscaped perimeter - 19. 1% � O,E F NEIGHBORHOOD .`~.`..., CONCERNS ~ ' ^- o e >1:)U r iC,�V; E a.c uni 04: -.1 e D1 b - �,X?d cr) e Xnt ci c1^-c^ ri' d, i,tio n, staff summary of drb #1 ) �--' wiIl meet R-'2 zoning regulations for setback and heigth ` ~ . add condition - bu� ldings - utting lots 19 and 20 shall be one story only (for a total of 30 units in the PUD) ~- DOPW h��' ��� r-�--v ~- ` , � � - �[��� ��^��"[�� --' �add condition #��- -�n"-~�p� .- ^` ^ -- 5' delineated - athway on north side of roadway of PUD - clearly designed route for pedestrians A,- � - separated by use of different material than used for __Wj04_( d roa way ��� add conditizn (staff summary of drb #2) at l eEAst t�o addi ti onal street trees shal l be provi(Jed in the Westridge street right of way - perferably along the western part of the street frontage; these should be clustered to provide a better correlation (more natural ) to the stream corridor and proposed open space. .~ add conditiqn #Za�'(.staff summary of drb #6) All sinage shall be subject to review and approval by the DRB prior to Final PLO approval . q,grjLerris whiich are addressed #3 - sidewalk along Westridge #18 - architectural details � ��dd ondit�ion��35 ,_ ~ _c ^ _ . , - stream type native grasses and other vegetation shall be used along the steambed i ! � | U� � add N±oh r�`#36 ` (1-7-L . evelopment~of2the complete steam bed and landscaping to be completed as part of phase 1 of the PUD #15 - meet local , state, and federal water quality standards stream protection #14 - no building to encroach into 100 year flood plain spring (s) to be protectedTrail system , - � ~ - ` r�dd condztion '#3 `: - �he trail syAtem must be finished to the approval of Park and Rec board Traffic conEgrnssi. number of #5 - stop signs at both ends of PUD roadway #2 - Waiver of protest for SID for south 3rd 11 units x 5 ADT (single family res. ) . = 110 ADT 30 units x 5 ADT (condo) = 150 ADT ' - - ' . ' -_'- � RECEIVED BY BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE April 20, 1992 Zo Z_ To: Kevin Wall WE Bozeman, City-County Planning Office From: Gary Vodehnal, P.O.S.T.- Subdivision Review Member Subject: Comments on Overbrook at Westridge in addition to Dennis Semprini ' s comments of February 19, 1992 . * Fully support the proposed trail system along the southwest boundary of the property and feel it would be a very good connection with the Galigator Trail System. Berming, landscaping and adequate set-backs from proposed structures will greatly increase the quality of these trail sections for future users. * Would also favor extending the.. trail system along the stream corridor through the center of the development to the North boundary. POSITIVE IMPACTS; 1) This trail extension would act as a capillary feeder trail which would allow people in the development easier access to the Galigator trail system. 2) Could be extended to the north as the open pasture land on that side of the P.U. D. is developed. 3) Would substitute for a lack of sidewalks in the development. 4) Provides public access so that visitors can more easily visit neighbors by bike or foot. 5) Greater enjoyment and use of stream-side area. 6) Would run along an area of open space which is not scheduled for development, 7) Would be smaller in size than the Main Galigator Route and less expensive to construct, 8) Could serve as a nature trail and provide wildlife viewing and a quiet escape from the surrounding developments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS 1) Additional costs of construction, 2) May be some conflicts with wildlife and impacts on vegetation. These could be minimized with proper placement of the trail and natural rock or vegetation barriers to protect sensitive areas. * Strongly support the clustering of stuctures and higher density of residences with the increased open space which this development offers. * Recommend planting native trees, shrubs and grasses which would use less water and require less maintenance than exotic plantings. * The riparian area within the proposed development may have formed because of storm drainage from Figgins and is not of the highest quality, it is still a very valuable area for wildlife. The developers should be strongly urged to restore and or mitigate damage o this stream system. Th nk f the opportunity to add input on this development. S c e/ , U G ehna1 f. I '�k#fibabt# of Ijubliration orn STATE OF MONTANA, L 1 SS. County of Gallatin, o _ ti 3 Vivie PortnellD� - D -� being duly sworn, rn z a) deposes and says: That s he is Principal Clerko �n of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, a newspaper of general circulation, 71 D printed and published in Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana; and that the C->z r-n notice hereunto annexed ( Conditional Use Permit application by Overbrook Parnership � has been correctly published in the regular and entire issue of every numbs did aper for 1 _CQMeCUivg- ;n c e r r;nn the first of which publication was ade on t l day of April 1992 , and the last on the I ay of A 19 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 29th day of 1999Notary Public for the State of Montana,residing at Bozeman, Montana NOTARY PuauC for the Spate of Montatm Residing at Bozeman,Montana MY Commission expires,Jury 6.1993 - ' 0 b. 0 0 '42 BOZEMAN DAILY CHRONICLE,Sunday, April 19,1992 Hospital y - Air. fares/from page 27 ` appeals for recover of stolen' tissue �� J . lines have variations. paid for tickets to an alternate de: In all the hoopla over lower tination of their choice. MILWAUKEE (AP)—A woman's biopsy station wagon stolen Tuesday.The cooler was officials said Joyce Rohrwasser,54,might have fares, the easing of restrictions on The only stipulations, as Ame tissue was stolen before it could be tested to found hours later,but not the'"woman Is tissue. to undergo additional surgery to remove more non-refundable tickets seems to can Airlines spells out in its rule- determine whether she has cancer.A hospital "A blood sample you can draw again,but tissue.The missing sample contained a mole have been overlooked. But there is that the traveler must meet th offered$1,000 for its return. you can't duplicate the missing tissue,"said that doctors suspect might be cancerous. has been a very basic change in applicable advance-purchase an( The tissue sample—preserved in a small Capt;.Roscoe French in suburban West Allis. The station wagon was abandoned later these tickets, making them much length-of-stay requirements for th( plastic bottle—was among other tissue and In appealing for the return of the tissue Tuesday,police said.No one has been arrest- more flexible to use. new destination. The non-refund blood samples stored in a cooler in a hospital sample Friday,West Allis Memorial Hospital ed in the theft of the car. Until last week, passengers pur- able tickets still require a Saturday chasing a non-refundable ticket night stay and must be purchase tended to be locked into their trip. within 24 hours of making a reser V O f1®����,/ If they wanted to cancel or change vation. V�/ from page 27 their departure or return dates, American anticipates that by ° they faced penalties that ranged up lowering the penalty to$25,the air- Improving Montana's infrastruc- compliance with federal and state ties and household septic tanks, federal 1977 Clean Water Act regu- to a full 100 percent of the ticket line will eliminate the hassle faced `.tore would enhance long-range eco- sewage treatment standards have to Park County Commissioner Carlo lations, adopted by Montana, re- cost. Most of these restrictions by some passengers of getting a .nomic development in the state find the money somewhere," he Cieri has said. quired that drinking water be ex- have been abolished. doctor's note if they became ill and 'because public facilities could meet added. If they don't have the mon- Many communities also face ex- amined for 26 contaminants. By Now travelers taking advantage canceled a non-refundable ticket, 'increased demands, Stephens has ey, they at least have to get on a pensive sewage problems.About 70 1997, the water act will require of non-refundable tickets' cheaper according to spokeswoman Lise argued. "compliance schedule" with the communities or, sewer districts checking for 83 contaminants, said fares can change tickets with rely Olson. Paying the $25 fee to It would also help the state's state. need money to finance improve- Dave Aune,director of engineering five ease for just$25,a nominal ad- change dates or itinerary might be economy in the short run, as mil- One small community—Three ments to their wastewater treat- services for the Water Quality Bu- ministrative fee. For this fee, en- simpler for most travelers. lions of dollars would be pumped Forks — has received some grant ment systems,Anderson said. reau. tirely new departure and return In introducing its new four-tier Into the pockets of engineers, con- money to remove arsenic from its Cooke City's sewage problems Cleansing the water of addition- dates can be booked,which comes fare structure on April 9,American tractors and construction and well water, but the town needs rank 30th on the Health Depart- al contaminants will increase the in handy if a trip must be post- eliminated a variety of ticket Cate drilling crews hired to rebuild ev- more, said Mayor Bonnie Cook. ment's waste water assistance pro- cost of providing drinking water. pond. gories,including such advance-pur- erything from bridges to water sys- The arsenic is believed to flow into gram priority list. That means if And as more contaminants are dis- But in addition, and this is a big chase options as such a and 30pur- tems. the Madison River from the natural- grant money were available,29 oth- covered, it will mean more money plus, travelers can apply the value tickets.However,TWA is still offer- While political leaders squabble ly occurring thermal features er sewage projects most likely will be needed for cleanups. of their unused ticket toward a new ing 14-day and 30-day fares — Aver which party's plan will prevail around Yellowstone National Park. would get money before Cooke When Water Quality Bureau of- ticket. If they so choose, they can some of them cheaper than the 21- and get the credit for a solution, The town requested,but did not City, said Tom Slovarp, environ- ficials, in an experiment, began ex- go to an entirely different destina day tickets other airlines are sell- many Montana communities—par- receive, a community development mental engineer with the Water amining water in a few communi- non- ing— and USAir has retained ticularly the smaller ones—are left grant in 1990. It will ask for a grant Quality Bureau. ties for tetrachlorethylene in 1989, As an example, take the case of some 14-day fares in markets in with water problems they cannot af- again this year,Cook said. On the federal level, Rep. Pat they discovered serious pollution in a couple who books anon-refund- which it competes directly with ford to fix. And it's likely to get. Wilsall was successful in its bid Williams, D-Mont., has said he in- Bozeman at the Nelson Trailer able ticket to San Francisco tout TWA. 'more expensive in the future as for a $335,000 grant late last year tends to introduce a bill soon ask- tend.a convention. At the last Court s water wells, apparently 'stricter clean water laws require the which will allow the community to ing for community funds for small originating from a septic tank un- minute they can't make the trip and Most of the airlines have been 'elimination of pollutants communi- drill a second water well. For the towns and water systems that don't der the Buttrey Shopping Center. have no reason to fly to San Fran announcing their new policies in ties aren't even aware of today. past 1 1/2 years;residents have had have enough money to clean drink- Cisco at a later date.They cant get full-page ads in daily newspapers. Cleaning that site is estimated to . "Financing is a huge problem, access to only one well because the ing water and to replace aging sew cost hundreds of thousands of dol- a refund, but they do get full credit For a while, it could be helpful to both with water and wastewater, community's second well was pol- er systems,according to aides. (less the-$25 fee) for the price they clip them as a way to compare. particularly for smaller communi- luted with nitrates. Communities may need even lays,water officials have said. ties,"Anderson said. The nitrates are believed to have more money to clean polluted water "Communities that aren't in come from fertilizer storage facili- as time goes on, officials said. The NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MEETINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND A SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT. Notice is hereby given of public meetings and public hearings to be held before the Bozeman City-County Planning PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT REVIEW Board at 7:00 P.M.,Tuesday, 5 May 1992,in the meeting room of Bozeman City Hall,411 East Main Street, Bozeman, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of public hearings to be held before the Bozeman City-County Planning Board of Montana,and a public hearing and public meeting before the Bozeman City Commission at 7:00 P.M., Monday, 18 May Tuesday,May 5, 1992,at 7:00 P.M.,in the Commission Meeting Room of Bozeman City Hall,411 East Main Street, 1992,in the meeting room of Bozeman City Hall for the review of a Conditional Use Permit Application for a Planned Unit Bozeman,Montana,and before the Bozeman City Commission on Monday, May 18, 1992,at 3:30 P.M.,in the Development and a Preliminary Plat review for a Major Subdivision requested by the Overbrook Partnership, 4510 Commission Meeting at Main Street, Bozeman, Montana,to consider a Preliminary Subdivision Plat application for Conestoga Circle, Bozeman, Montana, pursuant to Section 18.54 of the City of Bozeman Zoning Ordinance and the West Park Manor Fourth Addition,Bozeman, Montana. Bozeman Area Subdivision Regulations. Said Preliminary Subdivision Play application would allow the applicant,Mr. Robert Simkins for Western general The Conditional Use Permit application would allow the applicant to constyuct 34 condominium units among 10 Enterprises, 124 North Wallace Avenue,to subdivide approximately 8.6530 buildings,and the Preliminary Plat would permit the applicant to aggregate 11 lots and cause the vacation of Fryslie Street. 1. o.,Cno 4 a-At, +- � acres of land into thirty(30) residential lots on land zoned"R-3", Residential- -�; The subject property is described as Lot 16,and Lots 21 through 30 of Block 9, i Medium Density District.The owner of the property is First Trust Company of Figgins Addition, Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, and more commonly Montana, First Bank Building,Bozeman,Montana.The proposed subdivision _ is identified as being a portion of Black 4,and all of Block 5,West Park Manor, known as 517 Westridge and all parcels which front on Fryslie Street. Said74.7 '•, First Addition,City of Bozeman, Montana,and is located in the Northeast Property is zoned "R-2" (REsidential, Single Family, Medium Density) District ' One-Quarter of Section 11,T2S, R5E, P.M.M.,Gallatin County, Montana. It is approximately and is a roximatel 4.67 acres. more commonly located just north of Kirk Park,south of Durston Road and Oral and written testimony will be taken at the public hearings before the .,�'-'� +_Proposed cur/rub f'6 subdivision' " would be divided from south to north by the development of North 23rd Bozeman City-County Planning Board and City Commission. Final decisions of ���; : uRK v� Avenue. the Development Review Committee and Design Review Board pertinent to the Testimony will be taken at the public hearings_Maps and related data Conditional Use Permit may be appealed in accordance with Chapter 18.58 of Plorth of the area under consideration may be reviewed in the City County Planning the Bozeman Zoning Ordinance. Maps and related data regarding this ; I.: —'� Office,35 North Bozeman Avenue, Bozeman, Montana, 586-3321, Ext.227. application may be reviewed in the Bozeman City-County Planning Office, Andrew C. Epple 35 North Bozeman Avenue, 586-3321, Ext.227- , a-L u IN Planning Director -Andrew C.Epple,Planning Director - -- Bozeman City-County PlanningDepartment 1 1. . x ANA It A, r .uh - I P z - ,r 3 g a 1 � 4xdi"gArw- y- EY u � n y ' -i. '.S' inn :n. vuww'e_VL+.+ c.3Y.f:w ibnY'K„EF6'GSS,R'� C w uyy - i' , n r n L L, J 44 1� FORD ESCORT FORD TEMPO TOTAL CASH BACK FORD PROBE iW TOTALrAQHPACK ���� ° rOTALCAQH BACK ; P�Us $_ Plus OR LOW FINANCING F FROM OR L W FINANCING OR LOW FINANCING FR�M FORD s' FROM FORD : - (ap&BrNWyourlomMonb Ford Del h 5/2/92 Bnl I Get Swing Sunvings From Your FOrd08waler! ` IVd®nt � Good Throng y• DATE. 192 Buy an '92 Tempo, Escort or Probe in stock! Then, after ,=�- I y y p you make your best deal- your Ford P.M.N9Dealers Dealer will give you an additional $500 cash back on top of the national rebate, or low financing. PAY Id" E 0A ER 0E- ` 7. Fire n ,� - R i � Thssnotad�eckThssararmadA*capaitausemyatapartici gMorxanarorddeolelsh�p. You do rut need mscowonto move anaduro M$500casnl�anmepumaseotanEscort Probe or Tempo. Based on an additional$500 cash back from participating Montana Ford Dealers and$500 cash back from From Ford on Escort,$500 cash back directly from .inMone$5DOcasfrbadcbonus per a :fsalsakson.t1[f m�9h �M':° ,: ,,,. .' ( �IWoft1 ' x' Ford on Probe and $500,cash back from Ford on,Tempo. Cash back offer ends May 2, 1992. See your Montana Ford Dealer for complete details. 7- 0 ' BOZEMAN DAILY CHRONICLE,Sunday, April 19,1992 41 - tulopar disc ! 695 Auta Patts�tise 695.Auto PartWisc 695 Aulo RartsfNisC 720-Autos For Sale 7204utos For Sale We Are Off - '90 NISSAN 1981 DATSUN 310,very clean low BUICK SKYLARK,4dr., SENTRA Balance! g low miles.$2800.587-1700pm V looks sharp.$800.•587-0885 w Like new,2 Door, Cars&Trucks , 1982 CHEVY IMPALA, air, y good tires, low mileage. Don't let bad, Very Low Miles, Needed Fastl r $1800/offer. Call 1-932-4143 Excellent MPG. credit stop you We need 50-60 clean , 1984 FORD ESCORT,good Equipped with 5' condition.$1000. • 587-3148 from buying a units now.Business is up, , A ® g Speed,Stereo our inventor is low. If you i 1985 CHEVY Caprice Classic, y y p new or used Cassette. Balance of Machine 2dr.,P/S,P/B,elec.windows/ have a unit to sell, please call or bring it , Engine & Supply locks,loaded,25mpg.,excell. I Factory warranty. s vehicle. down.We're buying&consigning.Chances : cond. $4000.•585-5594 aft.6 $6850. s 1986 Merc Cougar LS, EFI, CALL Call 586-8969 or are,you'll have some quick dollars. +� Offers 5.0 V8, auto, loaded, 85,000 586-4575 586-6900 Eves. Call now! Precision Manufactured Exchange Engines at Affordable Prices. mi. , new tires, clean. $4,000 See Burt,Greg&Larry Ostermiller a Or we will custom rebuild our engine in our modern or best'587-5744 eves. For A Good Honest Deal,It's The Guys At y g 1988 BUICK REGAL, show- RAINBOW "plant here In Bozeman. ,ne/ room condition, Digital read- out, A/C, tilt, C/C, Delco ster- WE DO WHATEVER EVAUTO SALES ` eo,V-6, auto WOD. Sapphire �e • QualIty Service • Quick Turn Around Time • blue.$6,100. Call 587-7016 1T TANGS -THE HOME OF FLITEWAY PICKUP TOPPERS• • Precision Manufacturing• Durable FInished Product • '68 Chevy Impala Clean, one 1340 East Main Installation Available owner, new V-8 engine. '92 FORD CROWN VIC LX 4 DR 586-0224 Bozeman,MT $650/offer 586-0559 eves. #92001; Loaded,was$24.797...Now$22,602 . 73 Datsun 610 wgn, runs Call Mark or Joye for availability and prices today! good, needs work. First$150 '92 FORD ESCORT LX WGN "There its no substitute for Quality" takes it.388-7295 #92056; Red,Was$12,802•..••••Now$11,775 ®— ® ° ® ° WE ®--° ® ° GOVERNMENT SEIZED '92 FOR EXPLORER 4X4 We Have Bank Financing AvaAabfe O.A C Engine Machine S� Supply Vehicles from $100. Fords, *92108;Silver,Was$22,442.NOW$21,050 v1►e Cori;fi n Cars&Truclks at Mercedes, Corvettes, Chevys. '92 FORD CUSTOM PICKUP 4X4 y Surplus. Buyers Guide. 2006 Gilkerson a Bozeman • 587-2611 1-805-962-8000 Ext.S-8335 #92142;5 Spd,Was$16,001..NOW$14,9868 1981 FORD 1 TON DUMP TRUCK GOVERNMENT SEIZED '92 FORD PICKUP XLXT 4X4 2 Yard NOW=4951 ® © Vehicles from $100. Fords, ( ) A 95 Aute PartslMisC 705•Prom Wheel Drive 720-Autos For Sale 720 Autos Foi Sate Mercedes, Corvettes, Chevys. #92123,5 spd.........................NOW$12,1N 1979 JEEP CHEROKEE 4X4 a ® ° Surplus. Buyers Guide. 92 FORD PICKUP 3/4 CST 4X4 2 Dr........................................NOW 116 '77 Chevy pickup Box 1975 LE SABRE Custom, 1 1-805-962-8000 Ext.S-8335 #92133; Was$2o,W4.........Now$18,850 ®— ° 1980 JEEP CHEROKEE 4X4 s ® ° 85 Chrysler Laser XE Good Cond.$100.586-9119 sharp looking and fun to drive. owner,exc.cond.586-1614pm 586.8056 '78 Plymouth '92 PICKUP 3/4 XLT 4X4 4 Dr...................................NOW 1979 , Great mechanical cond. Exc. 1975 RED TRANS AM,400, SW, 6 cyl. auto, 22mpg, good BUYING A CAR, ® ° O(1-FOurWheel I)r9ve tires. Beautiful car inside and 4spd.,runs great.Good tires, cond.,new tires,$795/offer. #92141;Was$22,260........... Now$19,885 1969 FORD F150 4X2 1 TRUCKOR Wood Hauler............................NOW out$3,200. 763-4605 good cond.$2250.587-8934 '79 1/2 T Jeep Golden Eagle =�V ® ° w/350 Chevy eng. 388-6313 MOTORCYCLE? STETSON FORD 1977 CHRYSLER LeBARON it 72 Chevy 350, 4 spd., 4x4 85 Type 10, Fuel-Injected 76 Monte Carlo looks & runs — Chevy Cavalier, looks & runs great,$2,000/offer. 586-5448 '73 Comet, 302 V8, new 1 ® ° 4 or,Auto,AC..........................NOW 877 lean,$2,700/offer,587-4619. Don t waste valuable Big Timber CLASSIC AUTO good,$2,500,388-6294. '77 Dodge Brougham. 4 dr, Paint, $750. 586-7652 eves. or Cell Bob, e ' 72 Toyota Landcr.w/snwplw, 763.4568 day.Ask for Rob. time and $$Use Our Stetson,or Pat ..................932-5967,Office ° ° 85 VW GTI. NEW paint, cruise, air, must sell by 4/18. 506 North 7th • Bozeman,Mt , xc.eng.$1,750.763-4337 (black w/tint) tires&more,air. $300/offer.Steve 586-0719 1977 FORD LTD,new 351 eng FREE Service. Let US Bob Newman Home..............587 0908 Eves. under warrant •........1-800.537-39iZ 586-0193 73 FJ 40. Landcruiser, Xlent cond! $3,800.287-3582 y,excell.cond. find It for OU!ANY Call Toll Free.............. ® ° ® ° ood mechanically 285-3531 78 Chrysler LeBaron looks & y John Moran•Ron Biery,Home 586-7315 + 86 Oldsmobile Royale runs good,$1,000. 388-0115 Min offer,$2000. 587-1536 Y 9 year, make or model 73 Jeep Comando. Good Brougham. Deluxe dream of• - — 1977 TOYOTA CELICA,good IN YOUR AREA ° ® ° © ® ° ® ° ® ° ° '79 Mazda GLC, sunroof, shape,Classic$975 586-2596 a car. Air, burgundy w/plush condition, runs great.$1000. am/fin/cass,$900. 763-4337 fl '74 Ford 4WD,3/4 ton, inter. xlent engine troube free; Call 587-0034/leave messa e. I f h g 9 CALL NOW l� k = s 1 i' $1,500/offer,1-222-3854. PNr acc: window, door lock, 80 Toyota Corolla SR5 1979 CADILLAC PHEA- / �� "=k .may ']�ul� RI '�� ��� M Dal, \ '76 Ford 1/2 T, 30 K mi on en- trunk release, gas cap re- + Hatchback,5 spd,am/fm cas TON COUPE, rare model, 800-NWLIST 1 lease, seats; brand new radial sette,new brakes&struts. '. ivR gine,$1,800/offer.586-8024 67,000 miles, 425 hp, new pre- rr��`�M 2 !� j � '� tires, & block heater. $6,400. $1200.5s6-1729 eves,or mium tires, full cloth top re- ®I(�l p WWL��p 76 Scout$1,700,w/snow 587-4190 eves. leave message sembles convertible, has AUTO [ '� v,� v plow$2,400.586-7047 '87 Nissan Maxima,loaded, '82 Cadillac Biarritz, 4.1 L. every option available in 1979, i�UTO � � "`� TRAIGHT e-J 78 Chevy Blazer, good $7,500/offer,587-1301. front wheel dr., low mi-, rose- excellent condition, $4,800. Your HOT connection) � �„`� ® j cond. 90 K mi, $2,450/offer. •87 Toyota Celica, 5 spd., wood color,$1,500,587-4641. Ph.266-4252 ask for John. y 587-0039 s ' �® ," cruise, air, power sunroof, ®®' F_'�. '78 GMC 1/2 Ton 4x4,short hatchback, cass., FUN, RELI- 8Je pw50,auto,5offer v ABLE CAR EXCELLENT 4 r '78 Jeep wgn,best offer over SHAPE $7,295 E�- $500,388-1677 586-1739EAT '78 Subaru GL, 4x4, needs ALK '88 Dodge Daytona. Air, About Used Vehicles work. 587-7730 best offer, cruise,Xlent Cond!388-1481 r [ w�5 NOW '79 Ford 3/4 Ton, su ercab, '88 Toyota Tercel, am/fm, $4,500/offer.581i-5712 P cass, air, runs great, well r._ '91 Chevrolet Suburban 4x4 $ - '81 Subaru Wagon, good, maintained.$3,950.222-0612 „ In t Power DL......................................$18,995................ 1 7,995 j Air,Cruise,Tilt, E�; '89 Honda Civic air, cd/stet- � ` ' 1 Nissan Stanza XE cond., runs good, high/low Auto,AC,AM/FM Cass,Cruise,Tilt..........................$12,995..................$1 1,595 E.range,995-2298 after Spin. eo, 32 K mi, 2 sets of toes, F 82 Chevy 1/2 ton , S!Iverado, xlent cond.$4,900.585-8844 '90 Ford Aerostar 4X4 exc. cond.,new 6.2L eng., '89 PONTIAC GRAND AM Auto,Air,Cruise,Power Windows&Locks.................$14,995..................$12,995 _ auto.,587-9504 or 587-3163. 4dr.,low miles.388-4629 t '90 Mazda 323 auto., Suburban like new cond., '90 Chrysler LeBaron con �1°, .. xlent in all respects. V8, auto, vertible,exc.cond: w/many ex- t 5 Spd,Air,AM/FM Cassette ...................... $7995.......................7,395 i;, air.$6,250 firm...........333-4358 tras,low mi.,222-7844. Dodge Spirit 84 Subaru 4x4 GE Wagon. '` '90 Honda Accord DX, white, I p $ Xlent shape!Low miles!. 25 K mi,$10,500.586 3914 I. 90 Auto,Air,Power Windows&Locks................... ....$9995...................... 8,795 ... ... . .:. 90 Ford F 150 4x4 XLT Lariat$3,900/best offer.587-2186 '90 Nissan Stanza XE, low mi., , } Loaded.............................................................. $9,950/off.,586-15141v.ins .,..: $14 995 ..............$13 995 '85 S15 GMC Club Cab 4x4, 9 :« :•�.. " '� � .. topper, bed liner, a/c, new '91 Maxima GXE, An power :,' 90 Jeep Cherokee Limited 4x4 $ tires, 50K,Sharp!763-4262. equip. Showroom new, low .....$19 995......... 7 ile I � Loaded ..•.. _ , 1 ! ,995- . $6 Dodge Colt Vil a dY4. Mile r !%Or CI 1t t r u!r)i t.!Cr Rc.r•'_y,t n f� loaded.$5,200*388 6199eves 1981 Plym.Horizon,runs good �rrt�le 16,995 't Cavalier de endable.$478. 587 3786 Auto,Air............................................................$7695...................... '86 GL Wagon, 4x4, 5 spd, P very nice,$3,850.587.5169. 1984 PRELUDE,blue,power '90 Toyota Corolla sunroof,auto.,good condition, t $ '86 Subaru XT`Coupe, Royal g Auto,Air............................................................$8995...................... 7,995 Blue,5spd., turbo, loaded, sun $4500.Call 2288/Iv.msg. '89 GMC Safari Van SE tT" CATCH THE SAVIIOIGS o t roof, excellent cond., 72 K mi, 1987 TOYOTA Camry Wagon, $ $6,800/best offer. 587-3421. A/C, auto, Cruise, tilt, cass. Loaded,One Owner...p..�......................................$12,495................ 11 ,995 86 TOYOTA 4-runner. 59K. $7500: Call 587-8075 DURING OUR SPRING '89 Honda Civic CRX Very clean car,only 56,000 1988 PONTIAC GRAND PRIX $ r�^ Red,Sharp.........................................................$8995 7995 ....................... Y LE.$4900. Call 585-2295 SALES ����„�, '89 Audi 100Q 4x4 xlent cond., sun roof, stereo, 171 miles,$8,700.586-2627 '86 To ota truck red, 5 spd, 1989 Escort GT,White, Beau- Air,Sunroof, Power Windows&Locks.............. ........$19,995................ 15,995 �`� rest mile only 5OK PAMPERED HERE ARE SOME OF THE GREAT SAVINGS topper, growing family must miles, sunfoof, cruise, air, 89 VW Convertible sell.$5,500/offer.586-9256 am/fm, cass., very reliable, ' Air,Cruise,5 Speed . $ _............ . ............................. 12,995................$1 1 ,995 '87 Nissan Pathfinder, new only$5,275.388-0114 '89 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer 4x4 clutch, tire,engine(warranty). 1990 TEMPO GL. Cruise,pwr. $9,000/trades considered. door locks,auto,A/C,AM/FM MEE= pTahoe,LOoaded......... .........................................$11,995................$10,995 Randy 586-5452 or388-0111 cassette. No reasonable offer 88 Audi 80 refused. 388-3348.585-3561 Pow.Windows&Locks,AC,Sunroof,Low Miles...........$12 995. 11 995 88 1/2 ton Silverado Subur- $ ban, blue, loaded, 135K, great SUPER SHARP!! '88 Chevy Beretta cond.$9,000/off.1-578-2386. '89 Audi 100,auto,low miles, EQUIPPED WITH: vy $ 171 $15,250.586-0030 • • • • • Air,5 Speed.......................................................$6595...................... 5,995 1-1 '88 Ford Ranger X-cab STX, V6 Auto .Stereo .Air Conditioning Rear Window char-metalic w/red int, cap, lin- Defogger • Speed Control - '88 Audi 90 er,58K mi.,$8,900.587-8876. itOColel aAuto #3838 Leather,One Owner,Low Miles...............................$12,995................$10,995 171 88 Toyota 4x4, air,stereo, roll Retail '$16,641.00 88 Chevrolet Corisea bar,lift-kit,$5,888/off 586-7170 '70 Chevy Impala convertible, 89 GMC Suburban SLE,load- $3,750.586-2122 -Charlie. Danhof Disc. 1,512.00 Air,Auto,Low Miles..............................................$6495...................... 5,495 ed, excellent, $16,500/offer, '76 Slant 6,4 dr, Dodge Sedan * - '88 VW Fox Wagon 587-1180 or 586-6313 after 6. orig. paint&interior.Ony 48 K Fact' Rebate 750.00 5 Speed,Air,Cassette.......... $ 1,91 mi.$1,500.Sharp!586-2187 � .. ......................$7995............ ......... 5,995 �S 10 Blazer: '89 S 10 SELLING ' Pick-up w/topper. 682-7424 1964 JAGUAR,V-8,auto., PRICE. 14137� ', ...... ............................. 95...................$9,9 `,, ® 87 Audi 50005 '91 Ford Ranger STX 4x4, original,very good condition. r I Loaded One Owner,Red $1 O 9 95 4.oL V6,5 spd.,short bed, $7000/offer. Call 1-287-3782 ° - ft 87 Subaru 4x4 Hatchback or 6.9/°for 481fI0f11hS 0.0.[. e�.� �+ s alum.wheels,AM/FM cass., Classic 1950's Willy's Jeep El One Owner................................... ...................$5995......................$4,695 cloth seats,$9,800. Gun-metal gray,rollbars,can- '87 Plymouth Reliant Gall 1-646-7936 . vas top,4WD(climbs anything) $ Perfect off-the-road(climb sport ° e ! , , Auto,Air............................................................$5995...................... 4,995 '92 CHEV/G.M.C. Pickups. I our price=price dealer pays vehicle. $800 before engine 87 Audi 5000TQ 4X4 anufacturer+$49. Free overhaul,$1100 after. See in One Owner $9995. $7 995 uote. Call 1-800-635-8000 Livingston. For info-587-1167 - , Dave smith Mtrs. Retail $12 350.00 86 Chrylser New Yorker $ Danhof Disc. 1,597.00 Auto,Turbo,Loaded.............................................$7995...................... 5,995 979 CHEV 3oTon84X4 Sub- 87 Honda CRX SI, black ; Fact. Rebate 1,150.00* '85 Ford Tempo $ CHE Auto ..................$3995...................... 2,995 cod cond.$3 ON •........................................... rban.$750/offer. Call sun roof, 56,700 mi. great : First Time Buyer 400.00 1 $ 88-2033 or 585-9159 after 5. cond.,$6,995/offer,586-2106. <a . 5 Dodge Colt Vista Van...........................$3495...................... ,795 980 DATSUN pickup, runs To give awn '79 Firebird, when you buy '80 Trans Am SELLING ® '84 Ford Bronco 4x4 real. Extras.after$2100 offer: 9 Y Y PRICE $9,203 Full Size,Air,Cruise.............................................$7995......................15,995 � all 586-6878 after FPM. for best reasonable offer. See 85 E UBAR.0 Ilon,A/C, at 416 N.Montana•587-4954. #3660 *or 6.9%for 48 months o.o.[. 75 Chevy Pickup pd.,1 ,rd./tires, Auto,Air,Auto,Camper......... ......... ...................$3995......................$2,995 can. $ 0 !cffer•5ss 1651 7F0QutosForSak Zero down on approved credit. Up to 60 mo. financing on the spot 89 RAIDER 4X4,2dr.,V-6, • i 1 a ver/black, 24,000 actual '83 Chev Monte Carlo S/S, Come In les.$8500/offer.•586-1801 305, PS,PB,am/fm cass., low } mi.,)owner,587-4641. Dreams do come true... 1990 Ford F 350,1 Ton, r. riat, Turbo diesel, many ex- '83 Cutlass Olds Wagon, Loaded ' y For A Test s,orig.owner,587-1886 good running cond.585-9923 sometimes. Retail $21 710.00 ¢tlm Q (w)or 585 9759(h)Sandra Drive & 90 FORD RANGER,ext.cab -'-' r tastic condition.-1 owner, '83 Ply. Hor. 4 dr HB, $1,200. Danhof DISC. 3,275r00 , 700mi.,60/in cloth seats, '78up. Datsun K-cab., 5 spd pick- Fact. Rebate 500.00* DOLLY PARTON JAMES WOODS Receive A 17 o.,Power windows/doors, up.$1,200.585-8833 aft.4pm � ? am/fm Cassette, push- '87 Toyota Celica, 5 spd., SELLING #369� STRAIGHT on 4X4(no hubs to turn), cruise, air, power sunroof, 1 93 / Free clean. Call 587-8479 hatchback, Cass., FUN, RELI- PRICE , a 1 CHEVY Ext. Cab 4X4 ABLE CAR - EXCELLENT *or6.9°/1for48monthso.a.[. g Ticket To gbox, auto, loaded w/ex- SHAPE $7,295 > ' Must Sell! •587-1396. 586-1739 r.A.LK �� 1 Ford H/D F250,Super '89 Ford Bronco II XLT Straight 4X4,460,5spd.O/D,XLT Cruise,5 spd,all electric, A I I Rebates to Dealer » 17-7 at,loaded. Call 586-0147 47,000 miles,Xlent cond, A Modern-Day Cinderella story. Talk ust Sell'84 S10 Extended $9,200.586-2627 sb,Sport pkg.,loaded,low '91 BUICK CENTURY,$9,785. (per test drive i.,$4,400/off.,586 1670. V-8,A.T.,A/C,Pwr.Wind.&Lks I •• '• •►• "" 27 from Carmike) L J Ider Suburban,3/4 ton, Tilt/Cruise&more.(sn621505) Theatre n 1611 S.1 lth AVE.•587 43 '91 G.M.cars in stock D,mechanical) excellent, << y Call 1-800-635-8000. a::: ®•Cn,•1•YTfU FY,Y[,YOT.rrtrvnF,ois en m•..ne. m $2,500/offer,586-4244. GALLAT/N VALLEYS OTHER CHEVROLET DEALER t ®, cxaLuwooncrvuFca.nur „euawvw.cions Dave Smith Mtrs. Ch k D h l �3 Hm A 763s Drive Our Way&We'll Deal Your Way! cmn H-inter•Hm zaz gaol �1,,�� '91 CADILLAC SEVILLE, A^erom �'r'r' ca vans^rPan•Hm 388 N54 Hm.-A4 138� '7 - Tom Crystal Bill Ross - John Hampson Jim Murray $18,985. Beautiful and loaded Glen Fdsan•Hm.se ans 81 CHEVY CITATION. with equip. (stk#P730). 43 A10RflFOPLEARFWINN�NCWrFH mE DriveAL7ttle 586-1036 586-8025 222-7355 388-4341 pd,4dr,FWD.AM/FMcass 91 G M cars in stock at big sAveALou! ri,_ /e reliable.$975/offer discounts: Free Quote. Call oFAMfRxAlocHrScr+fvRocfr �Y Serving Our Customen In Several Counties Since 1937 and Still Crowing! D 586-0069 eves. 1-800-638-8000. _, Dave Smith Mtrs. ®° , HOURS: , 64t2! 1 t• tv, y ' Ford Escort,exc.Cond. N 8 A.M.T06 P.M. c xr 1 1975 CHEVY IMPALA,blue, 1 nosed sundaes �°y _ exc.mech.,71 K mi., ~~ , $700/offer. Ca11586-5369 Lu»s,e�ss;nle l^lend �., t21 QZtt�tl 44nd SL'f'VICE";Weistft72t:r1/Ji rjt[tpl?t�It v' $2,000/off.,587$550, On .GMAC-Bank• �� "c.- CHEVROLE7 Sman Leasc - �Tr. Kmp ChmkinA put Invcnlury + '� t`1°t' [ s t r ulek Sk lark, looks ly 58 K mi, '81 Delta 88 Amsledam-Churchill FreshTradclns• Re-1Cariven±entfyfawredor:€htastrannyg•t;>cd*58bµI77t Y 7 1 2 M'Ics s wth 13 Ma hatta lease great,auto,air,4-dr, Olds. New cond., body xlent. 1tr_w,�r•rAelRrde ONLY20 MINUTES FROM 80ZFMAN ARRIVING REGULARLY r Y 195/offer ^5864119 \Wl. 1,950,587-4601. $2, t' + i :�•: ': .. _ 9 ® NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MEETINGS ` CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND A SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT. Notice is hereby given of public meetings and public hearings to be held before the Bozeman City-County Planning Board at 7:00 P.M.,Tuesday,5 May 1992,in the meeting room of Bozeman City Hall,411 East Main Street, Bozeman, Montana,and a public hearing and public meeting before the Bozeman City Commission at 7:00 P.M., Monday, 18 May 1992,in the meeting room of Bozeman City Hall for the review of a Conditional Use Permit Application for a Planned Unit Development and a Preliminary Plat review for a Major Subdivision requested by the Overbrook Partnership, 4510 Conestoga Circle, Bozeman, Montana, pursuant to Section 18.54 of the City of Bozeman Zoning Ordinance and the Bozeman Area Subdivision Regulations. The Conditional Use Permit application would allow the applicant to construct 34 condominium units among 10 buildings,and the Preliminary Plat would permit the applicant to aggregate 11 lots and cause the vacation of Fryslie Street. The subject property is described as Lot 16,and Lots 21 through 30 of Block 9, S Figgins Addition, Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, and more commonly known as 517 Westridge and all parcels which front on Fryslie Street. Said property is zoned 'R-2' (REsidential, Single Family, Medium Density) District I4 and is approximately 4.67 acres. i Oral and written testimony will be taken at the public hearings before the `y -•_Proposed cup/pun f �►L -& subdivision Bozeman City-County Planning Board and City Commission. Final decisions of �; : , ,-} �,•'? I the Development Review Committee and Design Review Board pertinent to the Conditional Use Permit may be appealed in accordance with Chapter 18.58 of the Bozeman Zoning Ordinance. Maps and related data regarding this application may be reviewed in the Bozeman City-County Planning Office, i :—Ir I IN ' 35 North Bozeman Avenue, 586-3321, Ext.227. Andrew C.Epple,Planning Director r i �4 THE CITY OF BOZEMAN 411 E. MAIN ST. P.O. BOX 640 PHONE (406) 586-3321 * i BOZEMAN. MONTANA 59715-0640 K 'Ei � D BYBOZE IAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE TO: DR C - DATE FROM: Fred Shields, Superintendent of Water/Sewer RE: Plan Review Comments - �G�� 1j a DATE: • '�� /v_^,O,�c� cz.�.�-cam• � � � . HOME OF MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY GATEWAY TO YELLOWSTONE•PARK t Date Received: 3/31/92 DRB Review: 4/21/92 DRB Action: STAFF SUMMARY OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION #Z-9230 ------------------------------------------------------------------ APPLICANT: THE OVERBROOK PARTNERSHIP, 4510 CONESTOGA PROJECT ADDRESS , FRYSLIE STREET, PUD NOT IN AN OVERLAY DISTRICT, DISTRICT & ZONE: R-2 ZONE DATE: 16 APRIL 1992 REPORT BY: WALL ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 . ) Project Description: The following application is for a Planned Unit Development to allow a multi-family development within an R-2 District. The applicants propose to construct 34 condominium units among 10 buildings on a 4 . 67 acre site . The project is also currently undergoing a Preliminary Plat review to aggregate the parcels in question into a single lot . The site plan incorporates a driveway which loops through the property. Parking will be located directly off of this driveway, in the driveways of individual units , and in garages ( 76 . 5 spaces required - 100 proposed) . The property is currently fairly swampy and acts as a storm drain outlet for the Figgins Subdivision; there is also a live stream on the property. To eleviate the surface water issues , the applicants propose to create a defined stream bed, with appurtenant detention areas , to act as a centerpeice to the project. The applicants propose to include two trail dedications as part of the project . The first would act as an extension of the Gallagator Trail along the western boundary of the site and the second would act as a connector between the Gallagator and Westridge Drive (this link is existing in somewhat of a legitimized trespass manner) . The lanscape plan includes a variety of planting materials including weeping birch, patmore green ash, scotch pine , colorado spruce , laurel leaf willow, cottonless cottonwood, quaking aspen, potentilla, junipers , and other unidentified evergreen shrubs . 1 The proposed buildings are generally located along the outer periphery of the site ( immediately abutting the adjacent B-P and A-S Districts) with the exception of two four unit structures which are proposed to be located behind Lots 19 and 20 (refer to site plan) and a duplex behind Lot 31 . The buildings will generally be arranged so that there are two units on the ground floors and two on the upper floors . Access into the units will be provided from the exterior and from the interior of the garages . The building design incorporates multiple ridge lines and gable ends . Shed roofed gables and porch coverings, and extended eaves are also included. The predominate exterior building material is lap siding (although no specifics have been provided regarding the siding) , and other proposed materials include selective use of wood shingles for siding and a board-and-batten-type siding . The applicants propose to alter siding treatments somewaht from building to building . The window openings are generally rectangular with a trimboard ( scales to approximately 4" wide ) . The windows are generally single sashed. The entrys into the individual units include paned glass doors and a liberal amount of glass in the vicinity of the doorways to emphasis the entry. 2. ) List of Requested Deviations: The plan has proposed relaxations of the following Zoning Ordinance provisions : A. 18 . 16 . 020 PERMITTED USES (R-2 District, page 35 ) - proposal entails multi-family development in a single-family district . B. 18 . 16 . 050 YARDS (R-2 District , page 35 ) - two 2 foot encroachments (buildings) into the required 20 foot rear yard along northern property line ; two 5 foot encroachments (buildings ) into the required 20 foot rear yard along property line separating Lots 19 and 20 from the subject property; one 2 foot encroachment (parking lot ) into the required 8 foot side yard along the east property line . C . 18 . 16 . 060 BUILDING HEIGHT (R-2 District, page 35 ) - building height shown on elevations is approximately 25 . 5 feet ; the maximum allowed is 24 feet . D. 18 . 50 . 060 .D Water Course Setbacks (pp. 120 & 121 ) - 35 feet required, building at southwest corner of the site encroaches by 23 feet , a parking area and the building to the west of the stream at the northern part of the site both encroach by 3 feet . E. 18 . 50 . 100 .D. 5 . e STREET FRONTAGE LANDSCAPING REQUIRED (pp. 134 & 135 ) - one large canopy tree installed within the r. o.w. per 50 feet of street frontage ; one is proposed for the 211 ' of street frontage . 2 F. 18 . 50 . 120 .B. 11 PARKING LOT CURBING (page 152 ) - the applicants propose to install curbing around the parking spaces themselves and landscape peninsulas and provide landscaped drainage gutters adjacent to the driveways . G. 18 . 50 . 120 . F. 3 DISABLED ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES (page 152 & UBC Table A-31-A) - two disabled spaces have been proposed, four are required; because this is a ADA requirement , it can not be waived through the PUD process . H . 18 . 50 . 035 .R BICYCLE RACKS REQUIRED (pp. 117 & 118 ) - bicycle racks for 8 bicycles are required ( 10% of required auto spaces ) , none have been proposed. I . 18 . 50 . 120 . J STACKING OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES - plan proposes to stack required off-street parking spaces in the individual driveways and garages ; this is normally allowed only for single family residences , and townhouses and duplexes with physically separated driveways . These relaxations are being evaluated by the Development Review Committee as well . The Planning Staff will make recommendations regarding letters D, F, G, H, and I through the DRC review. 3 . Architectural Review: See comments under "Staff Conclusions . " 4 . Historic Preservation Officer Comments: Not applicable to proposal . 5 . Expressed Public Opinion: The Planning Office has received a number of letters and a petition in opposition to the project ( see attached) . 6 . Staff Conclusions: As a whole , Staff finds that the project as proposed conforms to the "Design Objectives and Criteria Evaluation" Forms outlined Section 18 . 54 . 100 . E of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) for the review of Planned Unit Developments as they relate to neighborhood compatibility and site design. Other issues such as environmental standards and utilities are being evaluated by the Development Review Committee . Staff would note that under the conventional landscaping standards , the plan has earned over 50 performance points ( required a minimum of 23 ) . Therefore , Staff recommends that the Board recommend approval of this proposal to the City-County Planning Board after considering the following comments and recommended conditions : 1 . To better ensure neighborhood compatibility, the minimum setbacks and height requirements of the R-2 District shall be observed (this should be easily accomplished) . 3 2 . At least two additional street trees shall be provided in the Westridge street right-of-way, preferably along the western part of the street frontage ( i . e . , not Fryslie Street) ; these should be clustered to provide a better correlation (more natural ) to the stream corridor and proposed open space . 3 . Because the applicants have proposed 1/3 more parking spaces than required, Staff recommends that the total number of parking spaces be reduced by ten and designate those areas to landscaping ( this would leave 20% more spaces than required) . 4 . The orientation of one of the buildings immediately north of Lots 19 and 20 should be shifted to the north/northwest to reduce apparent repetition of building masses . 5 . Architectural treatments should be diversified from building to building as is eluded to in the application; i . e , some with wood shingle detailing and others without, differing window shapes from building to building , and the like (the applicant has stated that this is the intent of the developers ) . This is recommended so that the development as a whole will still be cohesive at the district scale , but will not be monotonous at the human scale . Additionally, the more visible side elevations ( such as on the building at the southwest corner of the site adjacent to the trail vs . side elevations which face side elevations on other buildings ) should include windows . The use of window bays should be considered to provide additional relief. The final design of all building elevations shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to Final PUD approval . 6 . The application has stated that the proposed signage will conform to the Bozeman Area Sign Code . All signage shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to Final PUD approval . 7 . Due to the over-use of the patmore green ash in the City, a comparable alternative should be sought . Additionally, flowering trees and/or shrubs ( such as crab apples and lilacs) shall be incorporated along the entry drives . Staff concludes that it is 4 • ICI appropriate to allow these planting materials to replace a portion of the proposed aspens and shrubs . i i i i 5 i I 3 0 MEMORANDUM ------------------------------------------------------------------ TO: CRAIG BRAWNER, ACTING CITY ENGINEER PHILL FORBES , PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR \\ FROM: KEVIN WALL, ASSOCIATE PLANNER/URBAN DESIGNER4� DATE: 16 APRIL 1992 RE: OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE PUD ------------------------------------------------------------------ In relation to the aforementioned project, the submitted plans suggest a relaxation of the continuous curbing and water course setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance . I request that through your review of the project that you evaluate these relaxations as to whether or not they are workable under the particular circumstances of the site and proposal . Additionally, I request that you pay special attention to the applicable PUD criteria on the checklists provided on pages 221 through 228 of the Zoning Ordinance . Please call me if you have any questions or concerns prior to the DRC review next Tuesday. Of Tisi tWdd4fe 8K TcuXs 1400 So. 19th Bozeman, MT 59715 April 15, 1992 Kevin Wall Associate Planner 35 North Bozeman Avenue Bozeman, MT 59715 Dear Kevin: I have inspected the site on Fryslie Street involving Lots 10, and Lots 21 - 30 of the Figgins Addition. The small stream which runs through the sit has minimal fisheries potential, but is worth protecting with the 35-foot stream setback. I have no problems with the plan as shown. Sin rely, 4&"6&, /—) Richard Vincent Regional Fisheries Manager RV/to RECE'iVED aY PLANNING OFF CE CITY-COUNTY `DATE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MEETINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND A MAJOR SUBDIVISION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of public meetings before the Development Review Committee at 10: 00 A.M. on Tuesday , 21 April 1992 and the Design Review Board at 4 : 00 P.M. on Tuesday , 21 April 1992 in the conference room of the Old Carnegie Library, 35 N. • Bozeman Avenue , Bozeman , Montana, and public hearings to be held before the Bozeman City-County Planning Board at 7 :00 P.M. , Tuesday, 5' May 1992 , in the meeting room of Bozeman City Hall , 411 East Main Street, Bozeman , Montana, and a public hearing and public meeting before the Bozeman City Commission at 7 :0,0 P.M. , Monday , 18 May 1992 in the meeting room of Bozeman City Hall for the review of a Conditional Use Permit Application for a Planned Unit Development and a Preliminary Plat review for a Major Subdivision requested by the Overbrook Partnership, 4510 Conestoga Circle, Bozeman, Montana, pursuant to Section 18. 54 of the City of Bozeman Zoning Ordinance and the Bozeman Area Subdivision Regulations . The Conditional Use Permit application would allow the applicant to construct 34 condominium units among 10 buildings, and the Preliminary Plat would permit the applicant to aggregate 11 lots and cause the vacation of Fryslie Street. The subject property is described as Lot 16 , and Lots 21 through 30 of Block 9 , Figgins Addition, Bozeman-, Gallatin County , Montana, and more commonly known as 517 Westridge and all parcels which front on Fryslie Street. Said property is zoned "R-2" ( Residential , Single-Family , Medium-Density ) District and is approximately 4 . 67 acres. Oral testimony will not be taken before the Development Review Committee and Design Review Board . However , written testimony will be considered . Written comments shall be directed to the Planning Director and received by the Bozeman City-County Planning Office no later than 5 : 00 P.M. , Thursday , 16 April 1992 . Oral and written testimony will be taken at the public hearings before the Bozeman City-County Planning Board and City Commission. Final decisions of the Development Review Committee and Design Review Board pertinent to the Conditional Use Permit may be appealed in accordance with Chapter 18. 58 of the Bozeman Zoning Ordinance. Maps and related data regarding this application may be reviewed in the Bozeman City-County Planning Office, 35 North Bozeman Avenue, 586-3321 , Ext. 227 . Andrew C . Epple Planning Director :Xk 1 _ `- --1- 7 Proposed CUP/PUD {fir& subdivision i —e s • .rr parr �iVCI_ S'9EET U.S.POSTTI E CITY—CUuN 1 r r-LHN1"41 vu 35 NORTHP,0'F':"AP AVENUE AFR 1'92 7 _ P.b. 6Lx 3 °d .2 9 -30ZEM.AN, [,,,IT 59715 �T ii3ia3i TO FORWML)itlil RECEV&D Cy BOZEMAN Roger R. Gullickson CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE 506 Westridge Drive et 2 Bozeman, MT 59715 DATE T •� Y I i r �II 1 I i i 1 r NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MEETINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND A MAJOR SUBDIVISION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of public meetings before the Development Review Committee at 10: 00 A.M. on Tuesday, 21 April 1992 and the Design Review Board at 4 : 00 P.M. on Tuesday , 21 April 1992 in the conference room of the Old Carnegie Library, 35 N. ' Bozeman Avenue, Bozeman , Montana, and public hearings _to be held . before the . Bozeman City-County Planning Board at 7 :00 P.M. , Tuesday , 5 May 1992 , in the meeting room of Bozeman City. Hall , 411 East Main Street, Bozeman, Montana, and a public hearing and public meeting before the Bozeman City Commission at 7 : 00 P.M. , Monday, 18 May 1992 in the meeting room of Bozeman City Hall for the review of a Conditional Use Permit Application for a Planned Unit Development and a Preliminary Plat review for a Major Subdivision. requested by the Overbrook Partnership, 4510 Conestoga Circle , Bozeman , Montana, pursuant to Section 18. 54 of the City of Bozeman Zoning Ordinance and the Bozeman Area Subdivision Regulations . The Conditional Use Permit application would allow the applicant to construct 34 condominium units among 10 buildings, and the Preliminary Plat would permit the applicant to aggregate 11 lots and cause the vacation of Fryslie Street. The subject property is described as Lot 16 , and Lots 21 through 30 of Block 9 , F i gg i ns Addition, Bozeman , Gallatin County , Montana, and more commonly known as 517 Westridge and all parcels which front on Fryslie Street. Said property is zoned ' R-2" ( Residential , Single-Family , Medium-Density ) District and is approximately 4 . 67 acres. Oral testimony will not be taken before . the Development Review Committee and Design Review Board. However, written testimony will be considered . Written comments shall be directed to the Planning Director and received by. the Bozeman City-County Planning Office no later than 5 : 00 P.M. , Thursday , 16 April 1992 . Oral and written testimony will be taken at the public hearings before the Bozeman City-County Planning Board and City Commission. Final decisions of the Development Review Committee and Design Review Board pertinent to the Conditional Use Permit may be appealed in accordance with Chapter 18. 58 of the Bozeman Zoning Ordinance. Maps and related data regarding this application may be reviewed in the Bozeman City-County Planning Office, 35 North Bozeman Avenue, 586-3321 , Ext. 227 . Andrew C . Epple Planning Director 'As oil 601� C_ D «ES"q,p t ``;= Proposed CUP/PUD & subdivision FT I T 7a JAM, - - SIPS I ! 'y NiT �Q ' i z ate= S'4EET T c` %E .1 U.S.POSTAGE y—COUNTY PLANNING AVENUE uPe-1�ez a _ NORTH g0��..,. � % � .29 P.O. BUX 640 a BOZEM•AN. _(�1T 59715 1737337 'P'O fI G ro 1�Douglas L, Hansom, :� s l aPao Q Westridge Dre.n ° c Fj0' ` F9 Zeman, MT 59715 � � � B ,y \ ( � 1 !: �� � �\\ 1. z -- s ��: . . �n �. , `_ ti 1 ri-1 .1.4, 1.99". F'rc-mFient,� Craig Eir-am-121"', DYAVid Carm-.--�r-on , 1-*:*i,--ed Shields, "l-om WC3 1 Cl 5 t a f 1: F`F.-e S: n D a v e k el ri , le*e v.-A;.n W I D a vi(.-.1 G r-i t.:)y D e 1.-)1--)i e A r P.e I I a n d *T e r--r i S n y d e r ( F-e C 1)F--d i n g C_:;e c r-e t a r y Second Week Review -id(- 7 (�—C-,F'-a f I-i f-fi D e a n a i c-.1 1)a n I,"a ITI P) pj r-e s e ni t !.-.itate(::l thzit F-red SI-dields c:omfYiented on water- And s tAl(=-,r, I a s t v)e j.ii--,.d Eirzim-)er I iz-tcl cl i t. C r(:)s s.i I-,Cl . Craig Br-aviner- t t e Cl t h a t t h v i"',i 1. 1. h a v e ;31.-1 wi-tl--) u i'I i t.J..e s b F-.-,i n q i..t n d e r Clr-.JLVC-?WayS--., and it t-\,ot..tld be il: the v4J.t I i 1::jr-J.vate r-oa d w a y C r-ai g B r-a w n(:-�r- t'r e ./,I t s i(-..I e c,f t 1.1 p r(D 1:3(.:-?r y asl...ed v,11--ly -L-.1--ie sewer eridc:-�d up oil .1 DC--kn 1�."afvlpl i--., a t d t I i a t v)L)U.l.C:l clrieck with lRay C*'.er-vl.--.(=--v--- on t I--)'A t Craig Br-i--twner riotr.--�d tl--iii.tt tl iey 1,14CRIld t(::) EAV(-.:)i.(::l C'.:1,"C,.M,.isil g (::)1: t I ia sc--.-wer- zind water- was dISCLASSiOl"', that the 1::)C-.-) lar)(Iscaped br-icks (D ri g r-a v e I �-;Cj t I.-I a t t 1--)e g r-o w :..t p a n d iyi,�.i k e it look --i 5 .vet JA be for C r-ai g B r a w n r ri o t d r-atf--)F:?r -Ll--)e w�--.iter ser.-vi(-**e c o in e o-f I-)(-:� 1.C)" I i rl,-:�?, h e r e ir.i I li z e d t 1 tat coming off the 6" 1-ie*l.p)e(-.1 .Lc:) avoid (--'L.k'Ls,, h-,ut stal:.ed thcAt thien t I i e y a r- I i k c---,I y t o .. : they wil 1 �-:i 1-1 C:)114 r'LA 1-1 1-1 t.C) st..q:)P-I.y prol:)Ieffis. I-) It:*a(-.,)1-3 1:5 a i(..I -I..I t 1:5 e r-v c e's c(.-)m i I lq to t.he s t r-t=-,(.74 t n d h E- w i I J. (---h e c k VJ i*L 1") R'a y C F-:-n t e r I-) C-..a Ll F.:;e 1"I G) (:.-1 i,,:J n t a*1 i-:y e t I-)a t a (J r-u r) i t t... I-)e 1. 1 n C)g e, S i.I---:z commierits wer-e t1--ialk: stop sigr,,s (---n will be reClUir-eJ on . ..) t 1.) Wes-L-.riclge at Aldr-idgi-rD. Cl-::�ne SaiCl t!"le I E!J.g I li'.':)0 F­S� 1.1 meeting expresE---�ed coric-er-n over- 1-.-.raffic ba(:.-.k-ir)g Up �.RFICJ blockii i g a n !:AJggei:5ted a pmc.is.ible way tf-iat IL-1: riilakes f-flore t-ci hav( it. flow t.1--irot-tgh. C r ,-i Firz.ivirier- mer-i-t-li (::)ried tl iat t1--iey d(..) Like t(.-,.) f--i,.--.-ive street C)-f f se t 0 1- 1 i n e i..t p d i rec t 1 y. T C).,T" Wo I d n o t d t 1 iat. otherwise 1--i e a(J.1 -Ji.g 1--i t g(::) r-igl--r'U. li-vii ig F'Ianrier (-'Ikelton ric--lt(---d t1hat thie land was for to hapj:--m--.2n like arid 1--i e (J(--�e ri s t -1-:1-iink. tt--iey c-an -t-..I--iefn t-C) sil i t i�--i i--)c--,-L a I ... --i r)e r-s 9 1.-.- '1 t o n a ri d W a 11. L) h t a e d I-a W r.:)i e (::)-f .1 al I'd Fl 1.ai for a one-way r-m rlw,�.iv. F"I an n e r 'Skell.-.c.m asked !.---J I I a t ti"IE2 CUr-bing r-e q U i m e ri t s w i 11. be i g B r w i i e r- ri o t e,,:-Jl -t.-.III a-t.. t I iey 1--i a v e I"-C-'-'(::l LA i r e d C U r-L.) a n(---I gu-L-A-.-.er- everl C)Il p r i v a t e r-o a d�-:�. "I"i m D e zA n stated thlat ii i I-D r e----a p p -I---1--i e y h a C! d i s c.i..t sse d C U r"b C)1")1 y Cr a i g B r w ri e-r- iiii-Lated that C.Lkrb LAJOUld be a e p-t.-.a b 1.e 0 Dan Figgins stated that emergency access information looks fine,, but he needs hydrant designation . Dan Figgins noted that actual location can wait if parking is not firmly decided at this time. Applicants noted that parking is firm, so the actual locations can be decided . Figgins noted that two hydrants would be adequate, as long ast the offset is less than 100 feet. He stated that when they get exact layout then hydrants can be put in to match landscaping , as long as they are out on the median , not tucked behind parking or cars. Craig Brawner stated that the neighbors had also expressed concern about the flood plain , and he noted that the Core of Engineers will require that they check on Permit requirements for construction in the wetlands. Gene Graf stated that they have checked into that and permits are required if they are filling more than an acre, and they are filling less than an acre. There are some other requirements for the flow of the stream and Gene stated they are below those as well . Brawnei- noted that they will be required to get a sign off form from the Core of Engineers. Planner Wall stated that his major issue would be to have them reduce the amount of parking spaces a bit, as they have 25 or so more than required . He noted that he would like to see parking eliminated by 10/15 spaces and bike racks be put in . Planner Skelton stated that Planning will need to discuss that issue. Planner Skelton noted that the Entryway sign will have to comply with the sign code. Dan Kamp said they are planning to only sign the main entrance at this time. Tom Wold asked if the manholes were buried by fill . Gene Graf said no. Graf noted that a settling basin before the creek may be possible. Tim Dean stated that in the neighborhood meeting they had volunteered to put up a nice fence on the north side of the property for the neighbors. Craig Brawner asked what type of access would be used - he noted that he is partial to the curb cut approach to delineate it as a private road . Planner Wall asked about sidewalks. The applicant stated that they aren ' t planning for any on the interior, and he asked if they will be responsible for them on Westridge. Craig Brawner noted that he feels that sidewalks would be nice adjacent to driving isles. Planner Skelton stated that he' s not sure there is a long enough stretch for them anywhere. Brawner stated that he would get together with Phill Forbes on those requirements. 2 L��K-�� ��E(� - �� -ram ,i �Y`��`..t�`�-Y i,�-r"aarrr jam.\T ^ y� '�K���� l�C� >l� _ �� QEATI 4� gyp, BO EMAN RECREATION DEPA TMENT 1211 W. MAIN ST. P.O. BOX 640 PHONE (406)587-4724 BOZEMAN,MONTANA 59715-0640 �Ea RECEIVED BY D.07EMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE � � I t 142 DATE M E M 0 TO: Kevin Wall , Associate Planner/Urban Des 'g er FROM: Sue Harkin, Recreation Superintendent DATE: April 14 , 1992 RE: ' Subdivision Preliminary Plat to Aggregate 11 Parcels and Vacate Fryslie Street to Allow for Construction of 34-Unit Condominium Complex This preliminary plat was reviewed by the Recreation & Parks Advisory Board at their April 13 , 1992 , meeting. The board felt this went along with the P.O.S.T. plan and is acceptable . SH:ll ,c 7..; .9^`.��` 1l'. i �. �A . _ `. �i Cl-730 -till f Y�Y� ��� POT � �� `ter �--�� � ��- -�, � � ` ��c u-57 _ f -� ��� --- — —_-_►rra.r+ter --�� y' _�a�.r r�r `�- � .rt..a y..-..-a. - - N i{ r, 1 LL- �i i, t+ �i __ - � � - . ; . i / _ 1 i � 1 �, �. } , ,� " _ , _ . 1 a � _ � � ' i _ � ' � � � ....� i i � 1 7 1.1 .. r �� �-F ` .} .1 � � 1 0. .. � .. . i _ F _ � 7 , r - s . .� . � � - � - �. i -- : -- j _ _ Development Review Committee - April 7, 1992 Members Presentg Fred Shields, David Cameron , Craig Brawner,, Dan Figgins, and Phil Forbes. Staff Presenti Kevin Wall , Dave Skelton , Debbie Arkell & Terri. Snyder ( recording Secretary) . Initial Week Review - Overbrook at Westridge Planner Wall stated that this is a PUD application , and the only difference from the Concept Plan Review is that the applicant has lowered the number of units to 34, and the subdivision has to be done with the PUD. He further noted that the application states that they will be putting in condo' s and that would be the only aproved use. Planner Wall noted that previous concerns focused on the flood plain and the stream or ditch area. Dan Figgins stated that there are two seperate springs that feed the water in to this area. Planner Skelton noted that the applicant has not dimensioned anything and for it to be accurate that information will be necessary. Craig Brawner stated that he thinks on a PUD it is necessary to have the dimensions in order to make any decisions. He also noted that additional pages would be nice, as it gets too busy on just one sheet. Dan Figgins stated that the stream needs to be denoted on the plans, all though the overall plan looks good ., Planner Skelton stated that if they could get more information by Thursday at 000 it would be continued next week at DRC. Planner Wall stated that his first impression was that it was incomplete, but Director Epp12 thought it was complete. Craig Brawner stated that he would like to see three plans, and that landscaping and burming should be on a Second sheet. Planner Skelton stated that a site plan with dimensions, Sewell- and water easements, and setbacks should be submitted . RECEIVED -12 CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE ATE a y -SnzEWh• i rj�2�vcr Z/g - L,-Z 3-- Z/3 49 � U� G v iv c2i C,q-tin ci r ��S .. H W z4 � . .. 2 o t J r 7 4 1 _/��-��s __.�r,•_�.�i_.?��%��.__��.✓�.. Wi.c,c. Sc_��� Y� 5/A.1 7J�t-E �,�.r v�.�.. :..►.l�=.Sf. ol=.~ i�f. .�! o.?�t s i�'L-�l�... C.'�O-S.s.� Sl AJ 7-7 7-0 �J i c_� ,y�.g✓s f1 .. G�S S S c-o�° �'. v.T �-- / � �i,°i.S �.✓i�.� >�,�c� �...�-vim- r� � r ur���-��z--s /�✓ �= �.,�-� C/�o S S �,� S .ti-/i � � i3�'. Gee.-c•w��!� 7T� b�s��c.� �—t/N o f�' 4 IAJ 1 i-a .c_,..c- _..D VL'/LC AAJI_? /�t�0 ul ?•J Q =7 / le •, . �l -7 Q f! <! /I ew,-ItZ• c,,--s �E✓c�car�f� � ��.nm.l .{. : L 3vo' Fr- 1 _ --.._d�.. 94. Z 1 Z. 6� 2 7. Z GFS "7,o AJ. .. VV C,U h2..tz- �11I-Zrvc. D IQ-9?7 0 ll /rl�'ti►Si?Y ✓U L. �T7 ✓U L / 3/ v 879 Z L 7'Z �o .. _. v. �'� l.•7 C- A3l. HZ� i 3l` 3/L o /3 -. G Wy dD�l .9 L a r i 14 as dg 5) , y G ) � Lac: ✓c= �P�'��' i'' s�•l o r`f= -47 37� /s j z4 4<Ls' 42/ ze g z ¢3�- zs .-7LC. Z a 8 ¢3p P..�/'T7f o✓- N/g,Y3��. 3l o In ce n.I tJ N _.. ��.L.C-. �rr.,t.To,,J, i���S�r�'. ✓vc. �� �.s-�.uors� f Z L 3 __.�c�77�__.car ...G✓��.. � c�U% �-�.� =J /-c� ' rev viz w�� Z o ' 17- c�. 448 z v_ �o c,Fs ✓c=w��+� jam-IJ a/` ,s z9 9 �- .4� _1.-__. . .4 3 �,y,.� �N o� tf�S•Tbys � . . 4 r:.�'--�4'T7 e� /s.{-rC.�'NS. ✓�c-.- /jr3 ✓/Lt/s-I°!S6 7 Vo C- 3 i 3/L � F ��•,/'-''/ \\..aii,`�n�//'%l:/pia o.:.....,.%�/j/,'•,�.� �� i \\ � �� 77 r.- ►'A . . - .. � `•, - .- .- .- a �_ ; Vi s��i r��`` •� �j,�, 1 is "RECEIVED BY BO7EMAN '|TY-COUNTY PLANNING�' ' ' ~~�^' ' ' �'^~~'`~ OFFICE � ���� ���' 510 Westridge Drive Bozeman, MT 59715 � ` May 29, 1992 � | | � Bozeman City Commissioners City Hall Bozeman, MT 59715 . Dear Commissioners: � � We are residents of Figgins Subdivision who were involved in the recent controversy concerning the Overbrook at Westridge PUD, During that time we were constantly surprised at how little the developers and the city planning staff knew about the various rules and regulations dealing With development of wetlands and riparian areas. This was particularly true of the 404 permits required by the US Army Corps of Engineers for any project that � ` results in fill being placed in any wetland. ^ It was obvious that the developers had no intention of contacting the � Corps of Engineers. Apparently, the city had no intention of doing | so either . In fact , the engineer who inspected the Overbrook site, Mr . Bob McInerny, told us that he had to inform the city to tell the developers that a permit was necessary. Mr . McInerny heard about the project from another resident here in Figgins. ! During the May 18, 1992 public hearing on this project and the May 26 Commission meeting the statement was made that the developers could | go ahead and build 11 single family dwellings because the area was / already platted for that . Although it was pointed out that the developers would need to obtain another 310 permit from the Soil Conservation Service, nothing was said about the 404 permit . The | simple fact of the matter is that the plat is not worth the paper it is written on without that permit , and it is highly unlikely the Corps would allow the complete destruction of the approximately two acres of wetland that the 1980 plat called for without some type of mitigation or enhancement . (They may have lowed it for the PUD because, supposedly, less than one acre of wetland was to be filled) . It must have seemed strange to you to have ' us arguing against the PUD on environmental grounds when the only apparent alternative appeared to be far worse, but it is not likely that the alternative was worse. it is far e likely, although admittedly not guaranteed, that the alternative would have been single family dwellings with the wetlands protected. We failed to make this clear , and we must take responsibility for that , but we also made the assumption that the city planning staff would be familiar with these regulations, and able to reach these conclusions on their This is not a petty issue. There are potential problems involving some important developments. For example, the Advanced Technology Park is important to the city. There is ground there that meets the definition of wetland. Has the city contacted the Corps to see about potential conflicts? The structure currently being built there has resulted in fill being placed in a wetland area along its western edge. Does the contractor have a 404 permit for that? If not , he needs one. We � do not think it would be in the city' s interest to attract someone � to build in that area and then discover that the Corps will require � enhancement or mitigation costing thousands of dollars. We urge the city to contact the Corps and arrange to have someone on the city planning staff receive the necessary training to adequately address these issues in the initial planning stages of these projects to avoid such costly mistakes. One final point needs to be made. Once a permit has been issued someone on staff should take the time to read it . During the Overbrook meetings a request of the developers to build within 12 feet of the stream was discussed at length. It was even approved by the City-County Planning Board. Apparently no one ever bothered to read the 310 permit in which it was clearly stated that a 35 foot setback was required for all new construction. The city could have found itself in the potentially embarassing position of telling the developers it was alright' to violate � that permit . Both 310 and 404 permits generally come with conditions. It makes little sense for the city to discuss developments of this type ' without knowing those conditions. This letter has been' somewhat critical . We would like to close by thankir� the commissioners for the effort they put into the Overbrook matter . It was an extremely difficult decision. We do not agree completely with your final decision, but we can live with it . The most important thing was that you took our concerns seriously, and really struggled to come to terms with them. Once again, thank you. Sincerely, Steve and Marion Cherry | | / / •s - � RECEIVED BY BQZ�MAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE b� O- IQ �. 0 DATE 3016 Secor Avenue Bozeman, MT 59715 May 18, 1992 C, Bozeman City Commissioners Bozeman City Hall Bozeman, MT 59715 Dear Commission Members; We are writing to protest the proposed changes in the zoning code for the Figgins Subdivision, in particular the Overbrook Partnership 34-unit "affordable" condominium development. This area is an established single- family residential subdivision into which the present residents moved with the anticipation that it would remain so for the foreseeable future. It was. Indeed a shock to learn that the commission was considering a change in housing density, thereby adversely affecting property values in the entire subdivision. People built their homes in the neighborhood with the assurance that some stability in the character of the neighborhood existed. With the zoning change, that has all gone up in a cloud of smoke. Zoning has to mean something if it is to be an effective guide for people interested in buying or building in Bozeman. If this was an old residential area that has seen a gradual change in both its condition and character, we could understand a zoning change. This, however, is not the case with the Figgin's Subdivision. If zoning is to work, it has to be consistently and reliably administered. The members of the city commission , by the very nature of this zone change, is saying to the people of Bozeman that anything goes and that whenever there is a profit to be made, zoning can be done away with. In our view, this is poor and nearsighted administration of the responsibilities vested in you as members of the commission. We implore you to exercise some civic responsibility and do what is right for the citizens as a whole'and not give in to pressures from those with only a profit motive. Sincer ly, /? IA Robert L. and Mary Ann Bro n I BOZEMAN Y-CGuN i f PLANNING OFFICE DATE ZS e oZ2 T . l�e�r (3ozemar� i-I- ti ale av� t�s✓�-�-'t'r,.� -� .l�✓nff „r ov,�e✓r, nyev � �1.1✓ -' e cl 4y c, 11 � � ✓ n 9 �p n O Y .. A "ter 11P/'�� (f1YlClnrvliv�' �.(V1 �T Vl �r+j -�. ��1✓PP � �,�✓ ��,t�Pry s +h.�►��1�o v h c.�1��11 -4-a I-� ..r � h �-hPr ro►-�.prr, i S �h Ir�ts A utfu. S � r� -the_ V'r QL L P1 4CII T n ✓+�I Y'�!'`�i t �C�'�y1 F'1 I S a '. Cn user e i I- �a RECEIVED BY 80ZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE DATE zk 48 — e iy + .4- �inc.e,f 2708 Langohr Avenue Bozeman, Montana 59715 May 13, 1992 City Commissioners 411 East Main Street l/ Bozeman, Montana 59715 6"if Dear Commissioners: - As residents of the Figgins Subdivision, we are writing to express our concerns regarding the thirty—four unit condominium development proposed for construction in this subdivision. The proposed construction site is zoned as a residential area for single families only; the construction of the condominium units violates the zoning regulations. Currently South Third experiences heavy traffic flow. With the proposed condominium units, this flow of traffic would become even heavier on a rather narrow street. Property values would decline, the scenic view for the area residents would be considerably diminished, and a precedent would be established for more multi—family units. We urge you to reject this condominium construction proposal, thereby maintaining the single—family residential environment established for the Figgins Subdivision. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Bryan and Margaret Ro ertus RECEIVED BY BOZE.MAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE DATE Ma 13 1992 y RECE.iVED BY BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE Bozeman City Commissioners Office of. the City commission DATE P.O. Box 640 Bozeman, Montana 59715 Dear Cammissioner I am very concerned and appalled at the apparent direction the .approval process is taking in .regard to' the Overbrook at Westridge project. I have attended. the-:Development Review. Commit:tee :�.meeting and the Bozeman City-County Planning Board meeting. The approval process , in .my opinion, favor the developer and pay:s scant .attention tb. the very real and valid concerns of the . families , .. residents and property owners that reside in the affected community. In my opinion their are six negative points to consider. 1 . Large . 4800±- square feet multi-family structures- are. not compatible with the existing medium-sized 2000± square feet family structures . 2 . The increased unit density, .from eleven units (houses) to . thirty-four .units (condominiums) , acerbate an already critical .. 'traffic problem on':.South,1.Third and Westridge. 3. The increased traffic is a safety issue because off; the many young school age children crossing South�-.IThird and walk- ing along Westridge to attend the new grade school . 4. . The increased traffic on Westridge will degrade the property values-of existing homes . No. family with young children is going to purchase a home on a through street that has heavy traffic. 5 . The rechannelling of Figgins Creek will disturb the current riparian area. 6 . Changing an approved plat to allow multi-family units vio=.::.: late a trust . The decision to purchase a home in the Figgins Addition is influenced by R-2 zoning and an approved plat that allows only residential, single-family, medium-density housing. I urge you to disapprove the application and preliminary plat . Sincerely Donald K. McBride 412 Cutting Street Bozeman, Montana 59715 �� �����P�\V�� �Y ��O7��@AN ��..�.u .�u u . u"��"""` CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFF\CF DATE 510 Westridge Drive Bozeman, MT 59715 May 13, 1992 Bozeman City Commissioners City Hall Bozeman, MT 59715 Dear Commissioners: At the previous meetings regarding the Overbrook development proposal , located north of Figgins and south of the Museum of the Rockies, there was some confusion regarding the intent of the letter received by Mr . Richard Vincent , Fisheries Biologist with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. His letter regarding the subdivision proposal stated that he wished to see the 35 foot setback from watercourses for this project and that he was satisfied with the proposal . This was confusing because there are 3 encroachments into the 35 foot setback in the design as proposed, with one of those being a 23 foot encroachment . Mr . Vincent did not | mention the 5 foot setback protection of watercourse vegetation in his / letter . At approximately 9:00 a. m. on May 13, 1992, I called Mr . Vincent to ascertain the intent of his earlier letter regarding the Overbrook proposal . Mr . Vincent stated that he wished to see the 35 foot setback adhered to. I asked about the vegetation protection setback on 5 feet on either side of the watercourses. He said that that is part of the 35 foot setback provision and that destruction of the vegetation destroys the utility of the setback. | I hope this clarifies the wishes of' the Montana Department of Fish, ! Wildlife and Parks. I did not 'ask Mr . Vincent to write another letter , however I am willing to do so if needed. � At this time the proposed Overbrook design has 3 encroachments on the 35 | foot setback requested by the State, and the 5 foot setback for protection � of watercourse vegetation has not been addressed. Y� ' Marion Cherry ' | | / ^ � �°�E AN C\\Y-COUNTY PLANNING DATE 510 Westridge Drive Bozeman, MT 59715 May 13, 1992 / . Bozeman City Commissioners City Hall Bozeman, MT 59715 Dear Commissioners-. We would like to provide you with some information that has � � not heretofore been brought before the Design Review Board or Committee or he Bozeman issue.City/County Planning Board. We have been interested in the riparian/wetiand habitat We have � heard statements by developers that they will actually be roving the stream and habitat in this area. With many years of experience working in natural resources and wildlife, we must tell you that this is not the We have researched earlier records dealing with the preliminary platting of the area currently proposed for the Overbrook Development . We found some very interesting thingsg 1 . A letter written by Ron Marcoux of the State of Montana Department of Fish and Game on May 3, 1978 to Joel Shouse of the Blue Ribbons of the Big Sky Country Areawide Planning Organization stated the eway and small stream that begins here are important in maintaining downstream water quality and that fish are present in Spring Creek. The Department believed a buffer should be established protecting the geways involved. Mr . Marcoux added " . . . we believe it would be to he long-term advantage of the city and for the protection of our fisheries to maintain a natural drainageway. " Similar concerns were expressed by r . Walter Anderson of the Soil Conservation Service at about the same time. 2. A letter from Joel Shouse of the Blue Ribbons of the Big Sky Country Dean,Areawide Planning Organization on May 16, 1978 to Thomas, and Hoskins, Inc opens with the observation that "the Bozeman City-County Planning Board approved the preliminary plat of this ion subject proposedto the approval of Blue Ribbons. " He stated that the development area (Block 9) drains a 2 1/2 square mile area and can carry some significant water flows. Fish are present , active springs exist in this location and it is wetland. He requested buffer strips for the waterways quality.and preservation of these waterways to protect water He shouldexplicitly recommended, "the layout of the subdivision be redone such that the natural waterway is preserved. Practically speaking this will eliminate all development of the area lying to the north and west of the stream. " 3. There is a Staff Report to the Bozeman City-County Planning Board on February 14, 1980 by John Ewing concerning applicant Eugene Graf' s subdivision plat of Block 9, Figgins Addition, First Phase. Mr . Ewing' s report indicated that "an agreement had been worked out as shown on the attached plat . The shaded area will remain in an undisturbed natural state to serve as a filtering edge and sediment trap for FigginsCreek. " The shaded portions were parts of lots 16, 25, and 26, at the western edge of the proposed development ,' and the plat identified these areas with the statement , "No construction or other disturbance of vegetation in this area is allowed - drainage easement . " See attached Amended Subidivision Plat for Block 9, Figgins (3/31/80) . The current design of Overbrook has all or portions of three buildings in the shaded area. Although most of these letters are about 13 years old, as is the amended plat shading out parts of lots 16, 25 and 26, many of the concerns expressed by the agencies at that time are still valid. This is evidenced by the numerous references to the importance of riparian areas in the ` Required Criteria for All Development in the Bozeman Zoning Code, and in the Bozeman Area Master Plan. Further , it appears that agreements were reached at that time between the developers, certain entities and the City that have been ignored in the present proposal and planning process. . ' Marion and Steve Cherry attachment | � • * RECEIVED BY BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE DATE May 13, 1992 i Dear City Commissioners : My family and I reside in the Figgins Addition and we would like to urge you to reject the proposed zoning change that would allow the construction of a major condominium complex in our neighborhood . We have several concerns about the proposal . First of all, a major zoning change such as this is very difficult to accept . Why have planning and zoning to begin with if major variances such as this are readily approved? In our view, a major change in zoning such as this promotes and encourages haphazard development which is exactly what planning and zoning are supposed to avoid ! I fail to see any redeeming virtues in this proposal . Secondly, we have several school aged children who frequently have need to use South Third Avenue in their daily adventures . Because of the high traffic flow on the road and the associated safety concerns, we always request that they use a different route if another option is available . There are, of course, recommendations to address this problem, but why make the problem worse by more than tripling the potential number of people who would live in this area under the condo proposal . This makes no sense whatever ! The proponents have stated that the condo owners would walk to work (at the Museum of the Rockies and the businesses behind it ) . In a more realistic situation, about 64 more cars would be driven to work endangering the lives of walking and bus-riding school children. Please listen to local residents ' concerns and reject this proposal . Thank you. Sincerely, Bob and Kathy Martinka RECEVIL L t.'�, r' r CIT*OUNTY PLANNI(v-� - Robert and Carol Flaherty DATI 416 Arnold Bozeman, MT 59715 (406) 586-1157 May 13,1992 Bozeman City Commission Bozeman City Hall North Rouse Bozeman, MT 59715 Dear Tim Swanson, Al Stiff, Joe Frost, Beverly Knapp, and John Vincent: Because we thought the condominium proposal on the north edge of the Figgins Addition would not gain the Planning Board's recommendation, we have not sent you our opinion of the project previously. However, the recent recommendation in favor of the project prompts this note. Two elements of the proposal are of particular concern to us: the height of the buildings and the change of intended use of the area. Approval of the proposed exception for the planned unit development would be a breach of faith with residents abutting the property. We realize that a zoning map is not an iron-clad contract. However, at the very least it is a "gentlemen's agreement" and basis of the expectations people have when they buy a home in the area. A change in the density and profile of adjoining lands is a breach of this agreement. Regarding height of the buildings: the proposed condominium plan does not seem to us to be a "transition" between the single family units now in Figgins and the public facilities nearby. The proposed condominiums would be a full two stories high with peaks somewhat over 25 feet (the way the planning unit measures building height, about 30 feet for the rest of us). That the developer would propose this is understandable—in density there is money. However, the effect in this particular neighborhood would be of a tall ghetto wall at the north edge of Figgins. The planning board apparently considered this proposal to be a transition to the public facilities nearby, and it is commendable that the developer has attempted to address issues in city regulations regarding planned unit developments. However, a 25 to 30-foot high wall of condos does not meet out definition of a transition area. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Cordially, Carol Flaherty Robert J. Flaherty< MD RECE��ED D� BOZG OFF\" CITY-COUNTY p�ANNIN 2814 Westridge Dr. Bozeman, MT 59715 May 12, 1992 City Commissioners 411 E. Main St. Bozeman, MT 59715 Dear City Commissioners: My name is Christine Lint and I live at 2814 Westridge Dr. in the Figgins Subdivision. I am writing to voice my opposition to the zone change being requested by the Overbrook Partnership to change an area currently zoned R-2, single family housing to zoning to allow multiple family housing. The major reason I am against this zone change is the fact that people bought homes in this neighborhood with the understanding that it would be a neighborhood of single family housing. The project being proposed by the Overbrook Partnership is not compatible with the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christine Lint oo, � RECE . , CIT`(-COUNT`( PLANNING OPr DATE RECEIVED BY BG OFF CE CIOZEMAN TY-COUNTY PLANN r • Y�-�-�- . ��.�� � _ � � May 9 , 1992 A We . as property owners who live in or adjacent to the Figgins -subdivision , understand that Overbrook Partnership has made application for a change or thF! pF`trRc.nt h!-2 t5!!in on acreage located immediately north of Figgins subdivision . We have received sufficient information to make an educated response to this proposal . We strongly oppose the Overbrook planned unit development . NAME ADDRESS PHONE Gzi� 15 g 7- T° 'V (LAP /0 td, May 9, 1992 We .. as property owners who live in or adjacent to the Figgins subdivision, understand that Overbrook Partnership has. made application for a C1idnCie of thr_. �i �- -- ��—:_' :;-- i!-- si l acreage located immediately north of Figgins subdivision. We have received sufficient information to make an educated response to this proposal . We strongly oppose the Overbrook planned unit development . NAME ADDRESS PHONE 411 s-Iaud _ c� cos -17 6,37- 5 S Toqli Oita hex ST �— ( 0-3 R 4y.0�8 '5-' 7 7 - 274 7 6-17 -TOO May 9, 1992 We . as property owners who live in or adjacent to the Figgins subdivision, understand that Overbrook Partnership has made application for a change of the fjlrr'.Rent. -R—. ?c+nilj tiij acreage located immediately north of Figgins subdivision. We have received sufficient information to make an educated response to this proposal . We strongly oppose the Overbrook planned unit development . NAME ADDRESS PHONE g1 May 9, 1992 � We . as property owners who live in or adjacent to the Fictgins subdivision, understand that Overbrook Partnershiu has � IIlade application for a change of r rle {=ii'e? e tf[. 1+—L'• ,:;t5!!11{!;j sin acreage located irrmediately north of Figgins subdivision. We have received sufficient information to make an educated response to this proposal . We strongly oppose the Overbrook planned unit development . a ' NAME ADDRESS PHONE "3003 5 � j' S �`$� .�! COA00�6'ZAQ,4,-1 d n 5-W"7-3a3 6P 1 77G78 ' RECEIVED BY BOZEMAN - CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE May 9 , 1992 DATE We , as property owners who live in or adjacent to the iiggins subdivision . understand that Overbrook Partnership has made application for a c1hange i;f tf'rF= tjr'PSP1-1t. 4,!— ' C5!lliit{ tsar acreage located irrunediately north of Figgins subdivision . We have received sufficient information to make an educated response .to this proposal . We strongly oppose the Overbrook planned unit development . o . NAME ADDRESS PHONE QAe+ L V J oisrA -3 d C7(6 S (z co y- 7 - `I 7 Z// n-\ '1 0-4- ,,v,)cnN 3otL 6Z16 30, q "7- 95'- '5011 4t-ej 4017 S Q c-dt CIS/ 3 ?� -?0/6, , ,�t, ,1 C'O �1 t, ) -3363 N- o Z -- 3 3 4 3 May 9 , 1992 We . as property owners who live - in or adjacent to the Ficigins subdivision, understand that Overbrook Partnership has made application foi' a c:liange or ti,r 7_,f rriit. i-,' acreage located iiya-nediately north of Fi.ggins subdivision. We have received sufficient information to make an educated response to this proposal . j We strongly oppose the Overbrook planned unit development . o NAME ADDRESS PHONE e,f-�)w �s 7 1-7 c a 050 8 7 0Lr r� May 9, 1992 i We, as property owners who live in or adjacent to the Figgins subdivision, understand that Overbrook Partnership has made application for a change of the P-resent h—_! zcinincr of-i acreage located immediately north of Figgins subdivision. We have received sufficient information to mdke an educated response to this proposal . We strongly oppose the Overbrook planned unit development . NAME ADDRESS PHONE Cp ` ap,— 5ft" GZ � � 1011 7�a/nf-GvL- 58 7 V11/ ,•`ICY- 561 - 39 (4 - ,� 00R Wes � �� s87-- ln��" 3 c-.)�,� e"7 So • • _ . t � ` - � . 1 i � � � � �. � �.� � _ - i t ' � / 11 May 9, 1992 We , as property owners who live in or adjacent to the Figgins subdivision, understand that Overbrook Partnership has made application for a change of the Present. i —2 zoning c3ri acreage located immediately north of Figgins subdivision. We have received sufficient information to make an educated response to this proposal . We strongly oppose the Overbrook. planned unit development . a i NAME ADDRESS PHONE ,- / cp ��+%�,✓-r�� duo � (�J�y��:��,e. .�c .S�7- y9�a 71ev,50 dSe f fiCr 3 0 5 ;f� May 9, 1992 We , as property owners who live in or adjacent to the Figgins subdivision, understand that Overbrook Partnership has made application for a change of the p-r eseiit. acreage located immediately north of Figgins subdivision. We have received sufficient information to make an educated response to this proposal . We strongly oppose the Overbrook planned unit development . 0 NAME ADDRESS PHONE • r l (Y3 O" as 3 �,cola May 9 , 1992 We . as property owners who live in or adjacent to the Figgins subdivision.. understand that Overbrook Partnership has made appl icat.io'n for a change of t!-lr -acreage located immediately north of Figgins subdivision. We have received sufficient information to make an educated response .to this proposal . We strongly oppose the Overbrook planned unit development . NAME ADDRESS PHONE r 'D .587 — y y 3 lU®rber q pc l�x r r 07.—P— C 70 SUS May 9 , 1992 The undersigned, property owners who live in or adjacent to the Figgins Addition, oppose the Conditional Use Permit Application for a Planned Unit Development and a Preliminary Plat Review for Lot 16 , and Lots 21 through 30 of Block 9y Figgins Addition. . The property is zoned "R-2" (Residential, Single-:Family, Med- ium-Density) . We are opposed to any action that would change the existing approved zoning and plat . NAME ADDRESS PHONE - --'---- ' ----�----�'� -------------`--`---Go--- -- ---------- -:E' -------------4c-s.2-__9.1/_� - - ----- --------- 5��_ --- -------------y-��� --- ------- /_ - -------- -- -------�{rs C - --------------- � _ ------------ V - -Z --- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------=-------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------=----------------------------------------------------- 0 May 9, 1992 We, as property owners who live in or adjacent to the Figgins subdivision, understand that Overbrook Partnership has made application for a change of the prese1tt. acreage located immediately north of Figgins subdivision. We have received sufficient information to make an educated response to this proposal . We strongly oppose the Overbrook planned unit development . 0 NAME ADDRESS PHONE o" 7�tiLvzGc,rc.�c_, '% GJ� 5 - a 73� ze r q w� Z$ 12) 4/ s� . s 97 tl)o l 1 5,5&--q Q-�L/ �n�i ' • ' • � � � � � i ^ i � - �� l ti May 9, 1992 We , as property owners who live in or adjacent to the Figgins subdivision, understand that Overbrook Partnership has made application for a change of the pre-Sent. R-:' zoninq on acreage located immediately north of Figgins subdivision. We have received sufficient information to make an educated response to this proposal . We strongly oppose the Overbrook planned unit development . sty NAME ADDRESS PHONE r, 3 0 /D �►ew,"� 14vF K � s�sL ':�d 19 ^4 City Commissioners 411 E. Main St. Bozeman, Montana 59715 Dear Commissioners, I am opposed to the current proposed OVERBROOK PARTNERSHIP of a 34 unit condominium development within Figgins subdivision. I am opposed to this development for the following reasons: 1 . it will result in a dramatic traffic increase, especially on the very local area, but for the general area also (i .e. S. 3rd, Willson Ave. , Kagy Blvd. ) 2. it will decrease property values 3. it serves as a precedent for more multi family units in an area that was originally zoned for single family dwellings 4. it will result in a loss of view lines As a home owner in the area, I respect your acceptance of my plea to not allow this proposed development! Sincerely, Kathy Hansen 2525 Landoe Bozeman, Mt. 59715 RECEi'VED BY BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE DATE i RECEi JED B3 BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE S DATE :'1'anci �'van_s 2915_Secer Bozeman, AfT 5.9?15 Bozeman City Commission 411 E. Main Bozeman, MT 59715 To Whom It May Concern: Please accept this as a letter protesting the proposed zoning variance on the 517 Westridge/Fryslie Street property proposed by the Overbrook Partnership. A native Bozeman resident, I have seen the impact of multipliplexes on residential neighborhoods. This particular variance would exacerbate the already existing problems of: traffic on South Third inadequate parking limited access out of the subdivision high water table impact on city sewer as well as the social and environmental impact of multiplexes on the existing neighoborhomd. and adjacent Museum of the Rockies properties. multiplexes lower existing property values Landowners are already trying to accomodate the changes in traffic and activities brought on by the new schools. Please allow one major social impact to this area before hitting us with a high density development.. Lets not make out, Master Plan rriore of a joke than it already is. Please use responsible judgment when deciding whether this area can withstand n-jore development. Sincerely, Nanci Evans cc: Vince Smith, 506 Westridge 510 Westridge Drive Bozeman, MT 59715 May 5, 1992 Bozeman City Commission and Bozeman City County Planning Board City Hall Bozeman, MT 59715 � Dear Mr . /Ms. : We have several concerns in relation to the proposed major subdivision applied for by Overbrook partnership. 1 . LOSS OF WETLAND/RIPARIAN HABITAT One of our concerns is the fact that most , if not all , of the 4. 67 acres proposed for development is currently a wetland and hosts many species of wildlife. Figgins Creek and other perennial water flows through the area. We have observed mallards, killdeer , red-winged blackbirds, Hungarian partridge, snipe, kingfisher , sparrows, muskrat , porcupine, and other � . species of songbirds as well as deer tracks. Mallards actually nest in this area, and we have seen broods of mallards there in past years. This | area is extremely low in comparison to surrounding land and is i characterized by a high water table and riparian vegetation such as � willows, cattails, sedges, and other species. Many neighborhood children play in this area and probably attain their first exposure to the value of wildlife and wildlife habitat . It is the northernmost part of this riparian wildlife corridor into Bozeman. ! � A federal permit is needed from .the US Army Corps of Engineers under the ` | Federal Clean Water Act for "Any activity that will result in the discharge ! of dredged or placement of fill material into waters of the United States, including their adjacent wetlands. " Because of the size of e wetland in this proposed development , the nationwide permit (No. 26) does not cover this particular development . Privately owned wetlands are not exempt from the Act . A project of this size requires a one month comment period under the Federal Clean Water Act . If the project is allowed to proceed, it may require mitigation of affects on wetlands by replacement of the same acreage of wetland. This area also happens to lie at least partially within the 100 year floodplain and includes a oodway. MDFWP Fisheries Biologist , Richard Vincent , requested that the 35 foot setback be followed. The "Setback Law" 50. 060D) requires a buffer of 35 feet on either side of a watercourse in which no construction is to take place, and a 5 foot setback in which natural vegetation is to be maintained along watercourses. Neither of these two setbacks is being observed in the current design for the development . The Developer has requested a variance of the 35 ft setback in three locations, and the 5 ft setback is apparently _ The Bozeman Area Master Plan of 1990 (BAMP p. 44) states "Encourage stream bank buffer strips for sediment , erosion and water pollution control and to protect riparian areas, " and "Develop zoning and subdivision controls to protect water quality and riparian areas. " The city' s own checklist of Criteria for All Development includes under Required Criteria for Natural Resources, number 15, which reads "Have special precautions been taken to preserve existing wildlife habitats, natural wildlife food sources, or existing places, or are these areas being preserved?" and number 14, "Does the project preserve or replace existing natural vegetation?" Our answer , with personal knowledge of the area to be developed, and viewing the design for the area is a definite NO to both of these Required Criteria. We believe the current design for development requires such significant filling in of the wetland/riparian area to protect the buildings from the floodplain risk that the elevation of the entire area will be significantly | raised, the watercourses will be channelized and all riparian vegetation will be lost during the course of construction. This portion of the area was originally platted for a cul-de-sac and not a loop through the development . This will result in additional loss of wetland habitat and open space. 2. TRAFFIC INCREASE We are very concerned about the increased traffic that will be using Westridge Drive. We have lived on Westridge Drive for 3 and 1/2 years and this street has a lot of traffic for a residential area with traffic expected to increase as the new school located just west of the neighborhood opens. Vehicles are not only frequent , but are driven at a fairly high rate of speed. This development of 34 condominiums will have 100 parkings spaces. It is fairly realistic to assume that there will be at least 2 vehicles per household for a total of 68 vehicles added to the vehicles already using Westridge Drive. There are two entrances proposed into the Development , both off of Westridge Drive. We expect that the vehicles for this proposed subdivision would more than double the current level of traffic on Westridge which serves the northern end of the Figgins area and many people living further south on Westridge Drive find this the quickest access to their homes. In addition, it is possible that these condominiums will become MSU student housing, with each unit providing housing for 4 students, each with their own vehicle. This would be a severe impact on traffic in the neighborhood. ' The City Required Criteria for All Developments number 2, reads " Is the project designed so that additional traffic generation beyond what may be approved for permitted uses does not have a significant adverse impact on adjacent and surrounding development?" Again, We must say NO. You might think it is not a "significant " adverse impact , but as one who lives on Westridge Drive and expects to be impacted by this traffic , we believe this is a significant adverse impact through both noise, other traffic related annoyances, and also increased hazard to those of us who drive, walk and play in the vicinity. Let ' s not forget the new school in analyzing cumulative effects. There will be additional school-related traffic in the neighborhood and numerous children walking on Westridge toward the school . - 3. PROPERTY VALUES What will this development do to adjacent property/home values? Admittedly, this is speculation, but we have no guarantee what the units will sell for , whether they will be well maintained, etc . We know we will be losing a park-like area and that visual quality of the area will change. 4. WATER QUALITY How will the development affect water quality? Two of the residences located near the development (on Third St . ) rely on well water . Will this be affected? How much water will the development ' s well pump? Will this affect the water table? Does the developer have permits for a well? Will the stockwater and irrigation water for the Jenni ' s livestock be affected in quality or quanity? They do have a water right on Spring Creek. 5. R-2 ZONING The current zoning in the area is R-2, meaning single-family medium- density. The proposed development certainly does not meet this definition. Our neighbors and ourselves bought homes in the Figgins area expecting that any other development in the area would be in the nature of individual homes of medium density. We certainy didn' t expect a subdivision of condominiums to be built adjacent to the neighborhood. This permit application is an obvious attempt to circumvent existing zoning by allowing multiple-family dwellings. Not only does the condominium proposal not fit in with the adjacent neighborhoods, but it is is opposite in character to the museum and historic farm. The City Criteria for All Development under Required Criteria on Neighborhood Compatability number 1 , reads " Is the development compatible with, and sensitive to the immediate environment of the site and the adjacent neighborhoods relative to architectural design, building bulk and height , neighborhood identity, landscaping, historical character , and orientation of buildings on the site and visual integration?" Again, we would have to say NO. PROPOSAL We believe that this property currently under consideration for private development should be considered for protection as a Park. We should be allowed to maintain a few "wild" places within the city limits and think about the wildlife habitat we have already lost to development, particularly in riparian areas in the city of Bozeman. The 1990 Bozeman Area Master Plan (p. 33) states that "Preservation of open spaces including prime natural areas is important to the Bozeman Community. " Under Goals, Objectives and Implementation Policies, the BAMP (p. 42) states " Identify and protect areas with special characteristics such as stream corridors and wetlands within the jurisdictional area. " A goal of the BAMP (p. 42) is to "Support the establishment and maintenance of greenbelts and/or open space, including the preservation of trail and open space corridors. " There was i never a better opportunity. � If, for some unknown reason, it is deemed necessary to develop this piece | of property, let us at least do it according to the zoning laws and setback laws which will offer some protection to the wetlands. We hope that the Bozeman City Commission and Bozeman City/County Planning Board give consideration to these concerns. Marion and Steve Cherry ° � � ^ ` EMAN RECEIVED BY BONG OFFICE CITY-COUNTY PLA City Commissioner's City Hall Bozeman, Montana . 59715 DATE Gentlemen: We highly object to the planned unit development for the' Overbrook Partnership on many grounds. One major reason that we object is the increase of traffic. We already see a great increase in traffic on Westridge from the installation of the stop sign on 3rd. People are presently -use Westridge to speed around the stop sign. When the school opens this year traffic will probably more then double on Westridge coming both direction during peak times. All this traffic will be channelled onto 3rd where there already is a recognized problem. It makes no sense to us that you will even consider compounding the problem by allowing 26 to 34 units on land zoned for 10 to 11 single family dwellings. We purchased our home in Westridge thinking that all could be built here is single family dwellings. It amazes us that changes like these can be manipulated so easily. The sheer density increase in this small area this close to single family dwellings should not be allowed under the master plan. We also believe that this project will greatly effect our property values. We definitely know this is inconsistent with the houses that are already in the Figgins Subdivision. We are also very concerned. that this developer will put a. ring of similar condominiums around this subdivision. We are also amazed the a wild life area like the one that these condominiums are built on can be destroyed so easily. We realize that they are saving some of the marsh. But how can they put fill in on top of springs and then slap and condo on top of it? Do the water rights of people below this development have to be considered during and after the construction? I've seen kids fishing in the stream and catch fish. We have personally seen all types of wildlife take advantage of this area. What about the fisheries, wild life habitat, and required replacement of marsh habitat? We also wonder about the play area or parks for the residents. We have one of the smallest parks in any subdivision. This project would add a fairly large population with no consideration for additional park space. The small area set aside to preserve the marsh area probably will not take the place of much needed more park space. We also have to be honest with you. After looking at the floor plans of these units we begin to question just who would eventually end up living there. It began to look a whole lot like college dorms. We heard them called "starter condos" . We call them "bird houses" . What ever they are they do not fit in with the present neighborhood and its population. We moved to Bozeman because we visited a person in the hospital and feel in love with the beauty of that part of the city. If I had to pick a place that I would not put in a wall of condominiums jammed in with single family dwellings it would not be in front of the museum. In fact it would be nice if the farms and the marsh could be kept in tacked to better blend with the museum. I hear a lot about the vision of Bozeman. What about the vision from the museum? .We are not against development. We are for what we consider proper development. We do not think this is an appropriate use of this space. Please vote to keep this area for single family dwellings. For these reasons and many more we encourage you as our representatives to vote against the Overbrook planned unit development. Sincerely, Larry, Diana & odee Cloninger 418 Westidge Drive May 5, 1992 r Bozeman City-County Planning Office 35 North Bozeman Avenue Bozeman, MT 59715 Dear Planning Board Members, I am writing to express my objection to the Conditional Use Permit requested by Overbrook Partnership. My job brought my family and I to Bozeman just over two years ago. While we were excited about the opportunity to live in this community, we were disappointed with the scarcity of suitable neighborhoods for families with middle incomes and children. We bought a home in the Figgins subdivision for just these reasons; we could afford the house and Figgins is a "kids" neighborhood. Two bedroom condominiums, 1200 square feet in size and four to a building, are not family accommodations. 1 feel that the people who would buy these units would not be in character with the rest of the neighborhood. I suspect strongly that traffic would increase as a result of this proposal. This would be in addition to the increased traffic we will face this fall due to the new school. Why bother to zone or plan at all if we are going to approve a variance? What is the reason for the requested variance? Is this the only area left in the Gallatin valley for multi-family dwellings? Are not areas already zoned for these structures. Overbrook Partnership can probably afford to sell their lots in Figgins and build condominiums somewhere else more suitable, without need for a variance, and without losing money; I can't afford to sell my house and buy another in the Bozeman area. For them, this situation is a business proposition; for me, this situation is my home. The city of Bozeman is in danger of losing the balanced population necessary to maintain the healthy atmosphere that people will want to raise their families in. A recommendation of approval of this variance is one more indication that the leaders of this community are directing its future down the path of other western resort towns such as Jackson Hole, Aspen, and Sun Valley where the community is comprised of wealthy, absentee, second homeowners and the pathetically poor people who "flip the burgers" and "pump the gas" for the rich. Please don't recommend approval of this variance. Sincerely, RECEIVED BY gOZE�^ CITY-COUNTY P!A NNING OMGL� Steve Swain DAT 3023 South Healy Bozeman, MT 59715 I 0 • JACK W. & BEVERLY F. TWEEDALE P.O. BOX 339 204 WESTRIDGE DRIVE BOZEMAN MT 59771-0339 May 4, 1992 n RECEIVED BY B�UZErU CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFF BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSIONERS �I 411 EAST MAIN STREET DATE BOZEMAN MT 59715 re: Bozeman City/County Planning Board Meeting, Tuesday, May 5, 1992, 7 P.M. at Bozeman City Hall Subject: OVERBROOK PARTNERSHIP Proposal to build a 34 unit condominium development within Figgins subdivision. Dear Commissioners and Board Members: We OPPOSE the subject,proposal to build a 34 unit condominium development on this property which was originally zoned for TEN SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. No matter how you slice it; a condo complex is NOT a single family dwelling. The impact of 34 families is considerably different than TEN families in basic numbers alone. Other objectional results would be: A. Severe increase in traffic on residential streets already crowded with much car, foot, and children's traffic. B. Loss of view lines to existing properties. C. Detremental to the aesthetics of the area, including the view of the proposed development from the Museum of the Rockies site. D. Impact on existing property values. E. Setting a precedent for more multi-family units in an area of well establishedcsingle family housing. WE HOPE YOU WILL NOT ALLOW THIS ZONING CHANGE AND CONDO DEVELOPMENT TO HAPPEN! Thankyou! Our residential property is: Lot 5, Blodk 5, Westridge Subdivision, Sec. 19. 2S-6E, Parcel Number RGH 2405. Jack W. Tweedale Bev?fly F. TWeedale STATE OF NTANA, COUNTY OF GALLATIN On this th day of May, 1992, Jack W. and Beverly F. Tweedale personally appeared before me, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons whose names are subscribed to this instrument and acknowledged that theykecuted the same.bl for he Stat of Montana sion expires 6/6/94 r , La...t ` Q ii'i � i3i fir fae /C: IV, �s bi (rid 4- Ii Q1 O i J W 3 wl -P J E W a! C —4 V 41 {y � Li i -•i 1 J {(� L CT-.0 O !r > O 4 � in C •-. n u z i •rJ of C i3i •e+ C - • O : •ri -i i..: s� V _ ::D w ira C i3 liR r ,i C rl Iji a l 3 17-.ij v =.•r' O L Li O :-a O C V Ol > M _ A C A rz a' L C `i r/ U U rt C -- @ 3 C •r :tea E rj tom: L C i ri -.0i u rU -,f 4+ O -0 O 0 -C Ma C L V U •rf A•- V -a �.,a E V A• Lr -0 -0 c E 4-i 4- ~ I V L ij -€•j w -i-% 02 •.-i .9 r it 0 a O � V -- /1 c _ C t U V Cr C O .. r a -.i C 0 O Li= u i 1. a i Lal `? C 0 G' Lt GY r LR `: u �--, O ter` W > F- v O 3 1.3 L O ;= t' O u11: O _A .Gil a C CL r u 4- r CL ks- E rl � � _ L W CL L vi CL r/ O e-3f ta- t:i...i V T. v (� L >. e a 4j t y_ />� O W V r; Le V L L - -U 0 V E L v�j_• c: 3r3 ••J C. fir—- i C J - Im c L i I- c CL J Lil r.'-.tt --a J O YI c u u .l_ C CL•ra tit � O O •; _ ,-a rl M I C C L 0 rl 4-• L r; � rl .i-i - CL E W O A L � V L•1 .-a - 11 3 u Gj C 0 ,-i 0 Cli O u C a u 0 fr s L u A O E L O V ;-1 C O u r, LA C A -j A 4 4- CL Lit L ij s al u V V i 4 4i C 4i rl --Pd -P -P V --i E -�-j O L W _ •t-i 0) C •.-i C O 4-• . i I j L 3 C Of r: -0 0 •_' O L r; rl E4- L 00 V A C C W CL O L M. 0 X av- O'l-j i ^• V L — r/ 4- F- .: Gi'a--i E r; V E V u O V 4-i 4- O Gfi C A r riff W .- C U. V -0 O J u �L O E S C L -P > O -ate -,f J-i 4J C -0 -P L L r? 73 V O -0 c: -P V u O f Ll +a N O Li@ O A C .—a ra rl L a` Ltl L .,t _ r ID F- ra ,-a ri .; L C A A \ T, n V --1 CL O r., CL— C rl W rl A y V ill l C C O O 4j Gil En Z w: CQ C E u E -0 C V O c rl L CL c 'v^^. .3 O n O r u Gal O E r; -f Ca C ;j 3 c: O V L: V 3 N •, Y ll V -f C L) !..! _ •Gf u C C 0 0 a-% 0 L CL i'.'+ E -P tU v u bl i r; u V :? C O O -- C C E C C C i a Oa r u •,- O ;to L O 4- C -+ _ r.. C 4-i rl rl C •r+ O O 41 rl a; 3-% O V -Gf -P > U C u'a u 9- V A - E V W t u U C4-j u rs b1 ­4 V tr L O V rl V L s? V O -4 U '•P +i -4j C10 = L s -i T3 3 Si -0 L t� C E u N -C V --e V r; O O 0 C, -0 0 .1 rD rl f i `l C E ?-' rl A r; a% > r' E L; r r C: L rl . O 4j O V _ r > = O f 31 rl Up •- A O LR C r z. u Y s✓ W V i3 .--a 431 r c u C C u Ci -P - • -0 E -P In C c= O eia c r; CL C' -P z O C V u i V M -P — 4-1 Li C V W s 4- u 0 = E L > f O V ,- O O L4 •- C o V O •a•t Ul A V D a C L•^t L f •i-a V 13 u s? - L vt t; O � ri C L re L C V :.' L C CL w O J 0 ►. C u n• u V G'_i u -0 Ili it as V V • r i s7 O L U V O _ .,..a 0a+ ` C V A > . > A = Y 3 - J O > CL -C �a •,-a r a-: :-f > D. V A O pi3 O L -0 u L u O -a i-- u . n Lq C r; u . . u O r 3 C t-a L n .a-. a O - L Z: Ol rl L -C L L > rr 4i C C E D L - VG, .a O >A rl 0 u l i 2- 4jv�4-1 `V 0 -.-- r/ 3 njF'• 3 ? a tt: V E E A T L r; r V 4i 4- L A :mot o tY 'o i): r 3 O rn v LR V i` iij rr W = L 0 W rl +i i C =• E C L C jJ ril C -" n O 3 -0 a#• N •-a c 4j O O -C C 01•t-a r O - O n O v :-. r' O C 4-i C rq ri rl C V ': O E = C 3 � a-i O u V J 4J tw •t-i ri 00 F- -r 0 — V i e IP a; : ril M V li •=•e O r, _ • 4 O s1 iU ! Ws [ L: i Li N n j1w + c + a a ' u 4J ri C L m O -P -- - r if; -H 4- C: g •rt r, tll iysa 1 Sl; Ol rl sr -ri •rf O r:- >- V V L C r; > u C V > a; -0 O -P c C C u L a; V C W !i i_: 3 E E 3 A al Mu - . r u ?: 4j .a • f ri t •Gf > r La; re A ra rs 3 7 u rn 70 — C Gl OL t�3 L r, L rl E 4J N N E U J C: G- Mn ri tri Oj -Lj '- T3 09 r u L — rU V 0 0 lea L O O O -- n r; tV L C C C - W" V C. 0 . r L CL a7 J wr M tr E u ? {,`; u L= u L0 -0 _ V s '- V i- -0 > On, Ul �C - f G,,,l'= V b IZ Liz V oy c), ,f1 p U �V .1'J 6 �f 1 (o �(r�� Cr -,.Q,k lJvvlA-e. �� 7 - �,;L3S1 � i i . _ f ` ", i I i �. i� ` 1 N ', i I . I �tCE'�`+cD 6Y 80��OFF CE �,tTY-COUN1�( PLANN�N 51a DATE 2615 Langohr May 3, 1992 City Commissioners 411 E. Main Street, Bozeman, MT. 59715 Ue_ir Sirs . I am writing to express my strong opposition to -the proposed Overbrook Partner-ship condominium proposal . This proposal is with the single-family, residential nature of the Figgins .subdivision. It is my understanding that the original development allowed for -the addition of 10 single-family, residential homes in the area riort.h Viestridge Drive on the west side of Sough Third Ave. I d'D rig l; ve. ariy objection to this type of development and in fact other single-furnily houses have been constructed at -the south end of Langohr and on w_ir ious vacant lots on Westr. idge Drive over the lEt!_t few years . However, the introduction of other types of high or medium density construction would dramatically increase the amount of -traffic on Westridge and in -tire si.zbdiVi.sion as a whole and set a precedent for the development of similar condominium projects on otl-ie-r land surrounding the subdivision and ad.jacerit. to the new Mc,rnirig Star sch�Dul . Is it possible that the entire Figgins subdivision. will be, encircled by condorntn.ii:urfi coixiplexes? This is totally unacceptable ! r'Jhen my family and I came to Bozeman .five years ago, we looked at a number of areas in Bozeman before deciding to purchase a. home in t1i.e fYiggi.ris subdivision. It was ttre residential, single- family nature of the area which was the deciding factor in our cl.-ioi ce c!f Figg i.ri.s. The l.ow traff is density of th.e area ensured the safety of our children, especially when they were small . In add i-t;ion, tYif :rFt_rn31y=oriented nature of the community contributed to a. quiet., peaceful Fatnioaphere in sharp contrast• to other areas suc:li as South Rouse where heavy; high speed traffic and partying by NISU students, often disturbs th.e tranquility of the area. I fear ttiat the close proximity of the condominium complex: to MSU will ,•Pave as a magnet. for student occupancy in the complex. I was r-ince a college student myself_ and I am a.lsr.) aware of the econ.omir• impact of HSU students on Bozeman. However, it was -the case at rriy university, that the students did not live in residential areas. This allowed the students to enjoy their youthful exuberance and for families to enjoy their peace and q1A i et. ! � ., • • � • „ �i ,_, � A �, , , ilk Finally, I wonder about the motivation of the developers in seeking a 'variance' to the existing development plan for the Figgins subdivision to allow this condominium development. Are they trying to find a loophole to allow them to make additional profit in the area over that realized from single-family development? Do they live in the Figgins subdivision and are they concerned with the duality of life of the residents of the area? Are they seeking to capitalize on the appeal of the new Morning Star school and the proximity of the area to MSU to pack in . as many additional people :is possible? Are they using the controversy concerning the widening of South Third Ave. and the installation of sidewalks in the area as a. ' smoke screen' to push through this unacceptable development while the residents are busy attending other meetings? I strongly suggest: that the developers construct a condominium complex in their own neighborhood and leave thy AUble, quiet, family-oriented., single.-family, residential area . of Figgins alone ! I urge the city commissioners to totally rejeot this present, condominium development and any future attempts to develop such projects in Figgins as incompatible with best interests of the present and future residents of the area. Sincerely, Paula Sunner RECEiVED BY BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE May 3 , 1992 ?a DATE Bozeman City Commissioners 411 E . Main St . Bozeman, MT 59715 Dear Bozeman Commissioners : As residents of the Figgins subdivision we are writing to express our concern over the proposed 34-unit condominium development which may be built in the area of Westridge Drive and Fryslie Street . First, this area is zoned "R-2 " and is designed for single-family, medium-density housing. This zoning is part of a thoughtful, community-wide planning program which benefits the entire area over the long-term. Why should the original zoning for the area be ignored? We bought a house in this subdivision 12 years ago with the understanding that such zoning would ensure a neighborhood of single family dwellings, and now it seems you are about to bend the rules and permanently alter the character of the area for the short-term gain of one developer . What good is zoning if it is not followed? Westridge Drive, off South 3rd Street to the west and south, is already an extremely busy street . It will only become more so with the opening of the. Morning Star school in August of 1992 . The curve on Westridge where it turns to the south is already very dangerous . With cars parked along the side it is often a single- lane street . That is complicated by the absence of sidewalks, which force people to walk in the street . You add in the usual neighborhood activities of children biking, etc and the area is already overused. These points have been discussed at the neighborhood meetings which have been held regarding the South 3rd/Figgins-West ridge neighborhood traffic problems . The consensus at these meetings showed that the residents of the area feel this section of Westridge Drive is already very dangerous with the current neighborhood conditions . To allow the addition of more traffic, especially entering and exiting Westridge at this curve, is extremely irresponsible. Aesthetically, the area proposed for development seems much more suitable for a park. The spring and marshy area, especially if improved a bit, could provide a delightful natural setting to complement the Museum and view of the Bridgers to the north. If the purpose of community planning is to provide for high quality usage of space for the long-term benefit of the entire community, how can we allow this area to be paved over and erect structures which cut-off the treasured views of our surrounding mountains that make Bozeman so special? • hr Everyone is currently aware of the desirability of Bozeman. We need to look at this development in the context of how it will impact the neighborhood and community now and for the long-term. We believe it is not in keeping with the original planned development of the area, will adversely affect the appearance of the area, and will dramatically add to the already impacted traffic patterns in the area and de crease the safety factor. The needs of the .entire neighborhood must be considered in this decision, not just the desires [or profits] of the few. Sincerely, Diane Lageson David Lageson 2916 Westridge Dr . Bozeman, MT 59715 I I DATE: MAY 3, 1992 RECEIVED PLANNING OFFICE OZEMAN CITY-COUNTY ^� TO: City Commissioners �- 411 East Main DATE Bozeman, MT 59715 FRONI: Joan Kuhzman 2717 Langohr SUBJECT: Multiple-family housing--Figgins Subdivision I .,a rge you not to allow the construction of any type of multiple-family units in the Figgins Additi,6h. Consttacti6h of any such units will only result in further congestion of Mize area's streets, which have already proven to be a problem. The area was originally approved for 10 single-family units and should remain that wgy. Yan Elpel, Tsy.D. `Doctor of Clinical Tsychology—Specializing in`Family Therapy BOZEMAN 504 W. Springueek Drive PLANNING OFFICE Bozeman, Montana 59715 406-587-5844 DATE ,'mel. cl= o� 2717 Langohr Avenue Bozeman MT 59715 RECEI'dED 3 Hay 1992 CITY-COUNTY PLANNING DATE City Commissioners 411 Fast Main Street Bozeman MT 59715 Subject: Condition6l Use. Hearing, Lots 16 and 21 through 30, Block-9, Figgins Addition Dear City Commission: I ask you to not allow construction of multiple=r13 ' •u..:�#�.:, MTh: subject area. We oim in the Figgins Addition and bought there because the subject area was zoned R-2. It is unfair to reduce the value of my property to the profit of the Overbrook Partnership. Let them go into an area already zoned multiple-:family. Additionally the streets and roads serving this area are already in- adequate. A higher density will worsen this problem. Should you not honor my above requests as a minium the developer should be required to pay, on a per tenant basis,:-a''Xair `bh4M. of the' pest and remaini g 30 cosh a.14estridge Street. The developer should also be reuired to insure payment of a fair share of the costs for any forthcoming u.>grade of Third Avenue South of Kagy Street. A rational person can see the .new elementary school as a prime attract- ion of housing of the quality proposed. The residents will have child- ern waking to that school along a street where sidewalks are yet to be installed. Payment of a. fair share of the costs for the 1plestridge and last block of Arnold sidewalks should be reqaired to be fair to other taxpayers. In summary I prefer you keep my neighborhood 'single family dwellings. If you will not do this, as a minimum insure the new area pays for a fiar share of the increased load on neighborhood and common-user im- provements. Ue are paying our share and must face possible increases yet stand to lose rather than profit from the re-zoning. Yours truly, NATHANI . J. KUTZ111AN, Jr. Property 0umer and Registered Voter I May 2 , 1992 RECEIVED BY BOZEMAN "0-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE AJ Donald R. u Mary -:'Mn Hostetler 5 2702 i,angohr Ave. DATE Bozeman, !,;IT 59715 City Commissioners 411 E. Main St . Bozeman , MT 59715 Dear City Commissioners : This letter comes to voice our objection to condos in our subdivision. First of all , we have th-oroughly enjoyed our eleven (11) years in this subdivision with single family unit interaction. We chose to be here away from condo congestion. Secondly, the city is seemingly having a hard time dealing with the traffic issue , i.e. third street and school traffic. Added traffic from the condos will definitely mean problems during morning and evening traffic flow. Our streets are not laid out to handle this much traffic smoothly. Thirdly, we do not believe that this kind of building in our area would benefit our property values . For these reasons we believe the zoning should remain as originally set , that being single family dwellings . Our minds are .reminded of the result of building on Durston Street , but we hope our input will not go unheeded. We appreciate the opportunity to express ourselves in written form as we had already made other plans for May 5 , 1992 and cannot attend that meeting. Sincerely, Donald71ostetler Mary iron Hostetler RECEfVED BY BOZEMAf\I CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE S"* DATE W\�-a-t g�sJ Qt.� • �� C3��.�, \� �GL?��rt-:L. ��N .,�E.S��c.`�. 6� S'..N L4c. '"C�1� 70 ��_5 `�' ,eta.�.•� �.��cch��A�S, \�- .�.�� .,���'�.-� � �..��� �� Cow o Qk _ -A.)o.kt,-;Z:> NCWJt @,a.Lvw-,c,� R Cowo s `tom o� . S;v�,7�, 'c-�`���� . Co�=ss�•tT\�� s�.� ��ct�7A�� Caste �.c,oVt':` Qua✓��SaO� C� a�\�Y.�.S` ��•S\� . t�`�S"�bS�.�C,t�.\.�5, �QRAQrc.0.�'c.S 5��� `► \```` �s\lam`_ i • - tG BY BOZEMAN Y- GUN f Y PLANNING OFFICE � 2 Bozeman city commissioners DATE 411 E. Main St . Bozeman, MT 59715 2 May 1992 Dear Sir/Ms : We would like to voice our concern and displeasure with the proposed change in zoning for the 34-unit condominum project within the Figgins subdivision. We strongly oppose this proposal as it will increase traffic, alter property values, and change the current single family, medium density area into higher density housing. There are a number of condominium complexes around town where higher density areas currently exist and for which there is ample room for further development . For example, Valley Unit and Black Street area north of Kagy. We feel that multi-family housing complexes should be confined to already zoned areas such as these and not change the current single family dwelling status of Figgins . Keep Figgins a single family housing development ! Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Tom McMahon Doreen McMahon 2810 Secor Ave . Bozeman 587-7937 f +JLEMAN �LANNING OFFICE May 2, 1992 DATE RECEWEp B Y BCZEMAN City Commissioners CI COUNTY P(.gNNING 411 East Main Street OFFICE Bozeman, MT 59715 �. Dear City Commissioners : ATE J understand that Overbrook Partnership is proposing a 34 unit condominium development in the Figgins addition . I oppose this development . A new elementary school is being constructed in the Figgins addition. The dramatic traffic increase of this number of dwellings is not appropriate at this stage of interaction between new school traffic and current residents . I believe there will be enough traffic complications without adding additional . Third street is the only exit currently for many subdivisions around Figgins . The conditions of winter driving make the entrance on to third difficult enough without adding additional vehicles . I believe that there needs to be much thought given to the impact of this development prior to a and deviation of the zoning. Thank you. Sincerely, l e L. Ratzlaff v MRS. JANE RATZLAFF 3002 WESTRIDGE DR. yam' BOZEMAN, MT. 59715 1. � � i � � ���{. ` _ i 10MICHAEL J. HALAT, PH.D.0 2906 Langohr Ave. RECEIVED BY 'BOZE Bozeman, MT 59715 CITY-COUNTY PLANNING Cr ' 406-586-4446 . DATE City Commissioners May 1, 1992 411 E. Main Street Bozeman, MT 59715 Dear City Commissioners: I am opposed to the proposed 34 unit condominium development to be built in the Figgins Addition for the following reasons: 1. Such a large population increase will result in an even larger increase in traffic on South Third Avenue. 2. Construction of condominiums in the Figgins Addition will have a negative impact on property values. 3. There will be a loss of view lines unless the condominiums are no taller than a single family dwelling. 4. This will set a precedent for the construction of other multi-family units in the Figgins Addition. 5. If I had wanted to live in a multi-family dwelling subdivision, I would have purchased property in another part of town. I can agree to the construction of single family dwellings, but I definitely oppose the construction of condominiums in the Figgins Addition. Please deny the application to construct condominiums in the Figgins Addition. Sincerely, X;,�,qv S-/ pub ' a 14 rz2CO/ssiGr..�G � Z-V?C 31VG Z , I, S 3MJO q did P.Nnoo-uo 0 NVN379 l9 CITMOUNTY PLANNING C. FITTV RAID DON L-RNGOHR �'y�IiaB 205 HESTR1DGE DRIVE H®ZEHRH, HOHTRHH DATE 59715 May 1, 1992 Planning Director, City of Bozeman, 411 E. Main St. BozeWman, MT 59715 Re: Conditional use permit by Qverbrook Partnership in Figgins Addition. We believe there is no justification to change the plat of the Figgins Addition in the Frysiie Street area from the present 1 1 lots to a PUD allowing 34 condominium units among 10 buildings. There is no reason to create a high density niche in a built up area of medium density. There are now only three access points to Figgins and a school is being built. The niche would not be a transition zone between other zones as it abuts the Museum of the Rockies on the MSU campus. It would be an unwelcome encroachment on those who have well developed residential property on Westridge Drive. Also it would greatly increase traffic from the intersection of South Third Avenue and Westridge Drive. This would be a highly visible case of spot zoning and a detriment to those who have depended on the security of what is now a well designed subdivision. The value of the present 1 1 lots should be very high if used in compliance with present zoning. We certainly hope that the Conditional Use Permit Application will be denied. Sincerely, Don and P icia Lan :r GG� R IV D SY BOZE"A�� CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE. May 1, 1992f DATE Bozeman City Commission 411 E. Main Bozeman,MT 59715 RE: Subdivision Planned by Overbrook Partnership (Fryslie Street, Figgins Subdivision) Dear Commission Members: We, as residents of Figgins Subdivision, are writing to express our concern about the Overbrook planned unit division currently under design review by the City. The majority of Figgins residents are aghast that zoning restrictions have been so carelessly relaxed to allow multi-family units in Figgins Subdivision which was zoned for single-family units. We bought our houses for the type of homes, zoning and lifestyle Figgins offered. This relaxation of regulations only tells future Bozeman homeowners that the City does not provide much long-term security in terms of zoning when purchasing a home. As you well know from current hearings regarding traffic on South Third, our area of Bozeman is experiencing high traffic growth. A major concern about Overbrook and Its higher density housing is the added traffic load the 34-unit development would Impact on Westridge Drive and South Third. We understand that stop signs were required by the Design Review Committee at the two Overbrook entrances to Westridge Drive, but these signs are not addressing the safety Issues due to traffic volume on Westridge Drive. 34 housing units means a minimum of 34 vehicles added to an already busy intersection used by vehicles, bicycles,joggers and walkers. We are aware that the Overbrook developers are applying for permits since the proposed development lies in a wetland area. If the development is allowed, we ask that the City carefully monitor these permit applications. As we understand from the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks representative who reviewed the site regarding the need for a 310 (Natural Streambed and Land Preservation) Permit, the developer will definitely need a 404 (Army Corp of Engineers) Permit and will need to apply for a non-consumptive use water rights permit as it applies to the retention basins (ponds) proposed in the creek on the property. The residents of Figgins are concerned about the wetland area and any relaxation of regulations that would not protect this wetland. We understand that a FEMA permit is also necessary and the application should be monitored by the City Engineer for adherence. Before the City considers allowing the developer to build this PUD, City officials should walk the property and see how crowded this 4.67 acres will be with 34 units in 10 buildings. The finished development will look like a massive wall that backs up to the Tinsley House at the Museum of the Rockies. While these is a need for more mufti-family housing in Bozeman, is this small tract of land currently zoned for single family housing the proper place to allow such dense construction? Bozeman City Commission May 1, 1992 Page 2 We know that the City is attempting to plan for additional growth in a more thorough manner than in the past. Most of the Figgins residents are expecting elected City officials to keep their needs and zoning expectations in mind during this review of Overbrook. The Overbrook PUD is not compatible with Figgins subdivision planning. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Christine and Jake Fisher 2410 Langohr Bozeman, MT 59715 RECEIVED BY CITY-COUNTY PLANNING T 597/5 um yll E. 5 9 7/� II cvm concn�v.� anew' 0 C"VN,O-Lvry-, -j6w o a jj,,j 7,30 � m - 8';ooam , d rd. of 3 J�e Ci, S • / Alt Wit . AV 0 � � ,ye + c aw kW � w k„ y�mp. a,Qan . daae�u�mC� . Titian�e �oGf RE-C'EiVEU BY BOZEMAN UiTY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE April 30, 1992 SA'Z2Z DATE Bozeman City-County Planning Board P.O. Box 640 Bozeman, Montana 59715 Dear Sir In my opinion the Conditional Use Permit Application for a Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat on the property described as lot 16 . and lots 21 through 30 of Block 9 , Figgind Addition is not in the best interest of our neighborhood and community . The prop- erty is zoned residential, single-family, medium=densit To ap- prove the construction of 34 condominiums (multi-family would violate the trust and faith we have in our .city and county officials . The original plat was approved for single-family and it should re- main that way . Multi-family , high-density use will exasperate the South 3rd traffic problem which has no permanent solution in the foreseeable future. The construction of large multi-family structures will create a wall of buildings that will be difficult to see beyond. There is also a concern about property values . The architectural plans look nice and no doubt the new buildings will look nice for the first three to five years . But , what about the long term effect . My gut feel- ing is that the multi-family units will deteriorate into an eyesore due to the smallness of the individual units which lend themselves to short term occupancy . I urge you to disapprove the application and preliminary plat . Sincerely /( Donald K. McBride 412 Cutting Street Bozeman, Montana 59715 P, - i tih y 1 a /� �& -RECEIVED BY BOZEMAN 'J.TY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE DATE V „�2�'�/1�'ic �G''J?�PiJ^✓GPJ ./A'l� ft77�.�0 ir.cv/Gi�� �A �." aw -lc�/ 1�v /-�. �- P.ECEI`JED BY BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNI G OFFICE IY Gtyil�Repinl Rlp.le RaSCrvep py epplb,BrNnlnp,MonleN City Commisioners 411 E Main §treet Bozeman , Montana 59715 April 29 , 1992 Dear Sirs : This note is to express our concern over the recently proposed Overbrook Partnership project for development in our neighborhood of Figgins subdivision . In looking at wh.at thi.s will likely do to our property yalue , th.e dra.mati.c increase in dangerous traffic , and the unk.no,,•In quality of the development itself , my husband and I ;ao.ul d 1 i ke. 'Co make known to you our opposition to such a development, brie would strongly suagest that you consider denial of such a move . It is our opinion that our neinhbor- hood would be better utilized as a single family home develon- me.nt e.xcl.usivelyp We are always striving to care for and maintain our Fignins nroperty . to the utmost of our for and feel a comnlex such as the one proposed ivtll seriously harm ours and our neibor ' s efforts to increase the value of our hol.res here . We know our concerns are shared be many of those in our area . I n.ank-you for your consi 6erati ot. of our o�,i nti ons, o f lt.h pr,opcsa: Sincerely , �iichael Pp and Chri.stel L . 1'oo.el 41U` 4' Cuti:ing Sti-eet So�eman , ?t, 5971.5 c;i 7-4044 April 29, 1992 Bozeman City Commissioners P.O. Box 640 i.l .' /cl� BY BOZEMAN City Of Bozeman ; T Y-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE Bozeman, MT 59715 / Z_ Dear Commissioners: DATE I'm Leola Brelsford. In 1984 I bought from the Grafs one of five lots in the last phase of Figgins Subdiviison. The lots were smaller-:in depth and I built a nice, redwood, single"-Istory home. I paid SIDS and spent most of what I had in time and money on landscaping. I realized there were larger building sites to the north of me in a cul-de-sac and that someday families would build homes there but since it was compatible with Figgins I didn't mind. I am disappointed in the Overbrook proposal for a major subdivision with variances. They new when we all bought our lots what we were expecting. They have cut down their original plan of 48 dwellings to 34. However because of cost to fill this lowland, with a stream bed, high water table and bird refuge, have moved these large 4 condo units to the higher ground and border up completely my view to open space. The unit behind my house 30 to 35 feet from my back door step is larger than my lot itself. For architecture pleasing design the roof has a high pitch and will be as a unpleasing as having a Safeway store set at my back line. There are two of these directly behind me with eight and a half of them total in the surrounding ten building sites. They are two bedroom condos and we in Figgins all think they are aimed at the MSU student/postdoctorate market within walking/biking/driving to MSU. This area has always been young families with a traffic problem, even now compounded by the new school opening this Fall. Until the city solves some of the street problems it will be dangerous and congested with 100 parking stalls they have requested. The Grafs own other land in the surrounding area and it seems apartment houses/condos could be concentrated in those areas more easily. This has had a long term dwelling unit plan that was in place when the first sells made. Our expectations were exploited to some 'degree if the maximum use of these lands. My home will be hard to sell, should I find these people looking down and over me with no open space to the North and my Bridger mountains now lost from view forever. Even in these days of a sellers market. Could any of the commissioners possibly view the site before deciding? Is there any recourse we have family dwellings have? How can this higher density now be imposed? Please take my request into consideration. Sincerely, Leola Brelsford 415 West Westridge Dr. Bozeman, MT - Lot 20 586-3801 phone ;e RECEiicD BY ��EMAN,� aiiYw SPRING CR CITY-COUNTY PLAN OFFI 802EMRN Nt 59715 5 /� - DAT,G�/ � zil /10 421 Westridge Drive Bozeman, MT 59715 April 28 , 1992 RECEII'JED By BOZEMAN Bozeman City Commission `�iTY�COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE P.O. Box 640 S r/<12o Bozeman, MT 59771 DATE Dear Bozeman City Commissioners : This letter is in response to the notice we have received concerning an application by the Overbrook Partnership to permit a Planned Unit Development in the existing Figgins Addition . We oppose .the Planned Unit Development now being reviewed "for a Major Subdivision requested by the Overbrook Partnership" . Our residence is located on lot 19 of Figgins Subdivision - directly South of Overbrook . When we purchased our house we were shown the plat for the Overbrook piece which consisted of approximately ten lots for single-family, single-unit dwellings . Two of these lots adjoined our property. The Overbrook design that we now have in our possession shows a multi-family 4-plex running the entire length of our lot ( 100 ft . ) . The structure, we are told, will be 24' high at the eves with a maximum height of 31 ' . Our own house, which we consider quite high, has a maximum height of only 21' . The Overbrook structure will shadow our lot and our house in both the vertical and the horizontal dimensions . Our neighbor to the East, Leola Brelsford, has a very modest height to her house . Yet, an identical 4-plex structure backs up to her lot for its entire length as well . For our two residences , we will now have a wall at the back of our lots of approximately 200' total . This, I think you will agree , is quite a divergence from the anticipated structures that would have housed single families behind us . Aside from the obvious loss of our view, and the loss of any sense of open space (ground level or skyward) behind our two lots , we further object to the idea of multi-family units in this area . This parcel of land is a part of the fourth phase of the Figgins Addition. There are no other multi-family dwellings in the entire Figgins Addition, nor were there plans for such units until now. The creation of this small corner of condominium type housing in this subdivision at this time, when the rest of the subdivision is complete, breaks a covenant of i understanding with all current residents in Figgins Subdivision. Finally, we also object to the Overbrook development because of the implied increase in traffic that will accompany a development that expands average family density by three fold. The appropriate number of family units for this piece of property should be roughly equal to the average number of family-units per acre that currently exists in the Figgins Subdivision. We wish to thank you for considering our input on this important matter. For the above reasons , we urge you to reject this Planned Unit Development. Sincerely yours , �" LLI /Ili 0 RECEIVED BY BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY /PLANNING OFFICE DATE 421 Westridge Drive Bozeman, MT 59715 April 28 , 1992 Bozeman City-County Planning Board P.O. Box 640 Bozeman, MT 59771 Dear City-County Planning Board: Enclosed please find a copy of the letter my wife and I have written to the Bozeman City Commission concerning the proposed Overbrook Subdivision. In it we explain our opposition to the proposed development. If you have any questions, if you would like to visit our property for a first-hand look at the developments impact in our neighborhood or if there is any other way we can assist you in your review of this proposal, please feel free to call one of us. Our home phone is 586-7599, or you can leave a message for me at my work phone, 587-5181 . Thank you for considering our input in this matter. Sincerely, ,�t�J � •� f ... a � f ' � �. ! ! r ''ai ,' . r r - it as . ., ,. kf. .. t � rt' C � � f .r r •� ` 'tea � I � � . „ . . , , ; � . � t •� � � 1 1 J ' )ZEMAN KE: CITY-COUIN i 28 April 1992 DATE V . Lowell Goetting 422 Cutting Bozeman, MT 59715 Bozeman City Commissioners 411 East Main Bozeman, MT 59715 Dear Commissioners : I am writing to express my opposition to the plan by the Overbrook Partnership to develop a section of the Figgins Addition to Bozeman . Approval of this project would be a slap in the face of those families who have purchased property, in good faith, based upon the sound judgement of the city planning which has gone on before , Multi-family dwellings are totally incompatible with the atmosphere of the neighborhood; as it was planned and as it exists . Traffic on South Third is already a recognized problem. To add the burden of multi-family dwellings , and the additional traffic they bring, can only exasporate the problem. Property values will suffer . The property owners currently in residence in the area deserve your help in protecting their property . The only good reason to develop this land, as proposed by Overbrook Partnership, is personal profit . We all recognize that the greater the density of the residents , the greater the potential for personal gain by the developer . The properties built under the current proposal will undoubtedly be used as rental units . There is no reason to expect them to be maintained to a level consistent with the best interests ofpermanent residents . Bozeman does not need additional rental space , The University is proposing large enrolment cutbacks . This can only lead to fewer units of University housing being utilized; increasing the number of available units in Bozeman . Given the location of the proposed development , it is reasonable to expect the majority of the units will be rented to students ; or sold to individuals who intend to rent to students . I question Bozeman' s need. I urge you to vote against the development as it is proposed. Thank you for your consider ion . I loo7A forward to hearing of your decision . i DENNIS R. NEUMAN 2603 SOUTH LANGOHR AVENUE BOZEMAN MT 59715 RECEIVED BY BOZEMAN Mr. Kevin Wall, Assoc. Planner/Urban Designer CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE Bozeman City-County Planning Office LOI 35 North Wallace Avenue P.O. Box 640 DATE Bozeman, MT 59715 RE: OVERBROOK CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX Dear Mr. Wall: As a resident of the Figgins Addition I would like to make the following comments regarding the proposed residential development known as Overbrook: • Much of the area proposed for development is in a low-lying position, which may meet the classification of a wetlands. It is assumed that the City-County Planning Office and /or the developers will be required to ascertain if this area is a wetland by contacting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps is the cognizant federal agency which makes deci- sion regarding assessments of wetlands. This assessment is made prior to development, although it is evident that a large quantity of fill dirt has already been placed at the site. • Please consider the vehicular impact of this development on the already congested Westridge/Langohr/So 3rd Ave. intersection. A one-way traffic pattern within the complex may help relieve this congestion. • No sidewalks are currently planned for this development. To be consistent with the rest cf the Figgins Addition, it would seem prudent that these should be installed. Sincerely, Dennis R. Neuman i i i I RECEIJEi1 6Y BOL"tM�f:t+ _ CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFI'J DATE `��r��rv' elf 592 ivy' 4vd�_ ; lal-9,0 4-,, c�,.LG�cvrr/{ �G�'��'�-QJ 6 J�.�t.Ue,o 9"-�/`✓ aC�cr�'�'G� Q -�o�, .�'��� q..���a —� tit • n���-f T0: Bozeman City-County Planning Board KECEi�rcD BY BOZEMAN CTY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE Bozeman city Commission sill Development Review Committee Design Review Board r DATE FR: Figgins Subdivision and Adjacent Property Owners DATE: April 15, 1992 RE: Public Hearings and Meetings on the Conditional Use Permit For a Planned Unit Development and a Major Subdivision We as property owners who live in or adjacent to the Figgins subdivision are deeply concerned about the proposed PUD, described by the developers as Overbrook, on Fryslie Street within the Figgins Subdivision; a subdivision approved by the city in 1983 as Phase 4 of the Figgin's development. The proposed PUD Overbrook, on Fryslie in the Figgins subdivision is cur- rently zoned for 10 plots on each of which only one single family dwelling can be constructed. The developers are requesting a PUD to construct 34 family dwellings in multiplex units on this property. Thus they intend to increase the population that will live in this proposed development by a factor of 3.5 relative to the population for which it is currently zoned. This proposal is inconsistent with the entire Figgins development. In all streets which have been currently developed only single family dwellings have been constructed; in compliance with the existing zoning laws. We believe that the proposed PUD will lead to serious problems for the existing and proposed community. A primary concern is the inevitable and substantial increase in traffic con- gestion resulting from the excess traffic flows from the proposed develop- ment. This is a particularly crucial issue at this time because of the imminent change in traffic patterns associated with the opening of Morning Star elementary school. The developers themselves claim they are constructing a major new subdivision. Clearly the proposed development is not a new subdiviision but a part of Phase 4 of the established Figgins development, which itself consists of single family dwellings occupied by families. If the development was a new subdivision you would require the incorporation of a park as well as open space. There is no such plan currently and appar- r a � � � r , � � Bozeman City-County Planning Board. . . . Page 2 antly the developers expect to use existing facilities in Figgins such as Jarret Park which is already heavily utilized. In fact, we believe this pproposed PUD development is inconstant with, and in violation of the City's intent for that property, and, as planned will result in an intolerable strain on existing roads and other amenities. In summary, at this time we have serious reservations about the propriety and safety of the development and request that the Bozeman City Planning Board adn City Commissioners require the developers to comply with the existing single .f.amily dwelling' R2 zoning regulation: Signatures. IN" 22l OA J 2-0 r7 CU.e�u.62 5 Fs - �{ Bozeman City-County Planning Board. . . . Page 2 antly the developers expect to use existing facilities in Figgins such as Jarret Park which is already heavily utilized. In fact, we believe this pproposed PUD development is inconstant with, and in violation of the City's intent for that property, and, as planned will result in an intolerable strain on existing roads and other amenities. In summary, at this time we have serious reservations about the propriety and safety of the development and request that the Bozeman City Planning Board adn City Commissioners require the developers to comply with the existing single .family dweliing' R2 zoning regulation.- Signatures. to WQ-,Ar, 1� 5'Ss1- 6Zs7 S l 6 LJ J%-� g 7- 7 y 3 6 ID 1 o Z 3 sS7- gl dl . f r Bozeman City-County Planning Board. . . . Page 2 antly the developers expect to use existing facilities in Figgins such as Jarret Park which is already heavily utilized. In fact, we believe this pproposed PUD development is inconstant with, and in violation of the City's intent for that property, and, as planned will result in an intolerable strain on existing roads and other amenities. In summary, at this time we have serious reservations about the propriety and safety of the development and request that the Bozeman City Planning Board adn City Commissioners require the developers to comply with the existing single .family dwelling'.R2- z6ning regulation.- Signatures. S K 7.- 9} R ► �� V / �71 J�a 4ae� 5�� 2<5 4 Bozeman City-County Planning Board. . . . Page 2 antly the developers expect to use existing facilities in Figgins such as Jarret Park which is already heavily utilized. In fact, we believe this pproposed PUD development is inconstant with, and in violation of the City's intent for that property, and, as planned will result in an intolerable strain on existing roads and other amenities. In summary, at this time we have serious reservations about the propriety and safety of the development and request that the Bozeman City Planning Board adn City Commissioners require the developers to comply with the existing single .family dwelling' R2 zoning regulation.- Signatures. �05 Tlo C 5_,V5 -903 Ly,0 0 L�Zj /yDY�eCv 5�10 —�'S 69 b►o 'm°mot c-Lo 5 8 6• 1� 8 r� 411 y' ` l I !o !/�o✓t�ow S 9 7 - a G. SS0 y • Bozeman City-County Planning Board. . . ., Page 2 antly the developers expect to use existing facilities in Figgns such as Jarret Park which is already heavily utilized. In fact, we believe this pproposed PUD development is inconstant with, and in violation of the City's intent for that property, and, as planned will- result in an intolerable strain on existing roads and other amenities. In summary, at this time we have serious reservations about the propriety and safety of the development and request that the Bozeman City Planning Board adn City Commissioners require the developers to comply with the existing single .family dwelling' R2 zoning regulation.- Signatures. es,- 4 R Ce l 4W ZV 7 (.q w. A rnv Ld S 5 6-36 8 1�1 PZ/ W. i Bozeman City-County Planning Board. . . . Page 2 antly the developers expect to use existing facilities in Figgins such as Jarret Park which is already heavily utilized. In fact, we believe this pproposed PUD development is inconstant with, and in violation of the City's intent for that property, and, as planned will result in an intolerable strain on existing roads and other amenities. In summary, at this time we have serious reservations about the propriety and safety of the development and request that the Bozeman City Planning Board adn City Commissioners require the developers to comply with the existing single Jamily dwelling' R2 zoning regulation.- Signatures. �,.w..�� 70-1 17 J Z7U i�� i,�t96L ����L. o��i6f Gt,lelir2ra�C SP�� " 7� ZJ U; ffo_ 'VI r 02 T 5 G�� �l w�6, 6 ��r( P( ,L Bozeman City—County Planning Board. . . . Page 2 antly the developers expect to use existing facilities in Figgins such as Jarret Park which is already heavily utilized. In fact, we believe this pproposed PUD development is inconstant with, and in violation of the City's intent for that property, and, as planned will result in an intolerable strain on existing roads and other amenities. In summary, at this time we have serious reservations about the propriety and safety of the development and request that the Bozeman City Planning Board adn City Commissioners require the developers to comply with the existing single family dwelling' R2 zoning regulation.- Signatures. r Bozeman City—County Planning Board. . . . Page 2 antly the developers expect to use existing facilities in Figgins such as Jarret Park which is already heavily utilized. In fact, we believe this pproposed PUD development is inconstant with, and in violation of the City's intent for that property, and, as planned will result in an intolerable strain on existing roads and other amenities. In summary, at this time we have serious reservations about the propriety and safety of the development and request that the Bozeman City Planning Board adn City Commissioners require the developers to comply with the existing single family dwelling' R2 zoning regulation.- Signatures. �7754, � � 1586, - 380/ a�� April13,1992 RECEIVED BY BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE Mr.Andy Epple DATE Planning Director Bozeman City-County Planning Department 35 North Bozeman Avenue Bozeman,MT 59715 RE: Conditional Use Permit-Subdivision Planned by Overbrook Partnership Dear Mr.Epple: We recenfly received a Notice of Public Hearings and Meetings regarding the subdivision planned by Overbrook Partnership. We live on Langohr Avenue in Figgins Subdivison,about 4-5 houses from the entrance to the proposed Fryslie Street through Lot 16 or517 Westridge. Our main concern with the plan that is proposed by Overtfook Partnerships is traffic flow. The junction ofWestridge and South Third is already congested at various times during the day. We have witnessed accidents at this junction in the past. Adding Fryslie Street and 34 condominium units is only going to make traffic flow more of a problem for Figgins residents,particularly at the Westridge/South Third junction. Is the Overbrook Partnership going to provide a second outlet to a streetotherthan Westridge for the residents of the 34 units or is Figgins expected to take on this increased traffic? Many of us have young children who bike or are joggers ourselves who also use these streets. With all ofthe trirtfic problems already confronting South Third,will this addition of 34+ additional vehicles from Overbrook residents make the Westridge junction more dangerous for those ofus who use it consistently? We also have concerns about the destruction of the wetland area for this development and the type of architecture that has been planned. Most of the Figgins Subdivision residents moved to the subdivision for the type ofsingle-family housing it provided. Is the proposed development by Overbrook Partnership such that families will be inhabiting the condominiums as opposed to it being used for college housing,for example? Any plans for development of property so closely adjacent to Figgins should reflect the type of lifestyle sought by Figgins residents. We request that the Development Review Board and Design Review Committee take into account the need for cautious traffic flow and development planning when allowing developers to build housing units adjacent to existing subdivisions. We all recognize the growth in Bozeman and need to work together to plan for the growth so our current lifestyles aren't changed - drastically in the process. We'd appreciate your department's recognition of our concerns as residents of Figgins Subdivision. Sincerely, z2z, Christine and Fisher 2410 Langohr Bozeman,MT 59715 i 74�i � ?� " .•° `.'"�:a`', - , �. ,, . ( stir f 4 i ��\V�R ��� ��T�kN0J u�v�. ,�u w . uw��," ^` CITY-COUNTY M��I�F �/ / . ��°.`. . PLANNING OFFICE -_ LQ April 13, 1992 WE Attention: Planning Director I am writing in regard to the public notification of the Overbrook Partnership request for a planned unit development off of Westridge Drive, north of Figgins Addition. My husband and I are strongly opposed to this condominium development for two main reasons. 1 . We bought our home at 2611 Westridge Drive in August 1991 . Being aware of the open lands around this subdivision, we checked with the city and county to find out how that land was zoned and what development planning might be under consideration. We absolutely did not want to be in an area surrounded by industry and multi-residential dwellings. We were pleased to be told that the zoning was for single family dwellings. The sale of condominiums in this location would be totally inconsistent with present development. It would be an act of betrayal of the trust of local residents to make any zoning change at this location to accommodate a developer. This is not a case of " I ' ve got mine and tough luck to the next guy" . If these developers want to build additional single family dwelling on this acreage, I feel it would be entirely acceptable with proper planning for the increase in traffic flow. 2. This brings up my second issue of the vast traffic problems already troubling this area of the city. As you must be aware, residents of Westridge and Figgins have been meeting to seek answers for the major problems of restructuring South Third, and of how to get children safely through Figgins to the new school . An area that has received critical attention at each meeting is the dangers of the curve on Westridge, right where this new development plans to dump more traffic. According to statistics supplied by Sam Gianfrancisco at the last meeting, each household yields 7 vehicle trips into town each day. This condominium development would add 238 vehicle trips per day to this 2 block section of Westridge and to the intersection merging onto South Third. Please don' t give serious consideration to gny plan that will further exacerbate an already difficult situation. Each administrator has told those of us at the recent community meetings that they have the unwieldy job of cleaning up the mess resulting from prior years of poor planning. The zoning plan says single family dwellings only. Please stay with the zoning as originally planned. M 1:111)r 2611 Westridge Dr. RECEiVED BY BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE DATE 510 Westridge Drive Bozeman, MT 59715 March 12, 1992 Planning Director Bozeman City-County Planning Office 35 N. Bozeman Ave. Bozeman, MT 59715 Dear Sir : We have several concerns in relation to the proposed major subdivision applied for by Overbrook: partnership. 1 . One of our concerns is the fast that most , if not all , of the 4. 67 acres proposed for development is currently a wetland and hiosts many species of wildlife. Figgins Creek: and ether perennial water flaws through the area. We have observed mallards, killdeer , red-winged blackbirds, Hungarian partridge, snipe, kingfisher , sparrows, muskrat , porcupine, and ether species of songbirds as well as deer tracks. Mallards actually nest in this area, and we have seen broods of mallards there in past years. This area is extremely low in comparison to surrounding land and is characterized by a hiigh water table and riparian vegetation such as willows, cattails, sedges, and other species. Many neighborhood children play in this area and probably attain their first exposure to the value of wildlife and wildlife habitat . It is the northernmost part of this riparian wildlife corridor into Bozeman. This area also happens to lie -at least partially within the 100 year floodplain and includes a floodway. Upon asking at the County Planning office what was being done to address wetland considerations, they said that_ they contact the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parkas (MDFWP) for input when they have development proposals. As of April 13, 1992, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parkas had apparently not been contacted for their input on the proposal , because when I talked to Kurt Alt and Dick: Vincent , Biologists for MDFWP, and thiey were unaware of the project . Mr . Vincent mentioned the "Setback: Law" C18. 50. 060D) which calls for a buffer of 35 feet on either side of a watercourse in which no construction is to take place, and a 5 foot setback in which vegetation is to be maintained along watercourses. Neither of these two setbacks is being observed in the current design for the development . The Montana Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act (310 Permit Program) was also mentioned. This is a State permit which must be obtained by anyone proposing "Any activity that physically alters or modifies the bed and banks of a stream. " � The Army Corps of Engineers has also apparently not been contacted. A federal permit is needed from the US Army Corps of Engineers under the Federal Clean Water Act for "Any activity that will result in the discharge of dredged or placement of fill material into waters of the United States, including their adjacent wetlands. " The County Planning Office person that I talked to seemed to be unfamiliar with the Federal Clean Water Act administered by the Army Corps of Engineers which requires a 404 permit . Because of the size of the wetland in this proposed development , the nationwide permit (No. 26) does not cover this particular development . Privately owned wetlands are not exempt from the Act . A project of this size requires a one month comment period under the Federal Clean Water Act . If the project is allowed to proceed, it may require mitigation of affects on wetlands by replacement of the same acreage of wetland. . It appears that the developer , if not the City, is presently ignoring the watercourse protection regulations of the State MDFWP and the Federal Clean Water Act . In addition, the Bozeman Area Master Plan of | ! 1990 (BAMP p. 44) states "Encourage stream bank buffer strips for sediment , erosion and water pollution control and to protect riparian areas, " and "Develop zoning and subdivision controls to protect water quality and riparian areas. " We believe that this property currently under consideration for private development should be considered for protection as a Park. We should be allowed to maintain a few "wild" places within the city limits and think about the wildlife habitat we have already lost to development , particularly in riparian areas in the city of Bozeman. The 1990 Bozeman Area Master Plan Q. 33) states that "Preservation of open spaces | including prime natural areas is important to the Bozeman Community. " � Under Goals, Objectives and Implementation Policies, the BAMP Q. 42) states " Identify and protect areas with special characteristics such as stream corridors and wetlands within the jurisdictional area. " A goal of the BAMP Q. 42) is to "Support the establishment and maintenance of greenbelts and/or open space, including the preservation of trail and open space corridors. " There was never a better opportunity. The city' s own checklist of Criteria for All Development includes under Required Criteria for Natural Resources, number 15, which reads "Have special precautions been taken to preserve existing wildlife habitats, natural wildlife food sources, or existing places, or are these areas being preserved?" and number 14, "Does the project preserve or replace existing natural vegetation?" Our answer , with personal knowledge of the area to be developed, and viewing the design for the area is a definite NO to both of these Required Criteria. The BAMP states "Protect the safety and welfare of the public by identying areas with physical constraints ( . . . such areas include floodplains. . . . and areas of high water table. ) " I think this has so far been ignored for this development . 2. We am very concerned about the increased traffic that will be using Westridge Drive. We have lived on Westridge Drive for 3 and 1/2 years and this street has a lot of traffic for a residential area with traffic expected to increase as the new school located just west of the neighborhood opens. Vehicles are not only frequent , but are driven at a fairly high rate of speed. This development of 34 condominiums will have 100 parkings spaces. It is fairly realistic to assume that there will be at least 2 vehicles per household for a total of 68 vehicles added to the vehicles already using Westridge Drive. There are two entrances proposed into the Development , both off of Westridge Drive. We expect that the vehicles for this proposed subdivision would more than double the current level of traffic on Westridge which serves the northern end of the Figgins area and many people living further south | on Westridge Drive find this the quickest access to their homes. The City Required Criteria for All Developments number 2, reads " Is the project designed so that additional traffic generation beyond what may be approved for permitted uses does not have a significant adverse impact on adjacent and surrounding development?" Again, We must say 1\10. You might think it is not a "significant " adverse impact , but .,;rsv"J� r iK�'who livef' on Westridge Drive and expect% to be impacted by this traffic , we believe this is a significant adverse impact through both noise, other traffic related annoyances, and also increased hazard to those of us who drive, walk and play in the vicinity. 3. As we understand the current zoning in the area, it is R-2, meaning single-family medium-density. The proposed development certainly does not meet this definition. Our neighbors and ourselves bought homes in the Figgins area expecting that any other development in the area would be in the nature of individual homes of medium density. We certainy didn' t expect a subdivision of condominiums to be built adjacent to the neighborhood. This permit application is an obvious attempt to circumvent existing zoning by allowing multiple-family dwellings. This is not fair to the adjacent neighborhoods. The City Criteria for All Development under Required Criteria on Neighborhood Compatability number 1 , reads " Is the development compatible with, and sensitive to | the immediate environment of the site and the adjacent neighborhoods | relative to architectural design, building bulk and height , neighborhood ' identity, landscaping, historical character , and orientation of buildings on the site and visual integration?" Again, we would have to say NO. The proposed development does not meet the criteria 'under Urban Residential Infill (p. 57 1990 Bozeman Area Master ' Plan) . . We hope that the Bozeman Development Review Committee and Design Review Board give consideration to the above concerns. We plan to attend the various meetings if at all possible. Marion and Steve Cher — {` `� • � I PROJECT ACTIVITY COGS BOZ EE'iAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFF I'CE F'ro i ec t Name 's -p I- No. STAFF j STA4=i= Cv(*ilJ`RT i V DATE ACTIVITY , PERSON H.OUlR5 i STAFF TIME I 1 I ( FILE REVIEW SHEET CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Application Date: Staff Member: u File Number: Z�9��� Reference Files : -Z-gZ_bb File Name: DATE DONE BY Staff/Agency Comment Requested : ; Staff/Agency Comment Deadline: ; Public Hearing Notice ; To Chronicle: ' Public Hearing Notice ; In Chronicle: Public Hearing Notice Sent To ; Adjacent Property Owners: ; Public Hearing- Notice Posted : ; Staff Report Due: ; Staff Report (packet) Sent . Out: Planning Board Meeting : Action : City Commission Meeting : ; Action : Letter To Applicant ; Regarding Decision : - ; 6 Month Review Due: ; 12 Month Review Due: ' Letter. of Credit Received : ; Letter of Credit Released : Final CUP Issued : ; MISC\REVIEW. CUP 0 0 d �VdB DlNLA rera.2 �2'7J �I'; 4 rft 'J V7'DtD,OPiO I V4',TO-DO' .� (4) e�LDN�.rLD m 14) hGDi rL4TF?WI01:B - ' rATwolee�eN (I sJ •aeli�eoLea rlca:awa r�vnNlcA s IQ•etD,eo rr. '. �r(n�\I °' co1TolL.DBD CORo:L'IooD j� - LI'1p I V '>-Rtl3°� (f=) o-wsBar�ve rte �ti..+JJ (4-4) - .. caNcma urea � �— �0 -• (20J GO �Vo Q ((so) r�u+nMM,11 u- EXI5TIN6 TREE MIf�]7LE CREEK DITCH LP�T AFL �� Y ��II a •ic• a5 �' ♦ jai / O 8D NOTES: v � 57REE75 SIGNED FOR NO PARKING s �• ' ��Y�® j I I �� - FOR VICINITY MAP U SEE APPLICATION COVER ,( ,• • • __1_ a s' . �✓_-(..__{ .__ I I BUILDING FOUNDATION OONOMM fill PLANTINGS NOT SHOW l —��`r41L-------=--- FOR GLARI'!1': SEE INDIV. SITE I-LAN `•q // /.._ T"-.--- '�asDer�L arDlu LI6HTIN6 AL I L BEKALL MOUNTED ON I '�' b 81♦AGl.'8 4 IWA4I0 - - I 'I INDIVIDUAL UNITS AND CONTROL BY - � L PHOTO CELLS ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS Be �. IRRIGATED WITH U.6.SYSTEM. WATER TO 8E SUPPLIED FROM ON SITE WELL. Z AREA � �� s` : �AyY�p`•F., �8 _ zO ws SV STREAM SETBACK TU �,,, I RECREATION AREA !�trej �`• �-_. �, I +�, 7 FOR RESIDENTS OF .- /• ED PLANN UNIT N ' ♦ ...-�, o - - DEVELOPMENT w.nve vDaencroN TO a �/ '� "� v' i, � j i' • �` u.OM DTreenx � F 1lDDTORID OR RrMNTt9 +''// �1� i ` ♦'»6vas a ,{ a LONaV1.TAN79 arrca. y `�. • R 2- - 3q � 5.5 UNITS/ACRE RA 3, � � \ 2 J-FiRY 2 STORY 2 STORY � I STORY � ] �' 2 STORY � g IJ _ t0 RSIDENGE RESIDENCE 1�E5117ENGE RS51D1=vG= ro,, ��, r RESIDENCE m�� .O O G, l o� I IpJ ds - to G gc - -SITE TRIAN6LP .� • r®� �,. r I LOT 51 LOT 1-7 LOT 1 E5 _ LOT 1 G LO --AMEX ��p p Or.96N XF IOD WATER M74IN 60' I Cocas ro•.7 SUPTS.POSTAL SERVICE —DRIVEWAY APPROACHES TO ' I_DRIVEWAY ACHES TO BOZEMAN,M788775.9998 s 10' SEWER MAIN CITY SPEG5,(SEE DETAILS) ILS Ark/N - Pf661N ADDITION STORM NER .... ._ RET'ENSI TTL ON AND SBINS POOND � ( ,4 PUBL I G STREET ) -7 LE=G?�L 1��SG1QIf'�TION: �--- AMENDED 5USDIVI510N PLAT OF BLOCK 9, b A L L A T I N NI69GAD4,T Nd.A A IN T0 Fe CO P7�IRS�T PP HE SITE STATISTICS: t-l- - Q OWNERS: TIM DEAN CONSTRUCTION, EUGENE GRAF III, GHARLIt DIMAR O USEABLE OPEN SPACE: (32.0%) 1.5 ACRES Z 451000NNE5T06A GI}2GLE,BOZEMAN MONTRNA 59.115 PERIMETER LANDSCAPE AREAS: (Iq.l%) .8q ACRES PROPOSED LAND USE: URBAN RESIDENTIAL INPILL, MULTIP,4MILY ACTIVE RECREATION AREA (TRAIL): ( I.19. 3 ACRES � REVIEVZONED R-2 TOTAL L.,ANPSCAPED AR ", (51?A%) -164 AC.1¢Ef NORTH REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY: GASHMAN NURSERY AREA FOR STREET AND DRIVES: (51.q%) 1.4q ACRES 5 G A L E: I'.' = e O' FINAL SUBMITTAL: JUL"( I5, Iag2 E Q PERMITS REQUIRED: SUILDIN&, 510, NATIONWIDE TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE: (Io.S%) .4q ACRES OEAph4fEWU%�' O7/06791 14.10 z __...... _. 3 TOTAL 51TE .6'f AREA. fl0o%) 4 AG}iE5 Z G L 1? T I P I G A T 15 O F° O w_14,E_R S i I Pj7 TOTAL #OF UNITS: 1 24PLOOK To AREA U1 MAXIMUM BLDG. Hr:6HT: I� 24' DENSITY UNIT PER ACRE; 5.15 DUA -- ___-,4 P BUILDING 5OUARE FOOTAGE OOTAE (TYP)CAL): I P L At N N I N 6 D_ R I E C T O R ' S P R. O �/ ,4 L; MAIN LEVEL, 2400 S.F. +ISARA6E5 UPPER LBVI•L: OS 2400 S.F. +5TORA6E I TOTAL, 4800 S.P. +6,4RA6E5 6 STORR6� - I r0.. -R r _.G R•r__.� �---I_ G_ _.T_L,.G-_�:_ off! PARKING STATISTICS: OFF-STREET: 21 AGGMPTANGM OP GO NEP I T I ONS DRIVEYSAY: 24 \ O GARAGES: 24 \ TOTAL: ---- (REfl111eGD BY GOEM.-54) O-- 0 0 0 O O O O TYPICAL CR,",` S—SECTION PRIVATE DRIVE - Er-.'.:"T OF FIGGINS CREEK i 2 1/2" ASPHALT PAVEMENT O. O 6--MINUS PIT—RUN .GRAVEL 4", 1"—MINUS CRUSHED GRAVEL OVER—EXCAVATE EXISTING ORGANIC SOILS TO NATIVE GRAVELS. PLACE PIT-RUN GRAVEL OVER NATIVE GRAVELS TO ELEVATION OF 1"—MINUS CRUSHED GRAVEL. O O TYPICAL CROSS--SECTION PRIVATE DRIVE - WES- OF FIGGINS CREEK 1' 23' 1' 2 1/2" ASPHALT PAVEMENT �— --. Z 1% 6"—MINUS PIT—RUN .GRAVEL 4", 1"—MINUS CRUSHED GRAVEL SCUPPERS LOCATED AS SHOWN ON SITE PLAN TO DRAIN RUNOFF FROM Q--0 _ DRIVE INTO OPEN SPACE. OVER—EXCAVATE EXISTING ORGANIC SOILS TO NATIVE GRAVELS. PLACE PIT—RUN GRAVEL U�/ mot GlA1�t(� iL OVER NATIVE GRAVELS TO ELEVATION OF 1"—MINUS CRUSHED GRAVEL. O O 0 6" x 12" VERTICAL CURB Do W/1—#4 REBAR TOP & BOTTOM CONSTRUCT VERTICAL CURB ON GRAVEL BASE COURSE O 0 0 BARN J03 ti ---------�� .gr-- - _ _ 0 --- ___ 4--7 - /� 9.5 , 5.0 97 , x x. x X i \/ . .\/ 7X, / x1.0 O.F.=10.1 -fiO;F. 89:2- - i % .-P.=1�3-_..- F.F.=9.4 _ i :DETENTION. (MI x / / / / . / i � I1:� �'7s TC7.F:�8.7 ^'f.O.F.=10.0 .� 10.0, 200 CU. FT. (MIN.) � ., 'f F�-8.9 _10 xi 09 « RESIDENCE \/ I, 1 7� lob . (MIN.) iT L T_O.F.=10.5�, _ F.F.=1�0.7' � i &8 / i �' 0 x gtSsNBf I / 4910.9 P/�aoDSm.i Sr>> � ss I x _ 1g / / 5;y .� x q 9 acre 9X .0 i �/ 0� St r 'x r-- I 10. 8.5 I. 11, 8.75 ,�� 8 0 / .�-03/�/•/ ' �L.'/ x ti ,i f�7i�t x / / / / \ J1.0% i OB 1x.. /Y 8. .3.' 8.6 9.0 10.2 x 10.0 8.65 i r 7 9sX s.a5 \ x 7.7 / // � ' 9s' , i " ./� is.96' �. 1:' � '�90a312.. -fj___,0� asf' �, �_✓ �� f t �6 7.6 7 O 7,95 -� li , ryx / g 8.7 4 X x x FL�O .7� •' 9.65 I N 1 x -----08-- 07 \� _• 6.2 A4. / 9. �6 399 10.65 p �\ t a9,zs Is. 1 4. / DETENTION VOL: 0 L =39. is 49124 N / !t - 1000 CU..FT.'(MIN.) $ / ' /.• / .�� �1 25 i 9 05 L ° 0.4 /07 x I 11 /ti Ir e Iv,, x oas /, ° i1/jF- .2, 7-' T.O.F.=10.2� a J ! ij , rf 40 1.0 ;•. •-o$,••_•• a "/ /k /' o O^ F:F=9.4 F.F=10.� 1� i '`J/ !t \ .. ' 9.8 _ // 45 11.85 11.85 i 11 4912.1 \ I i J 1.24%GRADE ' HASiNA i x x J 11.0 110.7 R = 110.00' 1 i�•'� ^ i 6h /✓ 1 y L= s8.11' 20.64' y' ,i 07. O 28791.sq, f.t.' L ` \� i q tk I f X �.. -g- '' R� 110.0-0'/ ?? 9.i X 9. X �\ x I .•i �., Ig C= 60.14� DE ON \;. �c v ` 49110 i s.< , / \\1 12.2 :5 0 , , i -1300 CU. 08 0.66'acres /g R 49730 49,z.7 Sx2 12.x I 12.2 / . //� �. ` �. �•• 5 49t1.e � _�-' --�. - r --- 49t25 4912.4 BASINA-1 �� 4913. 49u.o \ IL506.sq. ft. \ N 19.0 1 /I 1.60 / � 1•.25 o �� r 1 a9 / _ _ 0.26 acres \ 73.a 49y5.5 1 ./ LYS- 1s/.• O� �•. \` 11/l / _ 100.9012. '� t 4914.0 .L. 1` 4914. `=5 \ FL=1. 1X GRADE 1 0 g.�� / i� 4914.4 4914.9 4.913.5 4913.4 SCALE: 1" = 30' �tJ 4 p O © 0 O ® 0 O O ESTIMATED AET AREA �j MIDDLE CREEK DITCH LA �L EXISTING TRE$ ° I a I /�/• 41 - ------- ---- / I gal /• ��912 44Y (rJ cF u� i • if) I I I I I I I EXISTING UTIL. — EASEMENT // 10" WATER MAIN PROPOSED TRAM--z a' 10" 51=W,ER MAIN ACCESS (15' MIN.) AND S MOONS'An�NS PONO UTILITY EASEMENT t (20' ON S.W. AND 10' ON N.A.) X NORTH Irl __.-_I 'i� .,1, 1"�I,," 1;,, ,' !y, i,l '`•:._, ;ll i,i y, --��_—__ _ - 11ir h, r`. I�,,� t�_..:. I"I':' r�:' i nr- 1' ,. ".i `'„�iq Ri'II II'I Ili' pl, ';;Is• E \. I,I III, � ' (i,, QII II a it, �li�r /,; LIi L:, �r I I 0 0 0 0 Q Q OVERBROOK CONDOMINIUMS ° SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 0 0 0 0 BARN .7 _J _ --__-------._---1�7 -- 4 - ----- � - --- _ _ -- 2- --- - �9ose�-� ./ -h905 9,71 X BX BX x 5.0\/. ,// •� 7.2 06 /� 4 lit) x._�o © .' /.., XO� X saX �r.o.F.=1,b.1 - .o-F=es � �� / `� �"' ��%/ Fi `!'=10'3' F.F.=9.4 - / a ,f T F.-8.7 T.O.F.=10.0 /� -•10.0 DETENTION. T.. (MIN.) a / // ^ �• I I C 8.5 7 ,/ �/ / '�� ,/ Z5 F 8.9 �F=1D 2 1) X 09 RESIDENCE �/ / / SET N 'COL � , 47 / L i / C1d oo T.O.F.=70.5 2 IT. (MIN.) , /,. / ` i /°.�o,? -,I�,`�// 0 1 / � x i / :f•• �/ v/ �/,a = li d` o F.F.= 0.j. o 9. I 8 _ 8.8 /. / .;� /'ate o^ p " x avi aelos /� //� 1 �8 ` I „'•A.Omph\• in!i r X/ 4910- X 1 -X / �L=03 ,� .. / x x 10.0 ! /9.15 �-. 8.85 �8.X5 g,0 i 7.7 ', i�//`/.i1� /� / 7.9 ..._,1 8. .3 8.6 9.0 9.6 El( 91 / 0/1 0 ` i fit\ 76 / 9 8.7 4 z X� 7.6 , r�_ 7/ 7.7_ 7.95 7 / 9.0 N 9.65 '�. 7° t 08• 07 \ •� .0p.'-�• 8.2 - J 9.7 `/ 1`�J / 1 f 9. - ---- DETENTION VOL. 08 !y 7 �c L ,3a.3Y X 10.65 \ 9st2 r---- ' 49125/ x - a9,2a �ry r. -. 1000 Cu. FT. (MIN.) 0$ :a' 0�6/ �- v / \ �1 50.4 08.55 �/ / o o`` /7 .=9.2 ��- � T.O.F.=10.2� �' .�` ;i ( �ii i now l 1 Xo •., .,. s �, °� o� /F.F=9.4 X F.F=1/0 / / I (�• r r �'- 9� / 9.8 _J /1 J 11.45 11.85 n.85 tt 4912 71.O.,�t'NT .._.. $ & 1.24%GRADE �f / �- .�2 x J 1 l / � 9 • R - 110.00' �,;/ / / I •7r 09 L- 56.11• 2D.84' �/ 07. �„•%:• °• p ► s .h9�~J' 1 / ,. / t //• O \:, .�..' ..- -"..Rh 110.00' & /X8.7 X9. /• © " DE ON \ -..-..-..-.. 1 asta.o ®�Jj 4912.E /;---'.. OS X .-'• S ' 4stz0 / - / I _ j /• .. L _ 908.0 a / /^ 4913.a K.3�6oF�:�a .1��. / of^s - 6�A/ d x 122,.\ /"/ ` _ /' 4911.8 ar, . ey. •.Y ` .. .5 �- ��./ -.�- 491y5 - -1 4a724 10�Q.Q 01 7.6/•• a /' /q./1 ,,• -�` 1J/!!l ,. / 1 �� 12� 37.56' L w61.86' \ .• 1 �P•' �J !"/// �� 4914.0 f L.. _ s";.-1� 0 a��/ as,a. \ FL=1. tx GRADE - -11.5 1 � '\ �-� � '� � �14.8� 4914.4 4814.9 4.9- WESTRIDGE, DRIVE 4913.4 SCALE: 1" = 30' Prepared By. Rocky Mountain Engineers P.O. Box 883. Bozeman, Montana 59771 (406) 586-4859 f N8904'00"E �� - ' 630.99' 9'04'00'W J 10' UTILITY EASEMENT - % ' : ._._ ._ _ ..r.__.——._._.__. 26 4.00' -- .___.._-- ------ _...._--- ---_--.-�—�—� — � � NE COR. SEC. 24 w 100 YEAR . ) �i' � . I 1 30' STORM DRAIN FLOOD PLAIN ) _EASEMENT 'I 13 N8912'55'W 30$.8 4' I o `ss9�2' 'E------------ - -- ----- ---+__ __ K8_47_0'18_•W I O ' . EASEMENT FOR WATT _ 195.$3' AND SEW£R FAaUTiES g — S87-173�4'E '-- ___ ___ _ a loon _ --- ——�- -— --, 27' Ir 100 YEAR $r i N89'04'00"E FLOODWAY 1 ' 100 YEARo. ' ) ti -S I ' Let- - _ __— 01 * -6-� +1" 47 t 00 1 N0.00 v S89'18'00"��s' - 395.16' f L - 20.40' j cn 1--_ —_ .— —_..._ _..-- - ---.._.--_- -- _.--..- -__. _....- - — --, 1 .��• S89"4$ 00 K°— LAI —T�b — r T.= ._— ._._ .— L . -- T--- 5 --10.25 w — L = 14'28'39* ' `�\A = 07'59'01" I I �o l 1 UTIUTY EASD,r TS , R = 120.00 R = 180.00 j o I L 30.32 0 w o 1. = 25.08 I I �cv 01 �1 1� 10 •' �p� �p� ,.`p��C' p� ,` do o o u- N ` N o 1N 1 I � � ! yo o "' � Z 43.75' S89'7 8'00"w 60.00, WESTRIDGE DRIVE (6 0 ROW) r v lie s( .Mot�T(�1-� 04 O w 31 00'00" •� Op`,�p =: Z R 280.00 L = 151.49' �p�'G P J Q 0�V 0-q Z3lj* �✓A RECEIVED BY fL� Rocky /Mountain Engineers- � FE6 2 6 1996 Civil Engineering & Land Surveying CITY- W iy fY 11ANNING 1700 W. Koch St., Suite 7, Bozeman, Montana 59715 (406) 586-4859 30 January 29, 1996 JAN 1996 rn, N (p CD Mr. Craig Brawner, City Engineer C o City of Bozeman Engineering Department 6! � ` /�.+�� o oy„���,„i, 't - pJ ►���... 35 N. Bozeman 8/Ct91� t �'.' ? Bozeman; MT 59715 - — Re: Overlafook Condominiums Dear Craig, This letter is to certify that the channel improvements to Figgins Creek in the Overbrook Condominium development have been made in accordance with the approved plans. The channel cross section was constructed to the proper width and depth, and in the design location. The culverts used at the two channel crossings will pass the design flow of 105 cfs. Please call if you have any questions concerning these improvements. Best Regards, Ray . Center, P.E., L.S. i 0 THE CITY OF BOZEMAN 35 NO. BOZEMAN AVE. P.O. BOX 640 . _ t CARNEGIE BUILDING PHONE (406) 586-3321 BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59771-0640 September 30 , 1994 Mr. Ray Center . ' Rocky Mountain Engineers P.O Box 833 Bozeman, MT 59771 Re: Overbrook Condominium PUD, Flood Plain Development Permit Dear Mr. Center, Please be reminded that as part of the Flood Plain Development Permit for the above referenced project , you are required to submit an engineer's Certification of Compliance within 90 days of completion of the permitted work. This was a provision of the developer's formal approval letter from the City Engineer, dated October 15, 1992 . If you have any questions , please call me. S' ely, Randi Triem Community Development Engineer cc; (K-ev_i.n-Wal:l_;�Associate Planner Andy Kerr, Engineering Aid Tim Dean, Tim Dean Construction Overbrook Flood Plain File Reading File HOME OF MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY GATEWAY TO YELLOWSTONE PARK 4� THE CITY OF BOZEMAN 0 35 NO. BOZEMAN AVE. P.O. BOX 640 • • CARNEGIE BUILDING PHONE (406) 586.3321 BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59771-0640 <<t�.�co.d°aye • April 14 , 1994 Mr . Tim Dean Overbrook Partnership 4510 Conestoga Circle Bozeman, MT 59.715 Re: Overbrook Flood Plain Development Permit • j Dear Mr . Dean: On October 15 , 1992 , you were issued a Flood Plain Development Permit for your Overbrook Condominium Project . The terms of that permit were that the project engineer certify the flood plain work within 90 days of completion of the permitted work . Since some of the units are now occupied, I am assuming the permitted work has been completed. Certification can consist of a letter from the project engineer stating that he has inspected the stream bed alteration construction and finds the "as-built" condition in conformance with the approved design and calculations prepared by Rocky Mountain Engineers dated September 16 , 1992 . Please let me know if you have any questions . I look forward to signing the compliance certification for this flood plain development permit soon. 642�tzzv y- Randi Triem Community Development Engineer cc ; Mr . Ray Center , Rocky Mountain Engineers Kevin Wall , Senior Planner attachment PLANNING OFFICE CITY COUNTY P DA E HOME OF MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY GATEWAY TO YELLOWSTONE PARK i n RATTAN 406-284-3255 tMEAN K P.O. BOX 690 • MANHATTAN, MONTANA 59741 October 7, 1993 IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT NUMBER 45-00 Manhattan State Bank Creditor City of Bozeman City Hall Bozeman, `MT 59715 RE: Overbrook, Inc. - Letter of Credit for required site .improvements. The Manhattan State Bank of Manhattan, Montana has established an Irrevocable Letter of Credit in your favor, at the request of and for the account of Overbrook, Inc. of 4510 Conestoga Cir. , Bozeman, MT, to the extent of $83,207.00 for required site improvements. Said funds are available by presentation of your sight draft which clearly specifies the number of this credit and is drawn in favor of the City of Bozeman. Drafts drawn in conformity with the conditions of this credit will be honored by us if presented at our bank, on or before September 30, 1994. Sincerely, 6OZEMAN rLANNING OFFICE Kenneth 0. Fenno --7 President DA E I f lit 60 p �) (70 yt Zoo t6P�`7 1�7 ' 1 '10 THE CITY OF BOZEMAN 35 NO. BOZEMAN AVE. P.O. BOX 640 • CARNEGIE BUILDING PHONE (406) 586-3321 BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59771.0640 t ,�e co RECEIVED SY BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE MEMORANDUM Ny , June 25, 1993 BAST To: Phillip J . Forbes , Director of Public Service From: Craig E. Brawner , City Engineer Re : Supplemental .Improvements Agreement - Overbrook at Westridge Pursuant to the attached status report from Andy Kerr, Engineering Aide, I offer the following: Overbrook (ref . 3/17/93 letter Exhibit A) : 1 . The sewer "sag" has been satisfactorily repaired and TV inspected. 2 . Neither Andy Kerr or Ray Center could verify if the 11/2" Service Stationary Rod had been installed (Fred Shields indicates that Water Department would catch this upon installation of the service) . 3 . Since the original approval of the agreement one additional problem has occurred which should effect the occupancy of the initial structure. The building foundation elevation was constructed too low precluding gravity sewer service as originally intended, and requiring the building to be service with the sewer lift station. The lift station will apparently not be operational for some time . Final occupancy , and perhaps installation of the water service should not be allowed until the structure has adequate sewer service as provided by the private lift station and sewer . evP0%P1dt.*A It seems advisable to me to require the Developer ' s Engineer also certify that the items have be completed in compliance with the Supplemental Improvements Agreement . cc: Fred Shields , Water/Sewer Superintendent Kyle Harlan, Chief Building Official Kevin—Wa-1-1 ASsc .�__P_1-ann.e.r_ HOME OF MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY GATEWAY TO YELLOWSTONE PARK 1141 C,ro.19 Bramene SUPPLEMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT FOR 2128 WATER & SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR Cn OVERBROOK CONDOMINIU S CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, #Z-9230 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this �� day of March, 1993, by and between Overbrook Partnership, hereinafter called the "Developer", and the City of Bozeman, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Montana, hereinafter called the "City". WHEREAS, the City's inspection of the Phase I water mains and sanitary sewer mains at the Property (as defined in Paragraph 5 below) has revealed the following deficiencies: A. Those items described in the letter to Phill Forbes, Bozeman Director of Public Service dated March 17, 1993, from Ray. Center of Rocky Mountain Engineers (a copy of which is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A and incorporated herein) and referencing Overbrook punch list items for (Phase 1) water and sewer mains construction; B. The need to compact sufficient fill over the water and sewer mains to support construction traffic loads over said mains; and WHEREAS, it is the intent and purpose of both the Developer and the City to hereby enter into an Agreement which will guarantee the full and satisfactory correction of the above stated deficiencies, and to provide for the issuance of a Rocky Mountain Engineers Civil Engineering & Land Surveying P.O. Box 883, Bozeman,Montana 59771 (406) 586-4859 March 17, 1993 Mr. Phill Forbes Director of Public Service Bozeman, MT 59715 Re: Overbrook Condominiums Water & Sewer Facilities Dear Phill , We have inspected the water and sewer facilities constructed by Mr. Dick Huttinga, and find that the work required for approval of a building permit for the G-plex at the northeast corner of the project and the easterly single family unit, is substantially complete. At this time the sanitary sewer has been installed from Westridge Drive to a manhole 200 to the north. The force main has been installed from this manhole west to the vicinity of the lift station that will be completed later this summer. The gravity sewer main west of the lift station will also be completed later this summer. The gravity sewer main and manhole. ,u,rrren ,y installed have passed the leakage test, however, there 'is a,�ecton of main,,� _ . .approximately 20 to 25'feet long that must be �usted �to the pepper Bradt The TV inspection of the gravity sewer main identified this length of main with standing water approximately 1 inch deep. The water main extension through the development has also been completed at this time. The full length of the water main,. both fire hydrants, and all of the water services have been installed. Tile water main has passed the pressure and leakage tests and has been chlorinated. The result" the bacteriological ,tes-t are also ,acceptable. The at onary rod ors.the -1�&" ery ce m6-S- t l;l-bed nstal led, however, the water department did not believe that this should�pre.yent the system f rom being utilized. Theoav�aver-fie�vatery3i`rid°11as�ti'ot'bee�'rrtiugti =gyp = o OnMt4irade.%�=s(%-,%abut there is sufficient cover over the water line to prevent it from freezing. �I �i�srmy understanding the Mr. Dick Huttinga has provided an estimate of s, �00 fl0,to c ar�gc�-A-0g=graderon the�san:r�ag!-�e&Or and stationaryoda � 3 ater se`r� e.° I believe that this estimate is reasonable to perform the work required. Please feel free to call if you should have any questions concerning the work that has been completed at Overbrook. Best Regards, "12 l• � . Ray Center, P.E. , L.S. I June 24, 1993 To: Craig Brawner Fr: Andy Kerr Re: Status of Overbrook and Bridger Peaks Townhouses ------------------------------------------------------------------- Overbrook: The punch list items of Ray Center' s letter have been completed. The water main is in service. They are still working on the "private" portion of the sewer. The lift station is not complete. The building under construction now was originally supposed to be served by the public gravity sewer , but it was built too low and they are going . to have to run a service to the lift station. The access road still needs to be complete also. Ray said he would prefer to wait until at least all the sewer work was complete and tested before giving us any certification. He had no idea when we could expect the lift station to be done because they are having difficulty getting their pumps . Bridger Peaks : All water and sewer punch list items have been completed. They still need to complete construction of Broadwater Street . One item I pointed out to Gaston after the paving done so far was that they will have to adjust a sewer cleanout to grade . - 1 c 7 S�c�..Zd(� .vt�.tiC C,�.vcX.9� • --- June 22, 1993 TO: Craig Brawner, City Engineer FROM: Phillip J. Forbes, Director of Public Service RE: Bridger Peaks Townhouses Overbrook at Westridge As I recall, the supplemental improvements agreements for the referenced projects include 1 July 1993 as the last date for completion of outstanding water and sewer punchlist items. Completion was to be signified by written, initial acceptance. Please provide me with an update on these two projects. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. cc: City-County Planning Office Fred Shields, Water & Sewer Superintendent File `L aG 22324Z52 w pup�lc�`3 `-ate C June 22, 1993 TO: Craig Brawner, City Engineer FROM: Phillip J. Forbes, Director of Public Service RE: Bridger Peaks Townhouses Overbrook at Westr_idge As I recall, the supplemental improvements agreements for the referenced projects include 1 July 1993 as the last date for completion of outstanding water and sewer punchlist items. Completion was to be signified by written, initial acceptance. Please provide me with an update on these two projects. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. cc: may-County Planning Office Fred Shields, Water & Sewer Superintendent File BY BOZEMAN Y-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE ATE SUPPLEMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT FOR WATER & SEWER IMPROVEMENTS RECEIVED BY BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLA KING OFFICE FOR OVERBROOK CONDOMINIUMS DATE. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, #Z-9230 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of March, 1993, by and between Overbrook Partnership, hereinafter called the "Developer", and the City of Bozeman, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Montana, hereinafter called the "City". WHEREAS, the City's inspection of the Phase I water mains and sanitary sewer mains at the Property (as defined in Paragraph 5 below) has revealed the following deficiencies: A. Those items described in the letter to Phill Forbes, Bozeman Director of Public Service dated March 17, 1993, from Ray Center of Rocky Mountain Engineers (a copy of which is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A and incorporated herein) and referencing Overbrook punch list items for (Phase 1) water and sewer mains construction; B. The need to compact sufficient fill over the water and sewer mains to support construction traffic loads over said mains; and WHEREAS, it is the intent and purpose of both the Developer and the City to hereby enter into an Agreement which will guarantee the full and satisfactory correction of the above stated deficiencies, and to provide for the issuance of a building permit for one sixplex condominium unit on the property; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, it is hereby agreed as follows: 1 . Water Mains The following will be completed prior to the issuance of the building permit for the referenced Unit: Measures will be taken, e.g. barricades and flagging, to prevent construction traffic from driving over existing water mains until sufficient, compacted fill is in-place over said mains to support construction traffic, as determined by the City. Upon completion of this item, a building permit for the sixplex Unit will be issued to the Developer, provided the Developer has satisfied all other requirements for issuance of the building permit. 2. Sanitary Sewer Mains No connections shall be made to the sanitary sewer system prior to the correction of the Sewer Main Punch List Items and their initial acceptance by the City of Bozeman. "New connections" shall include extensions of existing sewer stubs from the property line. 3. Occupancy No occupancy of any Overbrook Condominium unit shall occur prior to the correction of the above stated deficiencies and their initial acceptance by the City of Bozeman. ,r 4. Financial Guarantee, Time for Completion of Improvements The correction of the Water and Sewer Punch List Items must be secured by a financial guarantee, as may be deemed acceptable by the City, payable to the City of Bozeman, in an amount equal to one and one-half (1 1/2) times the estimated cost of the correction of all such Items. The estimated cost of correction will be based on a written bid from a contractor capable of performing such work and acceptable to the City of Bozeman (a copy of which is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit C and incorporated herein). In no case will the total security be less than $5,000.00. The parties agree that the issuance of an irrevocable letter of credit to the City in the form attached to this Agreement as Exhibit B and incorporated herein will be deemed acceptable by the City. Said method of security shall be valid for a period of not less than six (6) months. The parties agree that this security will be released at the time the City gives its initial acceptance of the corrections of the Water and Sewer Main Punch List Items. In any event, the Developer shall complete all Water and Sewer Main Punch List Items in order to obtain the City of Bozeman initial acceptance prior to occupancy of any unit or by July 1, 1993, whichever occurs first. 5. Property Description This Agreement pertains to, and includes those properties (herein referred to as the Property) which are designated and identified as Overbrook Condominiums, Phase I, located on Lot 16 and Lots 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of Block 9, Amended Plat of Figgins Addition, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, and generally located at 517 Westridge and all parcels which front onto Fryslie Street. 6. Improvements Except as specifically set forth herein, this Agreement does not otherwise modify existing requirements concerning the installation, inspection, testing, certification and initial acceptance by the City of Bozeman of water and sewer improvements for said Property. Initial acceptance will be provided upon the satisfactory correction of all Water and Sewer Main Punch List Items. "Initial Acceptance" as used in this Agreement means that the correction of the Water and Sewer Main Punch List Items has been satisfactorily completed and that no deficiencies remain which would adversely affect or compromise the integrity and operation of those systems or the health of any user of them. This Agreement supplements the other improvements agreement on this project, and does not modify any of the provisions of this other improvements agreement. This Agreement does not alter or affect any rights or claims either party may have against any third party concerning or arising out of the performance or failure to perform of any such third party in connection with the Property concerning this project. 7. Inspection Representatives of the City shall have the right to enter upon the property at any reasonable time in order to inspect it and to determine if the Developer is in compliance with this Agreement, and the Developer shall permit the City and its representatives to enter upon and inspect the property at any reasonable time. 8. Default Time is of the essence of this Agreement. If the Developer shall default in or fail to fully perform any of its obligations in conformance with the time schedule under this Agreement, and such default or failure shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice specifying the default is deposited in the United States mail addressed to the Developer at 3025 Langohr Avenue, Bozeman, Montana, 59715 or such other address as the Developer shall provide to the City from time to time, without being completely remedied, satisfied, and discharged, the City may elect to enforce any of the following specified remedies: A) The City may, at its option, collect upon the financial guarantee and use those funds to complete the correction and inspection of the Water and Sewer Main Punch List Items. Any funds remaining after the City has secured the completion of correction of the Water and Sewer Main Punch List Items and the inspection of them shall be returned to Developer. 1 . The City's representative, contractors, and engineers shall have the right to enter upon the property and perform such work and inspection, and the Developer shall permit and secure any additional permission required to enable them to do so. B) The City may enforce any other remedy provided by law. 9. Warranty The Developer shall warrant against defects in the corrections of the Water and Sewer Main Punch List Items for a period of one year from the date of their written, initial acceptance by the City. 10. Governing Law This Agreement shall be construed according to the laws of the State of Montana. 11 . Attorney Fees and Costs In the event either party incurs legal expenses to enforce the terms and conditions of this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover their costs and attorney fees, to include fees, costs and salary of in-house counsel, from the other party. 12. Modifications or Alterations No modifications or amendment of this Agreement shall be valid, unless evidenced in writing signed by the parties hereto. 13. Invalid Provision The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement shall not affect the other provisions hereof, and this Agreement shall be construed in all respects as if such invalid or unenforceable provision were omitted. 14. No Assignment It is expressly agreed that the Developer shall not assign this Agreement in whole, or in part, without prior written consent of the City which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 15. Successors Except as provided in paragraph 14, this Agreement shall be binding upon, inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors and assigns. r • T _ E—OVERBRO TNERSHIP e Graf, III artner STATE OF MONTANA ) :ss County of Gallatin ) On the 1 st h day of March 19 93 , before me, a Notary Public for the State of Montana, personally appeared Eugene Graf, III, known to me to be the representative of Overbrook Partnership, whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for and on behalf of said partnership. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Notarial Seal the day and year first above written. 4--e�v Notary blic for S at o tana Residin t: Bozeman Commission Expires: August 4 , 1995 (Seal) THE CITY OF BOZEMAN Phillip J. F6rbA Director of Public Service STATE OF MONTANA ) :ss County of Gallatin ) On the 2y�`day of , 19 , before me, a Notary Public for the State of Montana, personally appeared Phillip J. Forbes, known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument as Director of Public Service of the City of Bozeman, whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for and on behalf of said City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal on the day and year first written above. Amv 61 t�i Notary f Sat Mo ana Residinalic • 4-kl Commission Expir s: (Seal) M RATTAN 406-284-3255 tc ° BANK P.O. BOX 690 • MANHATTAN, MONTANA 59741 March 17,. 1993 IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT NUMBER 43-00 Manhattan State Bank Creditor City of Bozeman City Hall Bozeman, MT 59715 RE: Overbrook, Inc. - Letter of Credit for completibn of sewer alignment The Manhattan State Bank of Manhattan, Montana has established an Irrevocable Letter of Credit in your favor, at the request of and for the account of Overbrook, Inc. of 4510 Conestoga Cir, Bozeman, MT, to the extent of $5000.00 for completion of sewer alignment. Said funds are .available by presentation of your sight draft which clearly specifies the number of this credit and is drawn in favor of the City of Bozeman. Drafts drawn in conformity with the conditions of this credit will be honored by us if presented at our bank, on or before September 17, 1993. Sincerely, a � Kenneth 0. Fenno President Rocky Mountain Engineers Civil Engineering & Land Surveying P.O.Box 883,Bozeman,Montana 59771 (406)586-4859 March 17, 1993 Mr. Phill Forbes Director of Public Service Bozeman, MT 59715 Re: Overbrook Condominiums Water & Sewer Facilities Dear Phill , We have inspected the water and sewer facilities constructed by , Mr. Dick Huttinga, and find that the work required for approval of a building permit for the 6-plex at .the northeast corner of the project and the easterly single family unit, is substantially complete. At this time . the sanitary sewer has been installed from Westridge Drive to a manhole 200 to the north. The force main has been installed from this manhole west to the vicinity of the lift station that will be completed later this summer. The gravity sewer main west of the lift station will also be completed later this summer. The gravity sewer main and manholes currently installed have passed the leakage test, however, there is a section of main approximately 20 to 25 feet long that must be adjusted to the proper grade. The TV inspection of the gravity sewer main identified this length of main with standing water approximately 1 inch deep. The water main extension through the development has also been completed at this time. The full length of the water main, -both fire hydrants, and .all of the water services have been installed. The water main has passed the .pressure and leakage tests and has been chlorinated. The results of the bacteriological test are also acceptable. The stationary. rod for the 11h service must still be installed, however, the water department did not believe that this should prevent the .system from being. utilized. The roadway over the water line has not been brought up to final grade at this time, but there is sufficient cover over the water line to prevent it from freezing. It is my understanding the Mr. Dick Huttinga has provided an estimate of $1 ,000.00 to correct the grade on the sanitary sewer and install the stationary rod in the 11/2" water service. I believe that this estimate is reasonable to perform the work required. Please feel free to call if you should have any questions concerning the work that has been completed at Overbrook. Best Regards, Ray Center, P.E. , L.S. March 15, 1993 Rocky Mountain Engineers 609 W. Mendenhall Bozeman, MT 59715 Dear Ray: Y estimate the cost of adjusting the 81,*,,sewer line at $1 ,000. This is to aline .the section; 40 feet north of the Westridge manhole to 60 feet north. ,* This* will be done as soon as the ground tha-ds.. is The 11" stationary rod will be installed this week. The estimated cost is $250.00 Sincerely, i Dick Huttinga r , r cc s Gene Graf., i MEMORANDUM ------------------------------------------------------------------ TO: FRED SHIELDS , CITY SHOPS ROGER SICZ, CITY SHOPS DAN FIGGINS , FIRE DEPT. FROM: KEVIN WALL, ASSOCIATE PLANNER/URBAN DESIGNER DATE: 26 JANUARY 1993 RE: OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE PUD - FINAL SITE PLAN ------------------------------------------------------------------ The approved Final Site Plan for the above referenced project is attached for your records. 73 3 I RECEIVED .JAN 2 1 1993 SPEED MESSAGE TO FROM !SUBJECT DATE SIGNEC2 '�t + - wilsoniones•Carbonlm•MADE IN USA ORIGINAL 44-911 WfiCale S � ' _ � )' I I f�� �/ + �• , S � -~tom � r :. .� ... ,y � 1f � / �� � f�i 7Y r __ a.r ,7 �. .; a .,f r .� � t R t I .� �i i t IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT FOR CUP/PUD APPLICATION #Z-9230 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 19 , by and between the Overbrook Partnership, hereinafter called the "Developer" , and the City of Bozeman, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Montana, hereinafter called the "City" . WHEREAS , it is the intent and purpose of the Developer to meet the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit application #Z-9230 allowing the development of twenty four residential units and installation of related site improvements; and WHEREAS , it is the intent of the Developer to obtain final approval for said application; and WHEREAS , it is the intent and purpose of both the Developer and the City to hereby enter into an Agreement which will guarantee the full and satisfactory completion of the required improvements on the property hereinafter described; and it is the intent of this Agreement, and of the parties hereto, to satisfy the improvements guarantee requirements for the final approval of said Conditional Use Permit application. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, it is hereby agreed as follows : 1 . Property Description This Agreement pertains to , and includes those properties which are designated and identified as Lot 16 , and Lots 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , and 30 of Block 9 , Amended Plat of Figgins Addition, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, and more commonly known as 517 Westridge and all parcels which front onto Fryslie Street . 2 . Improvements i This Agreement specifically includes the installation of landscaping and parking lot improvements , and other improvements illustrated on the plans and specifications attached and made a part of this Agreement , as "Exhibit A" . The estimated cost of said 1 OVERBROOK #Z-9230 IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT PAGE 2 OF 4 : improvements is attached as "Exhibit B" and "Exhibit B-1 . " 3 . Financial Guarantee . Time for Completion of Improvements If the use of the structure is to occur prior to the installation of the improvements, the improvements must be secured by a financial guarantee , as may be deemed acceptable by the City, payable to the City of Bozeman, in an amount equal to one and one- half ( 1 1/2 ) times the estimated cost of the installation of any required improvements not completed at this time . Said method of security shall be valid for a period of not less than twelve ( 12 ) months . In any event, all stream bank and open space landscaping , and all Phase I improvements as delineated on Exhibit "A" , which is attached and made a part of this Agreement , shall be installed within nine ( 9 ) months of the issuance of a Building Permit. All Phase II site improvements shall be installed within ( 9 ) months of the issuance of a Building Permit for the first building to be constructed in said phase . 4 . Inspection Representatives of the City shall have the right to enter upon the property at any reasonable time in order to inspect it and to determine if the Developer is in compliance with this Agreement , and the Developer shall permit the City and its representatives to enter upon and inspect the property at any reasonable time . 5 . Default Time is of the essence of this Agreement . If the Developer shall default in or fail to fully perform any of its obligations in conformance with the time schedule under this Agreement , and such default or failure shall continue for a period of thirty ( 30 ) days after written notice specifying the default is deposited in the United States mail addressed to the Developer at 4150 Conestoga Circle , Bozeman, Montana, 59715 or such other address as the Developer shall provide to the City from time to time, without being completely remedied, satisfied, and discharged, the City may elect to enforce any of the following specified remedies: 2 r i ,f • OVERBROOK #Z-9230 IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT PAGE 3 OF 4 : A) The City may, at its option, declare the financial guarantee to be forfeited and secure the complete construction and inspection of the improvements described herein. 1 . The City' s representative , contractors , and engineers shall have the right to enter upon the property and perform such work and inspection, and the Developer shall permit and secure any additional permission required to enable them to do SO . B) The City may enforce any other remedy provided by law. 6 . Warranty The Developer shall warrant against defects in these improvements for a period of one year from the date of their written acceptance by the Governing Body. Any required landscaping must be maintained in a healthy, growing condition at all times . Any plant that dies must be replaced with another living plant that complies with the approved landscape plan. 7 . Governing Law This Agreement shall be construed according to the laws of the State of Montana. 8. Modifications or Alterations No modifications or amendment of this Agreement shall be valid, unless evidenced by a writing signed by the parties hereto . 9 . Invalid Provision The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement shall not affect .the other provisions hereof , and this Agreement shall be construed in all respects as if such invalid or unenforceable provision were omitted. 10 . No Assignment It is expressly agreed that the Developer shall not assign this Agreement in whole , or in part , without prior written consent to City. 3 OVERBROOK #Z-9230 IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT PAGE 4 OF 4 : I 11 . Successors Except as provided in paragraph 10 , this Agreement shall be binding upon, enure to the benefit of , and be enforceable by the parties hereto and their respective heirs , successors and assigns . THE OVERBROOK PARTNERSHIP LN1 Tim Dean, partner STATE OF MONTANA ) : ss County of Gallatin ) On this a/54 day of JtIlUall-V , 19q3 , before me , a Notary Public for the State of Montana, personally appeared Tim Dean, partner in the Overbrook Partnership, known to me to be the person who executed the foregoing Improvements Agreement, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of the said partnership. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Notarial Seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public r Sta e f Montana Residing at : ,� l-"/ Commission Expires: - � 7-qtZ q ( SEAL) THE CITY OF BOZEMAN Phillip J. F rb s Director of Public Service STATE OF MONTANA ) : ss County of Gallatin ) On the Z,Z` day of V11WIWZ 19 before me , a Notary Public for the State of Montana, personally appeared Phillip J. Forbes , known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument as Director of Public Service of the City of Bozeman, whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to-me that he executed the same for and on behalf of said City. - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal on the day and year first written above . Nota Public t r Atate of Montana Res i ' ng at: Commission Expires : . '/y9 (SEAL) 4 "EXHIBIT B" ESTIMATED COST FOR IMPROVEMENTS - ----------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- DATE: 14 January 93 PROJECT:Overbrook at Westridge PUD DEVELOPER: Overbrook Partnership ----------------------------.. -----------C----------- ---------------------------- Cost Itein- S Ft Ln . Ft . Per Unit Est Cost , � ' Paving: Asphalt 25, 856 SF $1 . 00/unit $ 25, 856 . 00 Concrete (6") 9 , 703 SF 3 . 00/unit „2g - ing _ nn Sidewalks : (4") 1, 055 SF 1. 75/unit 1 , 846 . 00 Curbing: 1 , 906 LF 8 . 25/unit 15, 724 . 00 Landscape: SEE EXHIBIT B-1 41, 325. 00 Landscape Protection: Garbage Enclosure: Exterior Lighting: Bike Racks 3 units 130. 00/unit 390 . 00 Regulatory. Signs 6 units 25. 00/unit 150. 00 Benches 2 units 50 . 00/unit 100. 00 '7At. _ 7 y,Soo Approved By City Engineering Office: Date: ;La 9� EXHIBIT B-1 LANDSCAPING ESTIMATE OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE ------------------------------------------------------------------ Item Quantity Cost/Unit Total weeping birch 4 $ 74 . 00 $ 296 . 00 patmore green ash 14 78 . 00 1 , 092 . 00 scotch pine 5 85 . 00 425 . 00 colorado spruce 20 155 . 00 3 , 100 . 00 laurel leaf willow 27 39 . 00 1 , 053 . 00 schwedler maple 13 69 . 00 897 . 00 cottonless cottonwood 44 42 . 00 1 , 848 . 00 quaking aspen 122 59 . 00 7 , 198 . 00 potentilla 16 14 . 00 224 . 00 junipers 30 19 . 50 585 . 00 grass/grading 117 , 176 SF . 21/SF 24 , 607 . 00 TOTAL $41 , 325 .00 • MEMORANDUM ------------------------------------------------------------------ TO: CRAIG BRAWNER, CITY ENGINEER FROM: KEVIN WALL , ASSOCIATE PLANNER/URBAN DESIGNERV� L DATE: 15 JANUARY 1993 RE: OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE FINAL PLAT ------------------------------------------------------------------ As per our brief discussion yesterday, the above referenced Final Plat (mylars , clothbacks , and platting certificate - for the sake of keeping them together) are attached for your review in conjunction with the PUD. Please forward to Andy Kerr so he can run the closure . The plat should be in final form as paper copies were reviewed several months ago and revisions were made accordingly - let me know if you identify any necessary modifications . n l � z 1 �56 89! � n, ci Go O rn 1 Z b G r rn d .v (CCC, rn rTl rn o d m Lo Z5 I rn rn - 1 r _ .r 7 , tSz � ,► A/ 11C� — -Sc r 2-1 145 E�-D 4V <-L)rr 1�� mot- `cam q" —zl c�LF �s= ono 47!o aD ISS Sid 1 J '�. ^' , � { ' • 'i v, � Ili .•- -, ----- Ili . � +. � • �� :; ; � III ill ;� �1 • • � :�.Y � 1 . � Ili .�:� ���� � � � � •�' � � �-° Ili _ ` • ,- � - � Ili _ • � •�� III �''��—r � • � s" % �% ill Ill . .t . ,! • � ',f,, . III III 1 -t-w--t I11 . III , • ' •f .r �• j ' � � - � :' - III • ICI III III IN - 11I I) - -- II ICI MEMORANDUM ------------------------------------------------------------------ CRAIG BRAWNER, CITY ENGINEER KEVIN WALL, ASSOCIATE PLANNER/URBAN DESIGNER DATE: 14 JANUARY 1993 "//D RE: OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE - REMAINING CONDITIONS TO BE FULFILLED -------------------------------- ----------------------------------- The applicant has submitted a revised Final Site Plan, grading and drainage plan, stormwater maintenance plan, and Final Subdivision plats for the above referenced project. Copies of all of these materials, with the exception of. the plats , are attached along with a copy of your memo dated 10/21/92 outlining the remaining issues and a copy of the entire list of the conditions of approval . Please review as soon as reasonably possible and notify me as to whether all of the conditions have been fulfilled or not . Please let me if you need to review the plats in relation to any "tie- overs" between the subdivision and the site plan so that they can be forwarded to you. Thanks . ���� � RECEIVED BY BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE" DATE �J 44--e ?i�­L'i 5 670 �—i h)R-(. S 1 7'E �L,4x1 t ►� Gi�R� CGI�i1�G3 G�tt`�f� (D n TL�a �✓nC sW_ l �CV`C5�0 -i�C&L V1 '410p"Ouaj a7 n r 0 fl ►r.� r9U%e J — �9 - l D✓ et ) c=�-�-� v mil-. Y'LQ a b e -L)0 r W2✓p—c e� s!� PHONE CALL FOR OAT TIME OF 4-PHONED It RETURNED _ PHONE 7�3 YOUR CALL AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION PLEASE CALL MESSAGE WILL CALL AGAIN CAMETO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU %SIGNEO TOPS FORM 4003 MEMORANDUM ------------------------------------------------------------------ TO: ANDY EPPLE, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: KEVIN WALL, ASSOCIATE PLANNER/URBAN DESIGNER DATE: 5 JANUARY 1993 RE: OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE PUD - TIMING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PRIVATE DRIVE ------------------------------------------------------------------ In relation to the timing of the construction of the private drive and the issuance of Building Permits for the Overbrook PUD, I have concluded that it would be appropriate to issue Building Permits before the base course of the driveway is installed. This conclusion is based on the following factors : r4 A. Although the subdivision regulations require that the base course of a roadway be in place before the issuance of permits for the subdivision in question, the private drive for this project was proposed and approved as part of the Zoning CUP/PUD application and therefore not subject to any timing requirement of the subdivision regulations. Rather, the Zoning Ordinance requirements will prevail . B. No physical improvements were proposed as part of the Preliminary Plat application. The purpose of the plat is to amend and eliminate "imaginary" lines of record to fit the physical improvements approved through the Zoning application. If the parcel in question had been a single lot, the same project could have been approved without a plat review. C. The private driveway is part of the common space to be owned by the Homeowner' s Association. No public dedication is to be granted. However, irrespective of the factors stated above, the project must receive Final PUD Approval and the approved Final Plat must be filed at the Cldrk and Recorder' s Office prior to the construction of the driveway or the issuance of Building Permits. Further, in accordance with the Planning Office' s policy, all parking and driveway improvements shall be completed, and a financial security shall be posted for any remaining improvments, prior to occupancy of any of the units. ,� �- ORDINANCE NO. 1356 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, VACATING AND ABANDONING THAT PORTION OF FRYSLIE STREET ADJACENT TO LOTS 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, AND 30 OF THE AMENDED SUBDIVISION PLAT OF BLOCK 9, FIGGINS ADDITION, PHASE I. WHEREAS, there has been filed with the Clerk of the City Commission of the City of Bozeman a petition by the owner of the property abutting that portion of Fryslie Street right-of-way lying north and west of a line extending from the northwest corner of Lot 31 to the northeast corner of Lot 20, both of the Amended Subdivision Plat of Block 9, Figgins Addition, Phase I; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, on the 4th day a of May 1992, at its regular meeting, passed and adopted Commission Resolution No. 2859, declaring it to be the intention of the City Commission to vacate and abandon that portion of the Fryslie Street right-of-way lying adjacent to Lots 21, 22, 23, 24; 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the Amended Plat of Block 9, Figgins Addition, Phase I; and WHEREAS, the notice of the adoption of said Resolution was published in the i Bozeman Daily Chronicle at least once, to wit on the 7th day of May 1992, as appears from the affidavit of publication of the publisher of said Bozeman Daily Chronicle, which is on file with the Clerk of the City Commission of the City of Bozeman; and WHEREAS, said notice of the adoption of said Resolution has been served in the manner of the service of summons in civil actions upon all persons whose property abuts upon the portion of the above-described street affected by the proposed vacation, which i return of service is on file with the Clerk of the City Commission of the City of Bozeman; and WHEREAS, said notice, as published and served, designated the 18th day of May 1992 at 7:00 o'clock p.m., at the Commission Room in the City Hall Building, Bozeman, Montana, as the time and place for hearing objections; and WHEREAS, no legal objections to said vacation were presented on the 18th day of May 1992, at the regular meeting of the City Commission, nor were any objections filed in writing prior to that meeting; and WHEREAS, it is in the City's best interests to vacate the subject street right-of-way, while preserving an easement therein for any public utility to continue to maintain existing plant and equipment in said street right-of-way. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN: That the following street right-of-way be vacated while preserving an easement therein for any public utility to continue to maintain existing plant and equipment in said street right-of-way, more particularly described as follows: That portion of the Fryslie Street right-of-way lying adjacent to Lots 21, 22, 23, 24, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the Amended Subdivision Plat of Block 9, Figgins Addition, Phase I. PROVISIONALLY PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, at a regular session thereof held on the 9th day of November 1992. TIMOTHY SWANSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBIN L. SULLIVAN Clerk of the Commission FINALLY PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, at a regular session thereof held on the day of November 1992. TIMOTHY SWANSON, Mayor ATTEST: ROBIN L. SULLIVAN Clerk of the Commission APPROVED AS TO FORM: PA L J. L E City A- ney i - 2 - 1 ��c>gsoZL�' THE CITY OF BOZEMAN 35 NO. BOZEMAN AVE. P.O. BOX 640 • CARNEGIE BUILDING PHONE (406) 586-3321 e� BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59771-0640 RECEIVED BY BOZEMAN co 0 MEMORANDUM CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE October 21, 1992 .To: Kevin Wall , Associate Planner DATE From: Craig E. Brawner, City Enginee Re : Overbrook FSP Review Below I have listed my comments on the status of the FSP conditions of approval associated with the Engineering Dept . (items are number as they appeared in the 5/26/92 commission' s conditions of approval ) : 1 . Traffic impact analysis indicates that the So. 3rd intersection Level of Service will remain at level "A" at full build-out of the development . Condition has been satisfied. 3 . City Standard approach has not been shown on the FSP. At a minimum a note is needed on the FSP referring to a City Std. Detail which also needs to be attached to the FSP. Also, a Sidewalk/Curb-cut Permit needs to be obtained per the FSP condition. 4 . C. The typical cross section detail attached to the FSP is adequate; however, the conflict between the paving section detail and the asphalt dimension shown in the curbing details must be corrected. While the street will be private, wherein future maintenance will be the homeowners ' responsibility, I recommend a minimum 3" asphalt section be provided. 5 . Condition Satisfied. 6 . Condition satisfied. 11 . Condition satisfied. 13 . A. Storm water Plan and calculations have been provided. While pond sizings appear satisfactory following need to be addressed: - The RME Grading and Drainage Plan attached to the FSP is not the same or as complete (most current revision?) as the sheet submitted for the Flood Plain Development Permit. - Architect's and RME's Plan Sheets are not coordinated on detention basin location and number. - Bench Mark and Datum need to be identified on RME sheet. HOME OF MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY GATEWAY TO YELLOWSTONE PARK Page 2 Kevin Wall October 21, 1992 - Area 3 detention basin needs to have a discharge Swale or other provisions made to direct discharge to Figgins Creek. - All detention basins should be identified by drainage area number. - Depict location of each detention pond discharge structure. B. No detailed storm water maintenance plan has been provided. C. Condition satisfied. D. Condition satisfied; however , refer to Item 4C above . E. Storm water pl.an approval subject to resolution of all items noted in item 13 . 14 . A. Flood Plain Development Permit issued - condition satisfied. B. The revised 100 year flood plain boundary has been shown; however, 100 year flood plain cross section elevations need to be depicted on the plan per the conditions of approval . C. Condition satisfied. D. The flood plain development permit calculations demonstrate that all the proposed buildings will be out of the revised 100 year flood plain boundary. However, until a Letter of Map Amendment has been issued by FEMA any building located within the currently delineated 100 year flood plain boundary must be flood-proofed to 2 f t. above the delineated 100 year flood plain elevation, and post-construction Elevation Certificates must also be provided. The units on the West end of the development appear to be impacted. Please contact me if you have any questions . cc : Phillip Forbes , Director of Public Service Ray Center , Rocky Mountain Engineers Tim Dean, , Tim Dean Construction c 1302 L�' OTHE CITY OF BOZEMAN � !r(j 9x�1 35 NO. BOZEMAN AVE. P.O. BOX 640 N. . j CARNEGIE BUILDING PHONE (406) 586 3321 BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59771-0640 _',"'CO '"°?,yet October 15 , 1992 RECEIVED BY BOZEMAN bverbrook Partnership CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE c/o Tim Dean Construction 4 510 Conestoga Circle - -r- --�--=- Bozeman , MT 59715 DATE Re: Flood Plain Development .Permit 'G"'el Overbrook Condominiums Westridge Dr . Dear Tim: This letter shall serve as formal written approval of the September 17 , 1992 application for a Flood Plain Development Permit for the above-referenced project . The issuance of this Flood Plain Development Permit is subject to the following provisions : 1 . The project engineer shall provide . approvable material specification and minimum compaction ( 95%) requirements for fill material placed in the 100 Year Flood Plain. 2 . All conditions of the 310 Permit issued for the project shall. be salified. The project work must conform to the approved project plans and specifications . Any change in the approved plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer' s office for review and approval prior to construction . The project engineer or architect shall provide adequate project construction inspection and within 90 days of completion of the permitted work shall certify to the City Engineer that the project was completed in accordance with the approved plans . This approval is given with the understanding that the work within the 100 year floodplain will be initiated within two years of the date of this letter . If more than two years elapses before initiation of this project , it shall be necessary to resubmit the project plans for re-approval before beginning construction. One set of the plans bearing the City ' s approval has been forwarded to Ray Center . Please be sure the project contractor has a copy of i the approved project plans and fill requirements . The proposed project conforms to .the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and - the City' s Flood Plain Ordinance . However , issuance of a Flood Plain Development Permit does not in itself revise the 100 year flood boundary delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) published July 15, 1988 . As such, Portions of the proposed project may still technically be considered to lie within the 100 year flood plain. HOME OF MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY GATEWAY TO YELLOWSTONE PARK i Page 2 Tim Dean October 15 , 1992 The published FIRMS can only be revised through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)'. It is the owners'/developers ' responsibility to pursue any desired revision of published FIRM flood •plain boundary . Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the flood plain development permit or process for revision of the delineated . flood plain . Sincerely , Craig E . .Brawner , P.E . City Engineer cc : Phillip J .-Forbes , Director of Public Service Ray Center , Rocky Mountain Engineers (w/encl ) Enclosure Development Review Committee September 15, 1991" Members Present2 David Cameron , Fred Shields, Craig Brawner, Fred Cheney & Bud TUSS. Staff Present: David Skelton , David Grigsby, Andy Epple & Terri Yira. Final Site Plan Review - Overbrook at Westridge Dan Kamp, Gene Graf 8( Tim Dean present. BUd TUSS asked if the street Could be named rather than having a Westridge address. Tim Dean stated that the post office won ' t go in to the development, so the box has to be on Westridge, but they could name the street if that is desired . Epple showed DRC the sewer specifications, noting that engineering has been corresponding with Ray Center on 'this application . Fred Cheney asked about the hydrant and building locations. Fred Shields said there is hydrants in two locations, and he pointed them Out. Planning Director Epple stated that Planner Wall had wanted DRC to see -this -two weeks in a row to review -the complexities, as it was approved with extensive conditions. Fred Shields asked who did the traffic analysis. Dan Kamp said Ray Center had done that. Tim Dean stated -that they had assumed that there Would be no name on the street, but the numbers 403 - 413 are open on Westridge. Tim Dean stated that there were no numbers available initially so Teresa in drafting had to come back the reverse way -to gain numbers. Gene Graf stated that there are enough numbers odd and even to give each building a number. Epple asked if there was a reason that they COUldn ' t name the street. Gene Graf said that Fryslie Street was not totally abandoned . Epple said fie believed that they Could rename it. Brawner said it shouldn ' t be too hard to rename it, and then there Would be a street name with the individual numbers on the buildings. Dean said Overbrook Drive will be the name for identif ication purposes a n d then the buildings will be individually numbered for permitting reasons. Fred Shields stated that -the infrastructure must be in before a building permit can be issued . Planning Director Epple stated that up to base cores, ' curb and gutter must be installed before the issuing of any permits. Tim Dean said they want to get going with this and he feels that they have been run around on this. Planning Director Epple stated -that this has been a major project a�nd fie doesn ' t feel -that 4-5 months is unreasonable f or the entire review process. He further noted that -the only one o f those reClUirements which can be handled by a Letter of Credit is the paving . Brawner said infrastructure must be in before permit is issued . 00 Graf asked if they can be guaranteed approvals based on their installation , so they are not putting the infrastructure in without assurance that project can be built. Craig Brawner said what he is hearing is that they want to Pound nails, and that is not permitted ahead of permitting . Bud TUSS said there is no problem with building permits, they will be issued contingent on the infrastructure being in . Tim Dean said -the looped water will. be done right away but sewer is planned to be phased . Neither Brawner nor Shields were aware of that. Brawner said his problem w i t h that is the time and money that will have to be spent for S U c h a little loop, he felt that they s h o u I d talk to the c-ontractor to see that it all be in first. Gene said they want to start initial units asap and they have -Alot of fill -to do on the west side before they can do sewer and a they don ' t want -to wait for that. Brawner asked where phases are. Epple said to do anything on the east they have to come to the lift station , but that is not a bad place to stopy. Brawner said work on stream setbacks will need to be done with phase I . Brawner said he doesn ' t remember it being phased , and he asked if it was presented that way in Commission . Cameron said he remembered some phasing discussion , and Epple stated that it does reference phase I once in the Commission notes. Epple stated th,--it it does make sense to him since the manhole is centrally located . Brawner said it can be done technically in phasing , but it is more work for everyone. Graf said they have the bid for the entire project including the phasing . Tim Dean said said it is his understanding then that they can ' t even start footing Lin t i I Curb, water, sewer, and gravel are complete. Brawner said Foxhollow Caused them alot of problems. Dean said he can understand not a I I owing occupancy, but n o t holding up the building process. Brawner said there are problems involving access to the sites and it is just harder to get them in that way. Cameron said once Linder construction You need fire protection as well , so water should be in . Dean said he feels that -footing and foundation should be able to go in ahead of time. Brawner said also at issue is that there is no way to realisitically stop construction at that point. Bud TUSS said they have been known to issue just footing and foundation permits in -the past. Epple said that was not his understanding of Code. Bud said LeClair has gotten just footing and foundation permits. Planning Director- Epple stated that the Code prohibits that in his Understanding , but he will look into it and -they can talk further about it at next weeks meeting . Fred said State and City have commented on water, but no resubmittal has been made. Brawner said Ray is working on the Floodplain development permit, but there was a long list of conditions with this and i*t can ' t be turned around in a week or 00 two. Brawner said Ray will have to respond to comments they sent him late last week , and he doesn ' t know where the State is at in their process. Brawner said Mark Smith had a long list of comments that would have to be responded to and resubmitted , and it is usually best to coordinate the two resubmittals (City/State) so all bases get covered. Dean said he sent in the lift station information ahead of time, and at this time he understood that the only condition not complied with was the floodplain permit. Graf asked who they ask for a footing/foundation permit. Bud said it comes out of the subdivision review process. Planning Director Epple said no building permit cal be issued until there is an approved street frontage, and no development shall occur on the property until the infrastructure is in -place. Graf said who makes the decision on doing footing/foundation at the same time as infrastructure. Epple said that he, Craig , Dan and Kyle would get together in the next week and address that issue. Brawner said their major concern is consistency. Bud asked if the private street would have any bearing . Epple said no. Graf said if they deny that how do they get assurances that everything is in line after infrastructure is in . Epple said they can issue a letter to that effect. BOZEMAI " 0 . CITY-COUJ FY a,. PLANNING OFFICE BOZEMAN 35 NORTH BOZEMAN AVENUE CITY-COUNTY P.O. BOX 640,BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 PLANNING OFFICE PHONE:(406)586-3321 Ext. 227 September 11, 1992 Mr . Dan Kamp CIKAN ARCHITECTS, P .C. 1807 West Dickerson, Suite C Bozeman, MT 59715 Dear Dan : In your letter dated September 9, 1992 on behalf of. Gene Graf and Tim Dean , you request that construction of footings and foundations of the buildings in Phase I of the Overbrook Project be allowed at the same time water and sewer lines are being constructed . I have discussed this matter with the City Attorney and other City staff, and have concluded that it would be contrary to Municipal Code to grant your request . This is because both the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations specifically state that subdivision improvements, including water, sewer , and streets, must be installed before building permits can be issued . I regret that this conclusion may cause a delay in the completion of Overbrook, but neither I nor any other City staff member is in a position to waive Municipal Code requirements . Your only option at this point is to proceed with the infrastructure construction in as timely a manner as possible, upon receiving the necessary approvals from DHES and the City. In the meantime, if there is anything this office can do to further expedite the final review process, .please don 't hesitate to ask. Sincerely, Andrew C . Epple e Planning Director cc : Paul Luwe, City Attorney DRC Members Gene Graf Tim Dean 00 00 z 5 _,c GsEas ��-y�-s �: �y I i !, f� �� ,I - �� I .. �� • _ � � � � �� _ , _ _ I'� � ' ' , ' � � '�� i 1 � �� ' i t �! i � '� '� T � �� 1 — . ,� � - t �� � � - t �r .A . �f :� I� - �� ���. ll� e is £`• E %e CIKAN ARCHITECTS,P.C. 1807 West Dickerson,Suite C,Bozeman,Montana 59715 (406) 586 3624 Fax(406)586 3630 September 9, 1992 Andy Epple City/County Planning Department 35 North Bozeman Avenue P. O. Box 640 Bozeman, MT 59715 Dear Andy: On behalf of Gene Graf and Tim Dean of the Overbrook Partnership, this letter is to serve as a formal request to allow the footings and foundations of the buildings in Phase I of the Overbrook Project to be constructed at the same time as the water and sewer lines are being constructed. To clarify the statements made at the DNRC meeting this morning, it should be clear that Phase I will involve installation of all water lines in the site looped to Westridge Drive at both ends, all the curb and gutter in Phase I, as well as all the sewer in Phase I including the lift station. The estimated time of construction on the sewer and water lines is approximately six to eight weeks, putting us well into November upon their completion. It is the desire of the Partnership to have the footings and foundations as well as all the rough grading completed at that same time. To allow the footings and foundations to occur at the same time as the water lines would be much more efficient in terms of excavation and fill, as well as cleaning up of the site upon completion of the improvements. i • It is fully understood by all involved that this would allow only the footings and foundations to be constructed, with absolutely no work beyond that done j until such time as the full building permit is issued. We understand that these permits would not be granted until such time as all water, sewer, and j curbing was completed in all of Phase I. 0 Any assistance you could give us in this direction would be greatly appreciated as it seems the most logical way to serve both the interest of the developers and the interest of the city. Thank you for your help on this matter. Sincerely, Dan Kamp i I ' i MEMORANDUM ------------------------------------------------------------------ TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: KEVIN WALL, ASSOCIATE PLANNER/URBAN DESIGNER4�*b, DATE: 4 SEPTEMBER 92 RE: OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE PUD - REVIEW OF FINAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PUD ------------------------------------------------------------------ Attached are the proposed final building elevations for the above referenced project. The project site is located at the north of Figgin' s Addition east of Video Lottery Consultants and south of the pasture which is located between South 3rd Avenue , Museum of the Rockies , and Kagy Boulevard. In order to finalize the project , the applicants are now attempting to fulfill the following condition: That architectural treatments shall be diversified from building to building , by way of differing gable treatments , window sizes , rooflines , adding jogs in the front and rear facades , and/or similar treatments . The side elevations which are visible off-site shall incorporate windows ; the use of window bays should. be considered . The final elevations shall be subject to review and approval by the DRB prior to final PUD approval . Thus , the Board ' s task at hand is to determine whether the elevations submitted fulfill the above stated condition. A site plan and the preliminarily approved elevations will be available for review at the meeting . As I will be out of the office during the week of 9/8/92-9/11/92 , please contact Andy if you have any questions , or Donna if you would like to review the project file . Because these drawings will be record copies if approved, please make sure to return them. J �j DRAINAGE PLAN Figgins Creek flows from southwest to northeast through the development. The existing floodway will be maintained through the property. The limits of the floodway will be defined by filling a portion of the flood fringe. The resulting channel will be sized to carry the 100 year flow as defined by the FEMA study. The 100 year flow will be routed through the development without increasing the flood elevation on the surrounding propert-ies. After development Figgins Creek will. enter the property and leave the property at the same points as it does at this time. Detention areas have been defined to attenuate the additional storm runoff generated by the development. The detention areas have been sized to detain the excess runoff from the 5 year storm, as required by the City of Bozeman Storm Drainage Master Plan. The runoff from the portion of the development west of Figgins Creek will flow easterly across the access drive to one central detention area. Any excess runoff from the access drive will also be diverted just west of the creek into two smaller detention area. Runoff from the portion of the development east of Figgins Creek will flow to smaller detention areas located in this part of the development. Each detention area is designed to attenuate the portion of the additional runoff tributary to it. Ultimately all runoff from the development will enter Figgins Creek. RECEIVED BY BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE DATE i U Z � Z O ;;-! la_l U LL O (/) 41 in U Z YO 0 Q -t- Q, UUlll O O n_ v n ci • b b VERTICAL SLOT OPENING io BERM b. DETEMION / 01 • BASIN i b RV^ (o= OU i OUTLET STRUCTURE: 15' I.D. RCP SET A MINIMUM OF 12' BELOW GRADE (WASHED AGGREGATE SURFACE) FILL WITH CONCRETE 70 EL,EVATION OF BOTTOM OF DETENTION BASIN. VERTICAL SLOT FOR INLET (WIDTH AS RMUIRED� r PVC PIPE. OUTL.EL S=CT10N OUTLET DETAIL FOR DETENTION POND G 6 . _ST.�`�ir _ /`-�FG./�_ ...:.�i e�lyr ,../c)/�•y�f ���FC:K.�`J G/.cl�G ;-� <7,:�vcr ... ............. oj ti _. .:_.......... 49 l H t-✓ G 7 Y✓�-:..sT/2yr� S.�__.....!��.. ..�, �Ntf . �.����f. s':��.,-� G�.ems,i<J� . /-/ S y✓/L�.. .._ !�/t.�cC. .._.__T.�c,.N U.r=7` %z" 4!1:J. _. ._ /.!cJ jZ'_� ..:E-f tZ-... ...0 G�7�s"J /—v u O. ... �.`1�J %7 J/.�._. .�'?— S U� �� Gy �T/l7� l�� %�-L %)lC�/►rs 2� Jkf`LX-*..... OfF e, i Ai w Ark 1 . T� 20 � ' �.. 3/ _ �c.. fit- �-•. .J '2:`.c1%7p iJ / J �-2. __.:. ... :.14 6 4 �C. -&-,J T7,0,J ✓V G U s.2`r Ly U rz.9?)O dI _.. /N?��1._Si7Y ✓UL , (rY3 (, SZ GFS, ST+viLo r �srJ o. 3 .. s c.,o r _ r✓/�..�.. i.,J p u�4`jam' f i 7�v1_c.�:� �Ji7/�?i�"7L (.iJ�N c,) �v�L-'"'''�`-'�-4 /4�/'`- T,r_c�,�-.� Cr'�f.�i�;� �✓�:';,i 3f . S-Z L-1-t� / L �.ii��� .S lr•l r S� . . '. �7r/J;T.� ice•, c. /Wig� .—� . . 440 Liu ✓Cr LJ��iJ ���.I U �7- i�G"�-��'�J JJ ✓ U (.r �.r yr�..'! ✓J G.. 3 -C Al. J u Ff _S iL..0. . l�/O i7� /-✓ C1 yr Tc+=T �S >7'L c r GTZ��c.�r•, ..... _. D�i•.'.?�-f o i= �✓�}�-.� 5� U !ter/�•c Y ^-� /. O • - ' L �c✓��i='��� .�l.J a r5� S yip I:-c.•n.IJF/�j33 �I-��/1-iL IJ Z77 /oS / 7Z _. .. _ .SL_l)T._.:_..Z✓,/.L]_T�< _._/ .C7-1G[Tc�<%� Jne L 771//z-v _.... .'---.�. L. E3 vv I o �. �c_ �chi c> •�... z .� �/ice �� I� lif i..�. rv,C­, 4L _ . ljr.�.re„q'r7 s i..�.. /sJ7'l1NS,-�`/- ✓�c .- /S-3 F=�'�iJ�.'Sa e _. .. ..... O. ..... /3 0 -a ... .. .. . . .. . .�5 .............._:...._ ..�. Z(.. zed .......- ._.._. 9 � /z £� SLO r !�✓ i n J,/�9.../A_J v N 3/t a/L -._............. v S1.-JT. 1200 140 1000 120 ON 11 000 100 Le z — — —— — — 00 600 Z u u C—) 0 400 — — — — — - 60 1-7 rr It: 40 0 uj 200 o 17 Ile rf "00, mef- "o"1100,000, I--ool '70 20 C. 0 *TIME OF CONCENTRATION (10 FIGURE RATIONAL FORMULA 22 RAINFALL :POWER CURVE FREQUENCY X = IIR LY = IN/IIR 2 YEAR Y = 0.36 X .6U a YEAR Y = 0.52 X '64 10 YEAR Y = U.64X"65 25 YEAR Y =0.78 YEAR Y =0.9 2 X_:6 7 100 DEAR y = 1 .01X 6 o 0 a 5 a 0 x ° v, ll_ 1�1 � z WWI i!C N z a ui z " z x \ a 2 N \\ 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 6U 70 DURATION I1-1 MINUTES fur RAINFALL ' INTENsfrY- uunA riON CURVES FIG J*IIE 13OZ EMAN, MONTANA 23 a BASED ON NOAA ATLAS 2,VOL.I TABLE 1. SU`L*:ARY OF DISCHARGES (Cont 'd) Drainage Area Peak Discharges (cubic feet. per second) Floodine Source and Location (souare miles) 10-Year 50-Year 100-Year 500-Year Figgins Creekl Approximately 1.0 mile upstream from CMSP&P Railroad 0.4 99 150 159 190 Approximately 0.4 mile upstream from CMSP&P Railroad 0.6 103 159 171 209 Above CMSP&P Railroad 0.8 110 171 186 233 Above Kagy Boulevard 1.3 119 188 207 266 • Nash-Spring Creekl Approximately 0.6 mile upstream from Goldenstein Lane 1.5 40 79 101 167 At Goldenstein Lane 1.7 42 83 105 174 - Near Kagy Boulevard 1.9 47 92 135 250 Mill Ditch Diversion Near Davis Street --2 145 265 340 290 .At Interstate Highway 90 --2 145 _ 300 _ 380 440 Flat. Creek Near. Kagy Boulevard . --3 _ - - 5 _J _ 11 ^15. 30 lPeak discharges larger than computed by Regression Equations due to the -transfer -fo flows to each basin by uncontrolled irrigation and. road ditches _ 2Drainage area not available due to inflow from overland flooding* and..from inflow from Bozeman Creek.: 3No drainage area because ditch is turnout from Nash-Spring Creek. ZONE - L. sT,=_=_r ZONE rtr sgo rz X I ZONE X o49r X905 °� _ZONE X ` i ZONE :ry4907 AE4911nS ti ��•�� n _ - � � � � � - - _ :_ 9 4909 STUC i1 4 Q - 'r CORPORATE LIMITS 4974 — :. w=_STRioe _ R 4g12 q A' ZONE �" / 4913 w� t 4.9�5 , r �4932 ; z1 4915 Figgins Creek - O 4g22 '_'x Flat Creek i ZONE ACE 49,8 p9L O u P T 4 I 1 492 921 I y= 8 6 a .t• 4924 .. - _ ZO N E AE 4925 _ I 4926 - ZONE AE x Mathew-Bird Creek a9As t 4947• 49; ARNOL =T 4923 c ` 7� -1928 ZONE I w � o A E 4930 --_ 4922. z �' 930 S - S 4 i I`I IOI 4931 =~ C C 4 49�`7 LINI;TOF z� DETAILED STUDY i I I r Z 4935 I 4936 Ji STAND CE f a:' I I ZON I I IU� a938' 4939 U ZONE X FAR`•+ Acc=ss j t i R1�1 2y lj*�j ZONE A ff I'll I tF" FF 9 FF 10\ A Lf ST I 11ol I 04 iparl el x A 0 r - r t,A if 4j if "Nio to opt. Zil y • • hitl Avaoiabolitiies �A"Jkki!2'! � 'y wivj as Exleflor Rib x 216'), bulb angle o Interior 39 Clown Rib 4R. U Z CIL) Optional 01 9 x 21h'Cott. Invert (41a 9' x 2 Cot(.Shall Span"A" Full Inn!_'.YyIdth"I'" Box Culvert Geometric Data BOX CULVERT CROSS SECTION Side Angle"E" Allowable Cover V'7' (measured Item SHELL Haunc toad suilace to Crown Leo Crown Plate Alb bollorn of cotiugallon) Haunch Plate Suuctuto Span Rise"11") Atom Width Length Side Angle Total Thickness spacin, Number n.) IFI.-In.) (Sq.Ft.) (Min.-Ft.) (Man.-Ft.) "C" (N) "0" (N) "9­Dog.Min. IN Length IN) Thickness(in.) Length(N) (in.) (In.) 1 8- 9 2- 6­.-L",Il 7.15 1.4 aAtwirl 6.01 v 6 w= A.,.gap -20:7� -,n 15 0 27 2 9- 2 3- 3 24.4 1.4 5.0 5 1.5 15-20 16 1.. 2 @ a .125 0 27 3 9- 7 4- 1 31.7 ).4 5.0 5 2.5 15-20 16 2 @ 9 .125 0 27 4 10- 0 4-10 39.3 1.4 5.0 5 3.5 15-20 20 2 @ 10 .125 0 27 5 10- 5 5- 7 47.2 1.4 5.0 5 .4.5 15-20 22 2 @ 11 .150 0 27 6 10-11 6- 4 55.5 1.4 5.0 5 5.5 15-20 24 2 @ 12 .150 0 27 7 11- 4 7- 2 64.0 1.4 5.0 5 6.5 15-20 26 2 @ 13 .175 0 27 8 to- 2 2- H 21.8 1.4 5.0 7 .5 13-30 16 2 @ 8 .150 0 27 9 t0- 7 3- 5 29.8 1.4 5.0 7 1.5 13-30 111 2 @ 9 .150 0 27 10 10-11 4­3 38 2 1.4 5.0 7 2.5 13-30 20 2 @ 10 .150 0 27 11 11- 4 5- 0 46.9 1.4 5.0 7 3.5 13-30 22 2 @ 11 .175 0 27 12 11- a 5- 9 55.9 1.4 5.0 7 4.5 13-30 24 2 @ 12 .175 0 27 13 12- 1 6- 7 65.1 1.4 5.0 7 5.5 13-30 26 2 @ 13 .200 0 27 14 12- 5 7- 4 74.7 1.4 5.0 7 6.5 13-30 20 2 @ 14 .200 0 27 15 11- 7 2-10 26.5 1.4 5.0 9 0.5 11.39 16 2 @ 9 .175 0 - 27 ID 11.11 3- 7 35.7 1.4 5.0 9 1.5 11-39 20 2 On 10 .175 0 - 27 17 12- 3 4- 5 45.2 1.4 5.0 9 2.5 11-39 22 2 @ 11 .200 0 - 27 18 12- 7 5- 2 55.0 1.4 5.0 9 3.5 11-39 24 2 @ 12 .200 0 - 27 19 12.11 2-11 6- 0 65.0 1.4 5.0 9 4.5 1 1-39 26 2 @ 13 .200 0 - 27 20 13- 3 6- 9 75.2 1.4 5.0 9 5.5 11-39 28 2 @ 14 .200 0 - 19 21 1.3. 0 3- 0 31.7 1.4 5.0 11 0.5 9-49 20 2 @ 10 .200 0 - to 22 13- 4 3-10 42.1 IA 5.0 11 1.5 9-49 22 2 @ 11 .200 0 - 18 23 113- 7 4- 7 52.7 IA 5.0 11 2.5 9-49 24 2 @ 12 .2U0 0 - 18 24 13-10 5- 5 63.5 IA 5.0 11 3.5 9-49 26 2 @ 13 .200 0 - 18 25 14- 1 6- 2 74.6 IA 5.0 If 4.5 9-49 28 2 @ 14 .225 0 - 18 2G 14- 5 3- 3 37.5 1.5 5.0 13 0.5 7-58 22 2 @ 11. .225 0 - Id 27 14- 8 4- 1 49.1 1.5 5.0 13 1.5 7-58 24 2 @ 8 .225 a .200 to 28 14-10 4.10 6U.8 1.5 5.0 13 2.5 7-50 26 2 @ 9 .225 a .200 18 29 Is- .1 5- 6 72.7 1.5 5.0 13 3.5 7-58 28 2 Q 10 .175 a .200 9 30 15- 4 6- 5 84.7 11.5 5.0 13 4.5 7-58 30 2 @ 11 .175 8 .200 0 31 15- 6 7- 3 97.0 1.6 5.0 13 5.5 7-58 32 2 @ 12 .175 a .200 9 32 15- 9 8- 0 109.4 1.6 5.0 13 6.5 7-58 34 2 @ 13 .175 0 .200 9 33 15-10 3- 6 44.0 1.6 5.0 15 0.5 6.07 24 2 @ 8 .175 a .200 9 34 16- 0 4- 3 56.7 1.6 4.9 15 1.5 6­07 20 2 @ 8 .175 10 .200 0 35 16- 2 5- 1 69.5 1.6 4.9 15 2.5 6-07 20 2 @ 9 .175 10 .200 9 36 16- 4 5-11 82.4 1.6 4.8 15 3.5 6.07 30 2 G, 10 .175 10 .200 9 37 16- 6 6- 8 95.5 1.7 4.8 15 4.5 6-07 32 2 @ 11 .175 to .200 9 30 16- 8 7- G 1 UO.7 1.7 4.7 15 5.5 6-07 34 2 0 12 .175 10 .200 0 39 16-10 8- 3 122.0 1.7 4.7 15 6.5 6-07 36 2 Cu) 13 .175 10 .200 9 40 17- 2 3- 9 51.2 1.7 4.6 17 0.5 4-16 26 2 -0 8 .200 10 .200 9 41 17- 3 4- 7 64.9 1.7 4.5 17 1.5 4.16 28 2 IP 8 .200 12 .200 9 42 17. 5 5- 4 78.8 1.7 4.5 17 2.5 4-16 30 2 @ 9 .2U0 12 .20U 9 43 0- 6 6- 2 92.7 1.8 4.5 17 3.5 4-16 32 2 @ 10 .200 12 .200 0 44 17. 8 6-11 106.8 1.8 4.4 17 4.5 4-16 34 2 @ 11 .200 12 .200 0 45 17- 9 7- 9 120.9 1.8 4.4 17 5.5 4-16 36 2 G) 12 .200 12 .200 9 46 17-10 8- 7 135.2 1.8 4.4 17 6.5 4-16 38 2 @ 13 .200 12 .2UO 9 47 1111- 6 .4- 1 59.1 1.9 4.2 .19 0.5 2-26 28 2 @ a .225 12 .200 9 48 118- 7 4-10 73.9 1.9 4.1 19 1.5 2-26 30 2 @ 8 .225 14 .2UU 9 49 118- a 5- 8 811.8 1.9 4.1 19 2.5 2-26 32 2 @ 9 .225 14 .200 9 50 to- a 6- 5 103.8 1.9 4.1 19 3.5 2-26 34 2(6) to .225 14 .200 9 51 10- 9 7- 3 118.8 1.9 4.1 19 4.5 2-26 36 2 e 11 .225 14 .200 9 52 18-10 8- 1 133.0 1.9 4.1 19 5.5 2-26 30 2 @ 12 .225 14 .2U0 9 53 18.11' 8-10 149.0 1.9 4.0 1 19 6.5 2-26 40 2 @ 13 .225 14 .200 9 NOTES: 1) "N"equals 9.62". 4) Weight per loot of lull Invoil Includes 3 x 3 x 45 connecting 2) All crowns of shells have ribs both inside and outside angla and scalloped closure plales lot each side. 6 at 2711 on centers. 5) Weight par loot of fooling pad Includes 3 x 3 x 514 connecting angle 3) Weights per loot listed do not include boll weight. and walo beam for each side. SLOTTED CONCRETE FOOTING Aluminum '? Rolntorcing Aluminum \ Rib C rrugated Alu \ ! i•�� �/Hulnlorcing ominum HIV (2'n' x 9'►Sheet ` \�\ "`. Size& Reinlo(cing of Footing \ ''' Aluminum Wale To Be Controlled By Soil `\ Beam Stiffener Corrugated Aluminum Gearing Capacity and Designed By Others /�..--GfOat \\ (2yy• x 9')Sheal Optional Conuale Invert Aluminum \\ n• / ol._ r\r /Conn.Angle -' SHORT ALUMINUM FOOTING PADS -Span- HYDRAULIC DATA 8) FULL INVERT FOOTING PADS Full Alum. Concrrly !' , Invall Invert Wait'IF Width Supplemental/Stub PL Width PIT •1 Convolanc• Conrey.nc• (Lb..) Boll•/il. ••F•• (N) Thick. Width(N) Welghldit Dolls/Ft. (N) "Thick.(In.) W*Ight/FI. Bolls/FI. Factor Factor 43.14 13.33, 13 ..+,v 22.80:__.ti.�:,,;6.83 N (p ,.:- aoQ.:_::.,.16.98 '.::.:. :: 3.73 739 .j::.:�:... 48.09 18.61 13 - - 22.80 5.83 2 .100 16.98 3.73 1193 1528. 51.54 18.67 14 - - 24.18 6.07 2 .100 18.98 3.73 1120 2178 54.98 19.11 15 - - 25.56 6.30 2 .100 18.98 9.73 2319 2910 66.35 19.56 15 - - 25.56 6.30 2 .100 111.98 3.73 2990 3721 70.49 20.00 17 - - 28.31 6.77 2 .100 18.98 3.73 3731 4611 83.93 20.44 17 - 28.31 6.77 2 .100 18.98 3.73 4542 5580 5G.79 20.44 15 - - 25.56 6.30 2 •100 18.98 3.73 971 1263 6U.93 20.44 15 - - 25.56 6.30 2 •100 18.98 3.73 1534 1969 65.07 20.44 17 - - 28.31 6.77 2 .100 18.98 3.73 2180 2768 77.13 20.89 17 - - 28.31 6.77 2 .100 18.98 3.73 29U5 3656 81.96 21.33 17 - - 20.31 6.77 2 .100 18.98 3.73 3708 4629 96.09 21.78 17 - - 28.31 6.77 2 .100 10.98 3.73 4587 5685 101.60 22.22 19 - - 31.07 7.23 2 .100 18.98 3.73 5540 6823 70.33 22.22 17 - - 28.31 6.77 2 .100 18.98 3.73 1246 1622 7 5.15 22.22 17 - - 28.31 6.77 2 .100 18.98 3.73 1920 2478 87.91 22.22 17 - - 28.31 6.77 2 too 18.98 3.73. 2699 3436 93.42 22.67 19 - - 31.07 7.23 2 .100 18.98 3.73 3559 4489 90.94 23.11 19 - , - 31.07 7.23 2 ! .100 . ' 18.98 3.73 4503 5633 110.01 26.22 21 - - 33.83 7.70 3 .125 23.81 3.73 5527 6065 9080 0 26.67 19 .100 3 39.35 7.23 3 .150 25.87 3.73 1572 2049 96 32 26 67 21 .100 1 3 42.10 7.70 3 .150 ,i`,' 25.87 3.73 2300 3060 101.83 26.G7 21 .100 3 42.10 7.70 3 .150 25.8] 3.73 3288 4193 107.35 27.11 21 .100 3 42.10 7.70 3 .150 i',`:t: 25.87 3.73 4290 6420 122.116 27.56 21 .100 3 .42.10 7.70 3 .175 ' " 27.04 3.73 5381 6744 107.09 28.44 21 .100 3 42.10 7.70 3 .175 ' ' 27.94 3.73 1059 2555 111.90 32.89 21 .100 3 42.10 7.70 3 .175 27.94 3.73 2903 3743 118.11 32.89 23 .100 3 44,86 8.17 3 •175 ; 27.94 3.73 3955 5050 127.08 44.89 23 .100 3 44.86 8.17 3 .175 27.94 3.73 6106 6460 131.91 45.33 23 .100 3 44.86 6.17 3 .175 27.94 3.73 6352 7971 136.74 45.78 23 .100 3 44.86 8.17 3 .175 ' 27.94 3.73 7680 9574 141.56 46.22 23 .100 3 44.86 8.17 3 .175 27.94 3.73 9103 11263 120.28 46.22 23 .100 3 44.86 8.17 3 .175 27.94 3.73 2415 3151 125.80 46.22 23 .100 3 44.66 8.17 3 .175 27.94 3.73 3505 4523 130.62 46.22 23 .100 3 44.88 8.17 3 .200 30.01 3.73 4710 6010 135.45 4G.67 23 .11.10 3 44.86 8.17 3 .200 30.01 3.73 Mill 7621 } 140.28 47.11 25 .100 3 47.62 8.63 3 .200 30.01 3.73 7424 9325 y 145.10 47.56 25 .100 3 47.62 8.63 3 .200 30.01 3.73 8922 11124 t 149.93 48.00 25 .100 3 47.62 8.63 3 •200 30.01 3.73 10505 13008 134.50 48.00 25 .100 3 47.62 8.63 3 .200 30.01 3.73 2952 3851 i 140.U2 48.00 25 .100 - 3 47.62 8.63 3 .200 30.01 3.73 4197 5418 145.53 48.00 25 .100 3 47.62 0.63 3 .200 30.01 3.73 5562 7112 151.05 48.44 25 .100 3 47.62 8.63 3 .200 30.01 3.73 7034 8915 �{ 15G.57 4089 25 .125 3 49.69 0.63 3 .225 32.08 3.73 8607 10019 162.08 49.33 25 .125 3 49.69 8.63 3 .225 32.08 3.73 10273 12010 161_GU 49.78 25 .125 3 49.69 8.63 3 .225 32.08 3.73 12027 14902 p 146.73 49.78 27 .125 3 52.45 9.10 3 .225 32.08 3.73 3570 4669 t54.24 49.78 27 .125 3 .' 52.45 9.10 3 .225 32.08 3.73 4989 G442 16U.45 49.78 27 .125 3 52.45 9.10 3 .225 32.08 3.73 6523 8343 I G6 65 50.22 27 A 25 3 52.45 9.10 3 .225 32.08 3.73 0166 10353 172.86 50.67 27 .125 3 52.45 9.10 3 .225 32.08 3.73 9910 124G3 179.06 51.11 27 .125 3 52.45 9.10 3 .225 32.08 3.73 11750 14667 185.21 51.56 27 .125 3 52.45 9.10 3 .225 32.08 3.73 1367(I 1G954 ' 11 inverl plates are .100 think. When reactions to Invert require 8) For lull flow conditions.Box Culvert should also be chuckod lur Intel and Mional thickness supplemental plates of thickness and width outlet conuot.Convoyancu factor equals dischargo(cls)divided by square j •ed are lutnishcd to bolt between full invert and side connecting angle, root of slope. 7 lilt of fouling pad Is for each side. i RECEIVED BY 60ZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ` � 19 Z BAT€ Vehicular access to the units within Overbrook at Westridge will be via a circular drive connecting to Westridge Drive, west of South Third Avenue. This circular drive will connect to Westridge Drive at two points approximately 50U feet apart.. At this time South Third Avenue will be the main avenue of approach to the development. In the future, when Arnold Street is extended to South 19th Avenue, this will become another means of access to the property. An estimate of the traffic that will be generated by this development was made using factors based on the total number of dwelling units at full development. The number of trips per day per dwelling unit will vary in relation to conditions such as family income, number of cars per dwelling, etc. The publication Trip Generation, 3rd Edition published by the Institute of 'Transportation Engineers, 1982, indicates the average weekday trips per unit for various land uses. An average of 5 trips per day is listed for condominum developments. This compares with an average of 10 trips per day for a single-family detached dwelling unit. Based on 34 dwelling units, and an average of 5 trips per day per unit, there will be 170 trips per day, to and from the site. This is an estimate of the average daily traffic volume (ADT) that will be generated by the development. The peak hour volume may be determined by applying a representative percentage (usually 8% to 12%) to the ADT. For this analysis 12% will be used to calculate peak hour volumes. Because this is a residential development, the peak hour volumes in the morning and in the afternoon should be similar. The figures on the following page show -the estimated distribution of the average daily traffic, and the estimated distribution of the peak hour volumes from the proposed development. The latest City traffic counts for South Third Avenue, at Kagy Blvd. , are from October of 1986. The Montana Department of Highways lists average daily traffic for Willson Avenue, north of Kagy Blvd. , and Kagy Blvd. east and west of Willson, from 1987 to 1990. These traffic counts are listed below. Average Daily Traffic 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 South 3rd Ave. 4792 5511(Est. ) Willson Ave. 4280 5350 4530 Kagy Blvd. (E) 3890 5840 6480 Kagy Blvd. (W) 5440 5170 6420 The average daily traffic for South Third Ave. , south of Kagy Blvd. for 1990 was estimated by adding 15% to the ADT for 1986. A previous transportation study for the City indicated that the capacity of Willson Avenue, based on Level of Service C, is 10,000 vehicle trips per day. It: is estimated that the development of Overbrook at Westridge will increase the traffic on South Third Avenue by a total of 158 vehicle trips per clay. This is in addition to the estimated traffic of. 5511 trips per day. During the peak hours of. the morning and afternoon, the additional . traffic generated by the proposed development will undoubtedly cause some queuing of vehicles on Westridge. Drive waiting to turn onto or cross South Third Avenue. The turning movements onto South Third may also cause some intermittent slowing of traffic on South Third. Even with the additional traffic, however, South Third will still be operating at approximately one- half of capacity based on Level of Service C. kle OVERBROOK °D WESTRIDGE DR. -� -� 3 161 > 2% 95% u�lo Q O>/oho Q) p h AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC OVERBROOK w WESTRIDGE DR, -� < I -� w 2% 19 95% ' � Q 0 NI Ol a N PEAK HOURLY VOLUMES INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS South Third Avenue and Westridge Drive A formal traffic analysis has been made of the impact of Overbrook at Westridge on the intersection of South Third Avenue and Westridge Drive. We have used the method outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual, 1985 Edition, to perform our analysis. . Existing traffic counts were made for the peak hours of 7:15 A.M. to 8:15 A.M. , and 5:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. , and an existing level of service determined for South Third Avenue and Westridge Drive. Then the estimated additional traffic from the proposed development was added to the existing traffic and the level of service .was determined for the future conditions during these same hours. The worksheets used to calculate the level of service for the intersection are included at the end of this report. The major traffic flows observed at the intersection are northbound and southbound on South Third Avenue, the left turn movement from eastbound Westridge Drive onto northbound South Third Avenue, and the right turn movement from southbound South Third Avenue onto westbound Westridge Drive. All other traffic flows during the peak hours were 10 or fewer vehicles per hour. The computations made following the Highway Capacity Manual worksheets indicates that .the additional traffic estimated to be generated by the proposed development will not reduce the level of service of the intersection. The additional 17 left turn movements from eastbound Westridge Drive onto northbound South Third Avenue, during the morning peak hour, will be an increase of 22% over the existing traffic. The additional 17 right turn movements from southbound South Third Aveune onto westbound Westridge Drive, during the evening peak hour, will be an increase of 19% over the existing traffic. However, for the exsiting traffic at the intersection, this additional traffic can be accommodated without decreasing the level of service of the intersection. ,,6, ttnnnu,,rsi �pNTA/V ••••••.•••• l• RAY H. '* CENTER :o- ��; 5653 ES ;D- = ' '•rrnrrrrrrr` & - 14 i STi,J =1 r_v;.l�.��� /•1/ lam 10-34 URBAN STRLETS i WORKSIIEET FOR FOUR LEG INTERSECTIONS Page I Location: :7 1'�-�srr'i 4 r Name: HOURLY VOLUMES Grade 4 ox ST'OP�( 3' D N=Q] YIELD❑ V12 V„ VIo N V6 O i N=0 V5 Z a� N=[1]/ v4 Grade " / % Grade "'/ �— Vi major road V V 3 CFi slopo N V7 Ve VI YIL•LD O I I I Date of counts: Z4 ,¢,g minor road -18 z Time Period: 2-/S Tv 6'Jar Ah,_ l.✓�CTiZIbG- Average Running Speed: lD wi6±y, I'}IF: Grade —% VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Movement 1over l 11t No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Volume(vpll) D 24S d 7 Z U 3 Vol.(pcph),,see Table 10-1 VOLUMES 1N PCP1I 4 3 v ijNA V12 VII V10 V6 NA I V5� V4 (� NA' V1 V2 NA V2 V7 V8 Vy j . may/C(G S 7"C/iZi. I J/J L� c;' -'ii.L V cr, `-'0, UN31UtJ'A1,IL�U IPJ 1�It9lil:)IUIJ9 ~----. I11.I�_._.--- WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 2 STET' 1: la Flom Minor Street I V9 J V12 Conflicting Flows; V, 1/2 V3+V2=Vc9 1/2 V6+V5=V,12 +s__ � 7 v pli D + 2.4---� = 29 S vph Critical Gap,'f,('lab. 10-2) S S (sec) -�� (sec) Potential Capacity, cP(Fig. 10-3) ' CPO= oo �pcpl, cp12= 83S pcph Percent of c,',.Ulilized (v9/eP9)X 100= % (V12/CP12)X 100= o' (2S Impedance I?actor, 1'(Fig. 10-5) P9= /,o P12= /-o Actual Capacity,c Cm9=CP9=1s�p°pcph Cm12=Cp12= pcph STEP 2: L'P Front Major Street V4 --� VI Conflicting flows, VC V3+V2=VC4 V6+V5=Vc1 I 11¢_+6__ 7- vpl> +74-5 = z4S vph i Critical Gal),Tc(lab. IU-2) (sec) (sec) t ' Potential Capacity, cP(fig. 10-3) cp' = /000 pcph CP. = 0 pcph Percent of cP Utilized (v4/CP4)X 100= `� % (vI/cPI)X 100= °- / % Impedance Factor, P(Fig. 10-5) P4= 0 PI ° Actual Capacity, c,,, cm4=cP4= pcph Cml =cPI = pcph STEP 3:111 From Minor Street VA , V11 I Confliclin Plows, V 1/2V +V2-FVI+V6+V5+V4=Vc8 1/2V6+V5+V4+V3+V2+V1=V I b c 3 cII n + 245+ ° = 31 vph L4+ -6-2+ = 3Z/vph I i Critical Gap,'I', (lab. I0-2) (sec) (sec) ' Potential Capacity, cP(Fig, 10-3) cP8= oo pcph CP11= pcph Percent of cP Utilized (v8/CPB)X lU0= o-3 % (VII/Cp")X 100= �- % Impedance Factor, P(Fig. 10-5) P11 =---L— Actual Capacity,c,,, Cm8—CPB X PI X 1'4 CM11 —CP11 X PI X.P4 = X = X X 010 (pcph) X Io�4o (pcph) STEI'4:L'1'Frum Minor Street ; V7 LV 10 Conflicting Flows, V, Vice(step 3)+VI1 +V12=V0 V,I, (step 3)+VB+V9 =V,10 31 +_-3+ 4 = 3z0 vpl1 + z .+ y = 323 vph Critical Gap,T,('lab, 10-2) (sec) , l_S (sec) Potential Capacity,cP(Fig. lU-3) cPI-1 L pcph CP10= pcph Actual Capacity,cm cm,=CP'7 X PI X P4 X P11 X P12 Cm10=CP10 X P4 X PI X PBX P9 X X = X X X X Jl (pcph) X X/'Z (pcph) I11-)G • LIItIlA1)41111:1:19 ___�,.-_.__._.._-.__._�._.--.-.__ .. WORKSI'IEET FOR FOUR LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 3 SIIARED-LANE CAPACITY v; vj-I- Csll= where 2 movements share a lane (VI/CmI)+(Vj/Cmj) I v.r+vl+Vk csll= where 3 movements share a lane (Vi Cud) (VIIC.i)+(Vk/Cmk) MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 Movenmit v(pcph) cn,(pcpli) csll(pcpli) CR=Csll — v L.OS 7 8 Z 7,00 7 00 - <z8 � � 9e, - 11 A 9 0 Ooa /ODo MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,11,12 Movement v(pcph) I . . c,n(pcpll) Csll(pcph) CR=Csl I — v L.OS lU 75-3 - - G 7 7 fl it 12 ,Q 3 MAJOR STREET LEFT'TURNS 1,4 h1ovement v(pcph) c,,,(pcph) CR=cm — V L.OS 1 / 9 94-0 A 4 /ao O /000 COMMENTS: t C `•I•� is 1 ' 1 I 1 i 1 I • 1 E i i I0-34 URBAN STRELIS WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 1 Location: �, ���- `1 ✓��'�/�fv� c^ Name: HOURLY VOLUMES Grade q STOP, i q 3 o N= YIELD❑ V12 V11 Vio N 1 V6 0 N=Q V5 0-4--5- N=Mj V O Grade _% i j �^ Grade % VI major road S'I�OP1� N=[1] V7 V8 V9 YIELD O Date of counts: �ST�i�iH-7zr� I minor road 9S 2 2 Time Period: 2-/"�i WLr5T2�Cp Average Running Speed: ' PI-IF: fi Grade L_% VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS ! Movement No. i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Volume(vph) 59 /4 0 24S O 9S z Z O 3 ¢ Vol.(pcph),see'lable 10-1 Z Z O 3 4- VOLUMES IN PCPII � 4 -3 o 1 ; NA '. V12 V11 V1° V6 NA V4 {� ' NAI vl V} NA' V3 i'. i V' VB Vy i®s?z U49IUNALI'LLU 1141I-AM-C110149 WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 2 STEP 1: lt1'From Minor Street I V9 J V12 Conflicting Flows, V, 1/2 V3+V2=Vc9 1/2 V6+VS=Vc12 + vph D <,45= 2A� vph Critical Gap,T,('lab. 10-2) (sec) 5 (sec) Potential Capacity,cp(Fig. 10-3) Cp9-00 pcph Cpl,= 53f pcph Percent of cp Utilized (v9/CP9)X 100= O % (VI2/Cp12)X 100= o-0 t5- % Impedance Factor, 1'(Fig. 10-5) P9=-L- P12=40 Actual Capacity, Cm Cm9=Cp9— 01) t— pcph Cm12=Cpl.= �q3 S pcph STEP 2: OF From Major Street V4 —J V1 Conflicting Flows, V, V3 V2=VC4 V6+Vg=Vc1 It- + 5V vph o +z4�= 24J vph Critical Gap, ('lab. lU-2) (sec) 4_(sec) Potential Capacity,cp(Fig. 1073) epj= �ppo pcph Cpl= pcph I , ,Percent of cp Utilized (v4/Cp4)X lU0=�—% (vl/Cpl)X 100=V—% Impedance Factor, P(Fig. 10-5) P;_ / 0 p1= /_ O Actual Capacity, c,n Cm4=Cp4= L20O'h pcph cm1=cpl = pcph STEP 3:411 From Minor;Street I V8 I V11 Conflicting Flows, V, 1/2V3+V2+V,+V6+VS+V4=Vice 1/2V6+VS+V4+V3+V2+VI=VcI1 o +9 + IZL vph 4- +-fL+ / = 3Z vpli Critical Gap,'I*,(Tab. lU-2) a(sec) (sec) Potential Capacity,cp(Fig. 10-3) ` cp,= -70 c) _pcph cp11= a 8° pcph Percent of cp Utilized (VA/cps)X lU0= ro 3 % (vl l/Cp,l)X 100= 0,4 % Impedance Factor, 1'(Fig. 10-5) P8= /-o P11 = Actual Capacity, c,A Cm8—cp8 X P1 X 114 Cm1I =Cpl I X P1 X P4 ' 710 o =_Zoo X 680 ��� X X Z- o (pcph) 40 X Z- v (pcph) STEP 4: Lr From Minor Street '? �V, LVto Conflicting Flows, V, Vice(step 3)+V 11 +V 12=V�, Vc11 (step 3)+V8+V9=V,,o • 3/3 4- 3 + 4 37-0 vph, z/ + z + 2 =3 vph Critical Gap, T,('lab, 10-2) • (sec) to- S (sec) Potential Capacity,cp(Fig..10-3) Cpr-1. 4L-15—pcph eplo= L,/S pcph Actual Capacity, cm Cm7=cps X P1 X P4 X I'„ X Pu Cm10=Cp10 X P4 X P1 X Pe X P9 = XL_X �_ /S'X o x 1�X /-0 X (pcph) o X / ° X Z—(pcph) .. 10-36 uriuAN siitu'rs WORKSHEET FOR FOUR LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 3 SIIAREU-LANE CAPACITY vi+vi i csu= where 2 movements share a lane v.r+v,+vk csll= where 3 movements share a lane (VI/c.)+(VI/C.)+(Vk/Cmk) !iy; � i MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 Movement v(pcph) en,(pcph) esii(pcph) cR=can — v L.OS o .4 8 7,00 7o0 1v9 ` A _ 9 Z i ' � -000 ion 998 MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,11,12 Movement v(pcph) '' i cm(pcph) csii(pcph) cR=cs„ — v LOS 10 11 3 Co S O t, Go (o77 12 g3S S31 MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1,4 Movement v(pcph) cm(pcph) cR=en, — v Los 4 D /000 4 COMMENTS: r I s+ i I y • • • II 10-34 URIIAN STREIA'S WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 1 Location: S7o, 2&� Ays5- Name: HOURLY VOLUMES i �✓�.V�sJ S ` Grade i /=��•q u_ S,rOP❑ 3 D o N=0 YIELD❑ 'VI2 VII V10 N 1i �y V6 N=0 VS �S3 N=m V Z Grade Grade_L% /9 Vi major road ?SS V, !a— Vj FFSlop❑ N V7 VI V9 YIELD❑ i Date of counts: A a 4• z i 9 92 1 i mnor road Time Period: S'T' (a P�r� : { � r (✓ws9;2i���ef 1J.2 Average Running Speed: PfIF: ' Grade-1—% VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Movement No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Volume(vph) Vol. (Pcph), see Table 10-1 VOLUMES IN PCPIi NA V12 VII Vlo V6 vs NA i V4 NA- V I 0. V2 ' NA V3 V7 V8 Vy Ill-34 URBAN STIMI IS Uvc:r�i3 IZC)c] 7L WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 1 Location: Name: HOURLY VOLUMES Grade" .Q STOP N=F YIELD❑ V12 VII Vlo N V6 N V5�_ N=M V 4—`4— Grade % Grade^�% /d VI major road V l0 7 v' STOOP ( F N=[D V,Vd V9 YIELD O i 38 % o Date of counts: minor road Time Period: g=OO 7 -oo�•�- 1✓�ST.eo ' �2 Average Running Speed: PI1F: Grade —% VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Movement No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Volume(vph) J0 ZS< J 0 7 4 153 I 38 I a a d 3 Vol. (pcph), see Table 10-1 4 9 2 I o O o 3 VOLUMES IN PCPII 3 v 0 I NA 1 V12 V11 V10 V6 NA vs V4 . 4 NA v2 NA v2 V7 VB V9 0 • .. UWswNALILL•U IN111-A -C TUNS III•.I) WORKSHEET FOR FOUR-LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 2 STEP l: KI I:10111 Miuor Street I V9 V12 Conflicting Flows, V, 1/2 V3+V2=Vc9 1/2 V6+Vs=Vc12 i Ph /_+153 = /S vpli +I Critical Gap,'I•,('lab, 10-2) (sec) (sec) Potential Capacity, cp(Fig. lU-3) CP9= 78S pcph Cp12= 9 Sa_pcph ! Percent of cp Utilized (v9/Cp9)X 100= 0% .(v12/Cpl2)X 100= O-3 % Impedance Factor, P(Fig. 10-5) P9= /-o P12= Actual Capacity,Cm' Cm9_Cp9=- 6 PCph Cm12=Cp12- �� pcph STEP 2: Ur From Major Street V4 —, V, Conflicting Flows, V, I :V3+V2=VC4 V6+Vg=Vc1 Lo7 .{ 25.5 = 31,z vph. +15-3 = A54 vph I Critical Gap,T,(lab. lU-2) (sec) (sec) Potential Capacity,cp(Fig. 10-3) CP4= 3a pcph Cp,_ pcph .Percent of cp Utilized (v4/CP4)X 100= 0_V, "/o (v,/cpl)X 100= —�_% Impedance Factor, P(Fig. 10-5) P4= /-0 P,= /- D Actual Capacity, C„ Cm4=Cp4= 30 pcph cm,=CP1 pcph STEP 3:'l11 From Minor Street V8 , V11 Conllicting Flows, Vi 1/2V3+V2+V,+V6+V5+V4=Vc8 I/2V6+V5+V4+V3+V2+V,=V,11 + Zsrs+L0+ ,L�+ + + 1—+ 3 + _= 477 vph /—Z+ski+/_= 3°vph Critical Gap,T,(lab. IU-2) (sec) I—(sec) Potential Capacity,cp(Fig. 10-3) epe•= pcph CP11 = 3 pcph Percent of cp Utilized (ve/Cp8)X 100= % MIN, X 100= % Impedance Factor, P(Fig. 10-5) Pp= /_O P„ _ /O Actual Capacity, C,,, Cm8-CPR X P1 X P4 Cm11 =CP11 X P1 X P4 X X X L- o (pcph) i,a X /, y (pCph) STEP 4: OF From Mirror Street V, LV,o Conflicting Flows, V, Vice(step 3)+V 1, +V12=V,7 Vc11 (step 3)+V8+V9=V,," 477 + 17 + 3 = LJo vph 4LAb + / _+ D = S31 vph Critical Gap,Tc(lab. 10-2) L�,S (sec) (sec) Potential Capacity,cp(Fig. 10-3) CP7 —pcph CPIs= 7o pcph Actual Capacity, Cm Cm7=Cp7 X P1 X P4 X I'll X P12 Cm10=CP10 X P4 X P1 X P8 X P9 490 = 990 X " X 47n = 47o X /.o X X LD X LQ_(pcph) /•n X /•O X L(pcph) 10-36 URBAN STREETS WORKSHEET FOR FOUR LEG INTERSECTIONS Page 3 SIIAREU-LANE CAPACITY vl_I_vI c511= where 2 movements share a lane (Vi/cJ+(VI/Cm1) i C511= where 3 movements share a lane (Vi/Cnd) 1.(VI/C.)+(Vk/Cmk) MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 Movement v(pcph) c,,,(pcph) c511(pcph) cR=cs11 — v LOS 7 4 Z 490 4 o 44 8 8 5 G o 4 9 D 7 ho MINOR STREET APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,11,12 Movement v(pcph) em(pcph) es11(pcph) cR=es11 — V LOS 10 p 47o l l 0 12 3 9so 915-0 94.7 MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1,4 Movement v(pcpli) cm(pcph) CR=Cm — V LOS 1 /1 9s0 A 1 4 9 c �. COMMENTS: 1 • ti 4 , 1 . I 1 • t i OVERBROOK PARTNERSHIP 4510 CONESTOGA CIRCLE BOZEMAN , MT . 59715 SEPTEMBER 2 , 1992 TO: BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE 35 NORTH BOZEMAN AVE . BOZEMAN , MT . ATTN: KEVIN WAHL RE'. OVERBROOK CONDOMINIUMS DEAR KEVIN , The Overbrook Partnership agrees to consent to all 41 special conditions for the Overbrook at Westridge PUD and Preliminary Plat applications and petiion to vacate Fryslie Street . All conditions were referred to in your letter of June 2 , 1992 to the Overbrook Partnership . THANK YOU , TIM DEAN , PARTNER RECEIVED PL NNOZEMN ING OFF CE CITY COUNTY ' DATE 1 MEMORANDUM September 1 , 1992 To: Mike Morgan, tn►HIeZaNmt•�7A� E.v&�, From: Craig E. Brawner , Acting City Engineer Re : Over Brook Lift Station - P&S Comments I concur with the August 12 , 1992 MDHES/WQB comments regarding the lift station design, and would add the following : PLAN SHEET 1 . Adequate dimensions and elevations need to be added to the sheet . 2 . An electrical one-line diagram for the lift station should be provided. 3 . Discharge pipe' support brackets need to be shown and specified or detailed. 4 . Due to the high groundwater the wet well structure should be coated on the exterior in accordance with Section 25 . 5 to be water proof and all joints including top must be sealed. 5 . Type V concrete is suggested for the wet well to provide required corrosion resistance . 6. Suggest access hatches be depicted in plan view (i . e. no dimensions shown) . Also show location of floats in a non- turbulent area. 7 . Wet well floor slope fillets needs to comply with Section 32 . 63 TSS to create more of a defined "hopper" bottom. Provide fillet . slope and dimensions . SPECIFICATIONS 1 . .02 A: a. Refer to items 4 & 5 above. b. Access Hatches : i . I strongly recommend use of Aluminum "BILCO" type access doors due to corrosion of steel . Though called-out on the plan sheet I recommend "BILCO" also be specified. ii . Access size and hinge materials are not specified. iii . Access must be lockable. Page 2 Over Brook 2 . . 02 B: a . The pump motor, floats , and motor cable also need to be specified to meet the appropriate NEC Hazardous classification. b. Specify the pump motor cable in accordance with Section . 34 . 33 TSS. Ground fault protection is also required. C . Alarm System must comply with Section 35 TSS: i . Alarm must activate in cases of power outage, pump failure, use of lag pump, and unauthorized entryy . I would also recommend high and low water alarms be included. ii . A charger should be specified with the required alarm backup battery. 3 . .02 C: Specifications call for a "nylon lifting line" , while plan sheet shows "Lifting Chain" . I would recommend stainless steel cable be considered. GENERAL 1 . Emergency operation must be adequately addressed in accordance with Section 36 of TSS . If emergency storage is proposed, in lieu of emergency power, Power Company outage records must be compared with available storage capacity. 2 . Require a complete set of Manufacturer' s- Operation and Maintenance manuals including operational instructions , emergency procedures , maintenance schedules , special tools , and spare part requirements be provided. 3 . I would suggest a spare pump/motor assembly be specified for future 0&M of the lift station. . 4 . Provisions need to be made to demonstrate that a qualified and licensed operator has been retained by the developer/Home Owner' s Association to provide long-term routine and emergency lift station operation and maintenance . Attached are my "red-lined" P&S. cc : Phillip J . Forbes , DPS Andy Epple, PD Fred. Shields , W/S Superintendent GR��� \Qork-,"p0k.hf$ Commissioners consider Graf's 2nd Subdivision deviation Bozeman city commissioners will consider a request Monday to deviate from the city's road and sidewalk standards in the Grafs 2nd Subdivision off Sourdough Road., Monday's City Commission meeting will be at 3:30 p.m.in the basement of City Hall. Keith S.Belden of Morrison-Maierle/CSSA has asked commissioners to allow a.32 foot-wide cul-de-sac at the west end of O'Connell Drive,instead`of the'37-feet as required: Belden also requested the.developer not be required to build sidewalks on the street and that the grade of the road be steeper than city standards allow. Some property owners have expressed concern about Belden's request because,of po- tential problems with water runoff. Commissioners will also hear a request by Gallatin Valley Land Trustdirector Chris Boyd to use Job Training Partnership Act money for development of greenway trails;and discuss large-truck traffic on Main Street. 4. FILM 129 PACE2216 WAIVER OF RIGHT TO PROTEST CREATION OF SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO SOUTH 311D AVENUE I , the undersigned, owner of the real property situated in the City of. Bozeman , County of Gallatin, State of Montana, and more particularly described as follows : Lots 16 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , and 30 , of Block 9 , Amended Plat of Figgins Addition, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana IN CONSIDERATION of receiving Final Plan approval for a Planned Unit Development from the City of Bozeman , along with accompanying rights and privileges and for other and valuable consideration, the receipt .of which is hereby acknowledged, have waived and do hereby for myself , heirs , personal representatives , , successors and assigns , the right to protest the creation. of one or more special improvement districts for improvements to South 3r.d Avenue , or to make any written protest against the proposed work or against the extent or creation of the district to be assessed in response to a duly passed resolution of intention to create one or more special improvement districts which would include the above- described property. This waiver shall be a covenant running with the land and shall not expire . I warrant that I am lawfully seized and possessed of the real 1 J i PAGE 2/2 WAIVER OF RIGHT TO PROTEST SIDs FOR FILM 129PACE2217 IMPROVEMENTS TO S . 3RD AVE. LOTS 16 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , & 30 , BLOCK 9 , AMENDED PLAT OF FIGGINS ADDITION . EUGENE GRAF/BON-TON INC. OF BILLINGS property described above and have a lawful right to convey the property or any part of. it . DATED this,1?2:� T day of ��.�fT E ne Graf, Pre ent on-Ton Inc . Billings STATE OF : ss County of On this day of , 19'1Z; before me , a Notary Pt.ibl.ic for. the State o _ �, personally ..q)pear.ed Et.igene Graf , President of Bon-Ton Inc . .of Billings , known to me to be the who executed the foregoing Waiver of Right to Protest , and acknowledged to me that he executed the same . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and set my seal the day and yeeaarr� first above written. Public for the State of Vie' r';" t _ PHOTOGRA� RiUA41T1f � :.. S j.on Exp es 238365 ''��ii��n►u,i�• . State of Mont., County of Gallatin. ss Filed for record _ January 27 , 19 at tAll., and recorded In Book 129 0 MISCELLA EOUSpage 2216 Recorder. Br Deputy Fee: $12. 00 R t: CITY OF BOZEMAN 2 f CIKAN ARCHITECTS,P.C. 1807 West Dickerson,Suite C,Bozeman,Montana 59715 (406) 586 3624 Fax(406)586 3630 RECEIVED BY DQ'_P V" N August 19, 1992 CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OrFICE DATE Andy Epple Bozeman City-County Planning Office 35 North Bozeman Avenue P. O. Box 640 Bozeman, MT 59715 Dear Andy: In reading numerous articles in the paper and in discussions with staff, it is our understanding that the Figgins neighborhood may be in the process of forming an advisory group that would represent the neighborhood in its discussions and actions with various adjacent developments that affect that particular neighborhood, i.e. the sheltered housing, the new school, and our Overbrook project. This letter is to convey to you that we are interested in receiving input from a neighborhood group whose participants are interested in a positive and constructive dialogue. As you know, our development group held numerous meetings for the neighborhood, and very little. input was received from them. This was particularly frustrating for us in that it was the intent of the developer to accommodate concerns of the neighborhood. It is for this reason that we think a positive, productive group could benefit the neighborhood greatly in discussions with groups such as ours. Please feel free to use this letter as you see fit and we will look forward to hearing from the interested parties. i erely, Dan qKap Cikan Architects, P.C. on behalf of the Overbrook Partnership cc: Tim Swanson Gallatin Count Weed Control District July 29, 1992 TO: WHOM IT MAY CONCERN FROM: Reeves Petroff , Supervisor Gallatin County Weed Control District RE: Weed Control Plan, Overbrook at Westridge The Gallatin County Weed Control District finds the weed control proposal submitted for Overbrook at Westridge satisfactory for the development proposed. This proposal was submitted by Eugene Graf on 24 July 1992 . Y-COUNTY PANNING OFFICE E n c7� DATE Room 304,Courthouse Bozeman,MT 59A5 (406)585-1359 July 24, 1992 Reeves Petroff, Supervisor Gallatin County Weed Control District Room 304, Courthouse Bozeman, Mt. 59715 Dear Mr. Petroff: The developers of Overbrook at Westridge located in Block 9 of the Figgins Addition to Bozeman will start construction during the summer of 1992 . During the construction phase the Overbrook developers will control the weeds by clipping because of the proximity to the waterway running through the property. I Before occupancy a homeowner' s association will be formed that will be responsible for all exterior maintenance and landscaping. The project will- take two (2 ) years to complete and ` until buildout the developers will remain the responsible party. The landscaping will be a manicured lawn type except along the waterway where a buffer of native vegetation will be maintained. Sincerely, Eugene Graf, III -I v a eV t7q LIU c L,r :t-la n vI fi i i.bbA It. Ij' �f!1 b d L4 U( n P 9 rq f Jr"T 1, CA U lit I i e.I r.-i%ls '4 b 9-1 Lr ii: 0 1) r :7 1 f f.-. fill'..'. I I F, ' 'O"S'rlav t e DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYWa ^==f CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT 6 215 NORTH 17TH STREET si OMAHA, NEBRASKA 68102-4978 July 13, 1992 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1520 East 6th Avenue Helena, Montana 59620-2301 (406) 444-6670 RECEIVpY EM? �, Po 7 AN CITY-COUNTY r ANNING Or FIC" DATE Eugene Graf 4510 Conestoga Circle Bozeman, MT 59715 Dear Mr. Graf: Reference is made to your proposed placement of fill material in a wetland area adjacent to Figgins Creek in Section 24, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, Gallatin County, Montana. Based on the information provided, and an on site inspection, this office has determined that your work within Montana is authorized by the Department of the Army Nationwide Permit found at 33 CPR Part 330 Appendix A, (B) (26) . Enclosed is a fact sheet which describes this Nationwide Permit and lists the General and/or Section 404 only conditions which must be adhered to for this authorization to remain valid. Although an Individual Department of the Army permit will not be required for the project, this does not eliminate the requirement that you obtain any other applicable Federal, state, and. local permits as required. Please note that deviations from the original plans and specifications of your project could require additional authorization from this office. Montana Bureau of Health & Environmental Sciences, Water Quality Bureau has waived state water quality certification for this project. You are advised that this verification of the Nationwide Permit authorization is valid until July 13, 1994 . I i I I If you have any questions concerning this determination, please feel free to contact this office at (406) 444-6670 and reference Nationwide Permit Action No. 199290188. sincerely, Robert E. McInerney State Supervisor, Helena Regulatory Office Encl CF: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1501 14th Street West Suite 230 Billings, MT 59102 Ray H. Center, P.E. Rocky Mountain Engineers P.O. Box 883 Bozeman, MT 59771 Dan Ramp Cikan Architects, P.C. 1805 W Dicikerson Bozeman, MT 59715 Marion Cherry 510 Westridge Dr. Bozeman, MT 59715 City of Bozeman Planning Department 35 North Bozeman Bozeman, MT 59715 Gallatin Conservation District 601 Nikles, Box B Bozeman, MT 59715 docks; and for linear projects, such as bridges, transmission line footings, and walkways. The NWP does not authorize filled structural members that would support areas and other such structures. Housepads or other building pads are also not included in this nationwide permit. The structure itself may require a section 10 permit if located in navigable waters of the United States. (Section 404) (c) General Conditions: The. following general conditions, where applicable, must be complied with for the Nationwide Permit authorization to remain valid: (1) Navigation. No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navigation. (2) Proper maintenance. Any structure or fill authorized shall be properly maintained, including maintenance to ensure public safety. (3) Erosion and siltation controls. Appropriate erosion and siltation controls must be used and maintained in effective operating condition during construction, and all exposed soil and other fills must be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date. (4) Aquatic life movements. No activity may substantially disrupt the. movement of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, including those species which normally migrate through the area, unless the activity's primary purpose is to impound water. (5) Equipment. Heavy equipment working in wetlands must be placed on mats or other measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance. (6) Regional and case-by-case conditions. The activity must comply with any regional conditions which may have been added by the division engineer and any case specific conditions added by the Corps. (7) Wild and Scenic Rivers. No activity may occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System: or in a river officially designated by Congress as a "study river" °for possible inclusion in the system, while the river is in an official study status. Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may be obtained from the National Park Service and the U. S. - Forest Service. (8) Tribal Rights. No activity or its operation may impair reserved tribal rights, including, but not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights. (9) Water Quality Certification. , In certain states, an individual state water quality certification must be obtained or waived. (10) Costal zone management. ..In certain states, an individual state coastal zone management consistency concurrence must be obtained or waived. (11) Endangered Sgecjes No activity is authorized under any Nationwide Permit which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or a. species proposed for such designation, as identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act, or which is likely to destroy or Fact Sheet #26 33 CFR Section 330.6 Nationwide Permits (b) Authorized Activities: (26) Headwaters and Isolated Waters Discharges. Discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated waters provided: a. The discharge does not cause the loss of more than 10 acres of waters of the United States; b. The permittee notifies the district engineer if the discharge would cause the loss of waters of the United States greater than one acre in accordance with the "Notification" general condition. For discharges in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, the notification must also include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands. (Also see 33 CFR 330.1(e)) ; and C. The discharge, including all attendant features, both temporary and permanent, is part of a single and complete project. For the purposes of this nationwide permit, the acreage of loss of waters of the United States includes the filled area plus waters of the United States that are adversely -affected by flooding, excavation or drainage as a result of the project. The ten-acre and one-acre limits of NWP 26 are absolute, and cannot be increased by any mitigation plan offered by the applicant or required by the DE. Subdivisions: For any real . estate subdivision created or subdivided after October 5, 1984, a notification pursuant to subsection (b) of this nationwide permit is required for any discharge which would cause the aggregate total loss of waters of the United States for the entire subdivision to exceed one (1) acre. Any discharge in any real estate subdivision which would cause the aggregate total loss of waters of the United States in the subdivision to exceed ten (10) acres is not authorized by this nationwide permit; unless the DE exempts a particular subdivision.or parcel by making a written determination that: (1) the individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects would be minimal and the property owner had, after October 5, 1984, but prior to January 21, 1992, committed substantial resources in reliance on 14 P 26 with regard to a subdivision, in circumstances where it would be inequitable to frustrate his investment-backed expectations, or (2) that the individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects would be minimal, high quality wetlands would not be adversely affected, and there would be an overall benefit to the aquatic environment. Once the exemption is established for a subdivision, subsequent lot development be individual property owners may proceed using NWP 26. For purposes of NWP '26, the term "real estate subdivision" shall be interpreted to include circumstances where a landowner or developer divides a tract of land into smaller parcels for the purpose of selling, conveying, transferring, leasing, or developing said parcels. This would include the entire area of a residential, commercial or other real estate subdivision, including all parcels and parts thereof. (Section 404) Structural -Discharge. Discharges-of material such as concrete, sand, rock, etc. into tightly sealed forms or cells where the material will be used as a structural member for standard pile supported structures, such as piers and adversely modify the critical habitat of such species. Non-_:ederal permittees shall notify the district engineer if any listed species or critical habitat might be affected or is in the vicinity of the project and shall not begin work on the activity until notified by the district engineer that the requirements of the Endangered Species Act have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. Information on the location of threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat can be obtained from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife r i Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. (12) Historic, nrogerties. No activity which may affect Historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places is authorized, until the district engineer has complied with the provisions of 33 CFR 325, appendix C. The prospective permittee must notify the district engineer if the authorized activity may affect any historic properties listed, determined to be eligible, or which the prospective permittee has reason to believe may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, .and shall not begin the activity until notified by the District Engineer that the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. Information on the location and existence of historic resources can be obtained from the State Historical Preservation Office and the National Register of Historic Places. (13) Notification. (Not Applicable) SECTION 404 ONLY CONDITIONS - In addition to the General Conditions, the following conditions apply only to activities that involve the discharge of dredged or fill material and must be followed in order for authorization by the nationwide permits to be valid: (1) Water Supply Intakes. No discharge of dredged or fill material may occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake except where the discharge is for repair of the public water supply intake structures or adjacent bank stabilization. (2) Shellfish production. No discharge of dredged or fill material may - - occur in areas of concentrated shellfish production, unless , the discharge is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by nationwide permit 4. (3) Suitable material. . No discharge of dredged or fill material may consist of unsuitable material (e.g. , trash, debris, car bodies, etc.) and material discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. (4) Mitigation. Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States must be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent practicable at the project site (i.e. on-site), unless the district engineer has approved a compensation mitigation plan for the specific regulated activity. (5) Spawning areas. Discharges in spawning areas during spawning seasons must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. (6) Obstruction of high flows. To the maximum extent practicable, discharges must not permanently restrict or impede the passage of normal or expected high flows or cause the relocation of the water (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to impound waters) . (7) Adverse impacts from impoundments. If the discharge creates an impoundment of water, adverse impacts on the aquatic system caused by the accelerated passage of water and/or the restriction of its flow. shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. (8) Waterfowl breeding areas. Discharges into breeding areas for migratory waterfowl must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. (9) Removal of temporary fills . Any temporary fills must be removed i their entirety and the affected areas returned to their preexisting elevation. BOZEMAN: r - 1 OfP 3 1 �9 "Ilrl eaI(BM4810) ljon Cr �� 8 57 : - I:.900 1O�.eos Ct7L�l�•!iob ]G 1G ley 12 r 7 8 l+ i O0-0DC7 ❑CO3�- 1 , 12 ___ pp�.700 G0 SunsetBozemanMon}orton cc \ 1 n Gp0.1C10 OGOO�C7� CouelryClub.1 School d 1 I a" 001300 OOQJGCO ••r Hilh wj `. Flea i a :`. OnOQI�,_ 06�00L1` :tl ;Cemetery f . - .l _ _ ........ } isl d J o -cc >✓�.: School f:iel p Q�OU L) .�• sue, oes t It.�- -,IGI�L. 0B BM •- or♦3 .BO9 ; .833, ° :oe55 1� NTAN-1 Ir'7E 7GOCJO V-a I - — j 0 - -�t °� 000 `ANAL ....STATE IC_0_LIEG Eya'e+1•:.L= ��OQ:_lc• 1 .. I 40' i- a_ 'r= C1p8GFJ a i I 7 i 13 I a�,o 16 15 14 --- •��.-= f - 17 - q I'tF Bozemac Hot Springs 18 r } 17 MERS ' 3 8 - - - 'I BM EAR ° �. 1 �•�1 Flume d731 .7e ...... l.e19, `... --aab' I I I _ sY11 , i } 15056 ��`J•_" '.Mi Io916 "r Ir --- e9?5 ....... -�tn='l.-��__ ._...__. _.. /• wNUKE•E- 111Oy1 oB90 .914 ° ; 2- - —.1�' 5007 I _ F C `ti .7331 .�c ; c4 .•Flume �:i. .t t _ o9Sn23 �. 24 _ '4...,_or;�`S: _ 3 24 19 rA�, �p_ 20 zo 21 — 22 I+ \ r 19, 1 0, 20 POPS p. J Z .I 1 -Flume ! _ a - i Sc �' 1 O�G BM I -\J ' Ay60- l 1, \ -O I' 1 _ j _ t] LJ J•' 0 I o 1 y" � 4886 _ _�.-1 Fowler, o992 \__School 50/3 _ —... ._ --`-,---- _soo9 ''1•+'_— soa I -- V / A792 s 11903 'HlackwJOd `mot s963 , r, Y( ...- 5054 Elk rove - 1 �,i \ l o •) h,., nch 79+ Schaaf}' �i; � -'� _-- sac j .' j i •. �; 00BM �t �1: 5oe6` 29 o__ A I � i :2g , `°0 28 27" 26 I J olrc`: `so47 er�1r ✓ I o 25 30 6 25 0 `,3V, Diiadle Creek f 50- I Patterson ` 'do I V School'- �E E I Ranch I �•_3:: v� i •' �y ��/\/~� `'! LANAI.\.., `•o .•S/ 096 Patterson I _ •' _ _. _ ____I f1 _-------- -- — o;E`-- PACIFIC ° / Matthewssm / m1 o i "— 2Q r' 5101 ,_� 1 c==:==• F. �,l o,( .j.. ( m +f. g!' � ,/1„ 35 36 1 32 - m Atkins I 'fAp 36�� 31 32 t ._ � �I 33 = 34 3 s io yam;'aaa 35 Flume ' _ .. \S .s'e• __ 5,op y^c ^pqa ` Flume: i -51 �UIIA;n G. - �.. _ ;\ ,\ l�-I :-.1•• r�'I I_ sloe 5191 _ i..o' - oG / 1 1 �S�'�e•1l L 1 - 1 ,y l- c�O�d P .,1. Leverich 6i }: _ I iszan' - 1 School $179 -- 'i,%. ;1 44'•1 �\i L :� '4 0'\ l 3✓ p eM d �s _salt slsl': Isz7o f 50 2 _ o 6 - 5 Cj g2° \ 52 6 \'\ 912 N 530z 5287—• 5252 DIT d 50 3 `�=-� S�G,arel P:t • az `930 ' _ -- r-V Anderson School �< I' .. I -�'.--0`4• ..ir •-%_'?-t� �49 dal Sze? :31I2t1t1 Gateway \.. M1� -7 3`�0 ; `,8 "1'0 '!• - �. 355 �2 Dk�� Ld4t'' ,`''o5048 •.'` l \`- J' i • ��'f �.. is 1 r' C 6� \J�'• c§�-�� .�] .� f`•'i`�7x_ t( J^ •l I•\:l C �• ,,.` �� .__%r_--{1.l'� J/l�r�l\ ��__oo; i•. -L. -e- 35, 1979 i I � _j I� 5302 - \ FOR �.-. iZ f r t Y Ile 6 ` '•>; j •� � t S 1 � Il l\.'\ /- '� -; I r I °p\'-`' '� 00S 'sl t - \� c`' ` Y� O I I �I`.' a 'z r f �� I �/i I �� It - •. �re?o0� \t� ,� '^:- ,;� _• ♦♦a �I f /ate ��`,� cr�j I` \• 1 11 fJ ♦. \ .I ��,'I �• / '1 �47 q­ 238 v _ (`, o '} 21 oo•. I�, �1 '�� a .,:} _� 1:8 ,°i1 `s 7 �t 41'7 s4'� 1 1 q, i o\_ \j �1 i� i`r� 3 .d��\' � c�-.. V� JA �-i643.,, .� 'I-.�-�1� � •"L.�''�C: (� f�e°�-1 ..t 1 �:� I ,� � i �-- _,' . . - - 4 ♦ - ,�.. 9i'�i' f M- • ;, - I .C !! 1r" F`i t o0r 50rU. ' =�'' ir" \ yy ./)}r{1 J.• - . 7 3 5o Co � 5046wSc 2AC�-.= ((((( �1 i ���� Jp• \\; ���_,,�, \ �✓ /�17 �h raj t.1 ;' ` J' Fr �J f.p moo S.23 ..t� �,�aI� y /. ��1�('� l/ ;M lJll Pw y` , ldo.1 <uir • r% , f�~t3' �, $� ' ' : •. � .'•' I��j / ., I \ '� 1 I 'I �'`4 7]l9 I , 7•I \'�.•.^r.1' MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION j BOZEMAN, MONTANA MAY 26, 1992 The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in regular session in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, May 26, 1992, at 3:30 p.m. Prese'nt'were Mayor Swanson, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Vincent; Co"mmissioner Knapp, City Manager Wysocki, • `� 9 Y City Attorney Luwe and Clerk of the Commission Sullivan. The meetingwas opened with,the'Plleed e of Allegiance and a moment of silence. � 9 9 None of the Commissionerszequested that an of the Consent Items be removed for Y discussion. Minutes Actionon the minutes for the regular meeting of May 18, 1992 was deferred for one week. Decision - Conditional Use Permit'for Planned-UnitDevelopment OOverbrook at`Westridge—to-allow . JFonstruction of 34 condominium u nits-on-Lots-1-6-an-d-21-through 30—Block-9 Amended-P-lat_o.f7 a • . -f �Figgms Addition This was the time and place set for the decision on the Conditional Use Permit for the Planned Unit Development to be known as Overbrook at Westridge, to allow construction of 34 condominium units on Lots 16 and 21 through 30, Block 9, Amended Plat of Figgins Addition, under Application No. Z-9230. City Manager Wysocki reminded the Commission that they had conducted their public hearing on this item at last week's meeting; and a copy of the draft minutes have been submitted for Commission review. He then noted that, included in the Commissioners' packets, were memos from Planning Director Epple and Associate Planner Wall regarding this item. Responding to Commissioner Frost, Associate Planner Wall confirmed that the SCS has approved the 310 Permit, with the condition that the 35-foot setback from the FEMA corridor be maintained. He noted that two of the units in the building located in the southwest corner of the site do encroach into that setback. Commissioner Frost noted that he has attended two DRB meetings, two Planning Board meetings and two Commission meetings at which this item was reviewed and subjected to public 05-26-92 I 0 testimony. He further noted that under the City's zoning ordinance, planned unit developments must comply with the intent of the master plan and the zoning ordinance, and are subject to conditions which will ensure compatibility with the surrounding area and uses. He stated that he feels this project is sensitive to the neighborhood; however, he feels that additional conditions would help to ensure its compatibility. He then forwarded the following proposals for additional conditions, noting that a number of them result in a reduction to the total. number of units that would be constructed within this planned unit development. Commissioner Frost noted that with the elimination of the two dwelling units at the southwest corner of the site which encroach into the 35-foot setback, the total number is reduced from the requested 34 units to 32 units: He then proposed that a new condition be added, as follows: 29. That all buildings will meet the R-2 zoning regulations for setbacks and height, noting that this would ensure compatibility with the neighborhood. The Commissioner then suggested that, given the concern about scale and proximity of the development to existing homes, the following conditions be added: 30. That the two buildings abutting Lots 19 and 20 be reduced to one-story structures, reducing the total number of units to 28; and 31 . That the duplex north of Lot 31 be reduced to a single-family structure, reducing the total number of units to 27. He also suggested that a condition be added, as follows: 32. That one of the three units in the building on the north side of the road, immediately west of the streambed, be lowered to one story, thus reducing the total number of units in the development to 26. Commissioner Frost then suggested that the following conditions be added to address some of the concerns which were raised during the public hearing: 33. That a 5-foot delineated pedestrian pathway be designated on the north side of the private drive through the use of different materials from those used for the roadway, 34. That two additional street trees be provided in the Westridge Drive street right-of-way, and that they be clustered, preferably on the western side, to provide a more natural and open space appearance, 35. That all signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to final.plan approval, 05-26-92 - 3 - 36. That appropriate native streambank vegetation be used along the streambank to assure water quality and the continuation of riparian habitat, 37. That all improvements to the streambank and open space landscaping be installed with Phase I, 38. That the trail system for this PUD be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Commissioner Frost noted that the traffic projections for the remaining 26 units is 130 ADT's, compared to the 110 ADT's for the 11 single-family residences that could be constructed under the original plat. He further noted that, under the original platting, a maximum of 23 units could be constructed on this subject site. He then indicated that, with these recommended conditions added to the original 28 conditions, he can support the requested PUD for four reasons: (1) it generally meets the criteria of the master plan and the zoning ordinance; (2) the conditions address the concerns raised by the. neighborhood pertaining to compatibility, traffic safety, pedestrian safety and property values; (3) it allows for the enhancement of the trail system; and (4) it allows for preservation and enhancement of the amenities which the residents of the area desire, including the stream. Commissioner Stiff reiterated his concern that to dramatically decrease the number of units allowed within this planned unit development could actually eliminate the project. He noted, however, that he would be receptive to eliminating one more unit, thus reducing the total number to 25. He also questioned why the one unit should be eliminated in the back row, as suggested by Commissioner Frost. Commissioner Stiff then cited the extreme amount of public concern raised and the safety issues which must be addressed. He suggested that in an attempt to address those concerns another condition should be added which would stipulate: 39. That the developer shall be responsible for placing "bouncing ball" signals at the intersection of South Third Avenue and Westridge Drive, noting that those lights would draw attention to that hazardous intersection. Commissioner Stiff also noted a desire to amend Condition No. 2, to provide that the units constructed within this planned unit development would pay a proportionate share of the costs i incurred for the improvement of South Third Avenue rather than being subsidized by the single- family residences in the subdivision. Commissioner Stiff also indicated his interest in revising the condition pertaining to the trail system to require that the developer provide gravel trails, and that the Homeowners' Association 05-26-92 be responsible for their maintenance. Responding to Commissioner Vincent, Planner Wall stated that the Figgins Subdivision was originally platted in the Spring of 1980. He stated that when the City signed the plat, it was with the understanding that an SID would be created for all improvements; however, the district was never created. He noted that this has resulted in,a recorded subdivision with no improvements; and that subdivision still exists. Commissioner Vincent suggested that with the number of conditions which are proposed, the original proposal has been so substantively changed that it is essentially a new proposal. He then expressed concern that under the Commission's rules of procedure, they cannot accept any input from the public or the developer on whether these conditions result in an acceptable project. He also expressed concern that the Commissioners have just received these proposed additions to the conditions, and are expected to vote on them very shortly. Commissioner Vincent then stated that he will vote against the project because the City must remain consistent to be credible; and this site is zoned R-2, which is single-family residential. He noted that many people testified at last week's meeting that they had purchased in this subdivision with the assurance that it was for single-family development only. He then characterized this proposal as "the right project at the right time in the wrong place". Commissioner Vincent stated he assisted in writing of the public interest criteria for the 1975 Legislature, and assisted in getting it passed by that legislature. He then stated he does not believe that this project is compatible with the neighborhood, as originally proposed or with the proposed conditions. He noted the great amount of expressed public opinion, noting that opinion must be carefully weighed in the decision-making process. Commissioner Knapp noted the major areas of concern identified during the public hearing included traffic and safety, water course, affordable housing and housing values. She then stated that she feels that if the number of dwelling units were reduced to a level close to the 23 units that would be allowed, through use of a density bonus, under the R-2 zoning, she could support this application. She then 'suggested that Condition No. 30 be revised to allow for "one-story, single- family structures behind Lots 19 and 20", thus reducing the total number of dwelling units to 24. Commissioner Knapp then stated an interest in revising Condition No. 1 to provide a time certain for completion of an analysis of the intersection of South Third Avenue and Westridge Drive. She also suggested that another condition be added which stipulates: 05-26-92 - 5 - 40. That one copy of the Homeowners' Agreement shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director prior to final plan approval. Commissioner Knapp stated that with these conditions, which protect those residences abutting the project and reduce the total number of units allowed, she feels it is compatible with the neighborhood. She noted, therefore, that with all of the conditions which have been set forth, she can support approval of this application. Commissioner Frost stated support for the revision proposed to Condition No. 30. Mayor Swanson stated he had originally.felt that a density of 22 units would be acceptable, since it would generate the same amount of traffic'as the 11 single-family units that could be constructed under the current platting and zoning; however, he finds a density of 24 units acceptable, with the additional conditions suggested. He also suggested that Condition No. 9 be revised to provide for a reduced number of parking spaces, in keeping with the reduced number of units. He suggested that the parking be enhanced by 20 percent, as required in the original condition, with the remainder of the area to be turned into landscaping. Commissioner Stiff expressed concern about lowering one section in a building of three units in the back row, and elimination of one unit. He suggested it may be more appropriate to have a solid line, rather than a broken one; and he further suggested that one additional unit could make or break the project at this point. Mayor Swanson suggested the possibility of simply establishing a 24-unit limit, allowing the developer to determine how those could be best placed on the site. He noted, however, that single-family, single-story units should be required on those portions of the site abutting Lots 19, 20 and 31 . Mayor Swanson stated that, while he recognizes Commissioner Vincent's comments regarding his constituency, he feels that the conditions imposed address the major concerns of the neighborhood. He further noted that this application meets the stated goals of the master plan, which was supported by an.even larger constituency. He then indicated his support of the project, with the conditions as set forth in this discussion. Commissioner Frost stated support for the additional conditions recommended by Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Knapp and Mayor Swanson regarding the installation of caution lights at the intersection of Westridge Drive and South Third Avenue, the requirement that the Homeowners' Agreement be submitted for review and approval, and limiting the density to 24 05-26-92 units. He then noted that a review of the written and verbal comments received revealed that over one-third of the people mentioned the streambed and riparian habitat; and this proposal ensures those concerns will be met. Responding to Commissioner Stiff, the City Manager reviewed the methods of assessment for special improvement districts. He then asked that if the Commission wishes to pursue the idea of this project paying its fair share, staff be provided a five-minute recess to develop appropriate language for a new condition. The City Manager then cautioned the Commission that, given the fixed costs associated with this project, it may not be possible for the developer to provide the housing at the cost which he quoted during the public hearing. The City Manager then suggested that, rather than requiring that the trail be improved to a gravel standard, it would be more appropriate to refer this item back to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, for their determination of what would be most appropriate. Commissioner Vincent reiterated his interest in receiving additional public input, and suggested that the Commission conduct another public hearing, on the conditions which have been forwarded. Break - 4:29 to 4:34 p.m. Mayor Swanson declared a break from 4:29 p.m. to 4:34 p.m., in accordance with Commission policy established at their regular meeting of March 14, 1983. Decision - Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development- Overbrook at Westridge -to allow construction of 34 condominium units on Lots 16 and 21 through 30. Block 9, Amended Plat of Figgins Addition Commissioner Stiff requested that, rather than revising Condition No. 2, as he had suggested above, a new condition be added, as follows: 41 . That the developer be required to place $5,000 in escrow, upon sale of the tenth unit, to assist the neighborhood with improvements to South Third Avenue; i It was moved by Commissioner Vincent, seconded by Commissioner Frost, that the Commission, pursuant to Section XIV, Sub-section 7, of its rules of procedure, call for a new public hearing, properly noticed, for the purpose of accepting public input on the conditions of approval which have been forwarded during this meeting. The motion failed by the following Aye and No 05-26-92 vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Vincent; those voting No being Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Knapp, Commissioner Stiff and Mayor Swanson. It was moved by Commissioner Frost, seconded by Commissioner Stiff, that the Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit for the Planned Unit Development to be known as Overbrook at Westridge, to allow construction of 34 condominium units on Lots 16 and 21 through 30, Block 9, Amended Plat of Figgins Addition, under Application No. Z-9230, subject to the following conditions: 1 . That the applicant's professional engineer shall prepare a Jormal analysis of the development's impacts on the intersection of South Third Avenue and Westridge Drive prior to final plan approval. ' If the intersection's level of service drops below C, the applicant must mitigate the situation after 51 percent of the units are occupied; 2. That a waiver of right to protest the creation of a special improvement for improvements to South Third Avenue must be signed by the owner(s) and filed with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder; 3. That the private drive approaches and sidewalk adjacent to Westridge Drive shall be constructed in accordance with the City's standard approach (i.e., concrete apron and sidewalk section) and shown as such on the final plan. City curb cut and sidewalk permits shall be obtained prior to final plan approval. Additionally, a sidewalk and drop curb (handicap) access shall be provided from Westridge Drive to the trail at the southern property corner, 4. The following shall be provided in relation to paving: A. Curbing shall be provided and depicted on the final PUD plan around the private street and all parking areas; B. Typical curb details (i.e., raised and/or drop curbs) shall be provided; and C. The asphalt section shall comply with Section 16.26.050, Surfacing, of the City ordinance unless designated in accordance with the Asphalt Institute's Manual for which a detail shall be provided to, and approved by, the City Engineer; 5. That the applicant shall install stop signs on the private drive at Westridge Drive; 6. That the site triangles at the intersections of the private drive and Westridge Drive shall not be restricted; 7. That a minimum of four disabled parking spaces must be provided in accordance with the ADA. These spaces shall be signed as per the zoning ordinance; 8. That bicycle racks that provide parking for at least eight bicycles shall be provided. Bicycle parking shall be dispersed throughout the development; 9. That the total number of parking spaces shall be reduced to twenty percent more than what is required for 24 units, and the remainder of this space shall be designated for landscaping; 05-26-92 - 8 10. That the landscape island in the intersection of the trails shall be eliminated; 11 . That plans and specifications for the water and sewer main extensions and lift station, prepared by a professional engineer (P.E.), shall be provided to, and approved by, the City Engineer and the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. The applicant shall also provide professional engineering services for construction, inspection, post-construction certification and preparation of mylar record drawings; 12. That sewer and water services shall be shown on the final PUD plan and approved by the Water/Sewer Superintendent. City of Bozeman applications for service shall be completed by the applicant; 13. That the following shall be provided in relation to storm water: A. A storm water plan and system design (i.e., unit sizing) shall be detailed in the PUD report and the specific engineering calculations supporting the design be included as an appendix to the report; B. A detailed storm water maintenance plan for the storm water system (designed to remove solids, silts, oils, grease, and other pollutants) be provided to, and approved by, the City I Engineer prior to final PUD approval; I C. The final plan shall include adequate spot elevation information on the roadway.and detention pond basins and structures; I D. Typical curb and depressed curb (for drainage) details be provided; E. The overall storm water plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to final plan approval; 14. That the following shall be accomplished in relation to the floodplain: A. A flood plain development permit must be obtained from the City Engineer prior to final plan approval. No filling, or other construction activities, shall be initiated prior to issuance of the permit; B. The 100-year flood plain boundary and the 100-year flood elevation cross sections must be depicted on the final PUD plan; C. Culvert sizing design calculations shall be provided for the stream crossing; D. All buildings must be flood-proofed to at least 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation. Elevation certificates must be provided for each building following completion of construction; 15. That the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, SCS, Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, and the 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 plan approval; 05-26-92 i . :. - 9 - 16. That the final PUD plan shall include adequate dimensioning. The private street width and parking area configurations must comply with the zoning ordinance, unless deviations are obtained from the City Commission; 17. That the two structures immediately north of Lots 19 and 20 on Westridge Drive shall be separated by a minimum of 16 feet; 18. That architectural treatments shall be diversified from building to building, by way of differing gable treatments, window sizes, roof lines, adding jogs in the front and rear facades, and/or similar treatments. The side elevations which are visible off-site shall incorporate windows; the use of window bays should be considered. The final elevations shall be subject to review and approval by the DRB prior to final PUD approval; 19. That the landscape planting list shall be revised to limit the use of the patmore green ash by providing comparable alternatives; 20. That the applicants shall coordinate the location and type of mail boxes with the U.S. Postal Service prior to final PUD approval; 21 . That all buildings will meet the R-2 zoning regulations for setbacks and height; 22. That the two buildings abutting Lots 19 and 20 be reduced to one-story, single-family structures; 23. That the duplex north of Lot 31 be reduced to a one-story, single-family structure; 24. That the PUD will be limited to 24 units, without major alterations to the existing footprints or substantive alterations to the site amenities; 25. That a 5-foot delineated pedestrian pathway be designated on the north side of the private drive through the use of different materials from those used for the roadway; 26. That two additional street trees be provided in the Westridge Drive street right-of-way, and that they be clustered, preferably on the western side, to provide a more natural and open space appearance; 27. That all signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to final plan approval; 28. That appropriate native streambank vegetation be used along the streambank to assure water quality and the continuation of riparian habitat; . 29. That all improvements to the streambank and open space landscaping be installed with Phase I; 30. That the trail system for this PUD be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board; 31 . That the developer be required to place $5,000 in escrow, upon sale of the tenth unit, to assist the neighborhood with improvements to South Third Avenue; 32. That the developer shall be responsible for placing "bouncing ball" signals at the intersection of South Third Avenue and Westridge Drive; i 33. That one copy of the Homeowners' Agreement shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director prior to final plan approval; 05-26-92 A 34. That the right to a use and occupancy permit shall be contingent upon the fulfillment of all general and special conditions imposed by the Conditional Use Permit procedure; 35. That all of the special conditions shall constitute restrictions running with the land use and shall be binding upon the owner of the land, his successors or assigns; 36. That all conditions specifically stated under any conditional use listed in this ordinance shall apply and be adhered to by the owner of the land, his successors or assigns; 37. That all of the special conditions shall be consented to in writing by the applicant; 38. That seven copies of the final site plan, containing all of the conditions, corrections and modifications approved by the City Commission, shall be submitted for review and approved by the Planning Director within six months of the date of City Commission approval. Signed copies shall be retained by the City departments represented on the Development Review Committee, and one signed copy shall be retained by the applicant; 39. That the applicant shall enter into an Improvements Agreement with the City to guarantee the installation of required on-site improvements at the time of final site plan submittal. Detailed cost estimates, construction plans and methods of security shall be made a part of that Agreement; 40. That the first building permit must be obtained within one year of final site plan approval. Building permits will not be issued until the final site plan is approved. No site work, including excavation, may occur until a building permit is issued; and 41 . That if occupancy of the structure or commencement of the use is to occur }' prior to the installation of all improvements, the Improvements Agreement must be secured by a method of security equal to one and one-half times the amount of the estimated cost of the scheduled improvements not yet installed. Said method of security shall be valid for a period of not less than twelve (12) months; however, all on-site improvements shall be completed by the applicant within nine (9) months of occupancy to avoid default on the method of security. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Stiff, Commissioner Knapp and Mayor . Swanson; those voting No being Commissioner Vincent. Decision - Preliminary_plat - aggregation of Lots 16 and 21-through 30. Block 9, Amended Plat of i Figgins Addition, to form one lot This was the time and place set for.1therdecision on the preliminary plat, as requested in Application No. P-9210, to provide for t' he aggregation of Lots 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, Block 9, Amended Plat of Figgins Addition, to form one lot. n heir public hearing The City MA__�tlast anna-a reminded the Commission that they had conducted t p g on this a licati week's meetin . He then recommended that, in li ht of the revious pp9 9 P I05-26-92 .. - '.�•r...• ..,R•,rrys,"i'^. ,?p j•• .. •♦•c+r •e r-� ,.114��r .rryf y�.' r r. ♦1'`mot'. j}tL;i;(� �:, 'y •• - •.t J> ! f,.+r• ��t•11 ♦ �` .Ncr�•rr;� �rt� ft",1:'t"; •�� 3 F�'�` '„ • •. _ ► +t:`: :.. �+.i, }.-. "� i*{{{'�'•�- •+rs3�v, :rr: .eta S� �`'��,•'ya r.f • s-+ r '�" i� .'• r;r'!''. � `d'• t �r r :�• C� t{�. »r�C •.�.�»�;„ �.4 r�r'�,`�_.[� _,may. /�rt++i. �•' t t,� � +..� t ],•r t.,•4 _�* .� �..�-+. .. •ry..:. • ....-._,,,_.•;�'r,• :,.r'vl•+►�,,,��', �".+.�.✓. `�,=it...- r .,�, .{,.,u,.{+`1 N ,'"�.�; rtil..% �'�^�+g" T i� ` f r � •✓ �-.r•,t t s w I` }�� .ArIli, +'A� �,,ir ! +,c♦ tt• ,•i.. .• � + r •�_ ,t""��_��s � !,�:.R.'t.s,��.��y�, �r c4tyr�r' y, Il ♦ v.,,.111, F�' eraa ��ry c .�f. ,` ,r•..%+. .r• l r . + r } 3t .", • ,rj.r h��•� .7Y(«r •.�:)' ,#!'•1 i.t w 14, // .. .a�. , t t • •+,` M ^.•^"'/'' " ,'r�•�...-♦lA•= '• \ 'ter-' • r .��J '! ?.,�.. lra♦ �. ''l. , +.. ell .% r , ► ':L! ' ryi`"tr �''rn• •'`� '...1'.��. J(�1yj�1 .T,: }�, ; i' r }' t � , ' �\ _ �A s�„y�" �i� �•�� �� � * �'x�� lid... .[ t !.r'YY ►"' �, :t ' •! -3r r / *►a. :�.'; �'rS;i t a FL'-j - rAA t.;;`��i •' T'r"c ..", {'r r4 1 1.• .j£.•. r •�,i ' rail. •�«, 41 sA:- ''• a r:r� ,fir•. .t].,,"�.��j.0 '�>".� •wv%w.,''1 ,�t•: 7 J f ".j .,.1 h\� c •?•r�k ]y�r—3 r�r�x "r'4 ti J�;` i;rf : • , . �•, ♦ - ��;f. .,�, �r.q • •.may� t. Z�r`.,7 W.i t:-'L r�� y��� •;S � �r�'' �S h ft 1 � '��'�'�-l:.f�� '' / r"•'T '• _ _'" .',. w,�e�\ -poi 1 ,�R:,at�!''�'�[ �i �'�'f�•� ''�' r�T 3�'t �,'�J'�, � + ,��i Il'� ��a r� "`� • /rr ;t .�///�"r ' c01' .4+��„ y37 '1 r.. :.�. "'�•yti,r � �. �•• - ,�r�.. l.'.� :a 4 ,'(,4,i,r la+y.! -'� ,;,r 4.`.r'r`!` �+q 1 ,11y�, rf. ,...x" � .• 4 ,.;,�. '� •J., _ _ -.•�•Jc•+ •�� `lc ���'+.�,�..• � • �t �� .i n. ^ �_� s ..� ; :��' 4 ~t �;'f i �a.~t '•r l!.�: t �•� h'..i-: �.-t'»•:� t �.+• 1 yy _ .t- ft Jam• �., I �,_ ,� -� ,�� r..#i;, .�«. y' -• .�� ��j . , <.a,�, d -1 f ..r �� !' j/ ,.f,r� '�a. t { ,... y.. �'ir1Y� .. t.a••� ,♦tY •, >r• F,"T T •- ":�,i .T lr 1 rj�•.a �r �,` �f! +�•..� . j .I. { er ,J' i :i rtiL a r ,! .K I .i...♦r 1�1`t J,i �'" ` -�.. ♦ 7aM�, ): r w• - Jp•+1 - r t7 Y ..v'a slit.•'hv.•._.T t .,�, ♦�}`s� t y� a ,:: �� �.�.,., ' ter, + ..��r ;'i .., �{',• .. , ' t ;+f '� ` �, j � .r t �(' ,r. y^.!`,i'4y"."FR• -f t,.�y l',f ']�wr• Y, _ � ed .,r'� .i •', , )!K _jy,\,.' �. ,"_ ..�?•y ,t'S•c31 •k. rl'rsy,i�r•� »'��♦. Lbw y ,G W.ylr �x �..T•»'�`{• .. � � } r ...r,t/��'�„ 3 ��' a ("^ !,�' ,r4 ".S l3 � •�1 `,;.•t -ir"i•� u. ;t f.••� ( •t t is �C i3.: ♦,h; w,,,,. .,,,,.. •. i' ... .. - -� 'R�' v1:� _i Jle^ I � f 't..f �.r }Fri{ ,.r�"t• .K�'t C,.�4•Y`♦ .f ♦ -i 'tr' .d w•taw x'� . + '•yr . .w f t♦ :1'► ` r• .7 1 I IQ 4 CR e0 .s r`.a y } L+.+n { 4\ �Ec- ��'� rw r . 7 r. _. Fj�• ,�+,s` et i !�_.p� r•' � "�'•r1 .s±� •'�3� � �'•. + +lam 1, lf'`�r3- �` -�. . ��_r..- R' �r � i� ��.• • • •' y,•• ,,t f^•«,•',-'4,r �� •� t'"�`�•4 •' '»_f `..�4'',� �'t'y.�,ty}',�►yJ�,/r l >�`f 7s i{(+ 4r,..1. s� _� � � t•_ t. •••i r R vft�"�'�; .�'`•, -�)�, t •'i � +'�. � :•.t• - ♦ .-�•'(. .y»:� tcP• .I..t "!'r`lS„�'�'1rlyY,. _-,, '1 ���'tiwls _` `-y,wt'• ,. .` `41 j.. •-! -!` .' f.. ;• �- -.�'. • �,s,14 .�F,+.pt/.f' 'a.. -ck ' r^'t " � j . `+u"Jt^' ~' rt'!�e 1 '`-•'r • -,tK. r ': ,`M1T' ••rt~,• '� E�' t�� �...f!1s rJ i; rT`Y'Y 1 �}v 4t •�j+"'�lu.'•y �• i `� - I,a.: "r{' .i•f- :}ll :�+''". *:*.. a�.l' rr- Y 5 t ►l�Nt • } t , r , tt>,Lr 'w!r. A '.J y(. l,T`�w-� +. aiy�', s w ,w It' J.'at r'♦ .. t } t 1 ,c- � lrs , - •ii� +�•'..[G" ".� .�,, ♦. ♦.., � !`taS I'= ~, t.,,,E,"t'rr� � '.'�" *`i; :. �* � � f.L."� �IY�� �'�' t��:':�: -a:3 tlfR.�•tai Ir`i E •+iKu� ,w,� �':rFi` .r+«Zc., +eyx�. �Yt��.' , 4 � rt� , t'•ti t��i t, w���I�tv.C,,� !, � j� +�rC",•.�h, :+:.R s' 1 A� r �� � ,.'• ]y'. i 'r'i tvmf + 5 r ••r�I I w.r ' a �yt• �..:J !.„'h .} ji �j -;F•cr ^Y' ". •y } J� �t rf !. cc ' ,• •;? , �.:y*•��.�1> }.••� ►' f „. K,1.� �M � f,,. t^t_ .s.•. 'L.t •�,4�� _ .��1,� '�r ';�__ f.• �sxt� t �T to?• 11. .r ' � 'j� '�Y�` �c•�•.�� ,{a.r:^ �tt i )I•,�:�y'� .wlJ�! � ar � -�C" Y'•.�k�tt.�'���7L��.wic-+��+5'ri+tr!'�h ' 1�.1 �y "t •y'»' s 4 r a�i +r ,�•f':l.t�+k t��*�!•_',t f•!*• i� f ♦ "f� •�`y x .� 'I .i. t ," �� ., � ��`i •� r�ai sc'_"�,�a� ���'� •�' �j�`� „�,,.-'�t.�,. _ �t i'� � -r'y 1"••t �'n . •. }.,,r-I r.�•'- ( r ►�?z•�t x� i r..�- ,Yd .rJr�',.+r�• �••�'1 •�` 4 art�'.. r:•-- "a41 .'at• a;_s .+�.J.'�"Ci - r, ' A s r '4�� +�:� r }!�+ •�•�` „7' !!. ♦ � � 'f 7 1p��n '�.r' ,{ p`(� �t -"y��y1 �,��•J' � •' •t �} � }9 � � �,n,w �». r ."may: t: ►':ter.+.i•4 E"�'a` 1.a'�'.A ¢ v' 1.i "? WI-.' w 1,.a • k F? My t' ��r,Tf, Sc>t4 l .+ ''`.Y•, rw` 4'.�. r 1 ri r- A r n ' trl+' y' F. t 1i J�1 t *✓; •. `, r _ �' ,...,. >,�• ,.,�i � r u'-Str ,ram 1 r r ,•rye y ,,,' S �j► a t+ r,F , -r° , �, .���sw r;, i�"� I••w/ ♦. ��.,i{.,tile�r.4 'n• + 'a r ?f:l �•'� �.i 1.1. �N •.!t 7' - w ra • ♦'t♦ t,r '�•.�.. .•,I%V,•}�. ♦. y�•' 1•,: �: ;d• r :.pl • y _ 4 :t .-+ +;� rr ✓,' � J' i4, <i -.,� }},' �+�'Mt;'tC'�+� cw�����!,,�.��,Nr,�,..7��9�'.,y. .�. •r. w p( [ti -J� - +>; .� , dr` 7 it "r h' '�:: �, +rsv w`P' a,.,. �.•� q'.�''r ',a :• .a.:11 a �'r1 •� � ''.., f l ''1' ' ;•t jl F:. � Lit�._.•d '� rF_ ,,'- "y} ".+"-`;s <� , :•v,�a r -•` �'A' '�+,�il„i� fC' �.'tf'"�� tS`'�it'• r�'l� ��'�*r�t;�w��'•sp���_,L. ~ .J' ± s� v:_ ,'a� r � �• �� hf� ,,� r, r,. �w�ry41�♦y,il .7`� ��'� � • � • ,y,'�:.'s , .r � tr. t .{ � �� e ,'. '.G tip, ■.: � .�{��,d'77►�-tj,Y!)! S���j,'t.,♦ �:�,�' p'� � µa ~• � � j i'� ye tl .l�.ffr:.��` •'s,+„� 'sQ� t� � ���„� .�C� i,,;'j'_ a; I ' i + �,r.� ♦ rV ,; toZ lli���+t 1 I k _ M��_ `y �t � ,�- �i t}; � y .♦ :.'� , /t`k , i '�'r+' . �f i~"ttr4- �4-•���� 't •Ytj r � � r r..�l,r•�;.~ ��`'".. '"�.y +,• ♦..� -,-�. �Sa3��>) ! '•{ CP`� .+ -r^r K"� r*� ' � t`�-) � �• 4�' 'jam,"'-"t !.►�"•,.♦per 'yT.,�:� J•4.�.. '�►. •• � � �'�� t��` t�. a'!� .d� M ,� :•, •t 1'y'f, t �. :i. ! �r� t ' .yi• .r�' 11i�i:v � ••i�� � �♦4` •� 1. r�I.�»r,JJi � '� ` ' r ,:wJ.':"� t' 'p; .,. �f1i1 ; .:sJ,, f �� P x -,� - •srJ♦ •r�■1 `If r •- �,>} i d ; rrr ��� �� r�1trr.'-'..�C : ;^ y.,�� •Y .- a � /'y r• s�t+''� S.r. Ly� .��"i /��" .,'�L" .r .F t;' �M ,�.' r •l{ `.♦thy,'';t.t.�S X±�Z''' �r T tam t {'•:f�►7'ti'• !.�► r AfaJ�•�. Ru :�M" '4 ,l`.(♦-T*� Y �`»'s,• "'+ � T' 'j �5. ��4., p .Y '"' �� { . ''• 1� .it,7{�,E r RARR!'..- q r�es-�- �,,.F x}� � _d• 'fir •'+ �4s+ �, T "3a'�gal �r� �•..L� At t ' r :Ql�pgsL^.7T^ 4RAr- ra • r t• �� ••�' ••i .ray :1, r - C,.-♦ �,rr� ••,t'^� •a,. „� 7• "."a:>.•�• r...e,L♦:,r'i •i`7J '• "'.�a��;•. ..1 1a�•-`+f _ ��7+��..•e t. .�,• fit!,F'�,! Y.1, , J'. ♦:. It a y' r,! .i� A .... y �� .rat •r y �,4' x }'v:w i I.w �,+ �' Fla' a S�• ' w% •eL Y'. , .. r Jy`+�'th �5.. i�ti«.+r�'g1 r4 Mw},4'. �•Y•y .'�.ay �s`7l 'S` 't r_,_/ ,.?.r�+ f' �t t+ r�.'-' �� Ar p+ 1 t , Y r �.;�r• ! 'i�i t Ali`Y1+ �`♦.:'T�P f�►'i`At•�.t �+K.1'.r�.l tAS' .{'}."'�c. ,,r �.5 ;� •.err""*' Sys r r `; y` M ',i `ram iYr. <:.•r r , 'f a ,7'T^.tw•-�"'w'St:^ ♦ p.r: `'�.. or''i �h r >' A �.w�.'...'� tom' ♦.- �" r3s.}'�.:.�ti,IrJ�i►• ir•. "y ...,.,�... .✓�,taei_� ��i{ .� '�• ♦ .i t� � ti�••� ''� y�•y�Mrw^�•� � r''-•-1�•..♦'.••��r r'�'1 � �M�- 'wrM1' •3i +i ��Ir4 � ,R,'1-_tg� �ti r •,• ar A It .i ! tty }}�2!R �l�i�+a . -.�'ri� t.r���7<< }��� � i is ,:.yam t • ? r w INDEX DECLARATION FOR • OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS I. DEFINITIONS Aggregate Voting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Association or Association of Unit Owners. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Board or Board of Directors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Building. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 By-Laws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Common Elements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 CommonExpenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Declaration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 3 LimitedExpenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Manager. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 RecordOfficer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 UnitDesignation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 UnitOwner: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 II . REAL ESTATE Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 CondominiumUnits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Exclusionof Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Encroachments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 AutomobileParking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 UnitBoundaries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 III. EASEMENT. COMMON ELEMENT - REMODELING CommonElement Easements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a InteriorRemodeling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 IV. OWNERSHIP AND VOTING PercentileInterest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ConstructionMaterials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Serviceof Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ExclusiveOwnership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 V. Association Membership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Function. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 i 1 + T . . . . . . . . . . . • ;fir,_ ._ ivy Aold . . . . . . . . . . . . :r, r. Vote. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 14 Failure t omply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Paymento ssessments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 UnpaidAssessments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Unpaid Assessments - Mortgage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 LevyingAssessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 VI. RIGHTS RESERVED TO DECLARANT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 VII . AMENDMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 VIII. CHANGES, REPAIRS AND LIENS Alterations by Unit Owners. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Maintenance by Unit Owners. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Liens for Alterations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Exterior Alterations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Liensfor Assessments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Foreclosure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Insurance Purchase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Coverage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Premiums. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 26 InsuranceTrustee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Distribution of Proceeds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Associationas Agent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Benefit to Mortgagees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Reconstruction Repair after Casualty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Plans and Specifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Responsibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Assessments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Construction Funds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 IX. REMOVAL OR PARTITION - SUBDIVISION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 X. INTERPRETATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 XI. REMEDIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 XII . SEVERABILITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 XIII. MISCELLANEOUS UtilityEasements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Irrevocable Right. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Expenditures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Benefit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Warranties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 ♦ • • . • • • r. c > A J. R`v'.It Tl r1 1 1 ^''r•':�.�:i.=�� a. Cf P 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T_I A3ix . . . . . . . . . . . �Lf C . . , • Nt. idti (AAj c: IO,V -T I r r • . . . . . . . . . . CERTIFICATE OF ARCHITECT s The undersigned, being a duly registered architect in the State of Montana, and who prepared the floor plans for the Overbrook at Westridge Condominiums, herewith certifies that the floor plans for the said Condominiums attached to this Declaration are an accurate copy of the plans filed with and approved by the City of Bozeman and its duly authorized officers, agents and employees having jurisdiction to issue building permits. Dated this day of . 1992 . REGISTERED ARCHITECT State of Montana, No. i 3 E,I ff1 AI � ti,tj07fi t''^''_9*BLS+=tt Y [Ub 6 p r-ad •+J 9J'. JIt1 ( 9"i6c)`_ .ia f)t4;. h(It 3O fir. XvU1 gill 'rr(!;J c91�t17!%'� t;�-LW9_ % li'lLlifl 'fr1: �,fIU�► IiG i.�' 13 ` 9rf t -r„t _• .rfJ yd f� : 1 {_ 1i 11(lE: ftT.CS ! <i 1.Cj 911.1 l �jC •n SCJ6tJl V�, I-1,-L:-.)ia ' L bt3 a tJ.l, Y-Ult-, U'l i bfm i jSW4`,- " 3Lf'ri.1 nIblILd %ca O ` f1ft1'. I%!?,.CZiJf nf,Ivr- Fa _ro V1., i; b9:1rQ T') i'THORA aa51'aT A l}u:ti CERTIFICATE The undersigned. being the duly authorized agent of the Department of Revenue of the State of Montana and within the County of Gallatin.. herein executes the following certificate relating to the OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS situated on the property net forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 1 . The name OVERBROOK AT -WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS is not that same as. similar to or pronounced the same as, a word in the name of any other property or subdivision within Gallatin County. and 2. All taxes and assessments due and payable for the same OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS have been paid to date. DATED this day of 1992. L TA' ..,41T3, '+is'J U .3i.ziP Cr I "1Q1;j'j ILl � Cl.t ��fl 3d � !' ,;�'1?l1)a aril' afSt 1 4 '' G4. :)x, 1 a `+CiJ 1C7 unt)u to JriJriliaEn'`�c' S`I35"+ !:_+ 1 '(3'.+ �t1ttlC711 'Prf Zl. 7L(nr-4%D f. t-)- aCl -&IIFT) lt? riu UIII! t?nL?t,' ?:'IIA t '.Z; T/. 1SV0 t3if1, u_`, urtiJe I� t .:ltclI I%.-. n t. dijo� t'f1 y;t.;�cTi:iici Jt't -1,Ui1 . :0(1i400 3D(I'cr aV, 1,p: >;C'0gi ,:1 t� iamf, ?ri i :ulfi1. 9l II f3t'aa ' [f ft3 .)ncjc?Llrelq a Cf aE:,: ' m -a Z ':!E !msa hC,r j:Jrm0 a rl , (fiii CTr12.1v1i!difp !O \y-ij goaq `z ill °dill 1 � 9M-3;: 91i 1 I 4 q (1JE SU1, fT3Fl V.Z'6 [* < �{_ �1r,b �J b 1 inq n, +d C ..:ii7:RTMOC1110') .i)Cll,ISi7'aaW TA "UGAT:7ri'a" , Mj DECLARATION FOR OVERSOK AT WESTRIDGECONDOMIN A. By this Declaration made this 15th day of August, 1992 , by Tim Dean, Eugene Graf , and Charles Del Marco of Bozeman, Montana, lands and , property hereafter described submitted to the pro- visions of Title 70, Chapter 23 of the Montana Codes Annotated, which Chapter is also known as the ".Unit Ownership Act" , as a condominium. This property subject to this Declaration shall be known as OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS, which is its name. The location of OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS is I. DEFINITIONS Unless the context expressly. provides otherwise, the following definitions shall pertain through this Declaration and in the interpretation thereof: 1. Aggregate Voting shall mean the entire number of votes or persons present or available to vote in a particular cir- cumstance . 2 . Association or Association of Unit Owners means all of the Unit Owners acting as a group and in accordance with duly adopted By-Laws and this Declaration. 3. Board or Board of Directors shall mean the Board of Directors of the Association as more particularly defined in the By-Laws. c1Ct I.?1T?",I TA Ni 4' -2 7Vrf Yu � A lz, v!1- A . .t YE / CI tlt,L, ] f16rr5-z J. :1.C' 0 .Ct: I50 i4f-dD L.STf: j �, it ..:iGfs:'1 , 11.6.11 o 1fj7oaotl G i!. �l .rmJnoI " .-f 0 L. O1 9r T i nc, ri t t' q y c ( y` 11;40 1 . .111 dt(J P-13 n! '.t1)l IJB YAJ.It AD d_� fat)f a..!itC1 Iif At d'ri i t[.?1:-fj ^.1r,r 2 T k i, :(�t.f�. , 31;UI:li:t':! �T'+�"� �c'I SI'T'�'� ,f TR dt �f' iI:;UG' ;GtOIT�tfT3.::T . I. :iju t Iblvcla i yI.i' .3 .9.j+ C : 9di a >t111U f... ITL`.t c-I ti LIJ"'tft fl a t .`, '. 0ITCl1 11 2..9b 1ISL: tIt , tC; ,93tII t)ftt ..1 ta.ai!!T 91t:JI :t .,dj nll ',.. 1161`12 t�Ili..;c t/ 1Jy �Tt>1,Fx 1 1 li f 11' t"I C1 n f f ~.Ov 1 J Ia6 flC, T1�� l �fi it':-))If r J „tl,� �;i17 I1 _ �? 1}`1 t>1^;)a-S. .TTQ... .O.L:t > ;..JJ6 (11 u .fs C +101 1 _en Ilk'U t1I'_11 of1.i 3!4f'1 fTl ``> FIB `k i ] �l;17',ij �' .'!Ii 1T:1 i _.70_ J1t� ;4•' �: 1Cit 4. Building means a multiple unit building or buildings comprising a part oishe property.- . 5. By-Laws means the By-Laws promulgated by the Association under this Declaration and the Unit Ownership Act. 6 . Common Elements means both general common elements and limited elements. a. General common elements include all those elements which are for the use of all Unit Owners and guests of Unit Owners of OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS. Specifically included are: 1 ) The land upon which the buildings are constructed, as described above, in this Declaration. and grounds surrounding the same except any portion thereof included in a unit, or for expansion, or made a limited common element by this Declaration. 2 ) The walkway connecting the various portions of the buildings. 3) The sidewalks outside the buildings and the I concrete or other pads located thereon. 4 ) Any portion of the parking lot not specifically allocated to a particular unit. 5) Any system of irrigation placed on the property so as to maintain proper landscaping around the buildings. 6 ) Any portions of the buildings designated on the floor plans as common to all units. This list is not inclusive and the Association of Unit Owners may add or delete elements pursuant to the method of amendment as hereinafter described. 2 i ;'-, ( ,I,f, -,-L j I o m ; " '1.1 -_1-7;.,_�j.q a 4;kz T I J V. 1� k -.t rf�-1.C4 11 v. :t 1 3 n I h r,f- z il'i -I-)L, ,')i -,Jp PI .I I' 'o it I -+Cll-)T) iflr,d ?rif>3ri -5 aqm,:-,C- 3 J,1-1 11" 1 s b In i i rl . J -t I 1 4L91's b a 10 fl L 9n5D b 0 a L-i�l 1 :1 i:1 10 1 C, jL E)Lj j-j 19 r,,,,0 ' Gill! I tf- 0 F.Ll s,rl:1 7 c) i 7711 .1 i a j j V I III I)Cf V1 10 0 ia1 11,i:"3 t I R f?pl V 0 V i'fli Ll 'D I:"r k,n.6 1 9 r;l" o ri-r.t r,u c,-t ,i -i a a v a v r (if r s-, o r)ul t -3 j .1 1 o c-1 yrm Iq o iD t3 mb I it I i:CAL jr P.,'j Z aid' '?C' -, 9t,4919 -FIT I r i-; - 'i 0 fl 1.E rl r :7:n o -I o I E.V -qetj pa Il;,ii eilT f; ZU'd eZ.r7f b 1 ir;d 0 Pit �-,Ob s IIT s1, b i�I C) 1 1)Lq -I s f-' 0 9-a 0 1', 9 q o I i", 14 fJ. it 11 t i,5 0 f IS L t) rf I o L:1 ,ya 'I.t 4;- 1 I'IqO coo I I.i it Lt 3 rJ.-,+ --cuq m IT.r)-j 7 r 0 Jilt i0 c r 'C' p a 1,4 T Ulf. .!:y Lt U(I a n 'rrr.9 e 1`i b iC. i y k., �-3 a i 'I f fa r,9 r:f-J.",j f's b) Limited common elements as used in this Declaration ' shall mean those coan elements which are reed for the use of fewer than' all the Unit Owners and guests of Unit Owners of OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS and exclusive to other such owners and guests. In this regard, the limited common elements in each building shall be for the use of owners and guests of units contained therein. Specifically included are the follow- ing: conduits, public utility lines, water, sewer systems, electrical, cable television lines, and . cold water pipes (all such utility pipes and lines are limited common elements where they service all units, they shall be general common elements) , stairways, balconies. entrances, decks, garages and fixtures or other portions of the building servicing only a particular unit or less than all of the units. The percentage of the limited common elements shall be computed by determining the number of units that -have use of the limited common elements and dividing that number into the total value of those limited common elements. 7 . Common Expenses means expenses of administration, maintenance, repair or replacement of general elements, expenses agreed upon by the Association of all Unit Owners, expenses declared common by Sections 70-23-610 and 70-23-612, M.C.A. S. Declaration means this document and all parts attached thereto or incorporated by reference. 9. Limited Expenses means the expenses attributable to the maintenance, repair and replacement of limited common elements 3 iJ^. it -EU91JGz- . (• .•'J 1% ,t'Cj rfii T) fiTi:UEis t q ..4i'.139r e'-,i• UJ St1T"3 1:TJ . C;tT7;T' v 5i:" r}�.') lP,,-TG.VQ AL 'i,G) ,QI :Tj'~iq 1 %. rlt =rr•r;r;C FGTcii cl t .tJ lifE,r1TJ2 a IJTL 1-10 1-110 u _1.3CI `rTT g•.;'g 9j`f 'rC.jli t+ i rC} Cr),. TT 7� i b( j 70L' @- ,..t: ,f�l 1, �•� .E ` ?d• G y• t Gcl „f tilf In 1 jiai �J ".0cTF.1:1 C,1; C rT� T (�1 ) J' f1S. Ui c +�7;.^,4;•. W:3J LI F,)" C;t:<' b'iTz vr Lrj)j9C•s1`, ; ' t (.61, .14T CTC,VJ ��� 3;T�•JSJ''[,2 (;Oil.!`.^:{—� 'i"1, JU' � •'« T9C7nLTs r�T6T»'6Vr ? ' 4-ji4- ,. 111L;I.1CI. f:J. 7 Tr:TJt: ( p.J: 1 AV rrIG 14T.I: Mkfi;;C1; ty11 4; -U94' .T 4.:j:16 ( Yb; il C Oil B1')L c:7 .i!J6-'YU4''R q C{Z C;U1 iDt-r1 ST6U)Ci11«'", }J", ;' , r�Gr"T) Cjvj 61:),f j-rud :1Jti JJ1, I :1 C4 C)? j F; . }T r"TT { J( f1'r 1 *G "r,IJ, bGLC.r,U.PC-1 V; �.jJ ': jT111T; e i IJG t)fTTTCIT: . E *.P, C,? L'. -mI2, g L- ::r•��7:J+;cyT t' JT i !"CJTT-t 71 1i a G [. E 11r; .2s '�t.,:�.'e: d9i ' 16:. -w,, t r'r1C.E•: 'rL LP.- ^a= `•7T jig-r T P..6 ACV ,._5T ,.X'J4-%XT 6 J 'E iJ.r-P } L?,1;jJ r. T'; 7 r A 1)jb6c' Trq r1113a c•'_Ei j Ilitf'J.'C;tt C-,; luoI,, Ttr•. -C 'a}T i 1� T 1:GT .•r.TaTCL; 3T�<?4' SL'y' t.cl :1J4,t"7L bar, a 1. :3ji JI J Y ITS 1T6r i, . r. ' �•(. t1.;T.. .17 irT.VV %OL r:cJTTJ6lj 1_j:7. 1:GTZ' 7C '_ .'TI•i CEl; TX T1 C' (:q7 ^itr E�; -'!a•- TL1 G 1)I1TTf r 21'< T p1; 01 j")G .1? 01111 .i 91)r4 lGZ ;'?_ I. MI: 1v 2 JUq (11151. 2 jU ! IJT:. clstLq CP !7U;Tf'­4 :;0 "ll:'J1J jb11:•i « _ 1..T4 fl's.� �i'q ( x�: s r.• �, }� c:n UI. L ' 1'•i!_ jJ 1 t(�, �1Jfi t�1�T t'(.LTc:•LC 'TUtj -)1_ i]UT 0t.i1•. i c: 07 7jJ,:TT"f x4V,1I �! 6 1t, ;1 _TLf, L c. .�C F•.)I .:jar . .. 1 iS{ r: ;TJ i•p T p r,,-r ..,T. IT. TOT: and are expenses only for owners of units within the respective `building for which Senses are accrued. • 10. Manager means the manager. the Board of Directors, management corporation. or any other person or group of persons retained or appointed by the Association of Unit Owners for the purpose of conducting the day-to-day operations of OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS.. 11 . Property means all of the land, buildings, improvements and structures thereon and all easements. rights and appurtenan- ces belonging thereto, which are herewith submitted to the Unit Ownership Act of Montana. 12. Record Officer means the county officer charged with the duty of filing and recording the deeds, mortgages and all other i instruments and documents relating to this Declaration and the property which is its subject. 13. Unit shall be the separate condominium units of OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS and is a parcel of real property included and containing one or more rooms occupying one or more floors or part or parts thereof, intended for any type of I independent use and with a direct exit to a public street or highway. 14. Unit Designation is the combination of letters, numbers and works which identify the designated units. 15. Unit Owner means person owning a fee simple absolute or one who is co-owner in any real estate tenancy relationship that 4 .,4 rl s P.rl J..ito f, -15n! 1,511 ri -1 r) ft o -,tiq j-4tjl.ij vqj- to r, yd I pj I t. r M OZj Jj C4 t)l n qZ)7! rf 0-,3 1 i3 i U 9 d L):1 (f Z, -I I zt 1, 1. ri! pill f '10, t3d rifliC:t:10 1 10 1:o 1i q I ,ij rizi tv, 11 o y CT L) I r>511 1 :1 0 q c, tt ;(- )J!pj-lOf;) bi z fit 'i , I-) L.1 J 1i. E 1,f 0 linqIllinob bajE; LC. L t rm 't,T c rq f)n f 'I f"Li z3 f J f, I IV I I 10 cl If C) 14 Z' -1 a TA y A Fj 3 V M C,'I A C, I cl J I a -f- I au at yl ".1'I"b± I Ow I C, .1 -191wO life? ILJ I Z ni [I'l 0- C);Iw zkl,. I A is recognized under the laws of Montana in one or more units of 'OVERBROOK AT WESTRIA CONDOMINIUMS. II. REAL ESTATE Description 1 . The real property which is by this Declaration submitted to the Unit Ownership Act of Montana is described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. The condominium consists of twenty four separate units. numbered 1 through 24. consecutively, subject to the expansion provisions of paragraph IV-1 below. The provisions of this Declaration and the By-LAws shall be construed as a covenant' running with the land including every unit and shall be binding upon the unit owners, their heirs, successors, personal represen- tatives and assigns for as long as this condominium Declaration and By-Laws are in effect. Condominium Units 2 . Each unit, together with the appurtenant undivided interest in the common elements of the OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUM shall together comprise one condominium unit, shall be inseparable, and may be conveyed, leased, rented, devised or encumbered as a condominium unit as a fee simple interest in a parcel of real property. Each unit shall include a designated garage and storage unit. The units comprising the condominium are contained in seven buildings. 5 SIG C""�ATVC- 11 "tAGD lallo' 'Oe , av : -zi 5uq wcaL,vao uvir, ly - bTrI CC UlCIPTUA CFO 00"4 bytrr ot tql brob SA. Psor !MTV PV] 7 ju�jn 5 - W . 3cl W31naQJpt-L0j 90 9 qvw!VTpn 711ry vy cr TAG IT' 1- '.T no oq WqA ps coumb,,q isguav WMIGY qsyne 0E QhJOHINTni v "y - onaGwy .XbL7 "G OUG ccv;0wyj1nw OL ' v, zpv:j lucyway TV c" ; WmToj GTGW urn 01 :PC A,YqF3"K If! 102jyj J, 1 nuir, F, i . op. L ATrp qp bAnte --vaj PLATATW.' 1 74 f T '�G n a q yval7L - joK "N . 10W!I T1W DGf TqLU(TOD 100v ry, nuly nuetn ' rpall ;IFS T - bx .?CU 1"AlMi MTIP OP4 Hui TVkJAOL k & ,ik nryp uq p"jj pTvjlu:.l vG4j&T, fTcU opq "pG Ot pvnj "P57i P .OUVJL""q i % "EMI 1pr 0" b' 01W 1A - T lq &h' 0; to iGL*q T w0saw '00?GM0ITn01A' -VIAGOi 11 : ! U110100TWU JP W 00Uq0XjUTnw % waTer? QL PSGUI: TKY 704,1016 AuTch pGLGJ0. ic prG nuif )nwizopri Von o; Riuj ­ TV jC?UL1"9q TO g-VI -70 A., op T. na p . 1 rqCjprupTnu Eupwirreq (5Y-T 53 7 j is 0: TW ill ')VG --L T"� N 7-0fU Exclusion of Use ' 3. Any balcon*r deck which is accessiblarom, associated with or joins a unit shall, without further reference hereto, be used in connection with such unit or units to the exclusion of the use thereof by the owners of the other units, and limited and general common elements except by invitation. Encroachment 4. If any. portion of the general 'common' elements or limited common elements encroaches upon a unit or units, a valid easement for the encroachment and for the maintenance of same, so long as it stands, shall and does exit. If any portion of unit en- croaches upon the general common elements or limited common elements, or upon an adjoining unit or units, a valid easement for the encroachment and for the maintenance and easements shall not be considered or determined to be encumbrances either on the general common elements, the limited common elements, or. on the units for purposes or marketability of title. Automobile Parking 5. The common elements include parking areas for auto- mobiles of the unit owners. These areas will be initially laid out by the Declarant and may be assigned to each unit and may be changed from time to time by Declarant or by the Association. The right to use one parking space shall be an appurtenance to each unit. The original assignment of such space shall be made by Declarant until such time as Declarant no longer owns any of the units and Declarant reserves the right to assign or reassign 6 9 Tj L 7j G C L L C r. TT ( , WA-4 St D k, Ll Q (I r"J7 rl L; Cl C. .l J-1 I I T -T 12. auwii uf- J-T P4, ", )qc IT, J 91, f Cl 4.-0 I'L ti IJ s '�:)r Lie, i-'j)'J T ro T:� D ' ' 93, -J'JC Oa p N.,4, 'r-2OCTJl 9 1.-,Ij I!UT4: slua J)C- ouG rily.f I.,4rT Ir J,P 13 b p r !J.T,r 3 .jr .j r lb 0.- w u 2 ;ilk fj C',G V j t, 6;tz. V), ,'') I J f I SOT brILF 2 0 T- V: Ly.k' T J' 1'4�A 'I C TI!1,: tj G li It( 1. u j I-• p W CrIj q 'r t'•t.. 1! j C,I 1 2 Cr -f!j C T IS T Ll(I wj:r SL 1-31 j J (; CU J: v C'. I:I I is u fff X Q U C V '4T-A Ot-1 N )IJ 10 z ji C, L-L' Lol -;UQT!J: L r 17 !�j IT 4: IJ- I f C e 0 C.vi1I"' U G G IJ G U r e ^ n 1 olr fill 1: 1 1 q G�f a e 9 1) C.T- 4:}l 3 a C;J) 0 I:ID C) WUJ 2 0 J-' IT 7 V Ul-i R 11 P,i sl G I i7, r 9 UTOU 47Tki'4 Cfj,-. C,�*�c'IT')f-- —\ -ij Ilk 7�cj ;. 1 3 13- I I 1:k 1(? 0['11 G i I L:T R 9 Tj 'T T G 'I U i or :)A r pr, C,�lj rt 0 Ll IJ 6 C 1:T ,TJ i1Tjj1 p J 17 V-i F T fl JLj C G P T 0;' I'l 4,11 07. I-iftl? cJ 'j T r LIliDI T Off. 1 11 F r 4- 1)L li rPT' -C 7, 111 r) I U j"7 U all parking spaces if such assignment or reassignment becomes necessary. Therear, subsequent use and assoment of parking space shall be pursuant ' to regulation of the Association; provided that no charge in designation of parking space shall be made for the benefit of the Unit Owner which discriminates against another Unit Owner without the latter' s consent. Unit Boundaries 6 . Each unit shall include the part of the building containing the unit that lies within the boundaries of the unit. which boundaries are as follows: a) Upper and lower boundaries - the upper and lower boundaries of the units shall be the following boundaries extended to an intersection with the perimetrical boundaries: 1 ) Upper boundary - the plane of the lowest surfaces of the upper floor or ceiling joists for all units. 2 ) Lower boundary - the plane of the highest surface of the floor joists. b) Perimetrical boundaries - the perimetrical boundaries of the unit shall be the following boundaries extended to an intersection with the upper and lower boundaries: 1 ) Exterior building walls - the plane formed by the center line of the exterior walls of the buildings except that such boundary shall be extended so as to include within - it all windows in the unit. 2) Interior building walls for boundary units - the vertical planes of the centerline of walls bounding a unit 7 t.1 Of 1-1 i1N L ca, .1 L L 7. 15 In ri r) d,fj a 3,191. V I f,-3 F. Jw ch a ua u L .t o e r, . tj f4 r n A.:7 zo J .CCIL! cl j rt L a i :ro .!01 2C a q I n 1i C)C, ri,v W L- % 9 i Cl j a At .7 VOC d J, -I L)i t i, a 3 d9fY6 if L. -.Ifj y7c.11 c ,F, 2- is 1r11 �Jars©ii Z;Si b f;fl 1j[ fil IL t J fJ1t3 i:Ot a o A b "A J u ,.L. L -pit c orlt .10 11b OJ :t,,f- -t r,b.-t u d 1.1--)1 -d ru a r,w pf, lot *cry x .;,t -c ji ct 9 w -r Ifs Jo 7 r, r 4 Lin Ll ci:1 11 t 11 j I_ 0, :2 f-:i 0,', t� J L fl!,. ell, r, I o b 111 n't o i's e4 n uo zf oa 8..1.1a, 0 t b,(1.u,d i o 1 rif, .-ct 1 S IC J. ID extended to intersections with other perimetrical boundaries. Where walls between0its are of varying thicknRes the plane of the centerline - of a boundary wall shall be the median line drawn between the two outermost boundaries of such wall. III . EASEMENT, COMMON ELEMENT REMODELING ' 1. Common Element Easements: A nonexclusive right of ingress and' . egress and support through the general limited common elements within the buildings is appurtenant to each unit and all the general limited common elements are subject to such rights. 2 . Interior Remodeling: Each Unit Owner shall have the exclusive right to paint, repaint, tile, wax, paper, panel, carpet, brick, or otherwise maintain, refinish, and decorate the inner surfaces of the walls, ceilings, floors, windows, and doors bounding his own unit, and the interior thereof. so long as such owner does not affect the structural integrity of the building. o IV. OWNERSHIP AND VOTING Percentile Interest 1 . Each Unit Owner shall be entitled to the exclusive ownership, use and possession of his unit. Additionally. each Unit Owner shall have a percentile undivided interest in the general common elements which shall also control his liability for common expenses and his voting interest in all matters within the province of the Association of Unit Owners and this Declar- ation. The percentage of interest for the respective owners shall be computed in the approximate relation that the value of 8 . 9I tT7 l?1:G.1 (~, 1._ �'• I9fi 'O [ifi C'.1 a c.::If) .f_ Cl 1)9L t .0 i-11:f r. t u � .x71ttJ [%ac o S`t. co S fII- .?Iil r' �1dfij ou :;. IU 9f7' 1 j 2ii37 :'It: �tj L9.1. F :,'OC! 1 :t lit'Y`31'i.i rW.:, !3di rl :1t7.QCi i.0 :t:[T.)11 ,,11 :i rrj Ili f,l, I fIL)IR1U31 1 f+. t.�. ii; t9: :�t't. tc',u lil_ J .Giagl,; i(1 5 t) emu . a 1 J tiflf Li.oJ,-I rl , '(7Ff{'a:r7 a_L <:' a i1L rf:I t{t rti 'Jf:9Atn ItrJi[![I:'1: 0, J'1ct- .;u _i ff 1` ... I tionrlo—, In.1 1 ?I'I9 f,.t .:., Arj ifi rVl�t� 11. fl , I9fii10 J I ri[1 I ')f.fl, • ll.t,f , ,r11:t�ic[ q d 9 Ci� r 1 J a.I:e :; :j .",f i 1.1 tb 9d_t G1C ?: Lrb . f1?17 'IO �-[ d ^^1 r,J3 , c'wo5fIxv oO [1 C,sI 1 19Z . a ofi.e C: Li I: .i f " ua i5 pa o -I. -iJ . ''219jr' f,,. ,S1.1, _w'. 1111 L:I.' t'... od ,0 - :i.J rt. lij u'YJ? .ti ,, : If.; talc ,�r,t� .1•. . j It-? 0 . b i 1i ,,x• d Tb ja r 7�...'J [,;,Z, 1 ri: ; 1 t. _ t1 :f ia , ff .c f.i. t 1z .4 if r, _ ~, tie'f 5r; �i7P'1 y f f t{` ,.` ic!, j Fi.! L L iia 1 i` r i:1 O .? r`' rJ<:LJ' �:_.'_, ii t fltl �laprl 1i;3 a >..:I0!:j r ,fi9p :19_lf, 1 . V J . ., bIIf: c. ?fT {^ [11C,ffiiT0 1Lj jrlt r,ttio :ti.::U 1 r, +1.3 i. ric If:! iU ! "ti :fq Jri t +717 i {91 9fI 17I Jt.. 1 At. T ..r+ levy .:tivt IFIi� J.J te, i z" � [:. �Yci C. the unit at the date of the Declaration bears to the then •combined value of a S of the units having an Werest in such common elements, and such percentile interest as are listed below: Phase I Appurtenant Undivided Interest s (Percentile Unit' Description Interest) 1 4. 166 2 4. 166 3 4. 166 4 4. 166 5 4. 166 6 4. 166 7 4. 166 8 4 . 166 9 4. 166 10 4. 166 11 4. 166 12 4. 166 13 4-. 166 14 4. 166 15 4. 166 16 4. 166 17 4. 166 18 4. 166 19 4. 166 20 4. 166 21 4. 166 22 4. 166 23 4. 166 24 4. 166 99. 984 9 ,T: ., 9t .` +:7 l ,,t • f AlaJ i;J ' S :f ' au o `t CA �s�tt [ �).`J:1: ... ' Ifs '.F:• t+7'i_ulJ.. 1, E' _ ' r i .�b.t.vI briil ,tt,'7','tlrrc*.)A i � if'L>�:t43`� i �� r ':1•I:'i t;tT aaL . � L • Zia , c 31 4a.�I • ar aal . � d�I . �'• i:c IsS0 r� Construction Materials 1 . The principa*aterials of construction 0 the units are concrete for the slabs and footings, wood for the framing, structural and finish work, sheetrock interior, colorlock siding and exterior surfaces. Cedar shake shingles are used on the roof of the buildings. The masonry flues are for the use of fire- places. Service of Process 2 . The name of the person to receive service of process for OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS until other designation is filed of record shall be Tim Dean, 4510 Conestoga Circle, Bozeman, Montana, 59715. 3. The use of al the units in OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS shall be for residential purposes only and there shall be no commercial use whatsoever except that nothing shall prohibit a Unit Owner from leasing or renting his unit to third persons or holding it out for lease or rental, or entering into i an agreement or contract with others for the lease or rental of his unit for residential use. However, the respective unit shall not be rented by the owners thereof for transient or hotel purposes, which shall be defined as rental for any period less than thirty (30) days; or any rental if the units' occupants are provided customary hotel services, such as room service for food and beverage, maid service, laundry and linen service or bell boy service . The use of the general common areas shall be for the recreation and enjoyment of the Unit Owners, their guests, 10 S, C. clu(I er.�O; : -,ur C)L Pp 0 P,T T F: C T 1-,6 F 'G JPG fl:- - ')]t J-V�C- a,-.*,jG;:� V 0 1 T li- �JJ cT7, i16 A G U-rd W cT-1- 2 6 L f.UO I "'T.A I G tIr J) t.*,,cl k;cl c,n v o w c.;i' jJOj c4 P6t, 'r c. L W C. T C IJ q,T F' q c-qv: j 11 `]rr T -141. flIll 2 ri')1 IJ 7 o m I Cz IT J)�7j j V C v T r C) 4.. vp C, wGn11 p IT,& 0 2 4:ij" `-Js C; p 0 T- s-, I jrl -113'r A T. lA,2r0r,(; , TA6 41ITTf- r -GII'C n T"L rf.". —4-1 (. C r 0 D U.;7 17 0 j h 0 jj Ci fj( 11 f 0 9 C. )j r GLTr�,ET'Id T'11::() i, ji;L _T.Otq Lt;!t,:jiTa u:r .- r o i'r a Lo n 0 If I 1 3' 11;R C A p,V 0 711,0L G*.,.(- (1, Uf)4:jjl Tic] Pp�. I r U Ll S7 1 t. r Ij I.A 1 0 ri iI,T, t'i IV E -x usl 0 7-. T p Itir D r-9 L 0 3'lj T C f T- r C i u-,I: a u ,T T J!1!., 'I ,j l*� . tj 13 0 Ci f.i;c.c, A A o; b r�o z. )—1h v i. f I Cl T U L P C, f C+P f 0 T: PC, 4 G '3 li Cj t,y L 1,()L r il Y. V G G'2 C 'TJJ IJCITG i -ILO 112G(l Off C;'C, a J:L n r;L.r,7-:.I g u:0 L li Im E4 0 c ]F li L L 0 T 0 T 1) C Ij COL!,:.? 6 ACT J. I cl C; i: lid V,r)0 1:1 [OT L -Ul .T L�'�� f)1-.1':1 a�.! �• ' r, j •Il U* T T Q M.7`7 tenants. leasees- and invitees. The units and common elements shall be limited as &OWS: a) There shall be no obstruction of the common elements nor shall anything be stored in or on the common elements without prior consent of the Association. Each owner shall be obliged to maintain and keep in good order and repair the interior of his own unit. b) Nothing shall be done or kept in any unit or in the common elements which will increase the rate of insurance of the buildings, or contents thereof, without the prior written consent of the Association. No owner shall permit anything to be done or kept in his unit or in the common elements which will result in the cancellation of insurance on the buildings. or contents i thereof. or which would be in violation of any law. No waste will be permitted on the common elements. c) Unit Owners shall not cause or permit anything to be hung or displayed on the outside of the windows or placed on the outside walls of the building and no sign, awning, canopy, radio or television antenna shall be affixed to or placed upon the exterior walls or roof of any part thereof, without the prior consent of the Association. d) No animals of any kind shall be raised. bred or kept in any unit, except that dogs. cats and other household pets may be i kept subject to rules and regulations from time to time adopted or amended by the Association. 11 J.1. t.CJ ri I E13 1 V fl 6 z b f-i i f t I f-,f i e !3 7 sirf T L )II o.".1 S.cf u o i e.i c f1,3 9 rig if,ri cj n jl—t if- '10 '..L L LO" n y(I, c,:t rLfO o I b d 79rISJc. ff .6 3 --).t it J eff! brit; -I b r q s b i I+ 111--- a -' i t I ri P, r'.7 Ili 1c, illI, yp f c! J.' 1,()0 rl F7 t f-%,I 10 r�tq tirf I !;Jcd:. Iv L`i.rf J 31n F"11- '10 i a k?r' r b 'J a n.J. I,J C f If; 0 I;C'i ff L u a (f w a- ia 1-1 ci fp M, c'0 nil u (4, 21 "t rLt no J I 0f i.6 Z f rf J '*esw f'Ji v 1)-L 9 C' 1 I dw -1 10 rf-t ".f iM-I pnu d pI11;f'1yfff> :t "'Z"ug3o Jorl ( I J a Jinu fi I no L—)DLfq e". oj"Iw 'Ll rf iji .1 1E1 -JuO J no G.. yq 1.3 P.L ,OW, c;!I 'i a z :;s-, b I al - 1.t I r) i 1r) of —'Xil TJz ed < <nt1 rm-i rl 1i '-1 0 k v 7 ff:t tool, in a I I I a -.1 E7,f I J V!1 1 d C 1 6A a an (if cc- a i f 11:: Olt f, tj zf y C'i 14 u c'.0 .3 o p t -1 x s c ri Lr y kE Ptj c4 0 b!- 3 ht JI.Offil, '10 e ) No nuisances shall be allowed on the property nor shall any use or practice* allowed which is a sour* of annoyance to j Unit Owners or which interferes with the peaceful possession and proper use of the property by its residents. No offensive or unlawful use shall be made of the property nor any part thereof and all valid laws, zoning ordinances and regulations of all governmental bodies having jurisdiction thereof shall be observed. f ) Nothing shall be done in any unit or in, on or to the common elements which will impair the structural integrity of the buildings or which would structurally change the buildings except as is otherwise provided herein. g) Nothing shall be altered or constructed in or removed from the common elements, except upon the written consent of the Association. . h) No firewood may be stored anywhere but in the owner' s own garage. However, all garages are to be used primarily for the storage of the owners' vehicles. Exclusive Ownership 4. Each owner or owners shall be entitled to exclusive ownership and possession of their unit. Such owners may use the general and limited common elements in accordance with the purposes for which they were intended and as may otherwise agree between themselves, so long as they do' not hinder or encroach upon the lawful rights of other Unit Owners. 12 ,ifl-ojJ i fj r' C}1•jF' 'tip <� :S �" �aj7F+�:a'.: ' •}G.FAGGU (}.;t-'.t"{t •,a_j ^.7.3 t±l} 0ucl 51G r!J&A • U. Ll L It ,,• t.:I Q?. ...f,tT T- U M13 FN6h 's;T t. i I',=61• 6C1 +CJ 7^ "1 1 1 3C1'.•;r d 11 u T 7':.J T •i C] },Lt 1J1 O! E,] If ,J j, 2 f LT :3 :C'7 (:a iJ L,G� !7 � L]J; T` "JJ7 i LJ r! ;; w{. OI:I; 1 �r t` -1if4� E. cp'+g] 1 {?c. .i•.t ��'; y +'O % -!rip. (1E L 11G D J'tJ .T61.'. 15JJTGTG.= ' �c.j' . G atir- Ci ;a. �•".n .I. i I ^ ' ; 1' h' Q t•i. silCl X.\ ;1G 2�(?T•E:C3 C12ii14:JJ6T_ Oltj: : T_ "G 0':1J6T , C Jr^ T T.UJJ j: . OJU11.1O1t J1E='1 t_: ' b :+;(;l)j: fjfJal�� }:JTE• 'tL.•�i=l.('*+ GC)t�:3£ljt' .+ r I C 1 Cj, -'J 1-1JJ�T] f 1 c 'JJ'17G1:f,CS OA :O'.N-}PLtl t ) 11 07. '[91'1, OC] `f'- 79 0 TPE7:MT2G 7'7:(1A 11VT " JiJ ' )B ,''IJG�: ( c%rvrtr: wJT T7i 71CJUrj(? tTG Jr I r1 ucl + +' L } '1_. i A J.1}'G�. i 1 C1 i 1 i J � - ' J i ', �•/• ! � -J ( G a?r.lA 5 J x;fJWI'% .^J?6 i.1jC:i.ft;�t3 . TI1p"FiCjT.i j'r� .7Li'.. � ! y�c t.JJ t_I a F :r C1 1 I j) yt' U {JJ ST Lj;, tJ U T'7: or L 1 t l ; n j'J T F 0)..^.IF,L A G,j . e10A':t{.J't' ,�j 4:9 p C',CjTGa J.l4�t lfIj.I Dill i.r' =r)J4 sfTT Z;0,j' T1; C)i,.rl?tJ,�fi't-GL Vol F of J PJ JiS*4Cj5; OT. j`J,": Tiis I!r:T d11,` +'i 11 ' J:6lz� !vL41,E! }tU+r` r t j1:Tt r: ()t1 l,_ OL MUT-I1 Tli.j'( t•L GLt ., ih. f"b 1'JJF ' tfn ol_ ] !'Cit•`t.=''J 1151t jC.;J _ i,J fj '�j11ljOn'41' _ :G J• f'i - rlr, 'i6Ci V. THE ASSOCIATION Membership • 0 1 . An owner of a unit in OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS shall automatically upon becoming the owner of said unit, be a member of OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS Unit Ownership Association, hereinafter referred to as the Association, and shall remain a member of said Association until such time as his ownership ceases for any reason, at which time his membership in said Association shall automatically cease . The membership shall be limited to Unit Owners as defined in this Declaration. Function 2 . There shall " be formed an Association of Unit Owners. Membership shall be limited to owners as defined in this Declaration. It shall be the function of the Association to: a) Adopt By-Laws of the governance of the Association b) Make provision for the general management of the condominium. c) Levy assessments as provided for in this Declaration. the By-Laws and the Unit Ownership Act of Montana. d) Adopt and implement a policy for the affairs of the condominium. e ) Enter the contracts or hire personnel for. the management of the affairs of the Association and the maintenance and repair of the common areas. Vote 13 QM%47"DUHuo 3DUIATM Tq MOORIAT W Mnn a �n ivnwa aA ad 3AMU bin; A -07 on C . 0ad noqp jo.wismajoe jrrc , qW,"mG , MU WWWWWROD 1MR1331 TA ML ZRARVO to 19dum''! k"s nut3siom 4 od! I U I boo :was mij r , jntd aoiwi oaaA CA ph mitt;) do w 11 , Inter il000n b1so a LOHMaM L 10 -11 114 - az q,W9dmcm aid W1 do , dw in iW WIM30 q�.dllwswu 1111a AlwarAmbm SdT ' . . ­0 11AWAG"aluc Linde nm1jwj=1aa% 1i hen ..' ab ab Soawo : - .0 0i Qoytmii :1 7JAayo * iC4 IV IL 03UjWUW_ V at bomic! qd Can - wadT Q banNuh an S; Ian- of bgIVA! Q jT"A% wo no; - _- I. 'A ip Ic ._ VjwaUf -jj qd jLada jT Anjjv7" ; r. - 10WA00" A -ps AU "wjnnlo -' JU jw surd—I jr pla in jGemo. &M lbayp y odi lot a0inivo"o 0104 . . -Ut a,t sda aorJoWn,G % vJ ni 1 -1 WbIVOAq an 1 *94FOHAMO 1101 .znzzn0j 21 KK Q4aTESaVC jW0 041 bUn LW-a-Y -1c 10 USIMIS Ao lot YoUng A masmV1.1 bts iqobA ( h inswebmw sc, a, i nr ws . CIO 611von 3p , 55. : j5 ff- I U W % OaSnp " LUM Sd_ ML noljaloo M wal io milsal adl It "Mot so! ao J, 3. On all matters, unless excluded by this Declaration, to be decided by the Aociation each Unit Owner Oall have a vote equal to his percentile interest in the general common elements. An owner of a condominium unit, upon becoming an owner, shall be • a member of the Association and remain a member for the period of his unit ownership. Except as otherwise provided in this Declaration, a majority of the aggregate interest at any meeting or by proxy shall be sufficient to act on matters brought before the Association. Meetings of the Association shall only be conducted when a quorum is present, as defined in the Association By-Laws. Failure to Comply 4. Each owner shall comply strictly with the provisions of this Declaration, the By-Laws of the Association, and the decisions and resolutions of the Association adopted pursuant thereto as the same may lawfully be amended from time to time. Failure to comply with any of the same shall be grounds for an action to recover sums due, for damages or injunctive relief or both, and for reimbursement to all attorneys' fees incurred in connection therewith, which action shall be maintainable by the manager in the name of the Association, on behalf of the owner, . or in the proper case, by an aggrieved owner. Payment of Assessments 5. All assessments shall be due three ( 3) days from the date of mailing of such assessment following the meeting at which time assessments are levied by the Association and may be payable in 14 k rl b- , Ej 1 a 11 J; C. t 1. 9 r, t f I v �--1 t :III I'l d J 13 L, DO 0,- -I.Lsill rIA P;,.LfffQ,.9Lj llc)i4jj "llflu ll'u-Mirubnof, to li't 0 J La9q i.a t a D �y 9 in r r. s i a z iv: i T n 1 o All 3 I-11 t C, -.dmgpl r, 14 ri v 0-1 rl a.f9pll ', nt, JS FAJ 20 Y3 0 r I: f IL T:t'"-I ZC. -,I no !"Is 01 Jit,.$ nc.1 u" 9-1 lit re, i Il[70 110 116 1 'C' 3�3 I k U A -1:jj a.t h 7. :C'49� el rjul:rc7ulp P- fl C% L)f.)ft L tD E d- �2 7(c),) OJ Cr c 0 V 0-.1(1 :j I'l 3 rf Ar L 117 rl-. 0 (1 D f�,a f: i 7,,.t A • jilf L J c j "n cf 7 1 L4 ffj 6 _,t L 1& 0 J 37 t 10 .(f-,-1 .1i t;. IC'. ,j 1 h, C, ail ,c I t)v I kf a." j o&rlbl -101 of t:a'u. 1-f V-•1-1-1 C, ;l Lr -q-T, 3 a .1 Ij d Ill L a c + ri 1-1 'SSA. til J r, .,'-L-1 n F)ri a c.d 1 0 b W --t r! rf i -j ce A J, 0 e.Tj J" 1 13 fig a:!,0t31 .",ICJ 1 t l511 :if? KSaIFvcj 0 13!7ta.k LV one annual payment or in quarterly installments. at the option of the owner. The amoe of the common expensesosessed against i I each condominium unit and the amount of the limited common expenses assessed against such condominium shall be the personal and individual debt of the owner thereof. No owner may exempt himself from liability for his contribution toward the common I expenses and the limited expenses by waiver of the use or enjoyment of any of the general common elements or limited common elements or my abandonment of his unit. All assessments which are not paid within fifteen ( 15) days from the date they are due and payable become delinquent and are subject to interest and penalty charges. The manager shall have the responsibility of taking prompt action to collect any unpaid assessment which becomes delinquent. In the event of delinquency in the payment of the assessment. the Unit Owner shall be obliged to pay interest at the rate of fifteen percent ( 15% ) per annum on the amount of the assessment from due date thereof, together with all expenses, including attorneys' fees incurred, together with such late charges as provided by the By-Laws of the Association. Suit to recover a money judgement for unpaid common expenses and limited expenses shall be maintainable without foreclosing or waiving the lien securing the same. Unpaid Assessments 6. All sums assessed by the Association but unpaid for the share of the common expenses chargeable to any unit shall constitute a lien on such unit prior to al the liens except only 15 c Cl co t7 ur ro rJ di C) LO ti T ry 12 at vi C, M 41, rl t!t f-I :.A 0 U t v) il rl (n ti In -Ul 117 On n ru 1-4 oj .4 fl ti Nj ZIas TZ L. rm ul 'T, ILI Ic 0 4-4 0 +1 ( 1 ) tax liens on the unit in favor of the assessing unit and special district, an^ ) all sums unpaid on t1ofirst mortgage of record. Such lien may be foreclosed by suit, by the manager or Board of Directors, acting on behalf of the owners of the unit, in like manner as a mortgage on real property. In any foreclosure the Unit Owner shall be required to pay a reasonable rental for the unit. if so provided in the By-Laws, and the plaintiff in such foreclosure action shall be entitled to the appointment of a receiver to collect the same. The manager or Board of Directors, acting on behalf of the owners of the units, shall have power, unless prohibited herein. to bid in the -unit at foreclosure sale, and to acquire and hold, lease, mortgage, and convey the same. Suit to recover a money judgement for unpaid common expenses shall be maintainable without foreclosure or waiving the lien securing the same . Unpaid Assessment - Mortgage 7 . Where the mortgage of a first mortgage of record or other purchaser of a unit obtains title to the unit as a result of foreclosure of the first mortgage, such acquirer of title, his successors and assigns, shall not be liable for the share of common expenses or assessments by the Association chargeable to such unit which became due prior to the acquisition of title to such unit by such acquirer. Such unpaid share of common expenses I or assessments shall be deemed' to be common expenses collectible from all of the units including such acquirer, his successors and assigns. 16 'r .', `: zna '[I1 Vi oe ,ftw a Sii7Z 'C! t'Ldf t141 jr JJ ? E+:J'"+S I J(i.t a + c, r:�fE!./0 9f1 t .Lr:E! J,i i!!i [!�.', <7U:i0_lI LQ 1U i)7CSqP; i vrtr- r* + .. yh7Cj ..c.. i Etb [ 6iJi t 1 :ti,ilt. 9:{t. +II I I r ,i6nc �' C. 7'f 9 r ... D i i t l� f i i.s,3_S .f� t � .i_ U :"I _C �11_.i'3 _ ! � J :TI iJ f?i, 'I!bt1 �, � cif!J L J3btL,01Cx OF Li I! l7:t'f � tl:f U :t.C:.Jrig 10-7�, fJ ; C .Jt7L/, 1 � C f r-r"i .{fi T 9 UT f:.� 'i f{,� :,._ L I Ci!`. a .a: r,y``9 := ft 1.•'` t:'i..i n.l C`r1�."_, . .:t.i..1-7V ✓.I . 0 •_7£': :SJt_1 li ,•Ell.7J.,, i .'�.� _ �J .iG` I -"1 o8 J ffrill. :'f{:J fi, {11 ,1 1 ' ,ff I: 'I.3fi b9JSll.L({Cl v F.?9J.. 'IL1 i9.* Lil,o F m , t�nFI-jif , , :,... lf. �5101( , F a _ Lv��l - "'a 0L: 5J ff.,A �j JVI,L I 9tiiC11 :" frlii.III ri1 l n 7 u itF r.I 9f',' Nr.ty- 6+ J.•'r,'o 'Ju b-1•.. ti`i1 }•. Lkr:�'s�5o, t:.1,: t , 3 � .a�tunt7,rrr ,ti., y:l�+[.:! . 0 .iU i ua,3'' Fi aF� jin -1:i� tJ� J1 : t i CuTCiO �![IU fi 1 �'i�ifi l [J ? a9-1 1,17= iln ., :a`ihl?�7U,tl _ :li`i ?11 f 71? �! -Y6r1 P c,llt 10 LrtF_C f 9Ct tOl 7 [I 2i.1: { fr.. 7 n ff, 7 t:)rm, 'tC) 110, tF.irJj3r•F ?,ii :Ji' L : _ 11J:. :?im,I, l_i tiif_ [1'! .' EP', d0Lf f{'✓lJa VG 1 t ..ij rt'JL1? 9� cl . 70 ) L IC, :E1 a( ;': :iHC' .l Lt;Lf . L- ff— s'1!t_ n1r1 'C;F)J�Ci : J iy7IrJU: � �fJ t 'if ]Ut _fl.. ..:.7t.^U ct.+ : i , z Levying Assessments 8. The Associaen of Unit Owners shallsevy assessments upon the Unit Owners in the following manner and for the following reasons: a) Assessments shall be made as a part of the regular business of the Association at any regular or special meeting thereof. Notice of the assessment. the amount thereof, and the purpose for which it is made , including an annual budget for expenditures and operation. shall be served upon all Unit Owners affected by mailing a copy of the notice to said owners at their address of record, at least ten ( 10) days prior to the date of such meeting. b) Assessments shall be made for the repair,, replacement and general maintenance, management and administration of general common elements, fees, costs and expenses of the manager, taxes for common elements, and for the Unit Owner' s percentage share of any special improvement district assessments. Assessments shall be based upon and computed by using the percentile interest that each Unit Owner has in the general common elements. c ) Assessments may also be made for the payment of limited expenses such that the Unit Owners are chargeable only for the expenses relating to their respective units in accordance with the percentile interest a unit associated with such limited common elements bears to the combined percentile interest of the other unit or units sharing or having an interest in the limited common elements concerned. If only one unit is associated with 17 sU �w1F1i, E:J I o t rl jl: I f.I;ji; i o:L a n r;w u Z;-f C) 3-1 cl r3 e J C, +10 ' t'- �Oaetl. qd-, I n-r. -i o ft r- b Z-'fl i G it V .1 P, 17. c?C,q -t I clocill -,C I,Ll I i S L fn ff u -t q 7 a i s j is, f �tci L f f,II to f -- -,azta r fti i ml�,- 1)It 41, y 'I,) FIIGPI qrL', .1 bulL, Bi' 11 Z1 fj I 1101f11ll')-') )-,,t rl S, ± ft%10 j in al f)J 1 IT,:)l A r I i 12 2 2 C, :r f p Z".1.) .tp.[,Ij avel -ryk -,I 1C e JL' y q m, o e Ji;_ C)a C)I nu f (4,r:. a r jIiu, e i f",I -1 o 3 bti.T T Z) 15 1 t C)J j fi is r(I v h ' f t j i i, r,fj o L.,;Io 15dztc, 1-1,7 tu j ri E rift 9LI o 11 -f 0 hq, the limited common elements involved, then the entire cost of such repair, mainte&ce or replacement shall Oe borne by that unit. d) Assessments may also be made for the payment of limited common element expenses such that the Unit Owners are chargeable only for the expenses relating to their respective units or building. Unit Owners shall share in the payment for limited expenses for the repair, maintenance and replacement of limited common elements for their respective units in accordance with the percentage the condominium unit or units have in the limited common element for which the assessment is being made . If only one unit is associated with the limited common elements involved, then the entire cost of such repair, maintenance or replacement shall be borne by that unit. e) Assessments may also be made for any purpose contemplated by this Declaration and for any purpose set out in the Unit Ownership Act of Montana. f) Common expenses and profits, if any, of OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS shall be distributed among and charged to, the Unit Owners according to the percentage of undivided interest of each and the common elements. g) In a voluntary conveyance of a unit the grantee of the unit shall be jointly and severally liable with the grantor for all unpaid assessments by the Association against the latter for his share of the common expenses up to the time of the grant or conveyance, without prejudice to the grantee ' s rights to recover 18 8:Th 51 o t I to I rp v i., ry s tf:t VC, -)nlod 11. 'v L a,-,I* -,I] 03l'i LC ,. 't O'd tJi Gs. r J rt fJ t,-1 t; I t) ;0 !-f IC ! Y1. 1;. L I o t -j 'i .13Y t- rl L -:3-1 [!a f-:r F o fri u 1-19 IfI-I-)F, I s r-4 J,T .3 q x t,f f:t W)�:t 6 t 1 d t I I r 5V I D, I r f? fly1 9 J (f S.V(,Cf zl-tSgrj 1 1 410 !h L J t b(i o 3 3 51 19 '1k 1L"tM9 t! -M, 171 1 ) af:e•V 0 va I ;if i IT C,fil 11,r) o I.I &J a r. ciS 7 fi. oc rl!'i f(I q a 10 -4 f ir jr,r r,In 7 7. 1."!j :4— Yf!, -Lol 9IJi,G E4d n a 1 6 fly i.? �.A q-T tj q Y a e d, t 3 7 14 0 711.-. 1 a 9 b eft.. C,- Lj rl 6 F �.T V: 'r f I U L J 3,*r.9 110fillf,kl-1 !11i-1 hIl I '!0, -4 .9 i n i,^t K, J f1Jt 1,0 9 tl 21 JS L V-I C, 1 1, f4 a IS ill I C-CE)UL 9 C4 A - :t I -L'zl V E!J* jj.j C! i1jr 1'. J*Vfl%- 2111 j .1 73 -1'J J IJ Q ILl from the grantor the amounts paid by the grantee therefor. However. any such gra*e shall entitled to st&ent from the manager or Board of Directors of the Association, as the case may be, setting forth the amount of the unpaid assessments against the grantor due the Association and such grantee shall not be liable for nor shall the unit conveyed be subject to a lien for y any unpaid assessments made by the Association against the grantor in excess of the amount therein set forth. h) At the time the Association holds its first meeting a reserve account shall be set up to which initial assessments shall then be deposited and which assessment shall be a sum that is equal to two times the monthly assessment fee for that year multiplied by the number of units in the condominium project. Said amount shall be divided equally among all Unit Owners. If the Declarant still holds title to one or more units he shall pay the amount assessed against each and every unit so owned. VI. RIGHTS RESERVED TO DECLARANT 1. Declarant reserves the right to change the interior design and arrangement of all units and alter the boundaries between units, so long as Declarant owns the units so altered. No such change shall alter the boundary of the general common, elements without an amendment to this Declaration. 2 . Until 75% of the units have been built and sold, Declarant reserves the right to establish easements, reserva- tions. exceptions and exclusions consistent with the condominiums ownership project. 19 r:I,3 n,-, a -. (I C, Lirl.1 "10 caoj- ei o rf I [Ld.. ci r 6 .y u,a s ,I o J 1 .10 'a t `,or! j o o -dir. ci b j 9 v r-) or a o 3 Cl,I 'r t c r j c A rl 11 11 d e r)L fT, n- L r, a -I o Joh It.it:5 if j :r.I u o 7 '10 71 o cl p I?(I t J I S Ill) -f f, Z)a;a'A fi .-,A P,*1 a z -3 a c r KI I;i f f, rfO.L T, t'!rl iJI b d a ild, I j 5111 fif I f (oll Oj FD;) o 7r.q ra r jq o 1)1-1 Q_k :r L a a!E,[I w C, ti.lu 11. x" i f ;If I-;y f i L I!,-� 9-rf a t,f c C. zi J. I a J rT E.,, -b,)ww- ov J.!_mj y j v ft b a a . -A OT R F T h 01 19 t IIJ d) ff I J v L t- 1 :1 FL 6 D e-Cl ,, q _E e, -B aj bfi 1 2 aj i Qi, �a_ 5 far., 115 1�u a r,C) :If,I I L S,Fr 'b P r^ bar iud nt 3 ct rLruff i?..t i o u ci (j .7 Z3 L, N 3.6 j .L a t 5 (1 J J-rf p 0 11 r,1 n e In r r :ra L,b fl 0 11 t A J • in t. .t a o T;: u o n s -t j Dui 1 C cl a q q rl w r, 3. Notwithstanding any other provisions expressly' or implied to the contrary coined in this Declaratio the Articles of Incorporation or By-Laws of the Association, Declarant reserves the right to exercise the rights, duties and functions of the Board of Directors of the Association until 75% of the condo- minium units have been sold. During such period of development and sale, the monthly assessment for common expenses shall be based upon the estimate of the actual cost thereof excluding therefrom any estimated amount for contingencies, reserves or sinking funds, and Declarant shall pay its pro rata share thereof only for those condominium units which have been completed. During the period when fewer than all of the condominium units have been erected, the common expenses shall be allocated among the owners of such existing condominium units, and during such period, Declarant shall pay the real estate taxes and assessments on that part of the land which remains undeveloped but on which condominium units will be subsequently constructed. VII . AMENDMENT Amendment to this Declaration shall be made in the following manner: At any regular or special meeting of the Association of Unit Owners, such amendment may be proposed as a resolution by any Unit Owner. Upon adoption of the resolution by majority vote of those present the amendment shall be made a subject for consider- ation at the next succeeding meeting of the Association with notice thereof, together with a copy of the amendment to be 20 "j, C'4- 1 U1111OLT 'l. ACC,; ) r: Mj P fl U rf7 T. 10 ii I T" :i Ij r,-t i n i cr i. z: c, _r T a C-G T F C) -11C f: C..'o C T nLT c jj;V U G 1. j,IJUIGkJCjfL'-. 1JV o j:jjr",j TlCi. C1j'-fjj G 41 I V1.U-NID11VILL r 4v j IL G- V,"011" 1 If I !:IT J" ' C- ATT T PG I!(-D,3t -I Q -'` Tj �, -I:�7 J_ 'j I j 11 T -I I'q T C r),; p If a Ij 1. t-jo Xf T 11Jq G I Cj%I C,C• -, ji� T]- E 6 -11106A-l1 OT ?rTc-j, OWYIJJ--; " rJ YJ I V 2 V TJ'I q rI T I-1 2 D -AC, ,-LGr Gt- r-c)j,tj u tj a "IF T P 47 "r T.101 oc! wiciT t G T rl U 1: 21.1C. 0 1, Ij 4.) o r.0-ICrOI:2 T Ij a J. Y 4 T jj JAG p GI; C. "ji 4;1: 7 r Y.T U 1-11-1 q,. V q r J p 4 T C)v I I 0,3z'Ti I a LAG^ "L :r t,a�r rp t�z j:i;c rn L,G(I r7bj u P c sz. TW'J C J. '1 7 1 ITj, !J),,:'1:;j T T, Jj f UT47a VS-6 0 1 0 T D111C -'rjCfJ f),;LTO'l -j A G 0 Ut R Li r- 0 i TT.GC..{ 0 c- 1 17 v r ZUG r I- X G r p,4 i.j d Z:R j:tIVC.CiOLJ', IIJCOI I'_-L,L T iU C, 1 IJ • r v C(T F, + i tJ j.T r 'J11 l•r{,t'. , 1 IJ ..�.f,'• c.s._J ry:.:/ is T'�' VT T 0.1 furnished with notice thereof, together with a copy of the amendment to be furni*ed to each owner no later Oan thirty (30) days in advance of such meeting. At such meeting the amendment shall be approved by receiving the favorable vote of seventy-five percent (75% ) of the total percentile vote of all the Unit Owners. If so approved. it shall be the responsibility of the manager to file the amendment with . the recording officer of Gallatin County and the County Assessor. The amendment shall become effective upon being filed with the recording officer. Notwithstanding anything an thin stated above Declarant reserves the right to set the number of units and their boundaries on the second floor by filing an amendment hereto without the require- ment of holding a meeting or receiving a vote of any other Unit Owners. l Alterations by Unit Owners 1. The interior plan of a .unit may be changed by its owner and the boundaries between units may be changed only by the owners of the units affected. No units may be subdivided. No �I change in the boundaries of units shall reproach upon the boundaries of the , common elements. Boundary walls must be equal in quality of design and construction to the existing boundary I j walls. A change in the boundaries between units shall be set i forth in an amendment of this Declaration. In addition to compliance with the provisions of paragraph VII above, such i amendment must further set forth and contain plans of the units concerned showing the units after the change of boundaries. which 21 i r -jr, j.a cj ejj u 0 t po --)-I r�:. 1"u." t i,G 1 4 JI IIJ; i, fl,J-1 2'r :L f'jl G I ror ..p 11(l cj Ij f? Lj 4:,, u v I Z'113L! Z) f,91.aa Lv p.0 C vFFjJ u 9 u JWjq.11.1t41Jv I a G 1 % C-1Ir F0 Ili AV T V T U IT' t 6.. (l!I T ,A 10 G ?f- J)orfv�'l v I;r. T 01 0, - i "I f!If ','u 2 L rl C-f*T Q I f I :f 1 1, cf,t's 1, k rp; j Cp Ila,-, TLI 4:FJ Fy iv -t I cJ K T C r,P T '1110T1 cjju I IJ 1: 1­3 C I3 5 T C.(74 ;du .14:,j p c J� P,'J-1 r,1:T e .,i G HU I L U" C- s Ij CA 4 -jj r I r L(i a C, tTj t U G . p I r ij Ct :j 1 4,j_I o 1_C.;G C,1 3 U OZ Q.711ay, ;"ITC r j-,;cljj T_tL POOL V J S M Ll Id T J:jlOn 1,,.j r 4p un rir ,c r, O r rf.0 4 7,T r (7 t I TS", ,;C 'A Tr F4, T G, 1 4F 0 U 44 T IJ(1 14 1 1:1' CIJo C C.I fT 1 4:A -3 u :I, i V—G -fio 1 - rj'Ut U Ill 3 1 i 9. 1f q C1 r 1:j I L;14 U r4 W G Ij r p rpc L 6 c v uo T r, T' o.r, -el' I I T r,Ij U'r 1,) L G G L' Z U 4"T c C, 0 Z I C, o4i I-T LJ'-' -J P 1 0 c-rq.,, Ij! T J:j VF -r-0 1!JS 1, t,-i'(4 V1 1,P C* J,� . C> i n r.C L p v, p plans shall be by an architect licensed to practice in Montana, • and attached to theamendment as exhibits, Ogether with the certificate of an architect or engineer required by the Unit Ownership Act. Such an amendment shall be signed and acknow- ledged by the owners of such units concerned and also approved by the Board of Directors of the Association and signed and acknowledged by all loaners and mortgagees of the units con- cerned. Maintenance by Unit Owners 2 . An owner shall maintain and keep in repair the interior of his own unit, including the fixtures thereof. All fixtures and equipment installed in the unit commencing at a point where the utilities enter the unit shall be maintained and kept in repair by the owner thereof. An owner shall do no act nor any work that `will impair the structural soundness or integrity of the buildings or impair any easement. An owner shall also keep any balcony, entrance or deck area appurtment to this unit in a clean and sanitary condition. The right of each owner to repair, alter and remodel is coupled with the obligation to replace any finishing or other materials removed with similar or other types . or kinds of materials. All glass replacement shall be with similar quality, shade and design. No act of alteration, repairing or remodeling by any Unit Owner shall impair in any way the integrity of the units of adjoining owners or the integrity of limited common elements or general common elements. 22 C 11 UP 10 u JGQ Q L T*I:U T 11 G I j-T Lra Or 1. a1)JTJ 11,C1 F;J 13 C1*3 1'T V p Sq,! (11 T lj Ij C L r 7 T,"1- j j r I.i r. t�A 2 u(7, q i? '4 r:t. 0 1,-T I'l T j F ci 7 C-. -T j T 43 J G 1 UI-i �J G M Q A 4M (I T I E; jr 3 1: ill i--) 11 c 5 T Itc t r- r c �!.ji ij vu �;,j f) o J Tj C 9 0 1: Cj C 47, JJ P Fl T T rTj dp T ;J L IL;'if 2 G W G JJ IJ C) 9;L ,;cry f TWlUel. t i- vr n c, 0 s Cp:G,?2 Gj. r Tj 4-1.: k 9 T T r) 6 1. T' VU 0:11, a 2 T 0 V 0 t.T C 4. j, ts u 2, r VPG At p i j iy -ilkiC�q c3l.'r4 T L) T I j 7'L! 1;P C; J`J 1.)1 4: t; jr, tic fljc .- rI ? lu n j !r G T P T U rl i:)-C T F P • VT Tv . c/T G U C3 IJ C; U'. Tj— %J 1 c g ;t fill; •R COD g L o-, T C 1,(1 -Tj HL 1.1 jj CJ t!: ill C,jj Pt. T cl ri 6(.-j( 7 J C- 6 7'c ro ;X11 T T f -1 P,4 Liens for Alterations 3. Labor perfors or -materials furnished Od incorporated into a unit with the consent or at the request of the Unit Owner, i his agent, his contractor or subcontractor shall be the basis for the filing of a lien against the units of the Unit Owner consenting to or requesting the same. Each owner shall indemnify and .hold harmless each of the other owners from and against all liability arising from the claim of any lien against the unit or any other owner or against the general , common elements, or limited common elements for construction performed or for labor, materials, services or other products incorporated into the owner' s unit at such owner' s request. Exterior Alterations 4. No owner may change, alter or remodel the exterior of his unit without the prior written consent of the Association. Liens For Assessments 5 . All sums assessed but unpaid for the share of common expenses and limited expenses chargeable to any condominium unit shall constitute a lien on such unit superior to all other liens and encumbrances, except only for tax and special assessment liens on the unit in favor of any assessing authority, and all sums unpaid on a first mortgage or a first trust indenture of record, including all unpaid obligatory sums as may be provided by such encumbrance. To evidence such lien, the manager shall prepare a written notice of lien assessment setting forth the amount of such unpaid indebtedness, the amount of the accrued 23 j ji Li Sf T U.C Z:% 11 riti; I,I) I-,o 6 b'4 T -iLT r-L U V -1 L T t; 0 'r .-flli `_j 2 C q V T U fIc, t �,,Iqp j � ,IiL -(Tq Cr. L 7-j r r-e -faL- 0 T- % IC. Olt 0 IJ aT, C) UT j-r Ll 01r> 1 r;S M p 4 L!C.C,Z oil CIT. Lij I&!J r J -947. 9 t N U T 4- "1 - [0, FO 9T7 I. , Li - TJ f -6 U P G y4 Y P T- V t, 0 YJ(I I LI ',i Q P. I z n ill 2 T.;:R u 0?: 11L 14. -G!1, Cry 4i it r 1.7 C v 0 C. 4.r.. 0 VT U 2 M 1 2 J:6 t fIG,R a Ill IT 3 9 a 7 . r IC,tA I G U t. G,11 r.� f frt-,f r- I Lj T.6 r III f:c U ei j U E: q, j, f;- 4,T-1 0 T C 0 1. 0 r, 0 L T,T Z::1 V C1 tLC.1' Ill.; r , ,tcY IT 2, U a 4 J. t"> $1 jj I JU WO LJ� jl�: 0,1' L2 X�Tvm 1.4 �--f fll I) 3c I, L)AU6 'Ill C f 'r 4: r r i 1 7-tr I- T, G (I • U ti T- ;"I?(;. Cjt 2} J I f, I G ID 11 L c:- -r z dr. . it i 11tj 1 14 L'i G T, interest and late charges thereon, the name of the owner of the condominium unit an* description of the condolsium unit. Such notice shall be signed and verified by one of the officers of the Association or by the manager, or his authorized agent, and shall be recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Gallatin County, State of Montana. Such lien shall attach from the date of recording' of such notice . Such lien may be enforced by the foreclosure of the defaulting owner' s condominium unit by the Association in like manner as a mortgage on real property upon the recording of a notice or claim thereof. In any such proceedings the owner may be required to pay the costs, expenses and attorneys' fees incurred for filing a lien and in the event of foreclosure proceedings, additional costs, all expenses and ' reasonable attorneys' fees incurred. Foreclosure 6 . The Association shall have the power to bid in the condominium unit at foreclosure or other legal sale and to acquire and hold, lease, mortgage, and vote the votes appurtenant to, convey or otherwise deal with the same. Any encumbrancer holding a lien on a condominium unit may pay, but shall not be required to pay, any unpaid common expenses or limited expenses payable with respect as to such unit, and upon such payment such encumbrancer shall have a lien on said unit for the amounts paid of the same priority as the lien of his encumbrance without the necessity of having to file a notice or claim of such lien. 24 ,(I - 1 - &I . u. I. -,in i floi-t:+ - -1-o . I 1UJ I n 5," , I 50 !y15v - ' r Wa rolion b S:100jG 1 , in ' IngLary 10 YJ .0 f WA 084. n. jaMo to 11110 -dj "I b "a MOO as 0"' vo 40 10j1 ve 1[6� wA pow! do" , 10101h i f yd 4mv Lu11r %WfQWW 4"Aw Qlyni-b adl Si. :01 '9111 now \ ;uvquaq IWS7 r. onhpjn ), 4 unap— Ar; A a- it f 'A PT . '0yjyQj mij rci ' vosu &if .Iojoosa -j�00 5dj yrq z h5INC01 d nb" on- -qj DOI Jnyvs hoc Oil z pniAl nx byllunal - !nj % ;jf, .'f tJE bnr Kao- Tlbbs opnio - coon; nii , Pruu! It I v 0 SK qvn" lisdo no- lch "I. SM d NOU WD1011 - bm - 7iton-laDqq0 alJov 0A1 030V . 15 ' UP00JIL6 ' 514"7 L ' A tab Skup, ed !90 ilo - sud ' 'an yFf W, W' ivInQna0v no owl " I n014101, y "anvan- bp oil In 20 as aumpow KMay as jzq I 1011LIV-1 nmji q 3v E 1,U 0r 10-q 0 1 111 SMSYC k I jim List Rp "� ff -K Ned? 10' 0c,2diu"n- Mi 1 .0h I" _ Gadmunpv A& 1. vtvi Oki 1 , 1j. I Wq mon -Al Ili VIVO 10 nQln WOO A VIA tG '12 F-EqL &I Insurance 7 . 1 Purchase All insurance policies upon the condominium, property shall be purchased by the Association and shall be issued by an insurance company authorized to do business in Montana. a) Name insured - the name insured shall be the Association individuals and as agent for the Unit Owners without naming them. Such policies shall provide that payments for losses thereunder by the insurer shall be paid to the insurance trustee hereinafter designated, and al policies and endorsements thereon shall be deposited with the insurance trustee . Unit Owners may obtain insurance coverage, at their own expense, upon their own personal property and for their personal liability and living expense. b) Copies to Mortgagees - One copy of- each insurance policy and of all endorsements thereon shall be furnished by the Association to each mortgagee of a Unit Owner on request. 7 . 2. Coverage a) Casualty - All buildings and improvements upon the land shall be insured in an amount equal to the maximum insurable replacement value , and all personal property included in the common elements shall be insured for its value, all as determined annually by the Board of Directors of the Association, but subject to such deductible clauses as are required in order to . obtain coverage at reasonable costs. Such coverage shall afford protection against: 25 1�C)-1 I f-T V L, D -4 a, 11 J i t Z b :i J. Lf, 0 L) _1 j r,fi qr(U. -t I f, f b Li vi u to f -1 3.t r:0 1 1 i-S 9 o,l:*,^L:j Z!il 4 4 a n S. Sr I Is E"I z v - F r7 f,7 J;a to nc qLl *Z!Noc*, b Cl W cl I L19q:,9 or r b a F, r. 5fi I v I-I q s 0 :1 tj p.1:r i. j r clo j cl r E,f" cl b.3 d c:i r"lip n C, -I E.I I a T'l i -.).q f I Lf 'f -j I 1 7 1 t tU D 33 -10 31 V ri Li ),j o-c1fai z i L t cl r,i v ri Iirti v 0 T-, ffr; r.1 h- -Iu s. r_(, ilr q brit ca li i is%r III" r 6 f St. I s v i I: ivl --fj.:rl qd f I Z:� n I C) :1 Al' L' 1 J ba A C,fli y d -I tj-1 15 Z!11% Lis L.1) r) - 4- JF I. b rl c I a u !a o F, 0 a a ff 0 1 j 1 ) Loss of damage by fire or other hazards covered by a standard extended Oerage endorsement; and 2 ) Such other risks as from time to time shall be customarily covered with respect to buildings similar in construction. location and use as the building on the land, including. but not limited to, vandalism and malicious mischief. The policies shall state whether air handling or service equipment, interior fixtures and carpets are included within the coverage in order that Unit Owners may insure themselves if the items are not insured by the Association. b) Public liability - In such amounts. and with such coverage as shall be required by the Board of Directors of the Asso- ciation, including, but not limited to hired automobile and nonowner automobile coverages, and with cross-liability endorse ment to cover liabilities of the Unit Owners as a group to a Unit Owner. c) Such other insurance as the Board of Directors of the Association shall determine from time to time to be desirable and as may be required by the Federal and State laws. 7 . 3 Premiums Premiums upon insurance policies purchased by the Association shall be paid by the Association as a common expense that the amount of increase in the premium occasioned by use , misuse, occupancy, or abandonment of the unit or irs appurtenances or of the common elements by the Unit Owners shall be assessed against the owner. Not less than ten ( 10) ,days prior to the date when a 26 c If j)-TU J G U u ba I-P r: u c 0 o c a Z! cl I i.G a a T .1 OIJ -Y L G PT 1) c gurn b03 J-C-? V'r, (I P'k T:, V • 0,;4 4- A I V 2 a o c-,:I L:T 0 ly tI4T3 CI,4 !117 1 T 1: 171 0 j T 4.0 Pt r, (I c Sf"j,:;C j itEi jjG•t. 0 T C. 1'0 T. -ps C A-4 i I:- C;j IF c G r c ; n, yj G I 7 2- T rjr(: 4 1-�L!a I ' ')I C L 0 :r C.�7 T!:i Ij rp c .p T T-J)-' TJ z fj'; CG",'2 it 4 flit I 'j 1' 6 Z' t.1-: V 4:T Cot. r. U 4 C):,I rj , L 7% t" 7'J T-f� T r 6'c: G JAP J 4, t E; 1.r, ru c .ICE,:q 1 1 ?jjjj T j rG T Ll J j j'Uj t'1 0',! HI 7, P C. 3 W' JCTI. r-nL TOC'I -7, IU ri I Uzi :j tj r A I: U i9T 4: • f. T Z') V.1 2 L q cf G :j 7 s 4 iff, premium is due, evidence of such payment shall be furnished by the Association to6each mortgagee listed i9 the roster of mortgagees. 7 . 4 Insurance Trustee All insurance policies purchased by the Association shall be in the benefit of the Association and the Unit Owners and their mortgagees as their interests may appear, and shall provide that all proceeds covering property losses shall be paid to such bank in Montana with trust powers as may be designated as insurance trustee by the Board of Directors of the Association, which trustee is herein referred to as the insurance trustee . The insurance trustee shall not - be liable for payment of premiums not for the renewal or the sufficiency of policies not for the failure to collect any insurance proceeds. The duty of the insurance trustee shall be to receive such proceeds as are paid and hold the same in trust for the purposes elsewhere stated in this instrument and for the benefit of the Unit Owners and their mortgagees in the following shares, but which shares need not be set forth on the records of the insurance trustees a) Unit Owners - An individual share for each Unit Owner, such share being the same as the undivided share in the common elements appurtenant to his unit. b) Mortgagees - In the event a mortgagee endorsement has been issued as a unit, the share of the Unit Owner shall be held in trust for the mortgagee and the Unit Owner as their interests may appear; provided, however, thatno mortgagee shall have any 27 r ? (:C( '�.•T. +C _y.�, �tIJ .'J 'litb �J t lfl.`) J . 1 '' ): � 1 'rfl�'- �[ �4� �+ Fj �•r'4� 1 r{t. .in:;�.•L+_ t: 'lJ7L' J 'i'! �t� .. 9l1 i r it fTC s�r• t.� Vic: t:J t(. !` •c��,'1:r y`JC1 'TJ '+-i.� j> 11; ta 1bIv. JJ_ fl i!C• f r` hZf' 9nJ G Jfi C 3r1 * a ?�liJ --iU r. Yf L!"i Cy I Lail atir., j If ri t ,� •? nq� tt f• •r,� , , •, ` 'r' ", * CJ f.l ,.1f3^;: r. ' Ji S L.t f`.' .rj�`1 i ' '.:r t_=U,c. rt'r I o 4 Ej r; U,',iT ` '�;jf 3 . J ' l 0 `.3'A fI1`.''1_ �tJN '.fff a Ict Jif!' 't,tr lnA 1k,it I ( :raytific .4 L, .. _f 9:jI aj_- ii l + ii `.' :J.C>! �.: `(', t_' C „J� _ ) 4nE) t I7 yh r v:;iJb 'T .. S Oct x%., L _ f U� .ft � '_ %' '� 'tn'C'a r1b.. � eye ... J CJt r�C! F. !'( `•._ i .,I; i�i .•ii5 t. fl vtS r. I Jim: ZP C; .:flla . a rt.t _ ('t J(tJ'_ .:TU +:1:1 w C% .i .� Qii�=C, .'Ii T 103 r f.t' •J i191; 7.:'i_L � �. �,t Wit• ! 1. J:f t_f� r1' tt'.f L1C1 + .91,fi' Clrilt 'f LC J iJ rJt . �. ...f i.. J...:1L•ia0 ri :`1,.t 30 Z.�:_E^_'3'fit ;C)Fi J-1 r: 1 L4riukV.'J:Ir rl +fl41JJ JJ ILI lr fl rlffJC. �: :tr °JS tc. r'.t' , 'J Cb"I'l 9f:yEP ,i_1�+, al G:1 f:lt'�T` `S LtC sc. ."9^ '.•+J..`.? '.ut1 fIT 3fR`ii:':vai �+ i!it ( % b t 1 r°?V� A t fl " :i.,r ' ,; C{ 3`1 4C! i tr t i i;otr r.` oU l:t i ft?. 91: t rt ! r.... C9r;�.21 1!zi I "f .ff:"o Jsr j 5f:. �`r , �+ � ' .'CG(rt i_J U i. (fir,, "t��r1:i , ..u� •'1 �J )UtVC'" Ct 7. EIUC right to determine or participate in the determination as to whether or not anydamaged property shall beeconstructed or repaired, and no mortgage debt any insurance proceeds except distributions thereof made to the Unit Owner and mortgagee pursuant to the provision of this Declaration. 7 . 5 Distribution of Proceeds Proceeds of insurance policies received by the insurance trustee shall be distributed to it for the benefit of the beneficial owners in the following manner:. a) Miscellaneous Expenses - Miscellaneous expenses of administration, insurance trustee and construction or remodeling supervision shall be considered as part of the cost bf recon- struction or repair. b) Reconstruction or Repair - If the damage for which the proceeds are paid to be repaired or reconstructed by the Association, the remaining proceeds shall be paid to defray the cost thereof as elsewhere provided. Any proceeds remaining after defraying such costs shall be distributed to the beneficial i owners, remittances to Unit Owners and their mortgages being payable jointly to them. c) Failure to Reconstruct or Repair - If it is determined in the manner elsewhere provided that the damage, for which the proceeds are paid shall not be reconstructed or repaired. the , remaining proceeds shall be distributed to the beneficial owners, remittances to Unit Owners and their mortgagees being payable jointly to them. 28 3 i :.. . .t tt too ., !_ 1 P (: Inn. J .1 C 10 9 1 a f{3 ..r{0 Oul t !T• > T t .L:. _ t �' '. L 4 0 ,..l:._ :Cj tLlCt! 9:: (trloaal .+: •X 101 a Clog 10a ri :A-110i ' 10 'no 'IK9 10010 1 Tp - '+...1'_ C+ 3 r i;u5+.1- : r !:)i. f; U1 ..0 . - [ W O:•f1110000 h". Ono lux '.Ot.Eb3:1n,1_ ,1FL' .... '4 Jay Ut- "Ad c '1 Sq Ma +1:rdof.ivnr f'C' 116de 1Fnj= 1`r1Ea A . da j..0 101 nralT ob mf'. t 11 1i,.'-1- F 1 . no 1 .,.'.JC' ? ( tA . 11 yba:. _.h S !`it''1 0 - ON 2£-o;l0:_ . pairI.af al _,,. f. 1 0 _ ?z , '0001 ! V7j. m9i 1 "0 4 9n"dw ,? .. "n . ,9I" W tc :1 pn �wu 8921 :J10% 11 is bus a- ;ar+,J'.; :1'1 r(U ) i v j t Inj i . ov?f ;V :wl ) at of I 1 j Y_ Qlh JOT j l nQ ;1 1 0j S '1J.i iBq btfiF. :+;i . r i; ' bwb fb 101 Wo- b "• 4 Q !`.liZtr't� v� � r3 �. 4st •Ct , 0.i a�i.a._. ;."S: LE? +sl i<� �(, '�. { �,':�:(+1 � . r a, d) Certificate - In making distribution to Unit Owners and their mortgagees, to insurance trustee may req upon a certif- icate of the Association made by its representative or manager as to the names of the Unit Owners and their respective shares of the distribution. 7 . 6 Association as Agent The Association is irrevocably appointed agent for each Unit Owner and for each owner of a mortgage or other lien upon a. suit and for each owner of any other interest in the condominium property to adjust all claims arising under insurance policies purchased by the Association and to execute and deliver releases upon the payment of claims. 7 . 7 Benefit to Mortgagees Certain provisions in this paragraph entitled "insurance" are for the benefit of mortgagees of condominium parcels, and all of such provisions are covenants for the benefit of any mortgagee of a unit and may be enforced by such mortgagee. Reconstruction 8. 1 Repair After Casualty .If any part of the condominium property shall be damaged by casualty, whether or not it shall be reconstructed or repaired, shall be determined in the following manner: a) Lesser Damage - If a, unit or units are found by the Board of Directors of the Association to be tenantable after the casualty, the damaged property shall be repaired. 29 �, C iJ i '1 0 1 5 V ':1 :j 1'. L J. 4 fl 6 s I-L) p .'fill . ,aaA --dT tl 11 L 7 10 -Le I%,;C) An,_ E- a ri.,: rf 3, -i Vt 1)m o b fin t711 'lfi!113 ( 11 IF, a tj a 9 I 5V I) J5 J- 11 c I t v d, °i a h 11 --1 L;C! C r-j o Sri 3 m%,f, rtocir —ft taf-p ",Ioai 11 1 V,:,1 ' ij IT ry. 0 1% r) '.r tz) c V! f, L)6 r tie., �0 f i I C( iJ.J 10 1 c: -3 C) L,o:t f p �rcl I ry r-,, 6 IIL)1 '4'j Z2 il 0 '1 -1 1 r.r,o 4 if? -f- ialm L e j i 7011 ac 9 ji f I L i C(b J te cc' -a i Q 719 b) If a unit or units are found by the Board of Directors to be not tenantable a*r the casualty, the damatt property will be reconstructed or rebuilt. c) Certificate - The insurance trustee may rely upon a certificate of the Association made by its president and secretary to determine whether or not the damaged property is to be reconstructed or repaired. 8. 2 Plans and Specifications Any reconstruction or repair must be substantially in accordance with the plans and specifications for the original improvements or if not. then according to plans and specifi- cations approved by the Board of Directors of the Association and by more than seventy-five percent ( 75% ) of the Unit Owners, including the owners of all units the plans for which are to be altered. Any such reconstruction not in accordance with the original plans and specifications must be set forth in an amendment to this Declaration, which amendment shall be prepared and filed of record in- accordance with the provisions of such amended filing. more particularly set forth in paragraph VII and paragraph VIII . subparagraph 1 hereinabove . 8. 3 Responsibility The responsibility for reconstruction or repair after casualty shall be the same as for maintenance and' repair in the condominium property. 30 rl,r y 1 0 fl ct r ."Ij yj 7r 0 j�r, r; J10.4" N41 el iR, ,31 ,,,I )bE I o I J 13 j J-:,-40 j oJ J d.2 jc b s d --I -Jol '0 1 J.0 2 r-11 17 tv 9 I rl u j C,-I r-;,!l rl'-,t I U Rf, 1 3q i FTyet rw 7f1cf)-ton-m II fr.) if-T.1 .,1 :1 7 t?U17-1 L f E-'J-- -',.L I, tl, 9 LIA o t fT b-i V' C-d --Cl' I;- t I.IN Qf�7 k,.1 t -f r,',4 I jr d 1 ir (J O'l a--j I ,4 3 "Cr} 'bi.s of a fit k,a r I I s 0 y'I L a n n j 9(i 0,)r(I f. TI G' a--,n 8. 4 Assessments If the proceeds is insurance are not sufficlet to defray the . estimated costs —of reconstruction or repair for which the Association is responsible, or if at any time during such reconstruction or repair, or upon completion of such recon- struction or repair-, the funds for the payment of the costs thereof are insufficient, assessments shall be made against all Unit Owners in sufficient amounts to provide funds for the payment of such costs. Such assessments shall be in proportion to the owner' s percentile interest. 8. 5 Construction Funds The funds for payment of costs of reconstruction or repair after casualty, which shall consist of proceeds of insurance held by the insurance trustee and funds collected by the Association from assessments against Unit Owners, shall be disbursed in the sound discretion of the trustee and according to the contract of reconstruction or repair, which contract must have the approval of the Board and the Unit Owners involved. It shall be presumed that the first monies disbursed in payment of costs or reconstruction and repair shall be from insurance proceeds. If there is a balance in a construction fund after payment of all costs of the reconstruction and repair for which the fund is established, such balance shall be paid to the Association for the use and benefit of the Unit Owners. • IX. REMOVAL OR PARTITION - SUBDIVISION OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS may only be removed from 31 -1 1111j , ' U , Ton is to"Aldari 1111n; noun pCtlob n4 - :0 aid! -0 . ),l f0ja M 0 ' Wlyoc "Oqu 10 . 1 a0lia l' iyos.l. ldj to AL a I QA 1WOPS IlFw a ' 16n -jq9m .Qs: m ' J04. n &U , L 9)" 105 jdj ! 'I o — c , jlqu- nb inmok .00 P inn a ' ON MO . 0jum 0 10 "mayb-1 lWpI33fr ! rlvqv ,:q a ' ,qn": 9fif oj 1. 0 11 ink 14 ,A 2 m 10 amn-vi .hA IF , to vo " I n IV, r 103 U! AT w"l !L "- t Lf 101.00, In allnom 1 .0 NJ v!: r.4sj ISM k DW Vt yu j- to Qo_ abapf 5 rs 99JOU1.3 2vasinmL adj jr,' di at & . % A 4 A QUO 1- 90C" ffkV inq "> ' =1010 , MRS M011 is inall"On E : ' C . palb t b j ;q3t sel K naijninaz4 Inum QY0! qq( Ad Md Lod It ' dw IIA 10035 alm 1 , a 8 a 0- 110da U a- ±-u a it it df h3h 015 to lisda T I wool A ll , d. 0 Ul :0 n" S 10 ";on to in3myLq ILI nUMLIM 1- n Z Or d t Inds 1 a b- LAW j 1", Uv2n : 01 11sq-1 n. , nucjnui :-ooD, r tzoo ' . . 10 -I"Smyviq "eels 4 % 1 rZA 00OLISI 0 0 . b"dM t 06 1 nW I MDT - no I M"; 100WO 0MU Nt A f .' lSJ tnL 9aU SM rrI 'IC jjCjj0Sa!j ed yja, y�m mHUMLOVD: Zk" ITEUL "A ArOMalt' condominium ownership and may only be partitioned or sold upon • compliance with each 0 the conditions hereof: a) The Board of Directors of the Association must approve the plans of removal, partition or sale, including the details of how any partition or sale and the distribution of the property or funds shall be accomplished. b) The plan of removal, partition or sale must be approved as provided in the Montana Unit Ownership Act. Upon obtaining such approval the Board of the Association shall be empowered and carry out the removal or partition plan. c) No unit may be divided or subdivided into a smaller unit, nor .any portion thereof sold or otherwise transferred, except as provided above. d) This section shall not apply to the sale of individual condominium units and shall not be considered as a right of first refusal. e) The, common elements of OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDO- MINIUMS shall not be abandoned, partitioned, subdivided. encumbered, sold or transferred without compliance with all of the above requirements. X. INTERPRETATION The provisions of the Declaration and of the By-Laws to be promulgated .and recorded herewith, shall be liberally construed to effectuate• the purposes of the said Declaration and By-Laws and to create a building or buildings subject to and under the provisions of the Unit Ownership Act. 32 PO -hl Di. {Lff4 W m a ,.I.mu: s 3 i +a ft0.,",t [ i..IU" 4f 1 ri --1''.,Lr -!1i c .'�qqf) 0T ;fit -1 + i I , If, tG J :rc. in i.t: 17E+►1t �i i.i h 1%`i1 ±WC1Ct11:9 Lr la '.fI C. 9AJ J f ' r >.11 LUr Li j` { 3L fi C f J a t l -1 1 1 a... 6, 0 Z j 1. 1 `. F r. f 7 ?1 _ 3 py--) ,-,I'r log I rI +1 lL� r1L).Cvt1 1r' ± .�2 rLt i., Iq .t loll t afft : '- �i•. :. 1 � ' + 7 1 f h6--..[f-,i) '_ Ct e]n 9 01-1 + .a ti 11 P L'IC it 1! la .I Ci.ti'.w fI C,:1 ..'{ 'ai1'; iA i1 '029 tiJt'r ;' d. ("£r4s rl� ;GiR71C'•t ftrl. � � ?h CV _IF)<irr if f"I tA. 11,1_ 1', (k. !f f _t: •:I � ' q:P. !r )ff7 i.?J ii�iSi �.tlitr:Gri _."y 1 '10 �l.b 1't�lt.�'ri1J-j..`J�t� Srx;1' �� 'i <:1i1.)_f,:'.%'•� S1� .t fio0 Yt .r t5'tl ! atf ' .L. 'f..'. ,!i . „` � - .1 1.19f1^.+U." .33 Ltf . = f L6c; c. ?'. � i If3` _:t"f 'J*GJ:!J)] I OJ' .01; ?s: C. t +!`-fLa t f.+T16l .Ci.1.'f Ci Pal01 r'+J L, f•.fG�'' . Jn Cir t.t)aIV , iii stiU ' 2_ ' C- t+y I i XI. REMEDIES All remedies Sided for the said Decla9tion and By-Laws shall not be exclusive of any other remedies which . may now be or are hereafter available to the parties hereto as provided for by law. XII . SEVERABILITY The - provisions hereby shall be deemed independent and severable and the invalidity or partial invalidity or unenforce- ability of any one or more provisions shall not effect the validity or enforceability of any other provision hereof. Utility Easements 1 . Easements are reserved through the condominium. property as may be required for utility services, including heat, water, sewer, air conditioning, electrical power, cable and telephone in order to serve the condominium adequately; provided, however, such easements through the property or through a unit shall be only according to the plans and specifications for the unit building, as set forth in the recorded plat, or as the building is constructed, unless approved in writing by the Unit Owner. Irrevocable Right 2 . The Association shall have the irrevocable right, to be exercised by the manager, to have access to each unit from time to time during reasonable hours as may be necessary for the maintenance, repair or replacement of any of the limited common elements therein or accessible therefrom or for making emergency repairs therein necessary to prevent damage to the general or 33 .•1 1. .0 LLt.r_ . .i, • ./;�T 4 � f'Cic: �� rrt :. � 9U � ! )t: ? i. �.,h 'l�._j t `r)9It).:=3i f Ir. , -19 JC }1 +t c } Lr f l..t+ jd iL F) i-v --r �, c. ,: 'a C r:!; +ri� t+: �l:ti, ;. xe`3�,s3y+ jal�, 't 1 +'•t(.. All g'ty.lIn 1!' ) 10 -11- 7 1 n c.ii h;,6 :i :j, gw e J 3 t` i F'1L r r,.Li , L,tt CtC)0 :j;t+ Li C)J ov 15 w r �j.ik•'I r.±C'i-'tf p!7_ 7 :a Cl rt ... Itf 7'llg l J'llu 9lC'Ln + Ii4.; ty 'tfi0`• •i;l Ct.I •F,.' tl.. :'0-1,1 1utol,lo,0 ?. 'c 0. . �.. tli F Cit .t:, +rM1: r,7Tii f.o1) Cl c3 `+,T! s B J tCtlf 9fi + Si ;:tl )tir:.i CQ`3.1.. 1J nr„ q grf.f r * i C3J0 � Ir: �l 6 r rtit.i i ; xi. 'ti,t {C . . 1 S`jt1�'(� J. ijri:� `�C{ ,f iv, 17 1'-+L YCtC'Ei If1li 1ri,:�rd 5 ,�t�::tf• r 57 I L, ifr.i.:I Ttua_ J _11i. r10t :!,'..' _ •F' !t,•i G 1 {. !n� `f R3 9f( rCf i' 1'1 'L 1 G L'� ?I Cl y L a 'i ci if 10. tL C.Z:.6 s p ft . Z tj° -4 S., 7 v r;, rt+f:u ..s:tt,,� c.' at c . 3 •' ,a;t,:a 'r. + -r .. J,., :, r4•, 37 � y tr. r�.• t.r.� crs _rlt,Q'I a Ar21E 't. -:10 C .:1t ?7 5t13r9 • , .:a:ir.�:_ � .^.. A)•:` � I:is a: .j�t9Lr' + .'.f 4;`, ,. -•t-''�i. r + -: t �,j'�;! ,ht'.C+'�-l.t limited common elements or to another unit. Damage to the interior or an of the unit resulting froOthe maintenance Y p 9 repair, emergency repair or replacement of any of the general or limited common elements or as a result of any emergency repair within another unit at the instance of the Association, shall be designated either limited or common expenses by the Association and assessed in accordance with said designation. Expenditures 3 . No expenditures or debts in excess of $500.00 may be made or incurred by the Association or manager without the prior approval of seventy-five percent (75% ) of the Unit Owners, according to their percentile interest. Benefit 4. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Declaration shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the Declarant, the Association and each Unit Owner and the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of each. Warranties 5. The Declarant expressly makes no warranties or repre- sentations concerning the property, the units, the Declaration, By-Laws, or deeds of conveyance except as specifically set forth therein and no one may rely upon such warranty or representation not so specifically expressed therein. Estimates of common expenses are deemed accurate, but no warranty or guarantee is made nor is intended nor may one be relied upon. 34 l ir3 � '.�:.1 ([�. 7'JE :. _ +. '�s-..t <, ,.:11i't. iir.•, r.:ft ►'� ��; . tAf7L "_f _ � .ti3� i �Ll !I i 7J yr ? t .'1 r ! ram lfi{l�•�'i7 fi r' Vf(b If . .:! C' r •r 9f�.f `; � .:f ..[. a:�:� ... u) r +J - � T i {., (` . :l�^i u 9t. f '�_ �r+1' ,)t £'+ (`1h t�,�1S 'rYbt' + • .•7L i1 a�`+� :[.r S. 'tt `{Fii.l TC t 51C{ t I ("t{ ii: )if: +i . fJ '1.'tr. ^ttr: rl.'�, � ? "+ ( ,rtt 17 . ')79Ci !t it _ . t• 1 ikt.rUr t,� a ' r :rig 'Ii rrlj j[T JJJa f f� :1!-"A fJnCt 'a. �" ICI I .:) djfE)f` fs�iL 0sC, .'f{." 37 �I I:jE s.fjJ flfl hit. flc,erU Ebf: ' �+ + iT.{ 'i{ `f.,J fltJL+ fr[" + ?'Ff., tl )J .l3.CJi)'. 1. ;iti{ , .'t!f:: C.. L O IS %fit J. J if,_ I _J iF_'. t)r, .4is: � j zie-E'Q.. ':f" , 1 `_) ;r? '�fIT C <fi' -.MOn c''f aJ5 :rr_r+x ,, 'a.7f- I 10C , L C _ is C)!! f' t, +1f :e Uf,7trJa J'• c-',_. f r. ..� iF!j .• C{., r• :Lt:`.G+ `{�.L• I - }..,J<.�3 ' t 6 J1) , ' _ J119Cf .q . Ci<)Ll f) ` Z'q'7 +fi V tea., )f; 1? '•E)P. :If7.i <,' i i110 `i."•.iif IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the undersigned has caused this Decla- ration to be mad*nd executed according and under the provisions of the Unit Ownership Act. Title 70, Section 23, M. C.A. Tim Dean Eugene Graf Charles Del Marco STATE OF MONTANA ) ss County of Gallatin ) On this day of 1992 , before me a notary public for the State of Montana, personally appeared TIM DEAN, EUGENE GRAF, CHARLES DEL MARCO. known to me to be the peoples whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknow- ledged to me that he executed the same. • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this day first above written. Notary Public for the State of MT. Residing at Bozeman. MT My commission expires: 35 •f'V i� j-,,.1 2 As,"I',, -L f ..'Of q a., t,C. I -,InI n,t o a>I 34 A.I 1 11.1".1 L. :1i r? L f) 115"ILI i w b 7 e,Cf P, tE)-T is a iI a .4fla gill i,ilf. bar. vat .,3e, n Pv-, h s. T I, BY-LAWS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF • UNIT OWNERS OF OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS of Gallatin County, Montana I. Purposes and Application These Articles are and shall, be the By-Laws of the Associa- tion of Unit Owners of OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS. These By-Laws shall , upon being recorded with the Clerk and Recorder of Gallatin County, State of Montana, govern and control i ' I the administration of OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS. All Unit Owners, their guests and any renters or subleases, present i and future, shall have the rights and responsibilities described in these By-Laws and shall be subject to the provisions thereof . The acquisition of ownership interest in OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS signifies that the owner accepts, ratifies and agrees to comply with these By-Laws. II. Membership Persons owning a unit in OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS or an interest in a unit, or owning a unit in any real estate tenancy relationship recognized by the State of Montana, shall be a member of the Association of Unit Owners ( "Association" ) . An owner may not decline membership in the Association. Membership begins concurrently with the acquisition of ownership interest �t �. a: ...t� ^r• �tr • aYCt '1, Y•. l Jrr / i �i'."i�_' C. r. �� •! : t r A I.ri v o i104 In 1 .C� ��•� '1, 3�t'. .T X 1 !. 111E tc i{� '.a rl 1.1p. t : f:, a ►.C7,s I(. �'(V,i.J V7., 7` - r11.i 1 ' f fi 1. .3 ' - 9f it r1.� ! .w r ��`��_T`.'ti1 .Ql'f) � •JET �. .. :�': r �1..� / . ar"} t, , � L� ��... Ctl • . f'=+ I' 3G J 1: .� ?3•, +'I .r3rr� 4 rI L..'I f"'1 I/:rC t i ?ir1 3U ai, i4iS l ij/i _ f1 't q.E.1 -,rii" ... -C - Y 'r.^ :' 7: 7 1-'LJ ' _ q� .� n'. . t., ti . and terminates at the time ownership interest is terminated. Such termination shal* not relieve any owner liability for obligations ' incurred while a member of the Association; further, membership in the Association does not in any way negate or impair any owner' s legal remedies, right to bring legal action, or defenses to any and -all actions involving the Association. other Unit Owners. or the management which may arise from or be incidents of unit ownership. III. Obligations Each Unit Owner shall be obligated to comply with these By- Laws. the Declaration, and the laws of the County of Gallatin and State of Montana. Such obligation shall include. but not be limited to. the paying of assessments levied by the Association. and the adherence to the protective covenants which are a part of the Declaration. Failure of the owner to abide by these By-Laws, and all rules made pursuant thereto. the Declaration. and the laws of the County of Gallatin and State of Montana, shall be grounds for appropriate legal action by the Association of Unit i Owners or by any aggrieved Unit Owner against such no complying owner. IV. Meetings and Voting There shall be a regular meeting of the Association annually on the first Monday in March of each year, or on such other date I properly announced by the Association. 2 I I V L M W1 n: p r wL to 1 QUM. LSP- . P rev,: L 3- -Z& N juMst . 0k I - is 070di noll . TqV2. Oj )3 TO! du 51, ad t _r JW Woci 1 P1 2 10VO . �Iwln w a!: 'E .- QUA L . ISMSe-; Z q grit cJJ D. : I I. eIU4 St'l tali% JL wais 1 wn bar "i W jr Ono nit m j I U011. 0 it, ni Mu . 6AXI u it "Psi n inns I Pursuant to these By-Laws, the Association may at any time • hold special meetinso Such special meetings.tay be called on the initiative of the Chairman of the Association, by the Board of Directors. a signed request of the manager, or a petition signed by fifty percent ( 50% ) of the Unit Owners. Notice of any special meeting must specify the reason for said meeting and the matters to be raised. Only matters set forth in the petition or . request may be brought before such meeting unless more than fifty percent ( 50% ) of the aggregate interest present agree otherwise. a) Notice Notice of all meetings regular or special shall be mailed by the Association' s secretary to every Unit Owner of record at his address of record at least ten ( 10) days prior to the time for holding such meeting. Such notice shall specify the date. time and place of the meeting and shall make provisions to allow for the voting of each Unit Owner' s interest by proxy at the discretion of the owner. The mailing of a notice in the manner provided in this paragraph or the personal delivery of such notice by the secretary of the_ Association shall be considered notice served. b) Quorum No meeting regular or special shall be convened to conduct business unless a quorum is present in person or by proxy. A quorum shall consist of fifty percent ( 50% ) of the total aggregate interest of OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS. At 3 :t J T t; '+.i ,� [J \ li �.. •�0..... ..! r � .. � 1. r�1 �.�I1 L r�l� i 31..3' � C / ±c ;I ,di tilt ? • �.t � aRs. _:,� STi s .... .ic y'_ 19cJ {Y'! £ ' ',jt.: t .r . flrr I >„ ,. pl(A j :. i-: c� �7'1 i ,d iilJc+ rCl 'ICi YF. t _ rtj D jf I ! tt f_ PLC . 9C1: 3 " �). ;r[ i1 1 Il: ���:�: � I ' :�� c� '!'_ i '�s •7. . :t9:�ln _ . .. ±^L,1C•K Jif"u 9+. art l + ('J:-r � � ' � I f .. CPC g�;o7F,1, . fj ' �' L��. t i�tT i' .. .. 1 C • .. _ �+r..- , .l L.i- _�^, � f� 5 !r ,+.fl .., 1 r ' ��` : � :�• '1 '_�IJ -.lr. i _.fr. r 'f 7£•;. i[{i 1 tiraJ_ '! f.'.te j ll3I j�.. •�''i ? C TI J 9f' any time during any meeting that quorum is not present, such • meeting shall °be adorned forthwith. • V. Voting Interest Each Unit Owner at Association meetings shall have a voting e interest in the general common interest equal to his percentile i r elements as set forth in the Declaration, a copy ' of which is being filed concurrently with the filing of these By-Laws with the Clerk and Recorder of Gallatin County, Montana. Such percentile factor shall be the voting interest of each Unit Owner on all matters affecting the general business of OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUM on all matters affecting the common elements; assessments for the common elements; and on all matters upon which the Association agreed to have voting by the common elements ' interests. Voting upon matters affecting limited common elements and assessments for limited expenses shall be only by owners having a unit or interest in units located in the building affected. Whenever a quorum is present at the meeting of the Associa- tion or the Board of Directors, those present may do any and all acts they are empowered to do unless specific provisions of these By-Laws, the Declaration, or the laws of the State of Montana direct otherwise. 4 t� !'• u(iJ J� S flL L 1� :f � 'G a', 1f Z +?t1 :f( + _ I7' l .li� :� +l•� rf;�.=_�.:Z'j +f�. .. . 14 t++ L - _�•+ L . f J.1 j{. ..�c+ - ij'.l i 1!.i ."!�' 3i l', •:' f '� l �. . �i .. + n L d it ' 8t fI son! > lJ . :. 1 =i 4r.' ?: t ,;L _ i• � f Waslit.. Ito )bli- qv ; CJ .� i�Jli , ';�r:ll.l:: C1) �• Ft: + ? �t_�� )' � i�f"fi -! , �J J:..� ! J ! w I 1+I 1 , L + IA 1 = a i4nZan Nou � io V /mf+f ar, me is i. LJ. .,Cl;.t;il_ .��+ ,._ xxi �J�Ii.�•r � A Al .t of f_...,�,*G'1 ,.T -i7 H'l 1 � _ f aft i l _ ,fI t .'�!� '£ ; .•.f �'4it. ', . VI. Board of Directors The governance of OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS shall be by the Board of four Directors. Such Board shall have all powers and 'responsibilities attendant to the general adminis- tration and control of the condominium. Additionally. the Board shall have the authority necessary to carry into effect the powers and duties specified in these By-Laws. VII . Officers of the Board of Directors The Association shall elect a Board of Directors which shall consist of a: chairman, vice chairman. secretary, and treasurer, who shall all serve for a term of one ( 1 ) year. The manner of election to the Board of Directors. shall be as follows: At the first and all subsequent annual meetings of the Association. nominations for position on the Board shall be accepted from .any of the Unit Owners present. Voting will be non-cumulative with each Association member having a vote equal to his percentage interest in the general common elements and for as many persons as there are Directors to be elected. Board members shall be elected by majority vote of the interests present or voting by proxy at any annual or special meeting. The first Board, consisting of three (3) persons , as listed below, shall serve until the first annual meeting of the Association, at which time the Board shall be elected by the members. In addition to persons who own any unit in OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS. 5 • �13SJj.t't]•1�.1f'•(iiJ t. �t� � _ •:i• �. �r^`� .I- �.�.l . t� _ ta• '1�)VO� � i" 1 r ham . n- • .i � �� i :l i_ .� wI: .. ,.a:, ,a-�-_ ;}.�. avowt k 'goo ON Vi1 ILA Alit ` iittot• oa 31 iJ f 1n htlt -in a . V a2 �r ri'J n i * , I i., , ; r , : t 'd I � I all t" iL -..' r11 - Lr-1(n 4:J ! 0 ear a .L °C it 3 moil I c:1 .. _. Fn 'eel a1 L 1 . Ci 01 1un 1.lIt i, . i t '`i. yr, 1_ .0 in t Y 1 C r. an ^• v�Ji 3uli.i- rT :Sty ! .J1 J I t1.rVbd , ..:W`:tX n' ! 6 - i .. t� 11 t�l irl ^CJ � �, i•!� a i ... t ' •. i _ �+ .:II`'�F, t•i"'' • .. ., -'up �.i ��!•, ti. f � ft:. SCi c __i� _• ° 7�.7 • 1". �., �'.Lti ,t• 4. .T':�+ %- :1C _ it I s , , ,,,; _ ''win � i.'n'. t J ,'i.i t J i i-. other persons eligible to be elected to the Board of Directors of the Association shallanclude persons who aripmembers of the Board of Directors of any corporation which owns an interest in any unit of OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS or nominees of the declarant. VIII. i Powers and Duties of the Board of Directors I The Board of Directors shall have the following powers and duties: a) To call annual meetings of the Association and give due notice- thereof. b) To conduct elections to the Board of Directors. c) To enforce the provisions of the Declaration, By-Laws and protective covenants of OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS by appropriate action. d) To provide for the management of OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS' by hiring or contracting with suitable or capable management and personnel for the day-to-day operation, main- tenance, upkeep and repair of the common and limited common elements. e ) To levy assessments as allowed by the Declaration, these By-Laws and; the State of Montana and to provide for collection, expenditure and accounting of said assessments. f ) To pay for the expenses for the maintenance, repair and upkeep of the common elements and limited common elements, and to approve payment vouchers either at regular or special meetings. 6 :1 � iC '�`�':. F �rJ f_ � `.� r1" _, �i�3:+_•s w - C` .t (_ Iy 4`_ '[(11 ,f. . _'L'. —1s. .ri rloff ri"x 10 ' 0 1' _ OPW . - 140 rOGTn >r✓ , 1W�. 1T 1 =��!6 � ;n `•r': .. r. 1._1 . .:H r 1n rr +•+n :r_t,�rl � f r ' :( [, r rlr� yd :1:MI:[.•r,4 O MI j T vj(r . 1.r -1 q 1 dt i •R �ti .! , ! t+rj_ �t ,1� C .;tl� j F o , `fMI. • blix 1 C Our `1 %T, :'J to 4Y J" .'1:t , 1 01 0 - nj -A y, `. i r ' low &Z tV T , v t? v_ i[: r+(,f } 3 r + `.j& t' ` .,0 ' 'r ;a i ,. .Li p;1 f •}r +, ir- jar yd`._ Oar ,r. L 1'• 1h .,j n r 1 3+i., c,i "• +1.,s •12 )L S r i ,., t .. i 11 _.0 " V , v i g) To delegate authority to the manager of the routine conduct of condomini�lRf business, however, such thority shall be precisely defined with ultimate authority at all times residing in the Board of Directors. h) To provide a means of hearing grievances of Unit Owners and respond appropriately thereto. i ) To meet at regular scheduled times and to hold such meetings open to all Unit Owners or their agents. j ) To prepare an annual budget for the condominium in order to determine the amount of the assessments payable by the Unit Owners to meet the common and limited common expenses and allocate and assess such charges among the Unit Owners according to their respective interests in the common and limited common elements. k) To levy and collect special assessments whenever in the opinion of the Board it is necessary to do so in order to meet increased operating or maintenance expenses, costs or additional capital expenses, because of emergencies. 1 ) To take appropriate legal action to collect any delin- quent assessments, payments or amounts due from Unit Owners or from person or persons owing money .to the condominium, and to levy' a penalty and to charge interest on unpaid amounts due and owing. m) To defend in the name of the Association any and all lawsuits wherein OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS is a party defendant. 7 tJL 11LJ {U t11 _ )7 . Gil' + �1 t.tCj' .t'cI� n.' c. >L 'Jf' .. .iE3E+C.. _ _ ;iJ 'tC . •f, r 'trll' � jF C fl' t 8 �• t>_+ ::L'Cftifil :ii,�' i ♦a. ' u t,f i.: 4*j ,•4q, - .: f ,C'.t _ '� 9 �.� ..�...•r ..'%It_ ._. ._j:'. .,i .:' .� '�T.;C i : .i.+i _ .t.t':1.f •i .� � 00 nil 1 00 ).11 + t rJ 111 fl [Zf,;:1 i T . T. ....i. y 1.7i-' .' , C i � f .. '.. •`ri.r: � '+^' "C � 1.: t . •� r r,x f • .1 .', a ,' ,',a� � . -• . : � •� . :�. . �, ' _ ;. nf( 7 I'i) ft OT r 1 TJ't. + eJ (t .` ')E? � i f:J ^� \,' •fl l f' _ ti. � r . . �.� ,, , F- L? .`�l .1.. ... 6 �,_ ;f, t , C . :1 ti Y.1 i ;fr , y•-� f • 0 ',� 'j•••.C{ :i Vt1fr•1."e•r.1�,} `..� �,�T�tZT ..1 'vd� T F, it:�� H'1}:,y t �' a 31� t .•i n) To enter into contracts necessary to carry out the duties herein set forth. • o) To establish a bank account for OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS and to keep therein all funds of the Association; withdrawal of monies from such accounts shall only be by checks signed by such persons as are authorized by the Board of Directors. p) In general , to act for and carry on the administration and affairs of the Association as authorized and prescribed by the Declaration and to . do all those things which are necessary and reasonable in order to carry out the governance and operation of OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS. q) To promulgate and adopt rules and regulations for the use of the common elements and for the occupancy of the units so as to not interfere with the peace and quiet of all the residents. Such rules must be ratified by seventy-five percent (75% ) of the unit owners at the first regular or special meeting of the Association, following the adoption of such rules or regulations by the Board. r) To make repairs, alterations, additions and improvements to the common and limited common elements consistent with managing the condominium in a first class manner and in the best interest of the Unit Owner. s) To arrange, keep, maintain and renew the insurance for the Association as set forth in the Declaration. t) To carry out the duties and responsibilities of the Board 8 f I I 3 r_ F)�A. `3!�� (�' fl f r, •I r., t c. - �:1 .. V �% i 1 JF r J ' 9 ri'j [I 1 _ son 371 di . W ?O-i ' tJ I t.t A . 0s bn . . 4 , r., ,T t 7, 'o b,1 r . :T`,_ { . f i!'. 4 1 16 ' J ri .3N J' :1 W . 7_ t ' a. ; : 00, 1 a ba, env ,' rwoo_t 1r VC r 1,'701 00 T 't o Z- Hy f {tt -O' f t rf Z 0 r r �IU4;. i., 21 ter• ,t Jul .11 rr : '�'!� .t UT }' .� f fit; � <<<' r. � r1't • t r.,� t ..�_ti �tf v in all other matters as may be authorized, needed or required by the Declaration. • IX. Vacancies and Removal Should a vacancy occur on the Board of Directors, the Board, subject to the exception described below, shall appoint a person eligible under paragraph VII above to serve the unexpired term. Such vacancy shall be filled no later than the next regular Board meeting after which it occurs. Should such vacancy not be filled. by the Board at the next regular meeting of the Association, the Association may fill such vacancy. At any regular or special meeting of the Association any member of the Board may be removed by a majority of the aggregate interests of the condominium unless the Board member is a Unit Owner. Such removal matter must be announced in the notice of such special or regular meeting. The personal delivery of such notice by the secretary of the Association shall be considered notice served. X. 0 Compensation No member of the Board of Directors shall receive any compensation for acting as such. Nothing herein, however, shall be construed to preclude compensation being paid to managers which are hired by the Board of Directors. 9 � '' -, 1 t 1 1 �7 , 1 4 I J y I L � 4::1 a a Il L!�f, xl�A 'i .n_ - '. J. . • - (). Y . ' T • t;,'�1, 1 � ll.l: , JT� .L` . S C � ` 1'. : � _, }- 9'E t � Ej 7 f .f� i�.f � '�' •t tI t1 - , '4G it ,t trite, ,. � • .. } ItU� 1 , ,:i i!� J ; Z� J . '1. � ,t L 't�') � 1:, t j. ��.. . jJ„J� i: �� � ✓ - , I� j., !.� �+ 'i - 'r,r rm't.1 no I 9'`t., ; 9 r;L. r- u;°: ✓ f u.. ,Si ' .'!` : tlrEII., r 'I.E.T �'. t ' :J_i.`t. . "[f _i . .t � .i(, " 1� • r `,t� ;� ::9.r ,.j�. � ,,:.�l� . �Ci :i, _ "`_s�I �,t ��1 f " IhEt,. ;, r_ `•^ "J. (, r .L� .'"�r`'���- �� �r.tt ? I'.F• .( Ti& L' i,^,OJ 1� L`; XI. • Managers The manager shall be appointed and/or removed by the Board 'of Directors. ' The manager shall be bonded and shall have, maintained records of the final affairs of the condominium. Such records shall also detail all assessments made by the Association and the status of payments of said assessments by all Unit Owners. All records shall be available for examination during the normal business hours to any Unit Owners or his assigned representative. a) Accounts. The receipts and expenditures of the Associa- tion shall be under the direction of the manager and be classified as appropriate. ' into common expenses and limited expenses, and shall include a provision for current expenses which shall include all receipts and expenditures to be made within the year for which the budget is made . including a reasonable allowance made for contingencies and working funds, except expenditures chargeable to reserves or betterments. The balance in this fund at the end of each year shall be applied to reduce the assessments for current expenses for the succeeding • year. Other budget items may be provided for in the discretion of the manager. b) Budget. The manager shall prepare and submit to the Board a budget each calendar year. which must be approved then and adopted by the Board.' The budget shall include the estimated funds required to defray the common and limited common expenses 10 1�_ �• s r SvC .y" ')fin `� +7 y fl .�."fi �a,ti`r`1 l.tt `:i?I �`J�1' ra _ . ' ..1.,,. • 'I'T � . f 1 r If Ii rig • �1;' ;-. J..'fl �� .1 1� il' .1_ rr '.ii � rC 1 flu [1 � ', I f'71 ID , Ar• fi,i �,.1 r •1'1r a1• ,.�`•�? 9_ •, t. .y_ _ _i CI., '� ti' n^i ._ .�. - : (39 _ .v:ry . if ` t .Tl: 3 S• ( l 7 i n1 (?.jw 'a j t"�!r•I) :. it f+ .] J'':Jlt .i.�, f" ' , ic• t,. , t t-.(, i (rl �,iu J. `! t •I'• ,! C ,. .� I, ., r ' .+ .1)~ .•J ,"�T rr, and to provide and maintain funds for the foregoing accounts and reserves according *good accounting practice.16 Copies of the budget and proposed asses°sments shall be transmitted to each member on or before December 1 . preceding the year for which the budget is made. If the budget is subsequently amended.• budget shall be furnished to each member. c ) Audit. An audit of the accounts of the Association shall be made annually by a certified public accountant and a copy of the audit report shall be furnished to each member not later than March 1st of, each year for which the audit is made. The manager shall generally operate and manage the condo- minium for and on behalf of the Unit Owners and shall have such other powers and authority as the Board may delegate. XII. Amendment of By-Laws These By-Laws may be amended at any regular or special meeting of the Association providing that a copy of the proposed revision is included in the notice of such meeting. Upon a vote of over seventy-five percent ( 75% ) of the aggregate interest in the condominium, the amendment shall be declared adopted. The secretary shall as soon as practicable after adoption prepare a copy of these By-Laws as amended for certification by the chairman and secretary of the Association. Such amended and certified By-Laws shall then be filed and recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Gallatin County. State of Montana. 11 lot a TO 1_ ;iJfSr .Ij K ' j1 1t" . 19 7 l.AS JE ad,' T :e -, 1 . flare L .. t:)fr.':" .. ",'I" ` 1 £1 + r S 1 .,.� 1 S` + � r'.; '. � u is .� �:, i •1 1 7�.�>':{1)"J _ =',,.t Ci y� _. .'EiI`�_ r' IJ'Cj I.. . .f � un . fil. _ . • .7` -t lip ')•. 1 f (Irl y,+ _L + ic >r •:�1.� - f; {il:- ./ 7 1 + . ?� I ' I !I n.. 'J . 'io L 'J` ! ,. •t1.7 i ii _ "! +G: r, I'»11ti t..- �, _ r ?(% By-Laws as amended shall become effective at the time of such record. XIII . Assessments In accordance with the percentile interest in the general common elements as set. forth in the Declaration, each Unit Owner shall be assessed for general' common expenses . Such assessments and assessments for limited expenses shall be collected and paid according to the terms and under the procedures more particularly set " forth in the Declaration. The amount of assessments described about and any other assessments allowed by these by- Laws, the Declaration and by the State of Montana, shall be fixed by the Board of Directors. Notice of each owner' s assessments shall be mailed to ,said owner at his address of record. XIV. The Declaration The undersigned has filed along with these By-Laws a Declaration whereby the properties ' known as OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS -are submitted to Title 70, Chapter 23, M. C .A. The Declaration shall govern the acts, powers, duties and responsibilities of the Association of Unit Owners and in the event these By-Laws and the Declaration are in conflict, the Declaration shall prevail. The definition of terms set forth in the Declaration shall be applicable throughout ' these By Laws and the interpretation, thereof. .12 . r I al �. 1 -,:1F D9.i ' _ ii car Ewe la` .j.. `. :Is✓ ti ri t f ,Vol f.,. _ r 3 -gin ;, , 1 iuc. a 9:[ ,� rl,. s[1'-+''� .� ca . Y l• �1. ' .1: 1 1 +J(I f � rt a i! !J r1 k? � U r .. .. � G �1 1 1 + f .1 ' , . •' '],.� t c, �'. '! "1 i .,it_!', 9 rI J c _ , .! Ff J' 1. S'ti l' °.1 i + ? 1 i ks'£{:. [!J1• � •-,'/�.1 ... _ ,. ..f�*,.. .+ -, y. a Ji.. _..3..a �,. , i By virtue of the By-Laws and the Declaration each Unit Owner 0 has the right to membership in the Association" ' of Unit Owners g p and the Owners Association and additionally. any Unit Owner may be on the Board of Directors of OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDO- MINIUMS . OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS Association of Unit Owners and its Board of Directors shall have primary and final authority on all matters solely affecting the condominium area. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned. as the owner of record of all of the condominium units and 100% of the voting interests of said OVERBROOK AT WESTRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS as of the date } hereof. hereby appointed the following persons to serve on the Board of Directors and as officers until the first annual meeting of the Association. to-wit: Tim Dean Eugene Graf Charles Del Marco And. Declarant and the said Board hereby declare and affirm the adoption of the foregoing By-Laws on the day of 1992 . Tim Dean Eugene Graf Charles Del Marco 13 1.i• `�� 1 .. _ .:� J�,r 1 1 1,a . '�. f .n l. 1� C.. •. M r /1:_:(la.7�l �+L J ,7 V j t:Jic 1• t� _ ' f _ i'G �. 1?r,r� , ;� , r .i, I. 7 ���7iI•" 7ti. i)..��". �'' L. _ �> u L if:, ` u :;�. � ' ` . o fj 1t, yV 3 _ ut.Vf. .. 7�tfi't, . ' ,. �`+ r •^ 'o l ru rt" .