Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
638300223300151948)
959 oWDRE• s : LOrCEPT P �Q4 Sou�Eh. 22nd 'venue ? n BuzCow�ery N tTl lD � N { f i i i i i �.1 5 t l i s� F 9, r � PROJECT ACTIVITY- LOGS BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE Project Name �Wdi'�G, /it�c,< f77�� �� File No. STAFF STAFF CUMULATIVE DATE ACTIVITY PERSON HOURS STAFF TIME -7 rh-7 f Ai: 17 LT) _75- �2 L ,FILE REVIEW SHEET CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Application Date: �/�Gf� Staff Member: File Number: F— Reference Files : File Name: DATE ; DONE ; BY Staff/Agency Comment Requested : ; Staff/Agency Comment Deadline: ; Public Hearing Notice To Chronicle: pfzr Public Hearing Notice -7%Z5 -- ; In Chronicle: ' g Public Hearing Notice Se t 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 : ; b Month Review Due: ; 12 Month Review Due: ; Letter of Credit Received : ; Letter of Credit Released : ; Final CUP Issued : ; MISC\REVIEW.CUP 4 fir , t. ur a C�7 i e h �[ 114111 .. IIIIHI �k.. I t 1. it.i 1. <� lillnuu1ju �')�� + J L Itf 01 - 7 BY.RSS CHECKED BY.RSS . :.JOB NO:9511 Y i 00 FED j=7=11 �k DID 0 Z i ELEVATION A9 r7a"7 7 *t W I r II h It III f �p1WFIIIIII IIIIII fill it IT ESSlp�41 QG F� LOVELLV.AND405tit 110 .,LICENSE NUMBER __. B00 5-5-95 ELEVATION A9 - A9 0-0 i a KOCH ST.— --- — f , 70 EVERGREEN TREE-GROUNDDECIDUOUS TREE-PRUNE BACK 1/4" _ 'LINE TO BE THE SAME AS ON-SITE AND SPRAY.WITH ANTIDESICCANT ' EXISTED AT NURSERY ACCORDING.T0.MFR'S.INSTRUCTIONS f c IF FOLIAGE IS PRESENT,DOUBLE - ,'� .STRAND OF 10 GA,GALVANIZED WIRE TWISTED ao$ .GARDEN HOSE 2 1/2"DIA.x 10'-0"LONG CEDAR STAKE WITH NOTCHED END"(T'-0"EXPOSED) •r J l/ ,.'1 Ic^ --^COY ' - 3 GUYS OF 10 GAUGE -." ,� -2'�PER•TREE. _ _�,�' • ' I I TWISTED WIRE 120' .'�^ ;•�` , I: I DRAWN BY.GAM APART AROUND.TREE. CHECKED BY.CAM TURNBUCKLE JOB NO:9511, FOLD BACK BURLAP FROM TOP OF BALL I I I I 'm 4`SOIL SAUCER - �t� 4• h'"; i I - .. t MULCH a BACKFlLL WITH TOPSOIL AND PEAT MOSS 24"x2"x2 STAKE 3.1 RATIO BY.VOLUME IN 9"LAYERS. DRIVEN FLUSH W/ WATER EACH LAYER.UNTIL SETTLED F �� - �.�•� i j FINISHED GRADE'.. \ ; ;. '• .I 'r .MIN. !\/5 a 1 I , I '\\/ \ ��, • �j\y/\.I i DECIDUOUS TREES.OVER 1 CALIPER 11 WITH BURLAP OR ASPHALTIC KRINKLE t3. _ \ \ \//I KRAFT TREE WRAP \V 13 14 i r ! B PLANING Dc'-i AIL -- I1 14 __I � !�. -- --. _ ---._ _..'.. ; I Al.1 NO SCALE / f- ; LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE f a SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME 'COMMON NAME PLANTING MATURE OTY. � I 717 17 j i I I i II I F�1 i � \ �� � '• I ------ -- - - --- I ,off 20 ` - — - - - W.DMERSON—-—-—- -— 95 A LA!�DSCAPIi�GAMLITY PLAN A1.1 GROUND COVER:.-w WASHED GRAVEL OVER LANDSCAPE FABRIC W/P�L.TrEDG�ts� •`OAS Alol FALL LAWN AREAS TO BE PLANTED WITH KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS,RED FESCUE,.AND RYEG ASS MIX - I ® © © LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION TO BE UNDERGROUND AUTOMATIC IRRI0 ON SYSTEM. " rlcJ� Iv 1/2-PREMOLDED FlLLER CONC.SIDEWALK LAP SIDING OVER. U SOMEAREAS TO - f OVER 2 X PLYWOOD BE LANDSCAPED) i ... .. .., .... i x 4" SHED GRAVEL OR CRUSHED STONE x FRAMING UNIVERSTY SQUARE:. K._. SHOPPING CENTER.- :.. .. `.. ', .., •. _ OCH HT.-_'--- a ' .. CONCRETE CURB".. �; •'• p"1 To .. - _ .... ,. .. .. ..•. ,.. .. _. .-.-:-, CHAIN-LINK ,. ... - N 89355 E ::3) ... �. I GAZE � YL _ ,r .. ,I -... : " FILLER STRIPS.... -_- -R .}8b.00'-. II i i :3"ASPHALTIC CONC..: `.' CG.�•' ^ n: j\�j\ /� a T0, `3"OF,1'LOMPACTED ROAD-MIX - -�TJ 1 ,t / 8'-0"SETBACK . 10,0. I'I \> I r Y ..-.. `, 6'OF a AND SMALLER TREATED 6x6 CORNER - PLAN SIDE ELEVATION POSTS SET IN CONC. COMPACTED FILL D1 iwl KIDS DEPOT (xcne ELEVATION slwuR) 3'-0"BELOW GRADE - _ «�Y- / �P `V ti`•„ iinl- CHILD CARE I Ld ml - 0 ~p!m ml ae� TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAIL c CURB DETAIL zi DRAWN BY.CAM CHECKED BY:GAM ! .: / \`•11 0 .� P,� �F) I.J i ' i I JOB NO,.9511 APARTMENTS - `,' m e , � Ufa "R7• ((�t''L. � I , I ,� STORMWATER RETEN'nON CALCS 1 . 11 _ _ _ _ _ \; � r I SURFACE AREA (EXG.) AREA (DEV.) COEFFICIENT BUILDING 9,903 26.438 .95 0 8'-0"SETBACK. GRAVEL 0,3 0 i 126,306 2 8 90,246- ..20 ti .: R >180.00' �'� ^ .�. I •5�'I I _ RUNOFF EXISTINGOE COEFFICIENTS ..354 -\ s "' S i I - DEVELOPED SITE-C-.489 \ ` i ' �� I i i '(9,903K.95)+(25,300z:85)+(120,306x:20)12 354. (26,438x.95)+(38,406x.85)+(90,248x.2o) - .489 LAW OFFICES "l ! 7NPLE%" v I 155,092 - .. 155.092 I r13 L' PRE-EXISTING RUNOFF'-10 YR,STOR11 11. DEVELOPED SITE RUNOFF 10 YR. STORM I I 'o oj,°I - SITE SLOPE-2% SITE SLOPE-2% TRAVEL DISTANCE-320!•..r : '�.'.': ' '. nl Q C-.35(PRE-DEVELOPED SITE) -.49(DEVELOPED SITE) 3 .�, a , o' -�a Ab fir. iti, 14 APARTMENTS Tc=21 MIN.(FIG.22) Tc=18 MIN (FIG.22) ' ---� -- -- ------- -- '- - - - T J �•� i I - i=.41 IN.PER HR. I-.41 IN,PER:HR. -.BS PRE-EXISTING RUNOFF IS: ��••yy Q CIA --- - - -- -- ! I .. -G o"-L (�- , _.354(.41) Z�4C •.52 CFS EXISTING RUNOFF 1 �^ — t4 - I •� I � - ND L�IS ��/�q DEVELOPED RUNOFF IS: ' - 01 Q=CIA ' ( : r _ .r7 ! y ;, _ n v `i •... - ! - .489{.41), mxaa rt y g:71 CFS f-..DEVELOPED:.RUNOFF �43—IT III.REQUIRED RETENTION VOLUME 6.52 CFS RUNOFF(EXISTING) • ! o° J' I � � - n � xsawm xEswn,ai t o es•n..cM r TIME �- far Nr,. w.uxs ny �xi_trT+ STATE FARM INSURANCE f r .- OFFlCES'. R p 364. 6 II��• UNI ." v` Win._ i, i ! - _ ' 2 : 60 .52 3726 G 11'3 i 8-PLE% yV I I ��O/D_ l•S _ - --- !. • L 73.6 ' i '. - ^ 1 REQUIRED RETENTION VOLUME 9.71 CFS-RUNOFF(DEVELOPED) 16 ' 2-PLEX/ i- ;, I r .MAN r+Eaunm xertxnax ..., I ., i -.: m ... i(-•_ - � I TIME HR i .71 5136 . I` 2 6D ,7 •w ! '. APARTMENTS 0_1pT� ,� r i .I SIFI G INFORMATION o g p ati i I 6 SR AREA % OF TOTAL . OASKE713A TOTAL LOT AREA 155,092 S.F. 100% i TENNIS COURTS I' i ! TOTAL FOOTPRINT OF.BUILDINGS - - 26.438 S.F- 17% _ .TOTAL AREA OF LANDSCAPING 90.248 S.F. 58% !� TOTAL AREA OF PAVING 38,408 S.F. 25X vl ^ TOTAL AREA OF OPEN SPACE ...128,854 SE- 83X x I " y / t , 19ld' "5 ! 15120.01' 16.. FM .':' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 1,2•AND 3,BLOCK 1,UNIVERSITY SQUARE - APPROVED BY: -= - ----- (/ SUBDIVISION ...•" '�- ` 20 �� :.. _. CERTIFIED NURSERYMAN OFFICE COMPLEX ,'- L@ w� ;j- ` .� STREET.ADDRESS: 504 S 22ND AVE,•BOZEMAN,MT 59715 �i \120.00' -------- hA 1�^_ __ _ - -- --- ItO f - 'PERMITS REQUIRED: BUILDING PERMIT ---- - ` SIGN PERMIT � PATE OCCUPANCY: GROUP,R 1,TYPE T-HR. 18 - '\ _ ZONING: R-0 - - -— —--- — W.=KEF,.AN- PARKING CALCULA110NS I APARTMENT COMP M - ---- - - --- - ------- - --- --- --- -'--- (� UNIT'All UNIT UNIT CV. UNTT"D BLDG#2 ,BLDGin BLDG#1 EXISTING EXISTING '`EXISTING '-EXISTING NUMBER OF UNITS ,. 7 8 8 7 12 -.8 8 . REQUIRED 14"-. 16 18 14 24 16 16 PROVIDED 14 16 c-18 14 24 16 16 '- - SOUTHBROOK CONDOMINIUMS - --- --T— � 5-5-95 y - Y A SITE PL/�N °� 10 1 n 1/2'PREMOLDED FILLER y--CONC.SIDEWALK - - _- LAP SIDING OVER - (SOME AREAS 70 V -- -- - . BE LANDSCAPED) 1/2"COX PLYWOOD '! CONCRETE CURB OVER 2x FRAMING �4"WASHED GRAVEL ORCRUSHED STONE UNIVERSTY SQUARE - SHOPPING CENTER K�C.1'I —_ i v CHAIN-UNK N 89'355 "E I .GATE W/VIN'It ` R�110 0 I �. . FILLER 31RIP5 i i i •� r ASPHALTIC CONC. I:. �,; 4' .. 6=60'00'00" I - ! 10 S 3'OF 1".COMPACTED ROAD-MIX/. ,,..� r i -•' 8'-0"SETBACK I -.._ 10'0• J~ I 6"OF 4'AND SMALLER 1 TREATED 6.6 CORNER COMPACTED FILL s SIDE ELEVATION POSTS IN C t -I PLAN SET CONC. 1 r (REAR ELEVATION 9MILAR) S-O"BELOW GRADE - f� i .KIDS.DEPOT of 9 I t f k . Lo� CHILD CARE .I`,. ��I ..` t co '`J' 8i3! �I e TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAIL C CURB DETAIL �r �: DRAWN BY:GAM CHECKED BY:CAM - 17 %8, w:. �„ I I JOB NO:9511 .. APARTMENTS m STORM WATER I e a `• '" /RETENTION 11 STORMWATER RETEN110N CALCS 120.00' ... I t0 I SURFACE AREA (EXG) AREA (DEV.) ' COEFFICIENT BUILDING 9.903 26,438 .95 �;�.• 1 O2!5. I PAVING 25,300 38.406 .85 F ,\ `\ 12 'N I ` 8'-0•SETBACK GRAVEL 0 0 _60 GRASS 12D,306 90,246 '.20 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS \ EXISTING SITE -C-.354 R �80..p00.' � � I 12 .DEVELOPED SITE-C- .489 o 170 I i _ 1 (9,903x.95)+(25,300x.65)+(120,308x.20)_.354 (28,438x.95)+{38,408x.85)+(90,248x.20)=,489 LAW OFFICES .. UNIT'D' _ - 1 ' 7-PLEX i I 155,092 155,D92 I. 13 I. PRE-EXISTING RUNOFF-10 YR.STORM IL DEVELOPED SITE RUNOFF-10 YR.STORM i :oln SITE SLOPE-2% SITE SLOPE�27G 13 o•y TRAVEL DISTANCE=320' TRAVEL DISTANCE= 320 IQh C-.35(PRE-DEVELOPED SITES C-.49(DEVELOPED SITE) j Iol to gPARTMENTS Tc=.21 MIN.(FIG.22) Tc= 18 MIN.(FIG.22) • --- '----- ----- ---.. a __ ___._... 9 LEI. ... i=.41 IN.PER HR. 1=.41 INS PER.HR. -65 -PRE-EXISTING RUNOFF IS: - I '�. Q-CIA EXISTING RUNOFF rat . l;r•,• - - i. i - _.354(.41) /ix.os2 ars \ =.52.CFS 14 DEVELOPED RUNOFF IS: CIA (n ax .489,(41) \sxo Rx/Ac -•71 CFS DEVELOPED'RUNOFF Itl.REQUIRED RETENTION VOLUME 0.52 CFS RUNOFF(EXISTING)' W .'� ,j I� I R/y FT RFAIICxD REiikxll[IN )_-- { I TIMEHR ./mac. �wr. vauNE rT3 STATE FARM INSURANCE - OFFICES I R 364. 6 r ,I UNI ' I T 2 00 .52 3726 h112 L 73.6' i k i I - 16 '?2-�EX/` I REQUIRED RETENTION VOLUME O.71 CFS RUNOFF(DEVELOPED) PEWIf1FC xEIFNTQI I MAN .' - - TIME it /s[a 1 a Nx VMWE Rs. • I i Ij i I 17 w I , P jr I APARTMENTS I i SITE INFORMATION 'AREA % OF TOTAL rn �ASKETIBAL �� i I TOTAL LOT AREA 155.092 S.F. 100% TENNIS .. I i `fI COURTS. ��( + TOTAL FOOTPRINT OF BUILDINGS 28438 S.F. 17% 'TOTAL AREA OF LANDSCAPING 90,248 S.F. 58% ; TOTAL AREA OF PAVING A406 S.F. 25% . TOTAL AREA OF OPEN SPACE 128.654 S.F. 83% x ff, J 15 16 " ..UNIT' 17 OI' (~ \ 7-PIER �-,,,,�..�: 720L01.�,..,,_ ry`� SUBDIVISION CERTIFIED NURSERYMAN � ,� N.89'S8'14.•:..E„ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 1,2,AND.3,BLOCK t,UNIVERSITY SQUARE APPROVED OFFICE COMPLEX .\ 20 •�• --� _ rtO STREET ADDRESS: 5045 22ND.AVE..80ZEMAN,MT 59715 \ \ --- IL„R r•120:00' ---- ------ u= --- ---- --- -- --�- 'm PERMITS REQUIRED: BUILDING PERMIT '\ 6 2899• '�'� i SIGN PERMIT DATE \•\..... - _, .E .�. /'\�. - - OCCUPANCY6 GROUP R-1,TYPE 1-HR. 18 ZONING: R-0 20 19 `• -- -—-—-—-—--W.DIC ETISM—-—- -.—-— PARKING CALCULATIONS 28 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX \ - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -'-- - - -'-'- — tHT'A' LUT'ir UNTv UDBT w 81 #2 BLDG#1 BE #1 EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING' EXISTING .. ..: NUMBER OF UNITS ,7 8. 8 7 12.. 8 8 - . REQUIRED.. 14 16 16 14 24 16 16 PROVIDED.. 14. 16 "16 - 14 24 16 16- SOUTHBROOK CONDOMINIUMS -��� A1 SITE PLAN _ o _ U r i ( 1.`�r(Ili�iiltl 1,J J o ..J1.I. . it JlL Ij u,Lli+ �' il.' 1 4 31r 1 itr�r/fl�rl �{ 1a` V Hill ,s m nm_ -- ' DRAWN BY:RSS Ill .__ ---._.. .._.. CHECKED BY:RSS ._... __ JOB N0:9511 EM 0-1-11 --------------------------- --------------- L \ N - --- ��.�— ---- — �------- ------- --------------�.�— M ELEVATION _._ N ------------------- ilo IPA, MIME — �Z11 fffr 'o -------- — ---- ------ 5-95 -- - --- --------r 5— -- -- B ELEVATION v ® o ` r•� IND`X OF DRAWINGS I fI ARCHITECTURAL .. Ir Al - SITE PLAN AND PROJECT INFORMATION Au - LANDSCAPING/UTILITY PLAN AND DETAILS A2 - FOUNDATION PLAN AND DETAILS(BLDG#0 1 A2.1 - FOUNDATION PLAN AND DETAILS(BLDG#2) I AS - BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN AND DETAILS(BLDG#2) j! A4 - FIRST FLOOR PLAN AND DETAILS(BLDGS #0 A4.1 - FIRST FLOOR PLAN AND DETAILS(BLDGS#2) L _ , '� ' p A5 - FLOOR FRAMING PLANS(BLDGS#1 AND#2) ,I � r I �T E .,. A6" SECOND FLOOR PLANS(BLDGS#1) 2 A A6.1 - SECOND FLOOR PLANS(BLDGS#2) A7 - ROOF FRAMING PLAN(BLDGS#1 AND#2) A8 - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS(BLDG#U V j_ T JLCOC ST. E.OZEIVfAll, O 1�1 A I A9 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS(BLDG#1) A10 - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS(BLDG#2) All - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS(BLDG#2) Al2 - BUILDING SECTIONS(BLDG#1) A13 - BUILDING SECTIONS(BLDG#2) A14 - SECTIONS AND DETAILS.., I A1S - SECTIONS AND DETAILS -�- � MECHANICAL VICINITY MAP ENLARGED MCINITY MAP ABBREVIATIONS M1 TYPICAL MECHANICAL PLAN(BLDG#1 AND#2) II—JL—�I AFF - ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR MFR - MANUFACTURER M2 - BASEMENT MECHANICAL PLAN(BLDG#2) -� c ILI AC - ACOUSTICAL MAS - MASONRY ACT - ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILE MAX MAXIMUM ADJ - ADJACENT MECH MECHANICALA/C AIR CONDITIONING MTL METAL FALT - ALTERNATIVE MM MILLIMETERELECTRICAAL ALUMINUM '.. MIN - MINUMUM APPD - APPROVED NAT - NATURAL w.B.au ❑ ARCH - ARCHITECT(URAL) NR - NOISE REDUCTION El - TYPICAL ELECTRICAL PLAN(BLDG#1 AND#2) BSMT - BASEMENT NOM - NOMINAL - EIRG BEARING NO - NUMBER E2 - BASEMENT ELECTRICAL PLAN(BLDG#2) BLKG - BLOCKING NIC - NOT IN CONTRACT - - a �� BD - BOARD NTS NOT 70 SCALE - r BLDG - BUILDING OC '-- ON CENTER +/ OC CLG - CEILING OPG OPENING CT - CERAMIC TILE OD - OUTSIDE DIAMETER CLIR - CLEAR OH - OVERHANG coL - COLUMN PNL - PANEL �... 1 B-2 _ 0 r CONC CONCRETE - - PBD - PARTICLE BOARD f j J J' pm S -❑r� CMU - CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT PVMT - PAVEMENT f1 PIT ❑C CONST _ CCONASTRUCTION.IL PIL PLATE - PLYWOOD r -�-r }- (i , B_2 ❑�❑❑OC W - R VA G P POLYVINYLCHLORIDE ! I, ' _... 1 ,/ ' _ I C�.I I.l \\ r R3 ��❑❑� EAG. - EACHN - `PSF - POUND PERSo.FOOT I"i, tI� \ ,\,vi EF - EACH FACE PSI - POUND PER SO.INCH. - I- ` _❑❑❑❑ r ELEC - ELECTRIC(AL) RAD - RADIUS L EQ - EQUAL REF REFERENCE + ""---- '— {� ���)• - - J� �' i� EXG - - EXISTING RE - REINFORCING _ RFG ROOFING FCft P'r20JLCT^� �� j. 7- s L.r__... N m - RO ROUGH OPENING n�❑D EXP -' EXPOSED .I LOCATION SEE -- _ w.cou.9.St ' 4'� - f'-`- EXT EXTERIOR ENLARGED MAP - PROJECT LOCATION `o L�_ FC - FIRE CODE SC - SIMILAR ZONINGR-O `I' hams. a FF - FINISH FLOOR SC - SOLID CORE W.Dr.� g � FIN FlNISH(ED) SPK - SPEAKER FP - FIREPROOF SPEC - SPECIFICATION y FLR - FLOOR SQ - SQUARE- Dr. 1.FTG - FOOTING - STIR - STRUCTURE(AL) - W.G.mda St.' FSO - FURNISHED BY OTHERS SYS - SYSTEM $ os GA - .GAGE.GAUGE THK - THICK(NESS) GC GENERAL CONTRACTOR T&G TONGUE AND,GROOVE vi. GYP SD- -GYPSUM BOARD. TYP TYPICAL HVAC - HEATING/VENTILATING/AIR COND. UBC - .UNIFORM BUILDING CODE - HC HOLLOW CORE .' VCT - VINYL COMPOSITION TILE u m e., HM - HOLLOW METAL VB - - VINYL BASE MR- HOUR .WC - WATER CLOSET A INCL INCLUDE(ING) WP WATERPROOF(ING) INSUL - INSULATE(ION) WWF WELDED WIRE FABRIC ` TNT -. INTERIOR W VIDE WIDTH - JT - JOINT W/ WITH LAM -. .LAMINATE WO = WITHOUT Remington way LL - LIVE LOAD SYMvOLS PROPERTY ADJOINERS \ / xxxx xxxx - ROUGH WOOD -XX%% XX%X EARTH xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx /r FINISH WOODxxxx I - GRAVEL �/ TGEGROUP, P.C. xxxx xxxx CONCRETE i i v i I ACOUSTIC TILE - 1O LAI-ID DATE rLAT� X%%X X%X% I r 201 SOUTH WALLACE AVENUE MASONRY Batt iNsu AnDN BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 xxxx xxxx 406-585-2400 xxxx xxxx 44 a I� xxxx xxxx METAL < �� RIGID INSULATION ( c 7 mom ki J xxxx xxxx N m xxxx xxxx 9 1 I xxxx xxxx j xxxx xxxx m s P I'Sa —- K04CH ST.- O f l- 0 - EVERGREEN TREE-GROUND �•I 3 a o I I DECIDUOUS TREE-PRUNE 1/4' LINE TO BE THE SAME AS •ON-SITE.AND SPRAY WITH ANTIDESIOCANT EXISTED AT NURSERY ACIFORDING FOLI FOLIAGE PRESENT,DOUBLES / ..STRAND OF 10 GA.GALVANIZED WIRE TWISTED •.. §' �` '. I i GARDEN HOSE 2 1/2'DIA.z 10'-O'LONG CEDAR STAKE WITH NOTCHED END(7"-0'.E)POSED) 3 GUYS OF 10 GAUGE ; .-2 PER.TREE - 1 TWISTED WIRE 120' . DRAWN BY:CAM I I I APART AROUND TREE CHECKED BY, CAM TURNBUCKLE II FOLD BACK BURLAP FROM TOP OF BALL. JOB NO:9511 . I 1 ``. • ; 4"SOIL SAUCER BACKFILL WITH TOPSOIL AND PEAT MOSS • \. _ 1` ✓ �' �•�•�• i I I 24•z2'z2�STAKE 3:1 RATIO BY VOLUME IN 9"LAYERS. •� ------ DRIVEN FLUSH W/ WATER EACH LAYER UNTIL SETTLED d - �.�•y i FINISHED GRADE 1; 12 a V I 1IN •\ � \.. . 1 ;. MIN. / i. \ 1 / NOTE: /\ \\ 'j i WRAP DECIDUOUS AP TREES OVERTIC I"CA IPER 13 LE KRAFT TREE WRAP 14 e PLANING DETAIL At.1 NO SCALE r LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE SYMBOL' BOTANICAL NAME' COMMON NAME PLANTING MATURE QTY. i, \ E I III ; I f I18 ACER PLATANaDES NORWAY MAPLE 2'CAL 8dB 50 FT. 0 E 1 I j 1 I �• FRAMNUS PENNSYLVANICA MARSHALL SEEDLESS 1 7/2' 2' 40 FT. 0 1 GREEN ASH 888 117 - ` I1 i i I i PINUS SYLVESIRIS SCOTCH PINE 8'-T 35 FT. ° Bye i ne PRUNUS X CISTENA PURPLE LEAF PLUM 2'-3' 8 FT. 0 5 CAL :. JUNIPERUS SABINA TAM.JUNIPER 18'-24' 3 FL 0 C%] TAMARISCIFOLIA 5 GAL J SABINA SAVIN JUNIPER 18'-'24' 3 FT. 0 b 1 5 GAL x 19 I 15 — — 18—— - ram•} 17 EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN F4 20 \.I \ - --------- - --- ---- --1- - ------- - j IE I LANDSCAPING/UTILITY PLAN A1.1 40._O t 1" � GROUND:COVER: ^•w WASHED GRAVEL OVER LANDSCAPE FABRIC W/POLY EDGING 'y O All LAWN AREAS TO BE PLANTED WITH KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS,RED FESCUE,AND RYEGRASS MIX- LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION TO BE UNDERGROUND AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM.. 66'-0" W� 18'-7` 28'-9" °2A X ----------------- -------L---- ------ ------------- 1- - ems I I i i I I I i i I I DRAWN BY:CAM I � 1 I I I CHECKED BY-CAM < I I I I I I JOB N0:9511 I I i i I I r o I I I I —-—-—- ----I F i i I <_--- L—-—-—-- aF L I I I i i I I I I d N N I I I r——————————— I I I I I I I { I xx I I I I I I i i I I LJ I I I I I I I O I I i i I I I i i I I ...I. I O I I I I i i X I j I I i i I . I xX I I I I I I 1 I X% N I I I 1 I I j I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I i I I I I i i I I I----------- _ V] ------------ ------------------ -- ---- --- I i+ r- r- I x . xx 57'-0" 66,-0. t FOUNDATION PLAN A2 lllr a 1, t 4-28-95 66,-0" N 5,-6.. t3.-1" 8'11. 5,_6" 5%6" � 6•_10" 13'2^ O I I Q = I �ms iv P H _—___---_—_— —_—_—_—_— —_—_ DRAWN BY:GAM CHECKED BY.,GAM JOB N0:9511 r---------- ---------------- Q � Z O - ___________ ___________.. N 0 0 00 (Cl CE O 1 ®�Jf - ---_ -- -- C O - --------- ------ --------L---I .p� N 4 P e o \� •D U i 0 ---= -- i o ----------- -------- - -- ------ -- ---- --- ---- -------- -------- ------ N C ------------------------- m'------------ N N I 1 I 1 1 9'-6" 9'-0" L 5.-6. 5-6" 6.-6" L 13'-4" ! 5.-6. 57'0" 66'-0" FIRST FLOOR PLAN 4-28-95 r r U a. 5'-7Jr - 8'-10". 13'2" 5'-6" O I I En g sss -—-—-—-—-- DRAWN BY.GAM CHECKED BY:GAM JOB NQ 9511 r m i N � a 0 f \ T N N F -----------.' (J W Cl --------- ------ ------ --------- API 0 N , O O --------- ------ f-1 a ID CE — b O as / a Nj .________________ ip C� -----_-_ _-_-_-_-_-_ I�1 H 9 6" 9'-0" 5'-6" I, 5'-6" 8'-8" 13'-4" 5'-6" •f 57'0" 9'0" 66'-0" SECOND FLOOR PLAN A4 1/a" = 1• 4-28-95 t A4 13,_4" a._6. 5'_6. I 5'_6" a._e.. 13'-4" .5•_6" v..7 I I I I f I x x Is. IDRAWN BY:RSS .- CHECKED BY:RSS ..JOB NO:.9571 d m x xx Aq ------------ ---------------- a ----5-'--6-'----.jIILI - o .. _ ---o --- -- ----- ------ xX cl L5 - ------ ----------- Ic=___________ bAro0 - - - - �S�pLA OTVEpEP�IOOLF FrEV S.SA1 1IO LICENSE MM0�� RB1S�IE R5 13' 33'-0" 33,-0" ,------------7� O=, FT, 66,-0' 5-5-95 a x P� oW l .. A FIRST FLOOR PLAN (RLDG#2) 1 . i i 66._0, U } 0 5-6" 13!-4" B'-6" 5'-G" 5'-6" 8'-8" - 13'-4" 5'-6" . xx I I I _Ml �n DRAWN BY:RSS — - CHECKED BY.RSS:.. — JOB ND:9511 a [.z " I 00 to t�lCE cl XX - - - " p1 ; X ([— -XX � l 0 �_ o © . o _ XX .. I� i 5 I I i, L XX 13'4"., 6._8.. 5 6" I' 5'6" 8'-8" 13:-4.,. s.-6. LoWELL V. a e -- -- - LICENSE NMREA 33._0" � 33'-0 OF 66,_0, 5-5-95 OR L n SECOND FLOOR PLAN (BLDG #Hl) F 1 yJ 5'-6" 13•_4.. 8,_8" 5_8. I 5'6" F.,`.. 13'4" - 5 6" .7 I I I I I f IL 1 I I I I m DRAWN BY:RSS CHECKED BY:RSS ' ..... •'. - .. ,JOB N0:9511 --------------- c © 0 Z ---------- P p - --� 00 0 e cl I o - � pl b o I I I I I 9'Y I I ..I .I ��PppFESSlpryyp��� 13'-4" ' 8'-8" _y 5'-6' �, .5'-6" 8'-$" � 13'-4" 5'fi" La LICENSE v. IE a - �I -- �f -- - - LSCENSE NUMBER -L7 QTfOFMOo- 66 0 SECOND FLOOR PLAN (E)LDG *2} A6.1 • Q; O� L j i 15 e N DRAWN BY R55 CHECKED BY:RSS m JOB N0.9511 ED t[ry J7 ELEVATION O w lilt IIIIIIIIIII 44 -- — 4PpFE551pluq� —_ norm LOVELI V. R LICENSE MIMBER 1 sr' rNp 4 OF M1 �P B ELEVAMNAg I ,. '• - ,:I.IIL 11 11,141 i�11_� IT If 11 IT El 11 IT If t111 L L I : J1 1111 It 111111 MITI 2 I T 11]fit:1 11 Ifil till it till it It it It ItTT I � n FE1111 .m CHECKED BY:RSS JOB NO:9511 F11711 NE 0 oa o LLJ a a ED , o _______________________________________ ___ __-__------_ -____----------------- -^--- -M ------ ------ ---- ---- ------------ ---- ----- ----= -------- --� o A ELEVAMN a pPOFE551W'�C LICENSE NUN HER .800 I-- --- -- - ----____ - __ r --- ------ 7------------77--` ----------'---- ----`- -------- --^"- --- - --- 5-5-95 ELEVATION A10 1�s^=1_D MEMORANDUM TO: Laurae Clark, Treasurer FROM: Therese Berger, Administrative Secretary DATE: 09/05/97 RE: Cowdrey Apartments CUP #Z-9591/#Z-95158 /LOC#19-970342 Enclosed you will find correspondence and an envelope to release the original letter of credit referenced above issued from First Security Bank in the amount of$44,886.15for improvements related to the apartment project at 504 South 22nd Avenue. I've included a copy of the LOC with the letter to the bank for your convenience. If you have any questions please give me a call at ! X2360. Thank you for your help. 1 BOZEMAO • - CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE Bozeman 35 NORTH BOZEMAN AVENUE City-County P.O. BOX 640, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59771-0640 Planning Office PHONE: (406) 582-2360 FAX: (406)582-2363 September 5, 1997 Ron Farmer, Executive Vice President First Security Bank of Bozeman P.O. Box 910 Bozeman, MT 59771-0910 Re: #Z-95158 Cowdrey Apartments CUP - 504 South 22nd Avenue Dear Mr. Farmer: Enclosed you will find the original letter of credit dated 04/11/97 in the amount of $44886.15 which was issued for the account of Marvin and Judy G. Cowdrey to guarantee improvements related to their apartment project located at 503 South 22nd Avenue in Bozeman. Per an on-site inspection by planning staff, all of the improvements relating to the approval of this project have been completed. Thank you for cooperating with the City of Bozeman on this matter. Sincerely, 49�a- Therese Berger Administrative Secretary TB/tb Enc. cc: Buzz Cowdrey, 32300 E. Frontage Road, Bozeman, MT 59715 1 • �»� _. a �ln�� cv�s�� ��� �.o � �� , • � r' � ' 1 - . I 1. , ! � �--^�` - .e_ � ._ s:t1'"r ram- 1�I�J i� ri��. .'''. � � i � ��, .� � r j .��i 'rtl �.: ���. ; .t �'" r'- � � ',1,. ail/ Ilf I� .�..!`� ', �'r � r ` J1 tr.- ' _ t.._ s . - 4 ..a...—� 4 :1. �� - l i r cl"__ - -�- - C { �Il _ 1Z f o Mc-, -no k-) Qom__ '10i 1z Yo t7� N C�,. _ k 3 I' � �,,.. 'i f .. I Y _ ♦. ` � ' - � �, i � ! . ' i , t I r ' , • f � ` •� i \� � � �i � � J • , I 1 ��o� . i� 1 �_ � �� OJ � �. 1� -- � —�� I11 �� �� I�� _ _cam - ��-�� �� P � �. -� ��� �,�: ��� �� 111 `��_ fll _ llf � _ l�l � �� ��1 �l ��� } �l� ; l `11 ,� �,l � l . �11 �l� f �91 1= ail ��� il� ;�) i ' � I I I a I-NSZ7, C2 CR �i��oT ICJ ltiJ�` M.G r� o vt it os -- � � f FBI i�j' `�Z c, _ -mac r �. i i BOZE N CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE Bozeman 35 NORTH BOZEMAN AVENUE City-County P.O. BOX 64.0, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59771-0640 Planning Office PHONE: (406)582-2360 FAX: (406)582-2363 August 10, 1995 Mr. Buz Cowdrey 32300 Frontage Road Bozeman,MT 59715 RE: Cowdrey Apartments, Phase 2, 504 South 22nd Avenue, File Z-9591 Dear Buz: The Development Review Committee and Design Review Board have completed their review of your PUD Concept Plan for the final phase of the Cowdrey Apartments. The Concept Plan is an opportunity to identify major problems that may exist and solutions to those problems before the formal application is made. As you are aware,the property is zoned R-O,Residential Office, and apartments are allowed as a conditional use in this use. In 1984,you were granted PUD approval for 70 apartment units, which included a 15% density bonus. Phase 1, consisting of 32 units,was constructed,but Phase 2 was not completed. Since then, the Kid's Depot day care center was constructed in the northeast corner of the site, removing a portion of the land from the PUD. The remaining property could accommodate 20 dwelling units through the conditional use permit process. You have elected to pursue a PUD in order to attain a 15% density bonus for the construction of 28 dwelling units, for an overall density of the development of 60 dwelling units (versus 70 previously approved). You and Lowell Springer attended the Development Review Committee's meeting on August 8 and heard comments from the members of the Committee. For your convenience, a copy of all written comments are enclosed with this letter. The main issues raised by the Committee were: -Each building must have an individual water and sewer service line. The location and size must be approved by the Water/Sewer Department. All fire lines must also be approved by that Department. The 12-plex must be sprinklered. - The plan must meet parking requirements. Concern was expressed with regard to the distance from the parking lot to the new 8-plexes (in excess of 140 feet). - 30% open space, exclusive of required setbacks and parking lot landscaping, must be provided. It is.questionable if the required amount of open space can be attained on this site. Hai ' • • i Buz Cowdrey August 10, 1995 Page 2 - It is questionable if the PUD can meet all required PUD criteria; in particular: - Circulation of the site (distance from parking to units) - Lack of usable open space for the three new buildings; crowding of the northern portion of the site - 30%open space- - Adequate loading and unloading areas (again, distance from parking to units) - Private outdoor areas - Inclusion of a variety of housing types and styles, due to density bonus - The project MUST exceed the established regulatory design standards due to the density bonus (setbacks, off-street parking, open space, etc.) The Design Review Board reviewed the project on August 8 as well. Lowell Springer attended the meeting, but arrived near the end of the discussion. Basically, the Design Review Board gave the project a negative review, and felt that the PUD was only being used to increase the density. The PUD criteria used in 1984 and that used today are very different. The intent of a PUD is "to promote maximum flexibility and innovation in the development of land and the design of development projects... so that greater opportunities for better housing, recreation, shopping and employment may extend to all citizens of the Bozeman area... [while] fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of land." Further, a PUD should improve the design, quality and character of new . development. The following are their comments: - A density bonus should not be granted to the project based on the design. There is no excellence in design. The design is not in the spirit of the PUD chapter. Open space is inadequate. -The development"maxes out"the site with low end rental units. The amenities provided do not warrant a density bonus. There is no excellence in design of the project. -Need to separate the new phase from phase 1. Problems with continuation of an 11 year old project that was reviewed under a different code. Existing parking should be brought up to current standards, e.g. accessible parking, landscape, approaches. Must look at entire site. Cramming in too much on the property. - Some members felt the design of the building should be changed so it.is not the same as the existing units. Others (a majority) felt the design should be the same. -If a density bonus is requested,the project must provide design excellence. Require street trees in the boulevards of all adjacent streets, in this phase as well as original phase. (Staff note: street trees will be required even through the C.U.P. process). Buz Cowdrey August 10, 1995 Page 3 - Suspect of continuing 11 year old style. Could do a better quality development here. -Like the 2%z story unit mixed in,but too much development in this comer whether looking at the whole PUD or just this portion. - Parking dead ends in the new lot. It looks like it should loop. The new parking doesn't serve the new units. -The Code encourages arranging parking lots so they are not visible from the street, which this proposal does. In light of the Board's discussion regarding bring the entire site up to existing Code, I somewhat disagreed with their findings. I feel that the existing improvements met Code at the time they were installed,and that only the new development should be reviewed under the current Code with regard to interior parking lot landscaping. The Preliminary Plan submittal process is somewhat complex, and requires a considerable amount of information. The Public Service Director has indicated that a traffic study will not be required for this project. All other information required in Chapter 18.54 of the Zoning Ordinance must be submitted with the Preliminary Plan, as well as narrative answering all required criteria. Due to the type of the project, some of the information will not be applicable to this project. As I indicated at the Development Review Committee, Buz, I have some concern that the project will comply with all required review criteria, and if it does not, it is not eligible for PUD review. I encourage you and your representative to very carefully review the submittal requirements and review criteria before submitting a preliminary plan for this project. Please feel free to call me at 582-2364 should you have any questions regarding the comments made by DRC and DRB members. Sincerely, Xv Arkell ' Assistant Planning Director' Enc. Cc: Lowell Springer, Springer Group Architects Jim Wysocki, City Manager I DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1995 Members Present: Dave Skelton, Chairman/Planner John Paysek, Engineering Karen Finke, Engineering Kurt Albrecht, Building Roger Sicz, Streets/Sanitation Fred Shields, Water/Sewer Staff Present: Georgiann Youngstrom Debbie Arkell Visitors Present: Buz Cowdrey Lowell Springer Final Week Review - Cowdrey PUD Concept Z-9591 Dave Skelton asked when this proposed project would be shown to the Planning Board and Planner Arkell replied that it will not as this is a concept plan looking for any possible trouble spots . . Planner Arkell reviewed her comments concerning the concept and stated that the space of Kid' s Depot cannot be used as part of the open space needed in the PUD. She voiced concern about the distance from parking that the 8-plex will be and suggested that a wider sidewalk be considered for ease of loading and unloading. Planner Arkell commented on having a private outdoor area. Planner Arkell noted that the City of Bozeman is in need of a variety of housing and apartments are certainly needed. She stated that with the residential bonus requested there are areas in which they will need to exceed code requirements eg. setbacks, parking spaces . Planner Arkell noted a memo from Phill Forbes, Public Service, in which he stated that there is no reason to do a traffic study at this time. Fred Shields stated that each building must have its own water and sewer service line and the size and location of each must be approved by the water department. He stated that if any building is to have fire sprinklers the plans for such are to be submitted and approved before any building permit may be obtained. Roger Sicz stated the concern he raised last week about the intersection at 22nd and Dickerson will take care of its own. Kurt Albrecht noted the building code requirements in his comments . Karen Finke stated that she was having difficulty finding things on the plans . She asked if the drive approach exists . Planner Arkell confirmed that it did. Karen Fink noted the snow storage needs to be shown and commented that additional storm water information was needed. Lowell Springer stated that he had not meant to imply that they were asking formally to have the other property where the Kid' s Depot exists to be counted in the open space but that with that space not counted there is now more open space than in the original PUD. He stated that they had not identified the location of everything on the plans at this conceptual stage but that it will be on the formal application. Buz Cowdrey stated they had tried to blend in the shingles on the Kid' s Depot with those on the existing apartment buildings and as will be on the proposed project. He said the pitch of the Kid' s Depot roof is -the same as on the proposed project. He noted that his business receives 50-60 calls a day for availability of apartments . Lowell Springer asked if there were any negative feelings about the density they were requesting. Planner Arkell stated that after she realized the scale of the plan was 1 : 40 she felt better about the project as before she felt it was very crowded. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - AUGUST 8, 1995 Members Present: Cliff Chisholm Kim Walker Mara-Gai Katz Paul Gleye John DeHaas Walt Willett Ed McCrone Staff Present: Georgiann Youngstrom Debbie Arkell Visitors Present: Lowell Springer Project Review - Cowdrey PUD Concept Z-9591 Planner Arkell reviewed the PUD concept. She stated that the concept plan review with the comments the Board will give will be used by the applicant to prepare the full PUD plan application. Planner Arkell stated that the original PUD was approved for 70 units at Koch, Dickerson, and 22nd. She stated that 32 units were built in Phase I and due to economic factors Phase II was not built. She stated since that time an area was taken from the project to build Kid' s Depot and the time has elapsed for the PUD approval . Planner Arkell stated that the applicant now will do 28 more units . She noted that the site plan shows the existing buildings and the parking lots . She stated that the parking lot to the east is not constructed. Planner Arkell stated that the proposal is to do two 8-plex and one 12 -plex just south of Koch Street. She noted that the elevations are identical to the existing structures . Planner Arkell stated that the 12-plex will be 2 1/2 stories and the 8-plexes will be two story. She commented that while Kid' s Depot was not part of this development, the applicant kept the roof pitch and general design of the existing and proposed structures in it' s design. Planner Arkell stated that this review is the place to talk about any problems the Board may see in the proposed project. Cliff Chisholm asked about the 15% density bonus . Planner Arkell stated that the original PUD had an approved 15% density bonus and what the applicant is asking now is to take out the Kid' s Depot area. She stated they could ask for up to a 30% 4 • • bonus through a Conditional Use Permit but that they are asking for 15% overall bonus with a PUD. That is why they have 28 units . Cliff Chisholm asked if the city will see the project at this point as a brand new PUD application or as some continuation. Planner Arkell said it looked like a continuation due to the existing structures and amenities . Cliff Chisholm stated that he had a hard time with the PUD as there is no particular excellence of design in cramming the most apartments in the project . Kim Walker asked if the applicant was aware of the PUD requirements . Planner Arkell stated that in 1983 when the original PUD was approved there were other regulations . Kim Walker questioned that if the whole proposal was to be looked at as new, would the new regulations control the existing structures . Planner Arkell stated that the basketball courts and tennis courts will be tied into the project. Planner Arkell stated that a unit was originally proposed in one area of the site and has been removed in order to have to keep it an open space. Cliff Chisholm stated that it looked to him that the site is a maxed out low-end rental unit and would like it to be held to what the code allows . John DeHaas stated that he has some problem with the continuation of a project that expired in 1984 , even though the property has the same owner. He stated that the new proposed project should be looked at separately. He stated that the parking of the proposed project would have to include handicapped access and landscaping as in the present requirements . He continued stating that the design could be improved and if this project is a continuation he thought the whole site must be looked at and brought up to standards . John DeHaas concurred with Cliff Chisholm that there is too much cramming in a small area. Paul Gleye stated that the Board' s purpose is to make comments for the applicant and not make a recommendation. He asked for the justification for the 15% density bonus . Planner Arkell stated the applicant did not have to include a justification at the time of the concept review but with the formal review they will need to include that justification. - Paul Gleye stated that if the applicants wish the bonus they need to show design excellence which he does not see in the concept plan. He asked about the curb detail shown in the corner of the site plan and Planner Arkell stated that is showing the curb for the parking lot. Paul Gleye noted that street trees are not shown. Planner Arkell stated that street trees are will be required. Mara-Gai Katz voiced concern about continuing a fairly mediocre building environment. She stated she is always suspect of continuing something without investigating it. She noted that she concurred with Cliff Chisholm' s comments regarding the cramming. Walt Willett stated that if the applicant wanted to continue with the same architectural design it was o.k. but he also felt that too much is being crammed into one corner and noted that he doesn' t see the open space requirements being met at all . Kim Walker asked if Planner Arkell had calculated the 30% open space. Planner Arkell stated she had told the applicant that the required open space was not on the plan and that they would have to show and calculate the open space with the preliminary submitted. Ed McCrone stated that he concurred with the suggestions given. He stated that the parking worried him with the dead end in the new space and was wondering if it didn' t need to go through the adjacent property. He noted that the parking area was not serving the living area. Cliff Chisholm concurred with Ed McCrone' s comments . Paul Gleye stated that the parking spaces are quite a different area and that he liked the parking as it was quite hidden from the city. Kim Walker asked if a suggestion had been made to the applicant of not doing a PUD submittal as there are a lot of inherent problems with this submittal . Planner Arkell referred to her memo on PUD criteria Residential #8 in which the 30% open space and the set backs will have to truly be in excess to be accepted. Kim Walker asked about the parking. Planner Arkell stated they need three more spaces than shown to meet zone code. Kim Walker asked how they would met the increase landscaping and parking and open space in the entire PUD. Planner Arkell stated if the applicant eliminated 8 of the proposed units they would need a Conditional Use Permit and not a PUD. John DeHaas stated that he didn' t think they could meet the parking requirements . He said he felt they were asking to go back to the . 1980' s but that they have to meet today' s conditions and requirements . He stated that even only 20 units might have severe problems . Cliff Chisholm stated that the review is hinged on the assumption that with further development on this property the Board would be reviewing the existing structures and making the site come up to code. Planner Arkell stated that was not necessarily true. Kim Walker asked if Phase II is put under a PUD, will the Board look at the whole project . Planner Arkell stated that the part of the code she was referring to were suggestions but not required as conditions . Kim Walker noted that they have been used as conditions in other situations . Planner Arkell stated they can be used as basis for conditions . Cliff Chisholm questioned if it is the city' s position that the Board will be going back to make major revisions in the existing project. Planner Arkell stated that the new project should comply with the new code, and the old project should be allowed to remain as is, as it complied with the code in a• � • • effect at the time the project was approved. I i i 0 130Z 7 THE CITY OF BOZEMAN I 41 1 E.'MAIN ST. ' P.O. BOX 640 PHONE(406$63321 I * * BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59771-0640 P �< 9�c9r 883 �N CO.t� DATE: TO: DRC •,�EOG�£�iQ��/l FROM: Fred Shields, Superintendent of Water/Sewer RE: Plan Review Comments --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -1. All water and sewer lines, both existing and proposed, be shown accur— ately on the Final Site Plan. 2. All water and sewer mains, service lines, and easements, both existing and proposed, be shown on the Final Landscape Plan. 3. Size be accurately indicated' on all water and sewer lines shown on Final Site Plan. 4. All fire hydrants within 500 feet will be shown or indicated on Final Site Plan. 5. Accurate, dimensioned detail of domestic water meter location on inside' of building must be shown on Site Plan. 6. Accurate, dimensioned .detail of fire service riser location inside of building must be shown on Site Plan. 7. That plans and specifications for any fire service line be prepared in accordance .with the City's Fire Service Line Policy by a professional engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to initiation of construction of the fire service or fire protection, and that the applicant provide professional engineering services for construction inspection, post—construction certification, and preparation of mylar record drawings. S �Ac� ��ci �di�/q Y!'I�fsf !'Jf!✓C /Iva, SERdIc� �iXE/s . ' 9 ,q// s6iPvicE /ivEs, ,?iiEs, VA"e /ocgcsofa*sf l F fjdp.Pod�'a/ -7-� �Oi?c7�O.SEa� fj`I//�/.vas, yhs 6' ,�/oEc� G,g Tie ass .rnKst 6E 77-d fz �o dEd To HOME OF MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY / GATEWAY TO YELLOWSTONE PARK y:. O Bo2� �49 THE CITY OF BOZEMAN ~ 35 NO. BOZEMAN AVE. P.O. BOX 640 * _ * CARNEGIE BUILDING BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59771-0640 9�l'9�f BUILDING INSPECTION PHONErrDD (406)582.2375 h CO• ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PHONE/TDD (406) 582-2380 To: Development Review Committee (DRC) From : Karen A. Finke, Engineer Re: Cowdrey PUD Date: August 8,. 1995 The following should be addressed in the any subsequent PUD submittal: GENERAL 1. The FSP shall be adequately dimensioned. 2. Clearly identify what is proposed and what is existing. J. All infrastructure improvements including 1) water and sewer main extensions, and 2) Public or Private streets including curb/gutter, sidewalks and storm drainage infrastructure improvements shall be financially guaranteed or constructed prior to occupancy. No building permits will be issued prior to completion and acceptance of the Public infrastructure improvements. 4. Plans and Specifications for any water, sewer and/or storm sewer main extensions and Public or Private Streets (including curb, gutter & sidewalks) prepared by a Professional Engineer (PE) registered in the state of Montana, shall be provided to and approved by the City Engineer. Water and sewer plans shall also be approved by the Department of Environmental Quality. The applicant shall also provide Professional Engineering services for Construction Inspection, Post-Construction Certification, and preparation of mylar Record Drawings. Specific comments regarding the existing and proposed infrastructure shall be provided at that time. Construction shall not be initiated on the public infrastructure improvements until the plans and specifications have been approved and a preconstruction conference has been conducted. STORMWATER 5. A Stormwater Drainage Plan/Treatment Plan and Maintenance Plan for a system designed to remove solids, silt, oils, grease and other pollutants from the run-off from the private and/or public streets must be provided to and approved by the City Engineer. The plan must demonstrate adequate site drainage (including sufficient spot elevations along drainage courses), stormwater detention/retention basin details (including basin sizing and discharge calculation and discharge structure details), stormwater discharge destination and a stormwvater maintenance plan. If the grading design discloses any adverse impact to off- site properties, necessary design alterations and/or drainage conveyance devices and easements must be provided. HOME OF MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY GATEWAY TO YELLOWSTONE PARK s r e The stormwater drainage/treatment facilities must include a Maintenance Plan outlining in detail maintenance operations, frequency of inspections and maintenance, responsible parties and record keeping methodology. WATER AND SEWER 6. The location of existing sewer and water mains shall be properly depicted, as well as nearby fire hydrants and proposed fire hydrants. 7. 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. STREETS, CURB/GUTTER AND SIDEWALKS 8. City standard sidewalk shall be installed and properly depicted at the standard location(ie. 1 foot off property line) along the street(s) frontage. Any deviation to the standard alignment or location must be approved by the City Engineer. Sidewalks shall be constructed by lot owners within three (3) years of plat approval regardless of whether other improvements have been made to the lot(s). The developer shall install City standard residential sidewalks on all public street frontages that abut park land or open space areas at the time the street improvements are installed. These improvements shall be completed prior to plat approval or secured by an improvement agreement and financial guarantee. e drive approach shall be constructed in accordance with the City's standard approach (ie. concrete apron, sidewalk section and drop-curb) and shown as such on the FSP. A Curb Cut and Sidewalk Permit shall be obtained prior to FSP approval. 10. The configuration of the off-street parking shall be adequately dimensioned and shall comply with the requirements of 18.50.120 of the Zone Code unless a deviation or variance is granted by the governing body. This includes parking stall dimensions, drive aisle widths, lot surfacing and curbing. MISCELLANEOUS 11. All existing utility and other easements must be shown on the FSP. 12. Adequate snow storage area must be designated outside the site triangles, but on the subject property (unless a snow storage easement is obtained for a location off the property and filed with the County Clerk and Recorder). COWDREY PHASE II PUD CONCEPT PLAN PUD PLANNING OFFICE COMMENTS AUGUST 8, 1995 1. 120 parking spaces needed, plus 5 disabled. If compact spaces are used, site plan must adequately label. All disabled and compact spaces must be appropriately signed with raised signs. The parking calculations must include the two units in the manager's building. 2. Preliminary PUD site plan must ADEQUATELY show the two phases, including EVERYTHING that is existing in Phase I (parking, buildings, sewer, water, electricity, etc.) and what is proposed with Phase II. 3. The storm water retention area appears inadequate. Is there storm drain in the street; if so will it be used. 4. PUDs require 30%open space, EXCLUSIVE of required setbacks and parking lot landscaping. Paving doesn't count,either. YOU MUST SHOW ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAN THAT THIS CONDITION CAN BE MET OR THE PROJECT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PUD REVIEW WITHOUT REQUESTING A VARIANCE. 5. The location of the dumpster in the new parking area does not appear very convenient for the 30 new units. Where are the dumpsters for the existing units? 6. Bike racks should be provided for the new units. 7. You cannot include the Kid's Depot as part of this PUD. It was not constructed as such, as is under different ownership. 8. The PUD Preliminary Plan Submittal Requirements checklist must be submitted with the application. Any item checked NO or N/A must be explained in a narrative attached to the checklist. 9. The All Development and Residential Design Objectives and Criteria form must be submitted with the application. These criteria are MANDATORY to be met. If a NO answer is provided,the project is not eligible for PUD status without a variance. Staff is particularly concerned with the following criteria: - ALL DEVELOPMENT No. 26. ARE THE ELEMENTS OF THE SITE PLAN (e.g. buildings, circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) ARRANGED ON THE SITE SO THAT ACTIVITIES ARE INTEGRATED WITH THE ORGANIZATIONAL SCHEME OF THE COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD. (Concern with circulation) - ALL DEVELOPMENT No. 29. 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. (Concern with lack of usable open space for three new buildings -- perhaps some "courtyard" amenities could be added between the three structures) - ALL DEVELOPMENT NO. 30. DOES THE ARRANGEMENT OF BUILDINSG AND OPEN SPACE AREAS CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL AESTHETIC QUALITY OF THE SITE CONFIGURATION, AND IS AT LEAST 30% OF THE PROJECT, EXCLUSIVE OF YARD SETBACKS AND PARKING LOT INTERIOR LANDSCAPE, DEVELOPED AS OPEN SPACE. (Must CLEARLY indicate all countable open space on the preliminary plan -- you may count the ENTIRE park area to the east of the Dickerson entrance) - ALL DEVELOPMENT NO. 32. 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. (Approximately 140 feet to 8-plexes -- perhaps a wider sidewalk from parking lot to structures/street for easier loading?) -RESIDENTIAL No. 2. DOES THE PROJECT PROVIDE FOR PRIVATE OUTDOOR AREAS (e.g. private yards, patios and balconies, etc.) (Site plan shows what could be patios, but the elevations don't show them). -RESIDENTIAL No. 4. IF THE PROJECT IS PROPOSING A RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS (you are asking for 15%) DOES IT INCLUDE A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES AND STYLES DESIGNED TO ADDRESS COMMUNITY-WIDE ISSUES OF AFFORDABILITY AND DIVERSITY OF HOUSING STOCK? (Apartments are sorely needed in Bozeman -- perhaps you can provide some vacancy rates) -RESIDENTIAL No. 8. IF THE PROJECT IS PROPOSING A RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS, DOES THE PROPOSED PROJECT EXCEED THE ESTABLISHED REGULATORY DESIGN STANDARDS (such as for setbacks, off-street parking, open space, etc.) AND ENSURE COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT. (The Concept Plan does not exceed the listed standards) �R. C, S �e v t e��s�- ✓r�.v�2`� 'P4�J�S CZ (2- pn -K�- ,-bY4 (,A- C4 (o��� I z 6'CQ-rc h-utio-fi � • I A4 - 111I� I Boa • • THE CITY OF BOZEMAN 35 NO. BOZEMAN AVE. P.O. BOX 640 RECEIVED BY * * CARNEGIE BUILDING BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59771-0640 T==- �4 AUG 0 7 1995 �c9��N80 1 0 BUILDING INSPECTION PHONE/TDD (406)582.2375 CO`,� �`,+Y� Y ILANNING ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PHONE/TDD(406)582-2380 MEMO TO : Development Review Committee FROM: Kurt Albrecht, Chief Building Official DATE : August 7, 1995 RE : Cowdrey PUD Concept Z-9591, Conditions of Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 . The two 8 plex' s shall be 1 hour construction throughout . 2 . The 12 plex shall be 1 hour construction throughout and it shall be sprinklered. HOME OF MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY GATEWAY TO YELLOWSTONE PARK RECEIVED BY MEMORANDUM AUG 071995 DATE: August 4 1995 CITY-COUNTY PLANNING TO: Debbie Arkell, Assistant Planning Director FROM: Phillip J. Forbes, Director of Public Service SUBJECT: Cowdrey PUD Concept Review I see no reason to go the expense of performing a traffic impact analysis for the proposed completion of this PUD. I believe the traffic patterns and any relevant street improvements in the area are apparent to DRC members that will review any future submittal . I suppose we should reserve the right to require it upon formal submittal, but I think the probability of that requirement is virtually nil . Please contact me when I return from annual leave if you have any questions on the above . PJF/ev CC: Craig Brawner, City Engineer Roger Sicz, Street and Sanitation Superintendent File TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: DEBBIE ARKELL, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: AUGUST 3, 1995 FOR YOUR AUGUST 8, 1995 MEETING RE: COWDREY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN Attached for your review and discussion is a submittal for Phase 2 of a previously approved Planned Unit Development at the comer of Koch Street and South 22nd Avenue. A PUD was approved in 1984 for 70 apartment units to be constructed in two phases on this property. A 15%density bonus was granted in conjunction with the PUD. Phase 1,consisting of 32 units, has been constructed. The PUD approval for Phase II has expired, as it was to be constructed within 18 months after Phase I was completed. Since that review, Lot 2 has been developed as the Kid's Depot day care center, and will not longer be a part of the apartment development,thus decreasing the size of land available for the PUD. The property is zoned R-0, Residential Office, and apartments are allowed as a conditional use. The applicant had the option of applying for a conditional use permit and constructing 20 additional units. He has instead opted for a PUD with a 15%density bonus to construct the proposed 28 units. As with all Concept PUD reviews, the Design Review Board is charged with reviewing the application and submitting comments for the developer's consideration while preparing the preliminary PUD plan. This review is an opportunity to identify major problems that may exist and solutions to those problems before the formal application. The Review Criteria used when considering a PUD are found on page 386-22 of the Zoning Ordinance, under Section 18.54.050.C.3. The applicant and/or his representative will be present at the meeting to answer questions of the Board. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT YOU DRIVE BY THIS SITE, AS THE STRUCTURES PROPOSED ARE SIMILAR TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURES, AND IT WILL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT EXIST ON THE SITE. i . � 0 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - AUGUST 1, 1995 Members Present: Dave Skelton, Chairman/Planner Phill Forbes, Public Service Fred Shields , Water/Sewer Roger Sicz, Street/Sanitation Kurt Albrecht, Building Karen Fink, Engineering Rick Hixson, Engineering Chuck Winn, Fire Marshall Staff Present: Georgiann Youngstrom Debbie Arkell Visitors Present: Buz Cowdrey Lowell Springer Second Week Review - Cowdrey PUD Concept Z-9591 Planner Arkell showed the committee the area of the proposed project on the plat. She asked Lowell Springer if the parking shown is existing or planned. Lowell Springer said the plan shows both. He said the parking is adequate for what now exists and that enough parking is being added for the proposed units . Planner Arkell reviewed the PUD this applicant had from the 19801s . She noted that originally this phase would have had 60 units but an area was taken from the phase for development of the Kid' s Depot, therefore that area will not be used in this project. She stated that the time had elapsed for the original PUD and when the applicant and she had conferred on this present PUD she had encouraged them to do a 20 unit development, however, he has chosen to do 28 units . Planner Arkell commented that it appears to be very crowded. i Planner Arkell voiced concern as to the lack of accessible parking for the far unit which will either be parking on the street or going quite a distance to the parking lot. She stated that 125 parking spaces are required and that the plan shows 123 so that two parking spaces will need to be picked up with five of the space being van accessible. Planner Arkell noted that the project will have difficulty getting enough open space as required in PUDs . She noted that setbacks can not be used. Dave Skelton asked what the applicant was asking in way of density bonus since the original PUD had 15% granted, would 30% or 15% be requested. Planner Arkell stated the applicant is asking 15% density bonus . 0 0 Fred Shields asked what size water service the applicant wanted. Buz Cowdrey stated in the original project it had been teed off the main line. Fred Shields stated that he has record of one water stub that is 111 . Buz Cowdrey stated that they had used several of the stubs around the property. Planner Arkell stated that an earlier drawing had shown the stubs but that the present one does not. Lowell Springer stated that everything on this drawing had been taken off information from 2nd floor at the Carnegie building. Buz Cowdrey questioned Lowell Springer as to whether he had actually found the water stubs or had looked for them. Lowell Springer stated he hadn' t looked for them yet. Planner Arkell stated the retention area is very small . Roger Sicz voiced concern about the traffic at 20th and Dickerson which is now uncontrolled by stop signs . He said he would recommend a traffic study be done. Lowell Springer asked if he meant traffic control or a stop sign. Roger Sicz said he' d rather see a stop sign. Planner Arkell noted that the original PUD says a traffic study will be done at the discretion of the Public Service Director. Roger Sicz noted that one of the problems is. driving down 20th or 22nd with cars on both sides and people and children crossing mid street. Buz Cowdrey asked where he would suggest the stop sign be put. Roger Sicz said at 20th and Dickerson. Kurt Albrecht asked if one of the units is going to be three floors . Lowell Springer replied yes . Kurt Albrecht stated that it will need to be sprinkled. He also confirmed the construction of the other units will be to building code. Planner Arkell stated that comments will be given next week but no conditions as this is a concept plan and will not go on to Planning Board or City Commission. Fred Shields voiced concern about the size of the water line necessary to have sprinklers . Buz Cowdrey asked what size water line goes along 22nd. Fred Shields replied 811 . Roger Sicz asked if the applicant had any trouble with the ditch. Buz Cowdrey replied he had not had any trouble with the one coming in from the north. Roger Sicz stated that people have called his department about the way the ditch is bermed. Lowell Springer explained the applicant' s thoughts concerning the density. In 1984 the original PUD had 70 units but 10 have been removed due to the day care center. He said two things are key: 1) the area is appropriate for high density; and 2) the open space has remained the same or will be more for the whole complex since they are asking a lowering of the number of units and during the weekends and evenings they will be more a feel of open space. Dave Skelton stated the committee will have another look at the project next week. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - JULY 25, 1995 Members Present: Dave Skelton, Chairman/Planner Chuck Winn, Co-Chairman/Fire Marshall Roger Sicz, Streets/Sanitation Karen Finke, Engineering John Paysek, Engineering Rick Hixson, Engineering Fred Shields, water/Sewer Phill Forbes, Public Service Kurt Albrecht, Building Staff Present: Georgiann Youngstrom Debbie Arkell Initial Week Review - Cowdrey PUD Concept Z-9591 Dave Skelton stated that this proposed project is near Kid' s Depot. Planner Arkell stated that back in the 1980' s the applicant did a PUD for apartments and included the area of Kid' s Depot in Phase II . Due to lower market soon after the application that Phase was not done and now they are applying to put that Phase in without the area where Kid' s Depot is located. They are asking for the 15% density bonus which was granted with the original project. Planner Arkell stated that she had encouraged them to do 20 units through a Conditional Use Permit process, but they have elected to do 28 units for a PUD. She said it will be an extension of the original PUD. She noted that parking is about 160, from the 8 plexes and will not be convenient for loading and unloading furniture of the tenants . Planner Arkell stated that it should not be a problem for fire as they have access from the streets . Roger Sicz voiced concern about the intersection of 19th and Koch Street. Planner Arkell stated that she would check if there is a waiver for signalization at that corner. Fred Shields stated that he doesn' t see any water or sewer services listed on the plan. Planner Arkell stated that on a June 15th informal plan it showed water and she suggested that the applicant contact him. Fred Shields stated that the applicant had not done SO. Dave Skelton stated that when they did the original PUD it was only for apartments . Planner Arkell said they did a realignment of lot line to form the Kid' s Depot lot . Dave Skelton noted that one building is very close to the center. Roger Sicz asked if the ditch on the east side needed to be looked at. Dave Skelton stated that there is a catch basin on the east side on the adjacent property about half way down. He stated the ditch is also on the adjacent property. Planner Arkell stated that the applicant had originally asked if the corner could be used for a structure and she informed him it could not be used because the original PUD left it as a required open area. . Chuck Winn asked if one of the buildings was 3-story. Kurt Albrecht stated if it is it will need to be sprinkled. Planner Arkell stated that this. is a concept plan so no conditions will be drawn up. Roger Sicz asked how many parking spaces will be required for the 60 total apartments . Planner Arkell stated that two spaces per apartment are required and that there will be a lot of traffic in that area. 13OZEI*V CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE Bozeman 35 NORTH BOZEMAN AVENUE City-County P.O. BOX 640, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59771-0640 Planning Office PHONE: (406)582-2360 FAX: (406) 582-2363 July 21, 1995 Mr. Gene Micholio Springer Group Architects 201 South Wallace Bozeman,MT 59715 Dear Gene: Your application for a PUD Concept Plan for Cowdrey Apartments, Phase 11 has been received and assigned to Planncr Debbie Arkcll. The application has been reviewed in accordance with the submittal checklist and appears to meet the submittal requirements. However, please understand that during the course of review there may be other items identified or issues which need to be addressed.' Should that occur, Planncr Arkcll will be in contact with you and/or your representative.. The Development Review Committee(DRC) and Design Review Board (DRB) will be reviewing your application. It will go before the Development Review Committee on two separate occasions (8/1 & 8/8) and to the Design Review board will review it once (8/8). Staff recommends that you and your client attend these meetings to answer any questions that may arise. Agendas will be sent to both you and your client to remind you of the dates and times of these meetings. If you have any further questions regarding the process or your project in general, please contact Planncr Arkcll. Sincerely, Therese Berger Administrative Secretary Enc. cc: Buz Cowdrey, 32300 Frontage Road, Bozeman MT 59715 I Springer Group A�itects, P.C. OSECEIVED BY • Architects - Land Use Planners 201 S. Wallace Ave. Bozeman,MT 59715 J U L 19 1995 Phone#: 406-585-2400 CITY- COUNTY fir 406-585-7446 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL __ Date: 7/20/95 Job No: 9511 To: Job Name and Address: CITY OF BOZEMAN COWDREY APARTMENTS PLANNING OFFICE WEST KOCH STREET CARNEGIE BUILDING BOZEMAN, MT BOZEMAN, MT Re: Site Plans and Exterior Elevations Attention:Debbie Arkell We are sending you: qh Plans Q Letter qh Attached ❑Shop Drawings 4 Prints ❑Specifications 4 Under separate cover via: ❑Submittals ❑Samples ❑Change Order D....e::.:.. .:. umUex. T�escri .t>on...._ ;;;;:<;.;:;:<:<:«<::.;;:<::::::«:<::::::::::::::::::: ....... 14 5/5/95 Al Site Plans 8 5/5/95 A8-Al 1 Exterior Elevations These are Transmitted: 4 For Approval ❑Approved as Submitted ❑Resubmit Copies for Approval ❑For Your Use ❑Approved as Noted 4 Submit Copies for Distribution As Requested ❑Returned for Correction ❑Return Corrected Prints ❑For Review/comment Q FOR BIDS DUE: ❑RETURN OF PRINTS LOANED TO SGA Remarks: Copies to: Signed: Gene A. Mickolio Page 1 BOZE N CITY-C UNTY PLANNING OFFICE Bozeman 35 NORTH BOZEMAN AVENUE City-County P.O.BOX 640,BOZEMAN,MONTANA 59771-0640 Planning ce PHONE: (406)582-2360 FAX: (406)582-2363 June 15, 1995 Mr. Lowell Springer Springer Group Architects 201 South Wallace Avenue Bozeman, MT 59715 RE: Cowdrey Apartments, Phase 2, 504 S. 22nd Avenue Dear Lowell: The following.are my comments after a very brief review of the proposed Cowdrey Apartments, Phase 2 P.U.D. Concept plan. 1) Enclosed is a"letter I wrote to Mr. Cowdrey on March 16. The original PUD granted a 15% density bonus, allowing up to 70 units on the site. A portion of the property was sold, leaving about 3.5 acres for the total development. That letter indicated that a 15% density bonus on.the entire remaining acreage would permit 60 dwelling units, which the subject proposal does. Keep in mind that the original PUD has expired, and a density bonus is no longer "guaranteed". This letter strongly encouraged Mr. Cowdrey to consider the Conditional Use Permit option instead of a PUD, and construct 20 new units instead of 28. The Planning Staff will have a difficult time supporting the proposed density in this corner of the development. 2) The three new structures will provide 28 dwelling units on approximately 0.8 acres, for a density of 24 units per acre in phase 2. Staff recognizes that this is an extension of the original PUD, but the new 28 units appear very crowded. 3) Some concern regarding convenience (or lack thereof) of accessible parking for the new structures, especially the two 8-plexes. 4) Parking: 120 spaces (2/unit) plus 5 accessible are required. 119 shown. None of the spaces are designated accessible. 5) The formal concept plan application must clearly separate phase 1 and phase 2 regarding existing vs. proposed improvements .(i.e. parking, structures, etc.), site information (area, footprints, landscaping, paving, open space). The parking calculations don't show the manager's building with two units. Mr. Lowell Springer June 15, 1995 Page 2 6) I doubt the water "wye" proposed for the new structures will be acceptable to the City Water Superintendent. I suggest you contact Fred Shields regarding water and sewer hookups for each building. 7) The formal concept plan must provide: a) data regarding general information about adjacent land uses (Item Le on checklist); b) land uses within one-half mile of the subject parcel (Item Lf of the checklist); and c). conceptual drawing showing the proposed location of the uses of land, major streets, and other-significant features on the site and within one-half mile of the site (Item'2 on the checklist). . 8) The formal concept plan does not need to include pages A3 through AT Only pages Al, Al.1, and the elevations are needed. The original Concept Plan Review Application and Checklist are enclosed. I have kept the one set of drawings submitted. If Mr. Cowdrey pursues the PUD, the Concept Plan will be reviewed by the DRC and DRB. It is not a "use out of district", and therefore, the Concept Plan will not be reviewed by the Planning Board or City Commission unless specifically requested. Based on the number of applications currently under review, the Planning Board and City Commission would not review a Concept Plan until September at the earliest, depending on the date the application is received. I am sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you on this project. Please call if you have specific questions. Sincerely, Debbie Arkell Assistant Planning Director cc : Buz Cowdrey BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE Bozeman 35 NORTH BOZEMAN AVENUE City-County P.O. BOX 640, BOZEMAN,MONTANA 59771-0640 Planning Office PHONE: .(406)582-2360 FAX: (406)582-2363 March 16; 1995 Mr. Buz Cowdrey 32300 E. Frontage Road Bozeman, MT 59715 RE: Cowdrey Apartments, South 22nd and Koch. Lots 1, 2 and 3, Blk 1, University Square Subdivision Dear Buz: I have finally had a chance to thoroughly review your inquiry of last week regarding the construction of additional apartment units at South 22nd and Koch. A Planned Unit Development was approved in 1984 for 70 apartment units to be constructed in two phases. A 15% density bonus was granted in conjunction with the PUD. It was a condition of that approval that the southeast corner be used as open space, due to the vicinity of the stream and separation of the lot from the remaining parcel. Phase I, consisting of 32 units, has been constructed. The PUD approval for Phase II expired, as it was to be constructed within 18 months after Phase I was completed. Sinmd-et review, Lot 2 has been deeded to your daughter for the day care center, and will no longer be a part of the apartment development. Thus, it appears that there is.now approximately 3.5 acres available for the total apartment complex (including existing Phase 1). Because the approval for Phase II has expired, additional construction must be approved per the requirements of the current (9/93) Zoning Ordinance. The property is zoned R-O, Residential Office. Apartments are a Conditional Use, and not more than 40% of the lot can be covered by principal and accessory buildings for residential uses. Fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre can be constructed without going through PUD review. There appears to be two development options for the second phase. The first option is Conditional Use Permit review. Based on the 3.5 acres, 52.5 dwelling units would be allowed. This would permit you to construct 20 additional units. f ' �S Mr. Buz Cowdrey March 16, 1995 Page 2 The second option is Planned Unit Development review, where up to a 30% density bonus could be granted. A 30% density bonus would permit a total of 68 dwelling units. However, your original PUD was approved with only a 15% density bonus, and our office would heavily weigh that previous decision in our review. A 15% density bonus would permit a total of 60 dwelling units. While the PUD option is certainly available, I would encourage you to strongly consider the Conditional Use Permit option, if 20 additional units is financially feasible. The review period is shorter and more reliable, as there is no guarantee the density bonus requested with the PUD would be approved. Our office would not support constructing a dwelling unit(s) on the southeast corner of the property, based on the 1984 PUD requirement that the area be left in open space. For your convenience, applications for both the CUP and PUD process are enclosed. Please feel free to call me or any other staff member should you have questions regarding the submittal processes. With regard to your telephone message earlier this week about the potential re-use of the Farr Automotive site on the corner of West Main and South Grand, our office did receive an inquiry about a portion of the Straightaway Motors operation moving to this location. There is a Conditional Use Permit on the Farr Automotive site, and we will require any new tenant to sign a statement agreeing to abide by those conditions. The most critical, of course, is parking on the site. At this time, Mr. Colvin is not willing to agree to those conditions, so his application for a business license at this site has been denied. Our office will continue to monitor the site, and ensure that any re-use of the facility is done in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance or the previously approved Conditional Use Permit. Please feel free to call if you have any questions regarding either of these sites, Buz. Sincerely, Deb ie Arkell Assistant Planning Director Enc. S. City of Bozeman 09984 Receipt $ 0;?e�). C)D Bozeman, Montana 77117 19 Received of � /N Via' �tio the sum of � Dollars for JIVIVED BY MA.y 1 1 1995 RECEIVED BY CITY.CC)UN'fy PLANNING .1 U L 1 2 1995 BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANK I NG OFFRIP"y PLANNING CARNEGIE BUILDING - 35 NORTH BOZEMAN P. 0. BOX 640 , BOZEMAN , MONTANA 59715 Phone - '(1406). 582-2360 FAX - (406) 5822363 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION ----------------------------------------------------------------- A Concept Plan Review is mandatory for all planned unit development proposals . This is an opportunity for applicants to discuss requirements , standards , and policies that apply to development proposals and to identify major problems , so that they can be solved before a formal application is made . Upon submittal , staff .will review the checklist and determine if the application as submitted is complete . If so , it will be placed on the next Development Review Committee (DRC ) and Design Review Board (DRB) agendas for initial review. Planned unit developments proposing uses not otherwise allowed in the underlying zoning district shall also be reviewed by the Planning Board and the City Commission for conceptual review. Incomplete submittals will be returned to the applicant . ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1 . Name and address of property owner: :T2UZ- O'cLo-op-Latt Z Z F924D%—� 7 _ �tta�. �-1 1 Phone : 2 . Name and address of applicant: Q-P12iN_-�'.,ET, 6 QOt'L-(! 4ciqq& 0 7 of S'WJV_ M Phone : 6 4 24Q) 3 . Name and address of Engineer/Architect/Planner: <�,e0jAJ6rC Phone • < YhL'i L'? 4 . Name of project/development : .L U Apke-` kFA% 5 . Address of proposed development: `���. S Z-2-J kW_ 6 . Legal description: , Z- 5(, lul.sd�! 7 . Current Zoning Land Area/!%138 sq. ft . 5 acres 8 . Describe the proposed development (use additional sheets if necessary: ) II ( t� «l i - 9 . Review Fee : $220 . 00 (Minimum fee after refund: $140.00) This application must be accompanied by appropriate fee and the appropriate submittal requirements ( see attached list) . Propertiv Owner' s Si ature APISlicantds Signature CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST Applicant : Subject Property Address : C'`rt 5 .22_�3 A- The following is a checklist of submittal requirements for all Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plans. The applicant must complete this checklist along with the items stated for the application to be considered complete . Any items checked "NO" or "N/A" (not applicable ) must be explained in a narrative attached to the checklist : Twelve copies_of- the conceptual ( sketch) drawing must be submitted or f review by th-e DRC and the DRB. If the proposed use is not otherwise allowed in the underlying zoning district it will also be reviewed by the Planning Board and the City Commission, and an additional fifteen copies of the conceptual ( sketch) drawing must be submitted . YES NO N/A 1 . Data regarding : a. site conditions b. land characteristics V C . community facilities dill d. utilities bo e . general information about adjacent land uses Y f. land uses within one-half miles of the subject parcel J/ 2 . Conceptual ( sketch)drawing showing the proposed locaton of the uses of land, major streets , and other significant features on the site and within one- half mile of the site . 3 . A computation table showing the site ' s proposed land use allocations by location and as a percent of total site area. *Reference to 18 . 54 . 050 "Concept Plan Submittal Requirements" of the Bozeman Zoning Ordinance ( 1/23/92 ) . L P.U.D. PRELIMINARY PLAN ' ' P.U.D.FINAL PLAN AND REVIEW SUBMITTALS FOR ' COWDREY APARTMENTS A 24-UNIT FINAL PHASE • OF A 56-UNIT APARTMENT P.U.D. 1 SPRINGER GROUP LIST OF OWNERS VICINITY/ZONING MAP ARCHITECTS, P.C. Nancy A.,Grant&Jerry 201 SOUTH WALLACE L.Williams BOZEMAN,MT 59715 603 S. 13th (406)585-2400 Bozeman,MT 59715 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Douglas B., Craig,& �L___ —i Amanda Fullerton A tract of land consisting 2115 Knaab of lots 1 and 3 of Bozeman,MT 59715 _ TI University Square Sub. Z dt` _ = r� i Certificate of Survey Gregory O.Morgan 2145 Lomas ❑K Gallatin County,Montana ' Bozeman,MT 59715 CC STREET ADDRESS Bogen Co. } I `-[ 502 S.23rd 504 S 22nd Avenue Bozeman,MT 59715 Bozeman,Montana 59715 (� 8-2 = - Donna D. Emery _l�I OWNER/DEVELOPER. r 6310 Madison Lincoln,NE 68507 a g.2 °� R.3 ❑LJL�-J-�n❑I�_ Marvin and Judy Cowdrey 32300 East Frontage Road Rudi A.&Lynda / c` `- �Q�-�❑ � ' Bozeman,Montana 59715 Unterthiner _ ++�—; �I(�� 71246 Saraha Road IU�L;LsL:L Rancho Mirage,CA 92270 M. ^CT ul�ye St. m I Irene M. Zwagerman IO�NNG 00 �` �LJ r— �— l OTeton �.�; .,,l,c Bozeman,MT 59715 �O ' SMZ Partners t ' 201 South Wallace L� Bozeman,MT 59715 � '^ Century Properties ' 185 State Street#204 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 t ( !I Alexis&Janet M. Parlova 169 Crcekside Half Moon Bay,CA 94109 1 • • � e 11P.U.D. PRELIMINARY PPAN P.U.D.FINAL PLAN AND REVIEW SUBMITTALS FOR COWDREY APARTMENTS A 24-UNIT FINAL PHASE OF A 56-UNIT APARTMENT P.U.D. SPRINGER GROUP LIST OF OWNERS VICINITY/ZONING MAP ARCHITECTS, P.C. Nancy A., Grant&Jerry 201 SOUTH WALLACE L. Williams BOZEMAN,MT 59715 603 S. 13th (406)585-2400 Bozeman,MT 59715 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Douglas B., Craig,& Amanda Fullerton — A tract of land consisting 2115 Knaab G Bozeman,MT 59715 - of lots 1 and 3 of _ _ n University Square Sub. > i nr Certificate of Survey Gregory Morgan 0C 2145 Lomas •n.ero+� Gallatin County,Montana ®r Bozeman,MT 59715 L ®� STREET ADDRESS Bogen Co. 3 ❑� 502 S. 23rd 504 S 22nd Avenue Bozeman,MT 59715 C�� Bozeman,Montana 59715 B n 0 Donna a Emery C ❑�� OWNER/DEVELOPER Linc Madison ;j �� Lncoln,NE 68507 3 ��D❑❑C a B 2 R-3 ❑❑❑❑ Marvin and Judy Cowdrey E ai 32300 East Frontage Road Rudi A. &Lynda o o` ❑❑❑ Bozeman,Montana 59715 Unterthiner •� L 71246 Saraha Road d = _ Rancho Mirage,CA 92270 ❑❑H HE 'H.cuieye St. m I a C CATM Irene M. Zwagerntan ZpaJC,CR 0 hcmb> C 10 Teton Bozeman,MT 59715 SMZ Partners 201 South Wallace - Bozeman,MT,59715 ® a Century Properties 185 State Street#204 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 ` Alexis&Janet M. Parlova a<ml"yto"Na`i 169 Creekside Half Moon Bay,CA 94109 5' r. i • . � i i i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 I i t 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. LETTER OF INTRODUCTION 2. PROLOGUE: COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES ' 3. P.U.D. PERMIT APPLICATION ' 4. PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST 5. ATTACHMENT I: REDUCED DRAWINGS ' • Cover Sheet with site information • A-1 Site Plan and Information Sheet ' • A-1.1 Landscaping plan ' • A-3 Floor Plans • A-6 Elevations 8. TRAFFIC STUDY NOT REQUIRED 9. ATTACHMENT II: BACKGROUND INFORMATION • Previous Meeting Minutes and misc. information • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LETTER OF INTRODUCTION 1 1 • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • Springer Group Architects, P.C. 201 SAb Wallace Avenue Bozem , Montana 59715 Voice # (406) 585-2400 Fax � f4�f) Si5- 7446 November 6, 1995 ' Bozeman City-County Planning Department 404 E. Main Bozeman, MT 59715 S RE: Cowdrey Apartments artments ' Preliminary Review Sirs and Madames: ' Enclosed is the application for review of the preliminary plan for the final phase of Cowdrey Apartments, a residential planned unit development originally approved in 1984 to be developed on Lots 1,2,and 3 of University Square Subdivision. The development was approved at that time as a 70-unit apartment development including approximately 4.07 acres composed of ten apartment buildings and included a basketball court and a recreational/management building. rThe first phase (32 units) of the complex and the site amenities were completed in 1985. Since then, no construction has occurred, and the PUD approval has expired. Additionally, in 1990, ' the Cowdreys removed Lot 2, which is approximately .477 acres from the apartment development to establish a day care center. ' In March, 1995, the Cowdreys began discussions with Debbie Arkell regarding the final phase of the Cowdrey Apartments. After informal reviews, the Cowdreys requested Springer Group Architects prepare the concept review submittal in July. The DRC and DRB concluded their reviews on August 8, 1995. Even though the overall project scope had been reduced from 70 units to 60 units, the DRB strongly advised that the 28 units being proposed created too much density with too little open space. In response to the DRB's comments, we totally redesigned the site plan and the project utilizing two buildings instead of three and allowing much more open space. It is important to note that no density bonus previously approved or otherwise is being sought for this phase of the project. ' The owners are now proposing to construct the final phase revised to include two buildings g comprised of 24 units, rather than the originally approved five buildings with 38 units on the reduced site. This new 3.593 acre site plan constitutes a 12% reduction in area with a corresponding 20% reduction in the number of living units. As this proposal is being reviewed by the Planning Staff and the Design Review Board members, we request that substantial consideration be given to the fact that the overall density of the f • e � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 project as approved in 1984 was 17.19 units per acre, and that now the smaller overall site and the substantial reduction in the number of units results in an overall density of 15.58 units per acre which is only slightly over the new allowable density of 15 units per acre. Because it is so difficult to identify the precise site boundaries of this final phase, it is just as difficult to ' determine the actual density of the final phase. For that reason, in determining whether this particular application falls within the allowable densities in the present ordinance, we must look at its totally positive influence on the overall density and conclude that therefore, that this ' density is more than acceptable. This proposal, therefore, should not be considered as requesting a density increase. ' This proposed site plan is also an appropriate use of the site in that it far exceeds the requirements of the Bozeman Zoning Ordinance for lot coverage. Section 18.26.040 allows up ' to 40% lot coverage by principle and accessory buildings for residential uses. This proposal will now cover only 16% of the total area of the site. ' Included in this submittal are design drawings and documentation addressing all pertinent issues as described in Section 18.54 of the Interim Zoning Code. As an aid in evaluating this submittal, the checklists for the preliminary plan and development review criteria are included on the following pages. Each item of the checklists is addressed and/or described in the order as presented in the checklist. ' If you have any questions or you desire any further information, please feel free to contact me. Respect f y submitted, Lowell W. Springer CARB Principal Architec 1 LWS: kr ' enclosures 1 • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �p zp' - ,a�.„ a r r�:;rx'�.fIT�',�'�az"� P 11r �. ..'x�h�, ���:,; rr �3;`r r �..i .�r"i.A rs 3nr��' �,�1°.� ... Ya ,_ .>..-,333;>_. 3�- .>,h>;,�>>,ti.cy>, >._:� ?u •, -,», i` "£ l �-� s �i a n� d.a� vv ky n �uy�3s >:`u;>Sa.:- ..'i �t ,3 3R�� t� v ,aC s'z�,�>�,»3s; 3 3� 3 Jf a .��j: a Csowdrey Apartments�Add�t�on � ��� 33 s >� �x 3�„��. � � >f a 1 �Z z .2a•�;.g . �r,, a e„z. ,� s,s�:�.� x'+ s 3r„.e.�i S�.. '?r.,� x3`xr.�a��sYt`�`?�5� �£,',��� •z€' �'��`a;f��s rr'fss� zyfi7�7i,,,� 4�33. Site Catculat�ons.. .n,xH,u .; y ,.u..x,.,.........�.,...,.�_..,.a....,.u..:::..: x• „:: v 3gg:.=xr�;;i�H >3 �Yn�x ..y _ r'� -.''ri� ,S..9 s -.�'S :}i�.,r 3i:�C ?,.,• r'%.zr n,. .s s r �,,ti, .x a1� s r�r��s x�"' zn::yn3.. b$SD __: ;n*'sc.!•',a xiz.:_;#v, ,><.�+z� x •.�T,?�,}" _x... n .A..�r.. ,iS3 .,s,,;,. x -,..a�''� '.: .}�st ' a*� ry r3z'�r'» Y ai��,�;i'3'z �3 ,+ al �. yY� _a rt,uP >.. ,a xvr .._x" ._. .,,;• s.3• Yak„5 1.- W.Wr. x N � Y CALCS=FOR.,NEW,CONSTRUCTtON ONLY#, Area Sq.Ft. % of Site Total Site Area 57,996: 100% ................................................. Const. Envelope 42,181 73% .............................................. Bigs. Footprint Area 8,550 15% ...................................................................... New Paving ..........................13,278 ..............................23%0 ... .. Landscaping 36,168: 62% ................................................................................................. ' Open Space 19;456: 34% .x ki_CS=F©Rr3 ENTiRE PROIECTiSiTE ;', ;� � •, a5 j _ _... n M o . Area Sq.Ft. /o of Total Site Total Site-,Area ............................ 3...........................100*% Const. Enveiope 117,257: 76% Bigs. Footprint Area ..........................24,654 ..............................1.6% ................................................................................................. Paving ..........................39,895 ..............................26%0 Landscaping, 89,914 58% .................................. ................:.............................................. ' Open Spac 51,811 : 34% 7 tib.In„�r -i:'.�. z 9 f_f??U'•ri qn.,.,�; 3Y ru r.:.�a ;B 5 - �a"ax�'::� S' z No . of Units lArea Density Entire 1985 P.U.D. 70 4.C7 17.19 ............ ......................:.............................................. Entire Proposed P.UM. ........................................56 ..............................3.59 15.59 • • � � � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' PROLOGUE 1 • � � I . 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 • INTRODUCTION Cowdrey Apartments is a previously approved 70-unit apartment complex. Phase One of the project was completed in 1985. The project has been dormant since that time, had one lot withdrawn from the project, and the owners now wish to complete the project with a reduced ' scope. The total project will now consist of 56 apartments on 3.593 acres with 58% of the site area landscaped and of that, 34% is reserved as open space, (not including all of the setback area on all four sides which is open and landscaped). Development mechanism is a standard Planned Unit Development (Conditional Use Permit) application. This apartment development meets the intent of the Zone Code/Subdivision Regulations by providing a medium density within the developable limits. Existing city sewer and water mains to the property are proposed to serve the complex through new water and sewer services (see site plan). The owners, Marvin and Judy Cowdrey, desire to build the final phase of an attractive, yet ' affordable, development of apartments. Plantings of street trees, interior landscaping, and open space are some of the amenities that will be added to the recreational areas that were provided with the first phase. In total, we believe that this final phase of Cowdrey Apartments represents a thoughtful, sensible, affordable alternative development in general conformance with local regulations. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A-1: SURFACE WATER AND WATERSHEDS Since the site is entirely surrounded by the City of Bozeman, the site already drains into the City storm drainage system. Any additional runoff created by this phase (post-development) will be retained at the north end of the site and will not add to the City storm drainage system along Babcock beyond the determined pre-development rate. (See calculations on sheet A-1 of the IP.U.D. conditional use application.) A-2: FLOODPLAIN ' The lowest elevation at CowdreyApartments is above and outside of the delineated p de Bated Bozeman area floodplain boundary. A-3: GROUNDWATER ' From an examination of a groundwater map of the area prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey and first-hand experience in the area, depth to first groundwater within the proposed building sites is 5'-7'. Groundwater depths are thought to be highly variable, but should not be affected by the proposed development. Storm water drainage will be treated to minimize erosion and there should be no degradation of groundwater as a result of developing this final phase. i • • � 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 A-4: AREA WELLS There are no known active wells in the area as all dwelling units surrounding the area are on city water for domestic use. B-1: GEOLOGY ' The geology of this site, like all of Bozeman, is tertiary strata, predominantly fluviatile deposits. A high bench-like fringe of alluvial fan and stream channel deposits skirt the Bridger and Gallatin Ranges." There are no known geologic hazards associated with this site, other than its inclusion within Seismic Zone 4. It is subject to Seismic Zone 4 construction standards as is the entire Bozeman area. (Seismic Zone 0 having the least earthquake potential, Zone 4 being the greatest.) See Figure 2. B-2: SOILS ' The soils at this site are primarily silty loam series occurring over most of the site with a groundwater depth of 5'-7' and overall soil depth of six feet to gravely strata. The silty loam is relatively stable having generally low strength, moderate shrink-well potential, and slow permeability. Based upon our past construction experience near the site to the northwest, we recommend standard construction practices as they relate to home construction, and road and parking lot building. Practices normal to the City of Bozeman will be adequate to overcome the site limitations with regards to soil strength and shrink-swell potential. B-3: SLOPES/TOPOGRAPHY There is no slope or topography feature other than a natural swale down the center of the property flowing from south to north and a general planar tilt to the north. There are no rock outcrops on this site, and the land generally trends from south to north. The site has no slopes 1 greater than 15%. Generally, a slope of 1.5%-2.5% exists across the entire building site and will not pose any development constraints. ' C: VEGETATION The site is vegetated with native and introduced grasses and shrubs. There are no known endangered or threatened flora at this site. ' D: WILDLIFE There is no seasonal or transient wildlife use by white-tailed deer, coyote, fox or migrant birds in this area. It is not winter range for big game species, and there is no habitat, food or nesting cover for eagles. The development of Cowdrey Apartments will have no impact on wildlife species and habitat. 1 • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E: HISTORIC FEATURES ' There are no known cultural or historic features at this site. ' F: VISUAL IMPACTS/VIEWSHEDS There are no areas of high visibility on the site which are visible off the site. Adjacent properties include a similar land use, although 58% of this property will be preserved in landscaped space. All the open space will have seeded and planted vegetation. ' Looking onto the site, the development will not block any views. The initial phase of this project has been designed and built to blend with its surrounding buildings and is well and uniformly maintained. • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 • ' .PURSUIT OF COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES ' INTENT OF COWDREY APARTMENTS A. To establish an alternative source of affordable housing within the guidelines of ' improvement and protection of public health, safety, welfare and beautification of the City of Bozeman. The City and territorial zoning limits are divided into zones or districts. This 3.593 acre parcel is in the R-0 Residential Office District. The proposed ' P.U.D. complies very well with the intent of the RO Zone to provide for and encourage development of "...compatible multifamily and apartment development that would blend well with adjacent land uses." B. To develop and enhance the proposed site to provide for the affordable housing needs of the community and trade area, by providing easily accessible affordable housing. At the ' present time, the vacant property on this West Koch location is not constructively serving the needs of the community. The location lends itself very well to affordable housing which is easily accessible and within walking distance of M.S.U. and many of the area's ' employment centers. Landscaping, traffic, and drainage control calculations have met the need to have the least impact, yet most beneficial aspect to the surrounding area. C. Access to the proposed site is from arterials (Koch Street to South 19th, and 23rd Street to West Main and College) in an expanding area of mixed existing and new uses; with a secondary access from 22nd Street to the adjacent streets to the East. ' D. Adequate utilities: water, sewer, telephone and fire protection exist in the easements q p p on ' or near the proposed site to service the project. The Montana Power Company will be requested to provide electrical service which is present and adequate to the site. ' E. This project is in compliance with the RO Zone use of Residential Medium Density Apartments. Adequate drainage is achievable within the site by directing snow storage and runoff to retention areas shown on the Site Plan, with curb cuts and land contours. ' Cowdrey Apartments has no control over the canals in the area (offsite), however, the flow lines are such that no problems could be reasonably anticipated. The site is outside the 100 year flood plain as now designated. The nearest area is the Sourdough Stream, ' approximately 200 yards east of the site. F. The site is designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The approval of this final phase of the P.U.D. will allow development of Cowdrey Apartments to minimize length and number of trips to and from services such as to work, groceries and shopping by encouraging pedestrian trips. G. Bicycle designated access is provided from Koch Street, and adjacent projects. Adequate handicapped parking spaces are provided to the existing accessible apartment units which ' have a floor level such that no steps or steep ramps are necessary. With the site in relative close proximity to Montana State University, students are encouraged to use bicycles or walk. • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 y H. State-of-the-art design and equipment for heating and ventilation of the units will be ' provided, thus keeping energy consumption to a minimum. An on-site well is anticipated and an automatic sprinkler system for landscaped areas will create a cooling effect on the entire site by the evaporative process. ' I. This project would enhance the existing site where the vacant area now a p � b mostly ' unoccupied weed and grass area, would be developed with fully landscaped open areas. There is no known special geologic features of historical significance at the site. The existing bushes, weeds and other debris will cleaned out, enhancing the view from Koch Street, 22nd Street, and nearby areas. J. The character of the design is transitional between the commercial look of the B-2 area of to the north and west, and the residential nature of areas to the East and South, softening somewhat the visual experience when walking through on the pedestrian ways as well as the passing view. ' K. The approval of this final phase of the P.U.D. will allow the construction of some essential affordable housing to the further development of this area as it was intended ' when it was originally approved. The completion of Cowdrey Apartments will encourage more of this type of in-fill housing which will be healthy and progressive for Bozeman, providing housing and positive growth incentives for Montana State University and the ' entire Bozeman area. L. This proposal has already been determined to be in keeping with the "intent" for which ' this R-O Zoning District was created. M. Development of this site is deemed to be a reasonable logical pattern of medium density ' residential use, in a R-0 Zone, which is bounded by existing commercial uses to the north and the residential areas to the south and east, to fit well with the intent of the Bozeman Master Plan, mutually benefitting all parties. 1 • • � 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 1 � • � I . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' • 18.54.100 1 1 ALL DEVELOPMENT Application: 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. Required Criteria: Yes No NA Neighborhood Compatibility 1. Is the development compatible with, and sensitive to, the immediate environment ' of the site and the adjacent neighborhoods relative to architectural design, build- ing 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 adja- cent and surrounding development? /\ ' 3. Have the guidelines outlined in Chapter 18.51, Development Review Committee, been followed concerning identification and discussion of impacts related to the ' proposed development? 4. Is the development in accordance with the adopted elements of the Bozeman area master 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/walks/bikeways Sanitary supply Irrigation companies ' Fire protection Electricity Flood hazard areas Natural gas Telephone Storm drainage Cable television Streets JC ' 6. Will the sewage generated by the development not exceed the sanitary sewer system's line and treatment capacity? 7. Will an adequate water supply exist to serve the development? 8. Will an adequate electrical power supply exist to serve the development? ' 9. Will the city trinsportation plan be capable of handling the development's traffic generation? 10. Does the development provide adequate access for emergency service? ' 396-33 Borman 9-93) � • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18.54.100 0 - 1 ALL DEVELOPMENT Required Criteria: Yes No NA 11. Are all vehicular use areas and exterior building areas provided with adequate security lighting? Natural Resources 12. Have precautions been taken to minimize hazards to Life or property due to irriga- tion canals, stream channels or other water bodies? 13. Have known areas of natural or geological hazard (e.g.. unstable or potentially 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? 14. Does the project preserve or replace existing natural vegetation? X 15. Have special precautions been taken to preserve existing wildlife habitats, natural wildlife food services, or existing places, or are these areas being preserved? x 16. If the proposed project is located within a locally designated historical district or includes a locally designated landmark structure. is the project 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 objectives for clustering development? Environmental Standards 18. Will the project conform to applicable local, state and federal air quality stan- dards, 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. Will the project conform to applicable local, state and federal water quality stan- dards. including. but not limited to: erosion and sedimentation; runoff control; ' discharge of solid wastes: and discharge of hazardous substances? 20. Can the proposed land uses and activities be conducted so that noise generated shall not exceed the minimum performance levels as specified in the city's Noise Control Ordinance Chapter 18.50 of the zoning code? Detailed plans for the elim- ination of objectionable noises are required before the issuance of a building per- mit. 21. If the proposed activity produces glare or heat, whether direct or reflected. is the operation conducted within an enclosed building or with other effective screening in such a manner 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 building permit. (soz=r2n 9-93) 396-34 • • 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18.54.100 1 ALL DEVELOPMENT Required Criteria: Yes No NA ' 22. Will the project cause an inherent or recurring generated vibration perceptible without instruments at any point along the property line? Temporary construction may be excluded from this criterion. x ' 23. Is the exterior fighting, except for warning, emergency or traffic signals, installed in such a manner that the light source is obscured to prevent excessive glare on public streets and walkways or into any residential area? The installation or erec- tion of any lighting which may be confused with warning signals, emergency signals or traffic signals shall not be permitted. 24. Will 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 building permit. ' Site Design 25. Are the elements of the site plan (e.g., buildings, circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) arranged on the site so that activities are integrated 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? 27. Is the design and arrangement of elements of the site plan (e.g., buildings circula- tion, open space and landscaping, etc.) in harmony with the.existing natural ' topography; natural water bodies and water courses; existing vegetation; and 28. Does the design and arrangement of elements of the site plan (e.g. building con- struction, orientation, and placement; transportation networks; selection and place- ment of landscape materials; and/or use of renewable energy sources, etc.) con- tribute to the overall reduction of energy use by the project? ' 29. Are the elements of the site plan (e.g. buildings, circulation, open space and land- scaping, 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 percent of the project, exclusive of yard setbacks and parking lot interior landscape, de- veloped as open space? 31. Does the street and parking system provide for the smooth, safe and convenient movement of vehicles both on and off the site? ' 32. 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? 396-35 Bozeman 9-93) • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 13.54.100 • ' 1 ALL DEVELOPMENT Required Criteria: Yes I 7NoNA 33. Is the active recreational area suitably located and accessible to the residential units it is intended to serve and is adequate scre`ning provided to ensure privacy ' and quiet for neighboring residential uses? FxT 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? 35. Is the development being properly integrated into development and circulation ' patterns of adjacent and nearby neighborhoods so that this development will not become an isolated "pad" to adjoining development? 36. 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? ' 37. Does the pedestrian and bicycle trail system adequately connect to the systems in adjacent developments? 38. Does the landscape plan enhance the appearance of vehicular use. open space and pedestrian areas which contribute to their usage and visual appearance? ' 39. Does the landscaping plan enhance the building(s)? . ' 40. Does the landscape plan screen utility boxes, 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, have provisions been made in the site plan to avoid interfering with public access to that area? ' 42. Will all signs in the project be in compliance with the provisions of the Bozeman sign code? ' (BoZcm k4:: 396-36 • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18.54.100 2 RESIDENTIAL ' Application:PP ' Planned unit developments in residential areas (A-S, R-S, R-1, R-2, R-2-A, R-3, R-3-A, R-4, and RO zoning - districts) may include a variety of housing types designed to enhance the natural environmental, conserve energy, recognize and, to the maximum extent possible, preserve and promote the unique character of neighbor- hoods, with provisions for a mix of limited commercial development. For purposes of this section, "limited ' commercial development" means professional offices and other permitted use listed in the B-1 neighborhood service district (Chapter 18.28), within the parameters set forth below. All uses within the PUD must be sited and designed such that the activities present will not detrimentally affect the adjacent residential neighborhood. Required Criteria: Each of the following applicable criteria must be answered "yes" and implement- ed within the development plan. Yes No NA ' 1. On a gross acreage basis, is the average residential density in the project (calcu- lated for residential portion of the site only), consistent with the development densities set forth in the land use guidelines of the Bozeman area master plan? ' 2. Does the project provide for private outdoor areas (e.g.. private yards, patios and balconies, etc.) for use by the residents and employees of the project which are ' sufficient in size and have adequate fight, sun, ventilation, privacy and convenient access to the household or commercial units they are intended to serve? k ' 3. Does the project provide for outdoor areas for use by persons living and working in the development for active or passive recreational activities? ' 4. If the project is proposing a residential density bonus as described below, does it include a variety of housing types and styles designed to address community-wide issues of affordability and diversity of housing stock? 5. If the PUD is located within, or adjacent to, the city, is the project within two thousand feet of an existing or approved neighborhood service center, public school, day care center, major employment center, or public neighborhood or community park? X. ' 6. Is the overall project designed to enhance the natural environment, conserve ener- gy and to provide efficient public services and facilities? ' 7. Is the project within six hundred fifty feet of an existing collector or arterial street? X 396-37 Bozeman 9-93) 18.54.100 • 2 RESIDENTIAL Required Criteria: Yes No NA ' 8. If the project is proposing a residential density bonus (thirty percent maximum) above that which is set forth below, does the proposed project exceed the estab- lished regulatory design standards (such as for setbacks, off-street parking, open space, etc.) and ensure compatibility with adjacent neighborhood development? ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES, WITHOUT BONUSES Zone Density A-S One dwelling per twenty acres, or maximum allowed in accordance with the "sliding scale" established in Chapter 18.10 R-S One dwelling unit per acre R-1 Three units per acre R-2 Six units per acre R-2-A Five units per acre R-3 Twelve units per acre R-3-A Ten units per acre R-4/R-O Fifteen units per acre 9. If limited commercial development as defined above is proposed within the pro- ject, is less than twenty percent of the gross area of the PUD designated to be used for offices or neighborhood service activities nor ordinarily allowed in the particular residential zoning district? 10. If neighborhood service activities are proposed within the project, is a market analysis provided demonstrating that less than fifty percent of the market required to support proposed neighborhood service activities is located outside the ' immediate area of the PUD and are the neighborhood services of a nature that does not require drive-in facilities or justification for through traffic? 11. If the project contains limited commercial development as defined above, is the project located at the intersection of arterial streets, or arterial and collector streets? 12. If the project contains limited commercial development as defined above, has the project been sited and designed such that the activities present will not detrimen- tally affect the adjacent residential neighborhood and have the commercial activi- ties been developed at a scale compatible with residential development? 13. Does the overall PUD recognize and, to the maximum extent possible, preserve and promote the unique character of neighborhoods in the surrounding area? Boz an 9.93' � 396-38 • � � i 1 ' 1 1 i i 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 File No. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ' PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMITTT�AL REQUIREMENTS Applicant I l`1 _ < `�".� Residential PUD_ _ Project v _ - 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 so that it will open and lie flat for reviewing and organized in the following order: YES NO N/A A. Application forms ; B. A list of names of all general and limited partners and/or officers and directors of the corporation involved as either applicants or owners of the Planned Unit Development; C . Legal description of the site ; D. 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; ( 3 ) names and addresses sliall be included on .stamped envelopes; t • • � 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 YES NO N/A ' E . A statement of planning objectives , 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 (3 ) estimate of number of employees for ' business , commercial , and industrial uses (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 is required in that section ; any variance from the criterion shall be described ( 6 ) detailed description of how conflicts between land uses are being avoided or mitigated ( 7 ) statements of design methods to reduce energy consumption , (e. g . - home/business utilities , transportation fuel , waste recycling ) ' F . A development schedule indicating the approximate date when construction of the Planned Unit Development, or stages of the ' same , can be expected to begin and be 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 • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 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 4 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 ; I 3 i • � � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 0 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 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 ' include a survey of the area and uses within 200 feet of the proposal , exclusive of public right-of-way at the same scale as the proposal and including the following : ( 1 ) land uses and location of principle structures ( 2 ) densities of residential uses 4 • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 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 surrounding the site within a distance of at least 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 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 �s • � � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 YES NO N/A ' ( 5 ) gas ( 6 ) telephone lines ( 7 ) fire hydrants ' (8) 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 following: l ; ' ( 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 hydrologic conditions of the site with analysis of water table fluctuations and a statement of site suitability for intended construction and ' proposed landscaping F . Drainage plan Preliminary drainage report and calcula- tions and/or plan , including : ( 1 ) all watercourses on the property or which are located within 200 feet of the property , must be shown ; in addition , the ' floodways and/or flood fringe areas of these watercourses must be delineated �( ( 2 ) all drainageways, streets , arroyos, �\ dry gullies , diversion ditches , spillways, reservoirs, etc . , which may be incorporated into the storm drainage system for the property shall be designated ( 3 ) all irrigation ditches , laterals , and structures shall be shown (4 ) all required on-site detention areas, —ACME � ' including notes indicating the approximate area and volume of the facility ( 5 ) all plans shall indicate the proposed ' outlet for the storm drainage from the property , including the name of the drainage- way (where appropriate ) , the downstream conditions (developed , available drainage- ' 6 • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - ways , etc. ) , and any downstream restrictions ' YES NO N/A ( 6 ) existing and/or proposed grading plan _ G. Temporary facilities plan ' 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 (d ) PM peak hour total traffic (e) total daily traffic (with site generated traffic shown separately) ( 3 ) AM and PM capacity analysis An AM and PM peak hour capacity analysis for all major drive accesses that intersect ' collector or arterial streets and all site arterial-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 r ( b) trip distribution ' (c) traffic assignment ( d ) capacity analysis ( e) evaluation ( f ) recommended access plan , including ' 7 • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 y access points , modifications and ' any mitigation techniques YES NO N/A (5 ) Additional Analysis Criteria ' 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 ; generally , the design year will be approxi- mately 15 years following construction. ( 6 ) Summary analysis explaining : (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 (e) describe bicycle and pedestrian ' pathways within the development, if used 8 • • 1 1 li 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • �► 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) . Fee: $660 . 00 plus $6 . 00 per residential unit and/or $4 . 00 per ' 1 , 000 square feet of gross leasable industrial or commercial (includes pro�essiorial business offices) floor area. Minimum fee after refund: $500. 00 9 • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST 1 1 • � � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 • ' Ali PRELIMINARY PLAN CHECKLIST ' 1. Document Requirements A. Application Forms included. B. Names are listed on cover sheet to drawings. ' C. Legal Description is included on cover sheet to drawings. ' D. (1) List of Property Owners is included on cover sheet. (2) Included. ' (3) Addressed, stamped envelopes are included herewith. ' E. (i) through (vii) See Statements of Pursuit of Community Objectives Attached F. It is anticipated that all improvements and construction will be completed in ' 1996. G. Reduced drawings are bound herein. ' 2. All applicable Site Plan requirements (items a thru h are included in the site drawings. q ) g Those items not included are not applicable. ' 3. Supplemental Requirements PP q ' A. Viewsheds are described in statements. ' B. Landscape Plans excluding all trails (not applicable) included. C. Not Applicable. D. Not Applicable. E. Not Applicable. F. Conceptual Site Drainage Plan is shown on sheet A-2. F(1), and F(2) are not ' applicable. G. Not Applicable. H. Preliminary Subdivision Plat is not applicable. � • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 __ _ 1 1 1 I. Traffic was analyzed with original approval. The Director of Public Services has waived the requirement for any further traffic studies. ' J. No further studies will be required. 4. Reproducible drawings are included herewith. 1 1 1 1 1 I' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 REDUCED DRAWINGS • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • ld)a OF DRAWtM Al - BITE PLAN AND PROJECT WM ATION All - LA DBCAPNONTILRY PLAN AND DETAILS A2 - F(XWAT)ON PLAN AND DETAILS PHASE II A3 - BJ�IB�If,HRST,AND 8ECOf�D FLOOR PLANE A4 - FLOOR FRAMING PLANS A5 - ROOF FRAMING PLAN AS - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A7 - SUI DNO SECTIONB C��ul s A8 - WALL BECT10N8 "V;DIUE ARTWNT A9 - WALL BEC,TIONS WEST KOCH ST. B02EMAN, MONTANA , Afl - TYPICAL hEC2'IANCAL PLAN El - TYPICAL.ELE-CTfBCAL PLAN MCMT1(MAP ENLARGED VICNTY MAP ABB19MTKAS IL_��LJO AFF - ABOVE FlNISHED FLOOR MFR - MANUFACTURER AC - ACOUSTICAL YAS - MASONRY UM ACT - ACOUSTICAL C41AG TR£ MAX OIUY- MAX Fit- AOJ - ADJACT YECH MECHANICAL A/C - AIR CONDITIONING MTL - METAL ALT - ALALTERNATIVEMN - MIMILLIMETEREN AL - AILMMM MN W MINUY N APPO - APPROVED MAT - NATURAL CIE ARCH - ARCHITECT(URAL) NR - wOISE REDUCTION ®C BST - BASEMENT NOM = NOWlAL BRG - BEARING NO - NUMBER_ € C9C BD G - BOARD NIS - NOT TO SCALE T BLDG - BUILDING OC - ON CENTER ® CTTL CT - CERAMIC TILE GO - OUTSIDE DIAMETER CLR - CLEAR CN - OVERHANG COL - COLUMN PNL - PANEL B-2 ❑C CONC - CONCRETE PBD - PARTICLE BOARD _ ON - OONCREIE MASONRY UNIT PVMT _ PAVEMENT 1 S lostImF CONST- CONSTRUCTION Pl. PLATE UUUUE] DW - DETAILPLWD - PLYOOD L CHLORIDE r+FFl\\ a d R S ❑C7C7C] C EEFF - EEAAW FACE P - PO ND ND PER mow." . \ s h 5 = RAD RADIUS Dodo C oC - EQUAL EKG _cK) - REFERENCE RE NG FOR PROJECT ( ry Mrin C EXP - EXPOSED RFG - ROOFING LOCATION SEE w.�'�°Q°s� ? Q a L— OfT - FIRE SW - SIMILAREMLARCED MAP I J PROJECT LOCATION Ana FF - FINISH FLOOR _ sc - SOLO CORE I I ZONING R-0 ,an o,. C FIN - Fl10SI1(EO) SPK - SPEAKER _ FP = FLOOR SPEC = SQUARE ATION u>tin FlR - FLOCR Si - SQUARE -fill . FTC - FOOTING SIR SIRUCIURE(AL) w.wnaa a 5 FBO FURNISHED BY OTHERS SYS - SYSTEM n GA - GAGE.GAUGE INK - THCK(NESS) GC - GENERAL CONTRACTOR T!G - TONGUE AND GROOVE GYP BD- GYPSUM BOARD TYP - TYPICAL HVAC - H /VENTILATING/ARM CONO. = UNIFORM BUKDYNG CODE NC - HOLLOW VCT CORE VCT - VINYL COYP'0617110N THE a HM - HOLLOW METAL VB - VINYL BASE wC WATER CLOSET IRNCL - INCLl1HOUR0E'(NO) VIP WATEtPROOF(UIG) \ INSUL - IN MF AIE(ION) W - MELDED MIRE FABRIC INTERIOR TNT - JOINT W - WOE.WIDTH JONT JT - W/ - WM LAN - LIVE LOAD WO - WTIOUT LL - LIVE LOAD SYMBOLS _ - PROPERTY ADJOH93S NANCY A.,GRANT♦JERRY L.MIWAMS NAME Y.ZWACERYAN Y EARTH ROUGH WOOD BOZEMAN.MT"715 18OZEIAN.MT 59715 DOUGAS&.a"t AMANDA a FUUERTON S Z PARTNERS / 2115 KNAAB 201 S WALIACE AVE GRAVEL FINISH MOCK ,. BOZEMAN.UT 59715 BOZEMAN.YT 5971S SPRINGER GROUP, P.C.pp��VV cnEooRr a YaawN ca+Rnr RMaPERnLs LAM USE i.Lt NNr•� BORE LVAASMAN.M 185 SALT ST./2W CONCRETE ilili i�i i i ACOUSTIC TILE BOZEMAN.YT 597I5 SALT VNtE CITY.lR 81111 .. 201 SOUTH WALLACE AVENUE E 23RD 1e9M40WE &PAaA `T / MASONRY 1 } BATT Nwunw BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 BOZEMAN.HT 59715 KA FVOON BAY.CA 94109 406-585-2400 DONNA o.EMERY METAL /F 5�{�. PoOD INSULATION UNOQN,NEBRA9CA 60507 RUOI A&LYNDA UNTERTHMER 7124E SARANA RD. RANCHO MIRAGE.CA 92270 � � r � ! � /i � � � � i � r r � � � � I SIDEWALK -- • - lAP StOMG DYER • 1/2'PIIEINOOFD (SOME TO 1/7 BOX PLI CONCRETE CI11D �BE LANDSCAPED) IONG a OVER 3 FRA r MMVSlED OLAVEL ' �SHOPPING co —KOCH BT.— — T7 Ba CRUSHED SIDE -Staer WATER 7D * T § 4x_ RETENTION — g5 J �,�. 'M✓1973'S�E I �GA�TE W/%M VL R -Iffi00' •�� I �1 ' 1 FELLER STD i i - 3'A94MTIC CCNC. % 6000'OOri�•'• 70 _, i s•OF r COMPACTED ROADT 8'-0'SETBACK _ I 6'OF 4'AND SMALLER -l.• �' .� p� ��$ PLAN SIDETION �i4SSET Of C� COMPACTED ill (REAR ELEVATION MA S-If BELOW GRADE I I I TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAIL CURB DETdt. _ At Ai I/4' t-0' 11/Y-1 IY DRAW er.6AM m L'� 1'1 I aDe 1q.9sn \• sjf ` WI I APARTIEtIn a� ` f�b SEW.) Two cu.FT.8ij STORM I I ,7 STOWWATER RETENTION CALC8 ` �GRATE C. SURFACE ABTA-�) AREA(EMI COEFIICIEN r4r \ � ------�------ ---- L --- 71 PAVING 0 13.= AS GRAVEL 0 0 AO 72 K-0'SETBACK CRASS 57.996 Xlu _w '� �• f V/ \ III i I RINOT CCE R -\ffi0 E)OSTINC SITE - .554 C. DEVELOPED SITE-C...4a9 = �9s)♦12s,3oo.-as1+(120.3011.zo)-.354� (26 43�9s)♦(3440 ffi)♦(I1024�20)..46D uW CPEYCES 1 77-PllLWT . I I 155.092 115,092 I 1 I 3 L PRE-0OSTING RUNOET-10 YR STORY L DEVELOPED SITE RUMM-10 YR.S10RM STE SLOPE- SI TE ELOPE-22 C TRAVEL DISTANCE CE-320' TRAVEL OSTANKE-SZB I I . I C-.20(PrE-DEVELOPED SITE) C-.46(DEVELOPED Alf) ' I iy 14 APAR11D11$ T,.23 UK(ETC.22) T,-to UK(FlG 22) --1-1---------- -- - --- --J i I 1-.41 IN.PER HR. 1-.41 614PER NR -.� I III � I PRE-CASTNG RIANOF ------------------ i 0IA .3644(M)'(. ��� -.11 Cn �EwsTND RUNOf — a¢p R / a i f �.`•� ! I -DEVELOPED RIIMOFT'L4 ..89(.48)(M- -13 Cf5 DEVFI.GPED RUNDRf ILl rEaw+ED RE,DITION YaLANE•.s2 as RL110FF(F705'f6f0) TIME(HR) i0r STATE fACIFURCEWS RANGE I R '3" I la• i t 2 1 60 I .,1 I 76a a L 1 G I I 6P1D1 11P i REOIARED RETENTION VOLUME 0.71 CJS RUMOPF(DEVELOPED) 2 60 1 .ri tort I i7 i I ' ! �W I APAR71ENn I j :II'TE MFOFiMATION ROTAL P.UD.8RE) AREA %OF TOTAL TENNISI TOTAL LOT AREA 1344 ss. loaf i Y COURTSI i i TOTAL FOOTPRINT OF BUILDINGS 24,654 S.F. tax Y TOTAL C06E.ENVELOPE 117,257 S.F. 76x i 1 \ -- i I TOTAL AREA aF LANDSCAPING E19.914 S.F. Sox 1�.1 TOTAL AREA OF PAVING 39AN SF. 2SX �,,,'' G�Y•�jl TOTAL AREA OF OPEN SPACE SIAISF. 34X 15 76 O ' 1'� \ \! 7- \ '\. I �•--•-•N d'Seis.r •- 17 LEGAL OESCPoPROt Lon 1,2 AND a elBEx 1, AiVW9TY SQUARE APOV®BYE SUBDIVISION T OFFICE COMPLEX V. 20 `• \ \ \Y., i-- - STREET ADDRESS 504 S.22ND AVE.BO EMAN.MT 5"S CFRTim INitRSERriAN \\ R .•120.00' P� \ \ m PERMITSREOUIR@ BUILDING PERMIT 1 \ G•d77a!). �___ �46i SON PEW BATE •\ \. '�•�•...4a,�....:1�..-... 1-.al ��4g��� �>. .-.-._._._n.j OCCUPANCY: GROUP R-1.T1PE 1-NIL \ \ � is _ 201MG R-0 \ \ 20 19 W.oEPOWeoN—-—-—-—-— PARICWG CALCULAT10N3 ` W UR APARIMW OOWLEX .-.—._.-._._.-.-._._.-.-.-._._._._._._._._._----.-.- UR•AC L"rV WT'C U6T 9' 111.01011 I3=It TOTAL EJ05'O G EASING E77S'. a EIOSOMO N1ADUt CN'IAen 7 0 8 7 t2 12 54 REQUIRED14 16 16 14 24 24 109 501l116R001( PROVIDED 14 le 16 14 27 27 114 t�x OONDOIMLN6 �DL/-7J f AA Stt E PLAN Al I mmov I _ — � � � � � �w � � r � � � � � r� � � � � � I I � i a _---KOCHQi.----- �"Q �-� 10 �3 I� �I � �/\ I I IL✓� a8� ' N, E%OtwmN TREE-GROUND DECOUOUS TREE-PRUNE BALK I/4- DRAIN BY..GAY -� � r� I / f •= I I I 2 TO BE THE SAME As aN!-sI1E ND SPRAT wm ANf0E51LYJAlr CNEOQD BY:sAY 0 EIDSTED AT NURSERY �ACOORDMG TO INPR'S INSTRUCTIONS i FAEE 6 PRESENT.tIDUBIE JOB No:t1311 DU STRAW OF 10 GA,GALVANW WE TINTED r I GARDEN NOSE STRAW I 2 1/r OA■Id-Or law CEDAR STAKE wTN NDTOED Be fr-w nwoaD) •\ \ `h-.-� j•—•—•—• I 1 ICED�i� z PER TREE , -_ APART AROUND TREE ------ ----- 1I .\ Y'n \ i2 _ •�•' I 1 NEE \ FOLD BACK SURW FROM TOP OF BALL Y MACH 12 EIAtlOA1 YIN 711p90t1 AND PEAT MOSS I $45Q-Q-STAKE k1 RA/D BY VOIUNE N r LAYERS I i j OPoVEN F1ST511 N/\ WATER EACH LAYER UNTL SETTLED 1q; 13 FINISHED GRADE it 14 11 I ,� � � I rn• j I r j E , , ' ; i \ INN TREE NRAP y 1 WRAP I -- --- ------------------- WRAP oEaallous TREES ovm 1 G.rsvt \r .I I MA TREE OR ASPNANTIC NItIOO.E I PLANING DETAL Al, NroWAE 1 I I15 1 i I '17 I I I I 1 \ I I li I I LANDSCAPE SC�ULE p \ I, 19 j I 15 /5 SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME PLANTING MATURE OTY. O \ I \ 10 ` { -- - ` 1 ACER PLATEMOIDES NORWAY MAPLE 2' CAL B+B So' 7 1 \� \ ------ i--'<--�- - --- �1� PICFA PUNGENS CaGRADO 8'-7' B+B 50' 7 —.—.— 1 GLAUCA BLUE SPRUCE \ 20 19 8 ARBOR VITA 18'-24' 3' B -—- TECMNY ARBORVITAE W.002911 N— --- — — v COTONEASTER COTONEASTER 18' 8+8 8' 8 \ — ................................................ ® GROUND CmER,-ni NASIRD GRADD.OY£R LMOSCAPE FABRIC N/POLY MGM 1 ALL LAM AREAS Ta EE PIJ M will IOiNNOY BLUEGRASS,RED FESCUE,AND RYWUkSS 01- IANDSCAPE MGATICK TO BE 1RDEUt6ROUND AUTOMTIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. APPROVED BY' 10-10-% LANDSCAPNG/LrrLJTY PLAN Al.1 I--40.-0" CERVIED IAURSERYNAN DATE �.1 sd-o• 50'-d _ zs'-a• zs•-o• zs'-o• 25'-0- 14'-4' D'- 16-8• 1' 14'-4' Id-8- I I I I I I r i I ' ' I I I I I u i R y ' ' 46 tww }" • 4 � 4 I b bEF � - -- I I -- --- - -- II -- - i I u b� Flu Z. I i i 25'-0• 25'-cr 2S-d 25•-d i I ea-0. -d 25'-0- 14'-4• 10'•8• 14•-4- I I TZ .. AO Z-V vus i . AA I r Y 1 i _ -- I I 4 It aL an L.LVM u I I ` '-- a . f I C I ct g 4 I I I ! i 1 I 4'-1 0'- IG-8• 14'-4• 1. Izs o zs'-o- �u DE50Rp110N W4 er a s PHASE II I + M WGPR CWUPr P.C. COWDREY APAR 1R 15 'y nLi7a i7M or. I7�/L.F1�1f11\r 11'1Vl�l/1lf�ff no,sau}x rout[��tx,rt .Oi-iGl-}.W � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � d i • a3e-II 3�°e E � II IIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII ■l •eas OR halm. -..I'l "NOR I Ll ■■ I ei-�-� II"�I" I"III' II'III' E e _-a _-■--e-lL ■ Imo . Imo . t _ yi :e.�e.-��■ : _ , ■_ a■=_ �- ■-- =-5=ail==-fi -_ IIII III' II � I I L'e -�■_.3ee= !a3 " I11 a e=awe e:�B li.a=e ■?_� IIIlilll IIIIIII IIIIIII ■ -a-------e-°_e. ._.ems CS.eC4rCs�_ ::a. .... @3=e•3��3-Rio-ei oul a c3'=3�i3a�33'-33 llaii ■ 'e R e : 2 e ■ (IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII -_ _■_ _ ■ .� __ - � ■� to=e{. fill-Cps == e=_eia=3 ■ SM.WOM c t ARCHUBM LANE)LEE PLANNERS ► ■�� 201 1 1 1 1 1 1 II ' 1 ATTACHMENT III • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1 • � 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE Bozeman 35 NORTH BOZEMAN AVENUE City-County P.O. BOX 640, BOZEMAN,MONTANA 59771-0640 Planning ice PHONE: .(406)582-2360 FAX: (406)582-2363 March 16; 1995 Mr. Buz Cowdrey 32300 E. Frontage Road Bozeman, MT 59715. . RE: Cowdrey Apartments, South 22nd and Koch. Lots 1, 2 and 3, Blk l,`University Square Subdivision Dear Buz: I have finally had a chance to thoroughly review your inquiry of last week regarding the construction of additional apartment units at South 22nd and Koch. A Planned Unit Development was approved in 1984 for 70 apartment units to be constructed in two phases. A 15% density bonus was granted in conjunction with the PUD. It was a condition of that approval that the southeast corner be used as open space, due to the vicinity of the stream and ' separation of the lot from the remaining parcel. Phase I, consisting of 32 units, has been constructed. The PUD approval for Phase II expired, as it was to be constructed within 18 months after Phase I was completed. Since d-Et review, Lot 2 has been deeded to your daughter for the day care center, and will no longer be a part of the apartment development. Thus, it appears that there is.now approximately 3.5 acres available for the total apartment complex (including existing Phase I). Because the approval for Phase II has expired, additional construction must be approved per the requirements of the current (9/93) Zoning Ordinance. The property is zoned R-O, Residential Office. Apartments are a Conditional Use, and not more than 40% of the lot can ' be covered by principal and accessory buildings for residential uses. Fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre can be constructed without going through PUD review. There appears to be two development options for the second phase. The first option is Conditional Use Permit review. Based on the 3.5 acres, 52.5 dwelling units would be allowed. This would permit you to construct 20 additional units. • s 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BOZEOAN CITY-COUNTY , PLANNING OFFICE Bozeman 35 NORTH BOZEMAN AVENUE City-County P.O. BOX640, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59771-0640 Planning Office PHONE: (406)582-2360 FAX: (406)582-2363 T;v ; 1 June 15, 1995 1 Mr. Lowell Springer Springer Group Architects 201 South Wallace Avenue Bozeman, MT 59715 RE: Cowdrey Apartments, Phase 2, 504 S. 22nd Avenue Dear Lowell: The following are my comments after a very brief review of the proposed Cowdrey Apartments, Phase 2 P.U.D. Concept plan. ' 1) Enclosed is a letter I wrote to Mr. Cowdrey on March 16. The original PUD granted a 15% density bonus, allowing up to 70 units on the site. A portion of the property was sold, leaving about 3.5 acres for the total development. That letter indicated that a 15% density bonus on the entire remaining acreage would permit 60 dwelling units, which the subject proposal does. Keep in mind that the original PUD has expired, and a density bonus is no longer "guaranteed". This letter strongly encouraged Mr. Cowdrey to consider the Conditional Use Permit option instead of a PUD, and construct 20 new units instead of 28. The Planning Staff will have a difficult time supporting the proposed density in this corner of the development. 2) The three new structures will provide 28 dwelling units on approximately 0.8 acres, for a density of 24 units per acre in phase 2. Staff recognizes that this is an extension of the original PUD, but the new 28 units appear very crowded. 3) Some concern regarding convenience (or lack thereof) of accessible parking for the new structures, especially the two 8-plexes. 4) Parking: 120 spaces (2/unit) plus 5 accessible are required. 119 shown. None of the spaces are designated accessible. 5) The formal concept plan application must clearly separate phase 1 and phase 2 regarding existing vs. proposed improvements (i.e. parking, structures, etc.), site information (area, footprints, landscaping, paving, open space). The parking calculations don't show the manager's building with two units. 1 1 • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mr. Lowell Springer June 15, 1995 ' Page 2 ' 6) I doubt the water "wye" proposed for the new structures will be acceptable to the City Water Superintendent. I suggest you contact Fred Shields regarding water and sewer hookups for each building. ' 7) The formal concept plan must provide: a) data regarding general information about adjacent land uses (Item Le on checklist); b) land uses within one-half mile of the subject parcel (Item ' Lf of the checklist); and c) conceptual drawing showing the proposed location of the uses of land, major streets, and other significant features on the site and within one-half mile of the site (Item 2 on the checklist). ' 8 The formal concept ' conce t Plan does not need to include pages A3 through AT Only page s A 1 Al.1, and the elevations are needed. The original Concept Plan Review Application and Checklist are enclosed. I have kept the one set of drawings submitted. If Mr. Cowdrey pursues the PUD, the Concept Plan will be ' reviewed by the DRC and DRB. It is not a "use out of district", and therefore, the Concept Plan will not be reviewed by the Planning Board or City Commission unless specifically ' requested. Based on the number of applications currently under review, the Planning Board and City Commission would not review a Concept Plan until September at the earliest, depending on the date the application is received. ' I am sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you on this project. Please call if you have specific questions. Sincerely, n Debbie Arkell ' Assistant Planning Director cc : Buz Cowdrey 1 • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE Bozeman 35 NORTH BOZEMAN AVENUE ' City-County P.O. BOX 640, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59771-0640 Planning Office PHONE: (406)582-2360 FAX: (406) 582-2363 July 21, 1995 ' Mr. Gene Micholio Springer Group Architects 201 South Wallace ' Bozeman, MT 59715 Dear Gene: ' Your application for a PUD Concept Plan for Cowdre Apartments, Phase 11 has been PP p Y ' received and assigned to Planner Debbie Arkell. The application has been reviewed in accordance with the submittal checklist and appears to meet the submittal requirements. However, please understand that during the course of review there may be other items identified or issues which ' need to be addressed. Should that occur, Planner Arkell will be in contact with you and/or your representative.. ' The.Development Review Committee (DRC) and Design Review Board (DRB) will be reviewing your application. It will go before the Development Review Committee on two separate occasions 18/1 & 8/81 and to the Design Review board will review it once (8/8). Staff ' recommends that you and your client attend these meetings to answer any questions that may arise. Agendas will be sent to both you and your client to remind you of the dates and times of these meetings. If you have an further questions regarding the process or our project in general, lease Y Y q g g P Y P J g P contact Planner Arkell. ' Sincerely, Therese Berger tAdministrative Secretary Enc. ' cc: Buz Cowdrey, 32300 Frontage Road, Bozeman MT 59715 • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 COWDREY PHASE II PUD CONCEPT PLAN PUD PLANNING OFFICE COMMENTS AUGUST 8, 1995 ' 1. 120 parking spaces needed, plus 5 disabled. If compact spaces are used, site plan must adequately label. All disabled and compact spaces must be appropriately signed with raised signs. ' The parking calculations must include the two units in the manager's building. 2. Preliminary PUD site plan must ADEQUATELY show the two phases, including ' EVERYTHING that is existing in Phase I (parking, buildings, sewer, water, electricity, etc.) and what is proposed with Phase II. ' 3. The storm water retention area appears inadequate. Is there storm drain in the street; if so will it be used. 4. PUDs require 30% open space, EXCLUSIVE of required setbacks and parking lot landscaping. ' Paving doesn't count, either. YOU MUST SHOW ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAN THAT THIS CONDITION CAN BE MET OR THE PROJECT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PUD REVIEW ' WITHOUT REQUESTING A VARIANCE. ' 5. The location of the dumpster in the new parking area does not appear very convenient for the 30 new units. Where are the dumpsters for the existing units? 6. Bike racks should be provided for the new units. 7. You cannot include the Kid's Depot as part of this PUD. It was not constructed as such, as is ' under different ownership. i 8. The PUD Preliminary Plan Submittal Requirements checklist must be submitted with the ' application. Any item checked NO or N/A must be explained in a narrative attached to the checklist. 9. The All Development and Residential Design Objectives and Criteria form must be submitted with the application. These criteria are MANDATORY to be met. If a NO answer is provided, the project is not eligible for PUD status without a variance. Staff is particularly concerned with the ' following criteria: - ALL DEVELOPMENT No. 26. ARE THE ELEMENTS OF THE SITE PLAN (e.g. ' buildings, circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) ARRANGED ON THE SITE SO THAT ACTIVITIES ARE INTEGRATED WITH THE ORGANIZATIONAL SCHEME OF THE COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD. (Concern with circulation) ' - ALL DEVELOPMENT No. 29. 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. (Concern with lack of usable open space for three new buildings -- perhaps some "courtyard" amenities could be added between the three structures) 1 • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I� 1 - ALL DEVELOPMENT NO. 30. DOES THE ARRANGEMENT OF BUILDINSG AND OPEN SPACE AREAS CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL AESTHETIC QUALITY OF THE SITE CONFIGURATION, AND IS AT LEAST 30% OF THE PROJECT, EXCLUSIVE OF YARD SETBACKS AND PARKING LOT INTERJOR LANDSCAPE, DEVELOPED AS OPEN SPACE. (Must CLEARLY indicate all countable open space on the preliminary plan -- you may count the ENTIRE park area to the east of the Dickerson entrance) - ALL DEVELOPMENT NO. 32. 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. (Approximately 140 feet to 8-plexes -- perhaps a wider sidewalk from parking lot to structures/street for easier loading?) -RESIDENTIAL No. 2. DOES THE PROJECT PROVIDE FOR PRIVATE OUTDOOR AREAS (e.g. private yards, patios and balconies, etc.) (Site plan shows what could.be patios, but the elevations don't show them). - RESIDENTIAL S TIAL No. 4. IF THE PROJECT IS PROPOSING A RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS (you are asking for 15%) DOES IT INCLUDE A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES AND STYLES DESIGNED TO ADDRESS COMMUNITY-WIDE ISSUES OF AFFORDABILITY AND DIVERSITY OF HOUSING STOCK? (Apartments are sorely needed in Bozeman -- perhaps you can provide some vacancy rates) -RESIDENTIAL No. 8. IF THE PROJECT IS PROPOSING A RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS, DOES THE PROPOSED PROJECT EXCEED THE ESTABLISHED REGULATORY DESIGN STANDARDS (such as for setbacks, off-street parking, open space, etc.) AND ENSURE COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT. (The Concept Plan does not exceed the listed standards) II • � i a i M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 4 , 1995 ' TO: Debbie Arkell, Assistant Planning Director FROM: Phillip J. Forbes, Director of Public Serviceop SUBJECT: Cowdrey PUD Concept Review I see no reason to go the expense of performing a traffic impact analysis for the proposed completion of this PUD. I believe the traffic patterns and any relevant street improvements in the area are apparent to DRC members that will review any future submittal . I suppose we should reserve the right to require it upon formal submittal, but I think the probability of that requirement is virtually nil . ' Please contact me when I return from annual leave if you have any questions on the above . PJF/ev CC: Craig Brawner, City Engineer Roger Sicz, Street and Sanitation Superintendent File � I � ' i i r - o so2� 0 • THE CITY OF BOZEMAN V~ 9x 35 NO. BOZEMAN AVE. P.O. BOX 640 CARNEGIE BUILDING BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59771-0640 �Cr9?,f 88O��Q' BUILDING INSPECTION PHONE/TDD (406) 582.2375 'V CO. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PHONE/TDD (406) 582-2380 To: Development Review Committee (DRC) ' From : Karen A. Finke, Engineer Re: Cowdrey PUD Date: August 8, 1995 The following should be addressed in the any subsequent PUD submittal: GEN ER.AL 1. The FSP shall be adequately dimensioned. Clearly identify, what is proposed and what is existing. 3. All infrastructure improvements including 1) water and sewer main extensions, and 2) ' Public or Private streets including curb/Clutter. sidewalks and storm drainage infrastructure improvements shall be financially guaranteed or constructed prior to occupancy. No building permits will be issued prior to completion and acceptance of the Public 1 infrastructure improvements. 4. Plans and Specifications for any water, sewer and/or storm sewer main extensions and Public or Private Streets (including curb. gutter & sidewalks) prepared by a Professional Engineer (PE) registered in the state of Montana. shall be provided to and approved by the City Engineer. Water and sewer plans shall also be approved by the Department of Environmental Quality. The applicant shall also provide Professional Engineering services for Construction Inspection. Post-Construction Certification, and preparation of mylar Record Drawings. Specific comments regarding the existing and proposed infrastructure shall be provided at that time. Construction shall not be initiated on the public infrastructure improvements until the plans and specifications have been approved and a preconstruction conference has been conducted. STORMWATER ' 5. A Storm�vater Drainage Plan/Treatment Plan and Maintenance Plan for a system designed to remove solids, silt, oils, grease and other pollutants from the run-off from the private and/or public streets must be provided to and approved by the City Engineer. The plan must demonstrate adequate site drainage (including sufficient spot elevations along drainage courses); stormwater detention/retention basin details (including basin sizing and discharge calculation and discharge structure details); stormwater discharge destination and ' a stormwater maintenance plan. If the grading design discloses any adverse impact to off- site properties, necessary design alterations and/or drainage conveyance devices and easements must be provided. HOME OF MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY GATEWAY TO YELLOWSTONE PARK • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' The stormwater drainage/treatment facilities must include a Maintenance Plan outlining in detail maintenance operations, frequency of inspections and maintenance, responsible ' parties and record keeping methodology. WATER AND SEWER ' 6. The location of existing sewer and water mains shall be properly depicted, as well as nearby fire hydrants and proposed fire hydrants. ' 7. Sevy Pp 5 er and water services shall be shown on the FSP and approved b y the Water/Sewer Superintendent. City of Bozeman Applications for service shall be completed by the ' applicant. STREETS, CURB/GUTTER AND SIDEWALKS 8. Citystandard sidewalk shall be installed and properly depicted at the to p p y p standard location (ie. 1 foot off property line) along the street(s) frontage. Any deviation to the standard alignment or location must be approved by the City Engineer. Sidewalks shall be constructed by lot owners within three (3) years of plat approval regardless of whether other improvements have been made to the lot(s). 1 The developer shall install City standard residential sidewalks on all public street frontages that abut park land or open space areas at the time the street improvements are installed. These improvements shall be completed prior to plat approval or secured by an improvement agreement and financial guarantee. ' 9. The drive approach shall be constructed in accordance with the City's standard approach (ie. concrete apron, sidewalk section and drop-curb) and shown as such on the FSP. A ' City Curb Cut and Sidewalk Permit shall be obtained prior to FSP approval. 10. The configuration of the off-street parking shall be adequately dimensioned and shall ' comply with the requirements of 18.50.120 of the Zone Code unless a deviation or variance is granted by the governing body. This includes parking stall dimensions, drive aisle widths. lot surfacing and curbing. ' MISCELLANEOUS 11. All existing utility and other easements must be shown on the FSP. 12. Adequate snow storage area must be designated outside the site triangles, but on the ' subject property (unless a snow storage easement is obtained for a location off the property and filed with the County Clerk and Recorder). • � � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BOZIIAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE Bozeman 35 NORTH BOZEMAN AVENUE r-Coun1 P an ing Office P.O. BOX 640, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59771-0640 L e as( (; l95 ' PHONE: (406)582-2360 FAX: (406) 582-2363 ' August 10, 1995 <'1 Mr. �az Cowdrey 3 '00 Frontage Road ozeman, MT 59715 ' RE: Cowdrey Apartments, Phase 2, 504 South 22nd Avenue, File Z-9591 Dear Buz: ' The Development Review Committee and Design Review Board have completed their P t� P review of your PUD Concept Plan for the final phase of the Cowdrey Apartments. The Concept Plan is an opportunity to identify major problems that may exist and solutions to those problems before the formal application is made. ' As you are aware,the property is zoned R-O, Residential Office, and apartments are allowed as a conditional use in this use. In 1984, you were granted PUD approval for 70 apartment units, ' which included a 15% density bonus. Phase 1, consisting of 32 units, was constructed, but Phase 2 was not completed. Since then, the Kid's Depot day care center was constructed in the northeast corner of the site, removing a portion of the land from the PUD. The remaining property could ' accommodate 20 dwelling units through the conditional use permit process. You have elected to pursue a PUD in order to attain a 15% density bonus for the construction of 28 dwelling units, for an overall density of the development of 60 dwelling units (versus 70 previously approved). ' You and Lowell Springer attended the Development Review Committee's meeting on August 8 and heard comments from the members of the Committee. For your convenience, a copy of all written comments are enclosed with this letter. The main issues raised by the Committee were: -Each building must have an individual water and sewer service line. The location and size must be approved by the Water/Sewer Department. All fire lines must also be approved by that Department. The 12-plex must be sprinklered. ' - The plan must meet parking requirements. Concern was expressed with regard to the distance from the parking lot to the new 8-plexes (in excess of 140 feet). - 30% open space, exclusive of required setbacks and parking lot landscaping, must be provided. It is questionable if the required amount of open space can be attained on this site. • � � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Buz Cowdrey August 10, 1995 ' Page 2 - It is questionable if the PUD can meet all required PUD criteria; in particular: - Circulation of the site (distance from parking to units) - Lack of usable open space for the three new buildings; crowding of the northern portion of the site - 30% open space - Adequate loading and unloading areas (again, distance from parking to units) - Private outdoor areas - Inclusion of a variety of housing types and styles, due to density bonus ' - The project MUST exceed the established regulatory design standards due to the density bonus (setbacks, off-street parking, open space, etc.) The Design Review Board reviewed the project on August 8 as well. Lowell Springer attended the meeting, but arrived near the end of the discussion. Basically, the Design Review Board gave the project a negative review, and felt that the PUD was only being used to increase the ' density. The PUD criteria used in 1984 and that used today are very different. The intent of a PUD is "to promote maximum flexibility and innovation in the development of land and the design of ' development projects... so that greater opportunities for better housing, recreation, shopping and employment may extend to all citizens of the Bozeman area... [while] fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of land." Further, a PUD should improve the design, quality and character of new ' development. The following are their comments: - A density bonus should not be granted to the project based on the design. There is no excellence in design. The design is not in the spirit of the PUD chapter. Open space is inadequate. ' -The development"maxes out" the site with low end rental units. The amenities provided do not warrant a density bonus. There is no excellence in design of the project. ' -Need to separate the new phase from phase 1. Problems with continuation of an 11 year old project that was reviewed under a different code. Existing parking should be brought up to current standards, e.g. accessible parking, landscape, approaches. Must look at entire ' site. Cramming in too much on the property. - Some members felt the design of the building should be changed so it is not the same as ' the existing units. Others (a majority) felt the design should be the same. -If a density bonus is requested,the project must provide design excellence. Require street ' trees in the boulevards of all adjacent streets, in this phase as well as original phase. (Staff note: street trees will be required even through the C.U.P. process). 1 • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • 1 Buz Cowdrey August 10, 1995 Page 3 ' - Suspect of continuing 11 year old style. Could do a better quality development here. -Like the 2'/2 story unit mixed in,but too much development in this comer whether looking 1 at the whole PUD or just this portion. - Parking dead ends in the new lot. It looks like it should loop. The new parking doesn't serve the new units. -The Code encourages arranging parking lots so they are not visible from the street, which 1 this proposal does. In light of the Board's discussion regarding bring the entire site up to existing Code, I 1 somewhat disagreed with their findings. I feel that the existing improvements met Code at the time they were installed, and that only the new development should be reviewed under the current Code with regard to interior parking lot landscaping. ' The PreliminaryPlan submittal process is somewhat complex, and requires a considerable P P q amount of information. The Public Service Director has indicated that a traffic study will not be 1 required for this project. All other information required in Chapter 18.54 of the Zoning Ordinance must be submitted with the Preliminary Plan, as well as narrative answering all required criteria. 1 Due to the type of the project, some of the information will not be applicable to this project. As I indicated at the Development Review Committee, Buz, I have some concern that the project will comply with all required review criteria, and if it does not, it is not eligible for PUD 1 review. I encourage you and your representative to very carefully review the submittal requirements and review criteria before submitting a preliminary plan for this project. Please feel free to call me ' at 582-2364 should you have any questions regarding the comments made by DRC and DRB members. Sincerely, �ebbie Arkell Assistant Planning Director Enc. Cc: ,xowell Springer, Springer Group Architects 1 Jim Wysocki, City Manager 1 • • 1 1 � � I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BOZEGAN CITY-COUNTY- PLANNING OFFICE Bozeman 35 NORTH BOZEMAN AVENUE ' City-County P.O. BOX 640, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59771-0640 Planning Office PHONE: (406)582-2360 FAX: (406) 582-2363 ' October 26, 1995 Mr. Lowell Springer ' Springer Group Architects 201 South Wallace Avenue Bozeman, MT 59715 ' RE: Major Site Plan Application Received 10/18/95 for Buz CowdreY, 502 South 22nd ' Dear Lowell: I left a message at your office yesterday regarding this application, but feel I should also ' respond by letter due to the confusion involved with this submittal. During our phone discussion Tuesday, I informed you a Conditional Use Permit was required, as apartments are permitted only ' through the CUP process in the R-O district this property is zoned. Mary, from your office, picked up the form. However, when I began checking the application for completeness yesterday, I discovered that the project contains 24 units. Per several earlier correspondences regarding this ' project, only 20 units are allowed through the Conditional Use Permit process. A Planned Unit Development application is required for the project if more than 20 units are involved. ' Therefore, the project, as submitted, must undergo Planned Unit Development Review,per Section 18.54 of the Bozeman Zoning Ordinance. For your convenience, a PUD Preliminary Plan j application and Submittal Requirement form is enclosed. THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND RETURNED WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION (all PUDs are ' considered conditional uses). It is IMPERATIVE that all questions be appropriately answered. Incomplete submittals will be returned. Please pay particular attention to item E(5) on page two of that form. These Objectives and Criteria are found in Section 18.54.100, and you must provide a ' written explanation of how this PUD complies with those objectives and criteria. Please keep in mind that for a PUD to be approved, it must be found to be in compliance with those objectives and criteria. Some criteria may be found to be not applicable or irrelevant to the project. If this is the ' case, your narrative must explain why. A "NO" response to any of the applicable objectives and criteria will automatically preclude the development proposal from further consideration, unless a ' variance is granted by the City Commission. Because this is a PUD,the reduced site plans submitted with the Major Site Plan application ' will not be accepted. Full size plans are required. Also, the review fee is different. The basic $660 Conditional Use Permit fee is required, plus $6.00 per residential unit. Minimum fee after any potential refund is $500.00. 1 � • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � � iMr. Lowell Springer October 26, 1995 1 Page 2 ' Although this appears to be a very simple project, the required PUD processes will be more involved than a typical CUP process. A considerable amount of additional information is required, as outlined on the PUD submittal requirements, including adjacent site information, drainage plans, ' and reproducible copies. A full size mylar, as required in item 4 on page 9 is not required at this time,but must be submitted if requested by our office. The clear film reductions for all plans and renderings for reproduction and overhead projector use are required. The Public Service Director 1 has indicated a traffic impact analysis will NOT be required (item I on page 7 of submittal checklist). 1 I would again encourage you to review my August 10, 1995 letter to Buz Cowdrey which provides Concept Plan review comments. Issues raised during that review should be discussed in the preliminary PUD application. I will retain the previous submittal in my office, including the 1 $440 review fee check, for you to pick up. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding PUD submittal requirements. 1 Sincerely, 1 Debbie Arkell 1 Assistant Planning Director Enc. - August 10, 1995 letter 1 cc: Buz Cowdrey, 32300 Frontage Road 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 • • � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • I � . I• 1 1, ('I � �- . -• �Arur t tO n:rtA�Jtn�t•P � f�� !I j a TS \. ^ _-"_ ••`- ; _.__-„_ _ 1 ._,.-_._. III J��. .-_. _ yL Tr VI � •� i } \ ---to--•-•- ----�^-(.. ` --- -- I `_'- Y 1 , il. _ I I• —�='- � - -----� I-'- __.�A,:.r ,— ; °"-fit• .--_�•'%. - .-_.- - -{��`t- �, � �'!'�' 14 - tp�..-_•-•'L ti1'AG.*rh�3- �--o --- --N'* �._ ._ _ ..._ -. .._jr_--_�,vl:•P+E 5i,'✓.'"_i� •-FO�r- — i ;>:1 •� _� I .—..-_..�..-_tom_#_. I 1 � ~ � � ?vR I -_-. ice= ;•{ �� - ! :; -� ,� � __ ��� of LAI is