HomeMy WebLinkAbout638300223925353628) 73'
G 04 50' West�WindsAl
2 ;
of Dav1Ln , aS�ofBaxrer L.
a: ly._of.0ak `S-t W`.of�N.,27,th=•A
tues_t:,West, LLC
March:*5 _ 2Q04
N
0
0
n
S
fl .
P
0
'nr
_ e
FILE REVIEW SHEET
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-
File Name: rA
F .( File Number. N Q5a
Reference Files:
Date Date' Done N/A
Due Done By
DRC initial week review . 3 ❑
DRC second week review m ❑
DRC final week review q1, ❑
DM review 7 ❑
DRB staff report due y ❑
WRB review- if applicable ❑
Comments from other review agencies due ❑
Notice to applicant and adjoiners (not less than 15 or more than 30 working days / r y/ ❑
before the City Commission hearing)
Post notice (not less than 15 or more than 30 working days before the City L l J}Z/�
Elam=' sion hearing)
Newspaper notice (not less than 15 or more than 30 working days before the City 4-5� L f� J ❑
mmi Cossion hearing)
City Commission staff report due s� J m ❑
City Commission hearing date iij -� �' �y I O �/� D J (Y) ❑
Final approval letter to applicant ❑
Recommended Recommended Approval Recommended Date N/A
Approval with Conditions Denial
DRC action ❑
DRB action ❑
WRB action ❑
Approved Approved with Conditions Denied Date
City Commission action 5—^ o 5 Sy o
Date Final Site Plan due:
Improvements Agreement required? ❑ Yes ❑ No Date returned:
Date of Final Site Plan approval:
Date Final Site Plan approval expires:
Date financial guarantee received:
Date financial guarantee expires:
Date financial guarantee released:
Date Temporary Occupancy is granted:
Date Final Occupancy is granted:
Project Activitg L*
City of Bozeman
® ® Department of Planning&Community Development
Project Name: �?J � l 3i A-s zs:)A a G 0 V
File No: z -Q�(050 �J
Date Activity. Staff Staff Cumulative
Members Hours Hours
3 '-r
')M r L r a H -s
J Sley, S-
obgL i J IY1 / 9,
o PA JM /"� Ir 4
a G ;;L- Jrn . as
q. o`� - J
o JM
q . Jrn
M.�h rm
`f bq J"
(S(o'q DV4— 4 JM ! aa,
o <J YYl I , 2y
y ff) i
, a'(p im 31
a.p Jrn J
o J M a,SS s�
C� JM s3
S_ i 7 lbq CC vn
c Jn 5-7
s o Jrn
5 pp& M Q m I o
6avy a
(o o - J t
o m A- -7 !
r7
C CR-U )rn ! '7
DIS ANBUTION OF P CKETS FOR C NAENTS
(MaSP, Subdivision, Preliminary Plats, Annexations)
PACKETS SENT TO: DATE COMMENTS RECEIVED: DATE PACKETS RETURNED:
Bozeman School District#7
Belgrade School District
Department of State Lands
Fish Wildlife & Parks log
Montana Power Company
Montana Dept. of Trans.
NRCS
State Historic Pres. Office
TCI Cablevision
U.S. Postal Service
U.S. West
DRC Members
Parks & Rec. Advisory Board
Mark Tymrak,
Chief of Police
County Planning.
County Road Superintendent
County Environ. Health
Department
Bill Slaughter,
County Sheriff
Rural Fire District:
Belgrade Fire
Rae
Sourdough
?CC D
FILE
******************************************
REVIEW FOR COMPLETENESS BY
IF COMPLETE, GIVE TO CAROL FOR FILE. IF
INCOMPLETE, WRITE/CONTACT APPPCANT
AND EXPLAIN WHY BY: 2--
To DRC: 73
To DRB: _
DRB Report due:
To Planning Board:
Planning Board Report due:
To Zoning Commission:
Zoning Commission Report due:
To City Commission: 5_r0
City Commission packet due: S— S
City Commission Work Session: �—
Notice to Paper ¢ /5 for —1 publication
Notice to Adjoiners/Post: l
1
1
1
Park faster Plan ''"Y
For
1
West Winds Planned Community
AM
1
1 ,
1
1
Prepared By:
1 HKM Engineering Inc.
601 Nikles Dr., Ste. 2
Bozeman, MT 59715
1
i
1 E N G I N E E R I NG �
1 Revised
April 22, 2005
1
Park Master Plan
' For
West Winds Planned Community
&
Phase I Subdivision
Prepared For:
Quest West LLC
3825 Valley Commons Dr., Ste. 4
Bozeman, MT 59718
Prepared By:
HKM Engineering Inc.
601 Nikles Dr., Ste. 2
Bozeman,MT 59715
Revised
April 22, 2005
04S067.110
Table of Contents
Page
' Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
ParkElements................................................................................................................................. 1
ActiveAreas.................................................................................................................................... 1
Passive & Sensitive Areas .............................................................................................................. 3
' Irrigation ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Ownership &Maintenance ............................................................................................................ 7
Figures
' Figure 1 -Park Use Areas............................................................................................................... 2
Figure2 - West Winds Park............................................................................................................ 4
Figure 3 - Proposed Bollard Light.................................................................................................. 5
' Appendices
Appendix A- Specifications &Playground Equipment and Amenities
' Appendix B -Phase 1/Park Master Plan
1
1
Page i
E N G I N E E R I N G
West Winds—Park Master Plan March 2005
Introduction
' The West Winds Park is a component of the West Winds Planned Community located within the
Northwest '/4 of Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, PMM, Bozeman, MT. The park is
t proposed to be a neighborhood park providing both passive and active recreational activities.
The intent of this plan is to provide a detailed design of the Phase 1A &B Park Master Plan and
establish Design Guidelines for the remaining Phases.
' The Park design has emphasized preservation of an intermittent watercourse that bisects the
property from south to north. The watercourse has fostered the growth of wetland species
' creating a jurisdictional wetland corridor through the property. This wetland corridor has
intrinsic aesthetic and passive recreational value. The watercourse runs down the center of West
Winds Park and is buffered by a 50 ft. watercourse set back. An extensive trail system will
' parallel the wetland system allowing residents to view the flora and fauna associated with the
wetlands. The trail system will connect the West Winds Park and the remainder of the West
Winds Community to adjacent neighborhoods, commercial areas (Baxter Meadows), and
' regional parks (Rose Park and the 100-acre Regional Park).
West Winds Park is intended to serve/benefit a wide range of people (young families through
seniors) within the West Winds and surrounding neighborhoods by offering both active and
passive recreational areas. This will be achieved by the preservation of a wetland corridor, trail
installation and tot playground area. Additionally, a portion of the active recreational area will
i ' be graded and seeded such that the area can also serve as youth soccer fields.
' Park Elements
! Mary Keck of Garden Creations designed the landscaping in West Winds Park and the
' surrounding boulevard areas, in compliance with all applicable design standards.
The top 10-inches of existing soil, over the entire West Winds Park area, must be amended, as
' specified by the City Parks Foreman and described in the Appendices.
Active Areas
' The West Winds Park will include active areas designed to provide a wide assortment of
recreational opportunities to the neighborhood residents. These areas will include the installation
of a tot lot and general purpose playfields.
' Passive Areas
Passive Areas, as shown in Figure 1, are areas where residents can relax and enjoy West Winds
' Park's natural offerings. Benches and other amenities will be placed at locations throughout the
Park.
' Sensitive Areas
The West Winds Park will also included sensitive areas in the form of jurisdictional wetlands
and the associated watercourse setbacks. These areas will be maintained in their natural state
' with additional landscaping as outlined in the Watercourse Setback Planting Plan.
' Page 1 of 8
ENGINEERING
7-11
4 L L-z L sFc 3" Le Lso-
1
V I r♦♦♦♦.r♦�� i�ILI .
I
I
.;'%iiiioi:;:'%�:�//�ia��iii�/ilia//j //ii�o%�//% . >.-, .• i
•
E
I
51WEST WINDS COMMUNITY
G
SUBDIVISION
WEST WINDS PARK
Bozeman,MT 59715
FAX
I
• I
0. 0 _ _
West Winds—Park Master Plan March 2005
' Active Areas
' General Purpose Playfields
Approximately 53% of the parkland will be dedicated to general-purpose playfields, or active use
' areas. These playfields would support a wide array of activities. These areas would also be
graded and seeded such that the areas can be used as youth soccer practice fields. The playfield
areas would be irrigated via a well system and will be mowed.
Lawn areas within West Winds Park shall consist primarily of regularly maintained, manicured
lawns, meeting the City of Bozeman Parks Division specifications and requirements.
A complete specification for the installation and maintenance of the turf at West Winds Park is
located at the end of this document, in Appendix A.
Trails
Trail installation will be in conformance with the City of Bozeman's 2020 Master Plan and will
' meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) specifications for recreational facilities. The trail
system will achieve the desired north/south and east/west connectivity by linking Rose Park,
located to the east of the West Winds Community to the 100-acre Regional Park to the West. It
' will also connect Harvest Creek Subdivision, located to the south, with the Baxter Creek
Subdivision to the north via a trail system constructed adjacent to the wetlands streambed and
through the park. The North/South trail system will be classified as a Class I trail system, and
' will be installed within Zone 2 of the Watercourse Setback, which is described below in greater
detail. The East/West trail system will be classified as a Class II trail system, and will be
installed in a 60-ft. wide trail corridor, as shown in Figure 2. Trail bollard lights will also be
' installed per UDO Section 18.42.150.C.6 at all intersections of trails and streets, located within
the West Winds Subdivision and along existing streets abutting the development. Currently, the
' City of Bozeman Parks and Recreation Department is looking into several options for the trail
bollard lights. It is proposed that the City's standard trail marker be modified such that low
energy consumptive LED lights could be attached to illuminate the trailhead. A schematic
' drawing of the proposed bollard light is shown in Figure 3.
An 8-foot wide bike path (shared-use path) will be constructed to provide an extension of the
' existing Harvest Creek trail to the south. The bike path will be constructed with an approved
natural fines design mix to be consistent with the natural surroundings. This path will provide a
vital connection to the City of Bozeman 2020 Master Plan trail system.
' Tot Lots
A youth"tot lot"playground will be installed as part of the West Winds Park active area, as
' shown on Figure 2. Play equipment such as slides, swings, etc. will be located here to provide
recreational opportunities for the preschool to early grade school age children in the
neighborhood. The playground equipment, catalogue sheets of which can be found in Appendix
' A of this report, will be placed within wood-chipped areas contained by landscape timbers, as
shown in the Park Master Plan.
1
' Page 3 of 8
s�
DLd Fe'TERSON oj�15�8Cit PS I \EOWARD 61 j
1 s i
p5•r O I I L
ItZIMM R PETERSON LOT 3 SEC 35 I PRE A I I �{p ,p'p AGNES34I - - - T.3639 ACS-L
- UNPLATTED - B�tSE� I L 1 S 1K 3
- 35 B LANE !MINOR ARTERIAL) 1���LLL
IT
L L
Q aye I I r
I�- • •• I 99 I
FUTURE -
1 - I g
EA s ' I ' I }--F --} -r'-r� I i --
UBOIVISION I 1 1 I I
I --- - I ---
I
I \
-,�jII 1 W
_
-- — --i -------- 1 cc
ZTRAK ,\
i WATER COME
14 I I ZONE BOLVOMr
II
II 'i"-4 -- I h 4y
�7a54FEFFOF \p.
O
K STREET (
1 P __ --_ - _ ___ - -_-_-PRINCIPAL--AR -_-Id
LS��41 I IFwE
PLATTED I M SUBDIVISION
/S/ON EA I 3
QP LIAM M. SHARVEST L'REfA' , II I I I Irr) ANNE I I SUBDIVISION _ ' ' I I I I �-
1 I SIPPLE TRUST I PM.45E 10 S 11 - I III I I ♦ I I 1
i t I j I I I CENTER OF S. 2
I ' ' I 1
I 1 hI�I I
LEGEND WEST WINDS COMMUNITY
1 _ANOSOMOK&
O505GATm ACTM fflCREAnp1 NRFA NW 114 SECTION 2, T.2.S., R.A.E., P.M.M.
' ■NOIN���IN� =77777771wow wATER oEminON vAcLFTY CALLA COUNTY, MONTANA
-N-
1 HUM EngbMf6fy Inc. ® F'm6110AN Truce awssom
t>s�
McChesney Profesgonal Bldg. WES T WINDS PARK
601 NBdes Dc,Sub 2 --
Bozeman,MT 59715 ---W WATER COLOM OFFSET
;g (0)5&MU , FIGURE 2
FAX(406)586-1710
' .Ni. f«t HATE AVR 24 2ooa vRoocT Na otsoeT.tto
C0.1010t 0 ON HM E 0 1 kw.N 18012 RwM6
:r -
r
r
r
r 1
I` IIf1 9-1/4"X9-1/4"
TREATED POST
�. GARDCO 952 LED EXTERNAL
WALL LIGHT EACH SIDE
t� ! PARALLEL TO TRAIL
ALIGNMENT
1
INTERNAL JUNCTION BOX
1.�
16" TTP.
\\\r 0
0\l�
r
V�
CONDUIT TO
POWER SOURCE
18"0 CONCRETE BASE
s
z
r �
"s TRAIL BOLLARD DETAIL
N
SCALE: NONE
4
r �
Z
Q
Y
l
ra
WEST WINDS COMMUNITY
NW 114 SECT/ON 2, T.2.S., R.S.E., P.M.N.
GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA
J ENGINEERING
� HKM Engineering Inc.
McChesney Professional Bldg. TRAIL BOLLARD DE TA/L
9 601 Nikles Dr.,Suite 2
Bozeman,MT 59715
(406)586.8834 FIGURE 3
FAX(406)586-1730
i DATE MAR 17.2005 PROJECT NO70.4SD67.110
6
Copydght 0 2005 H101 Engi—hi;Ina.A0 Right.R-.—L
West Winds—Park Master Plan March 2005
Once installed, the playground equipment will be audited by a Certified Playground Safety
' Inspector, and meet ASTM F1387-01, CPSC and ADA guidelines and specifications. The HOA
must coordinate a regular inspection schedule with the City Parks Department.
' Amenities
Due to the wide population age range of the West Winds Subdivision, additional amenities, such
as benches and other appurtenances, will be located throughout the Park to allow for the viewing
' and enjoyment of the native flora and fauna. Catalogue sheets of the proposed amenities are
provided within Appendix A of this report.
' Passive & Sensitive Areas
Wetlands
' The jurisdictional wetland areas will be maintained in their natural state, with limited
improvements as specified within the Watercourse Setback Planting Plan, which has been
provided with this Final P.U.D. submittal. Bridges will be constructed to allow continuity of the
' trail system that runs east-west across the West Winds Subdivision.
Watercourse
' The watercourse areas of West Winds Park will remain in their natural state with the exception
of minor streambed improvements and additional tree and shrub planting, as detailed in the
Watercourse Setback Planting Plan.
' Watercourse Setback
' The passive and sensitive areas within West Winds Park will be set up with the intent of
preserving the existing wetland areas, along with the associated flora and fauna. The
watercourse setback has been broken down into two zones. Zone 1 reaches 30 feet from the edge
' of the wetlands, or flowline of the watercourse. Zone 2 extends an additional 20 feet outward.
The lineal trail system portion that bisects the subdivision from south to north will lie within the
Zone 2 setback.
' The landscaping will provide for the planting of native, drought tolerant tree and shrub species.
Additionally, the passive areas delineated outside of the watercourse setback will be landscaped
' such that the character of the wetlands are will be maintained. The passive areas will be seeded
with a drought-tolerant seed mixture that will not require additional irrigation or mowing.
Landscaping within the watercourse setback will satisfy the UDO point system and is described
' in greater detail in the Watercourse Setback Planting Plan.
Irrigation
' As designed, the active areas within West Winds Park are intended to be fully irrigated. The
source of this irrigation water will be a series of dedicated wells, located in the park site at areas
approved by the City of Bozeman Parks Division.
All indicated areas shall be watered with permanent, underground irrigation systems, operated by
tmeans of an automatic time controller. This controller, along with all pump relays, breakers and
' Page 6 of 8
EN�E41 NO
1
West Winds—Park Master Plan March 2005
' meters, shall be located in a single, vandal-resistant lockable steel pedestal enclosure having
separate compartments appropriate to this equipment. All irrigation equipment shall be supplied,
installed, and operated in full compliance with City of Bozeman'Parks Division's requirements
and specifications.
' A complete specification for the installation of the irrigation system at West Winds Park is
located at the end of this document, in Appendix A.
' The subdivider shall be responsible for irrigating the park area until development of the
subdivision reaches 50%, after which time the Homeowner's Association shall maintain and
' irrigate the publicly dedicated portions of the park. Wells will be used to irrigate the park area.
A well system will be developed in which none of the proposed wells-which would not be
manifolded together—would pump at a rate greater than 35 gallons per minute. By staying
below the aforementioned pumping rate, it is not necessary to acquire water rights.
Ownership & Maintenance
Initial Construction&Maintenance
The subdivider of any specific phase of the West Winds Planned Community shall be
' responsible for improving his or her specific park area. The improvements shall include leveling
any park areas, amending the soil, seeding disturbed areas to allow mowing with turf type
mowers, installing trail systems, installing any ancillary items (benches, play equipment, etc.)
and installing an underground irrigation system in compliance with the City of Bozeman's
standards and specifications. The park shall be seeded with a drought tolerant grass seed.
Prior to beginning any construction activities in the Park areas, a pre-construction meeting will
be held with all concerned parties in attendance. The purpose of this meeting will be to review
and approve all proposed construction materials and methods.
' The Developer will initially be responsible for ownership and maintenance of West Winds Park
P P
until such time when the subdivision has reached 50% of development. At this time, the West
' Winds Homeowner's Association (HOA)will be responsible for ownership and maintenance of
the West Winds Park. The HOA shall retain ownership until a Park Maintenance District or
' similar funding source is established. West Winds Park will be dedicated to the City of
Bozeman for ownership and maintenance in accordance of Section 18.50.070 of the BMC, which
stated parks that provide recreation pathways should be dedicated to the City.
' The developer will initially be responsible for the maintenance of the proposed park lands until
such a point that fifty percent of the subdivisions lots have been sold, as required by the City of
Bozeman's Unified Development Ordinances. The landscaping will be maintained in a healthy,
growing state during this period. Trash removal will be carried out on a weekly basis and be
performed by park maintenance personnel. The West Winds HOA will be responsible for snow
removal from sidewalks that are adjacent to the park and open-space areas. The HOA, or their
representative will be responsible for snow removal from these areas within 24 hours of
snowfall.
' Page 7 of 8
E NG IN E ER I N�
West Winds—Park Master Plan March 2005
' The parkland will be turned over to the Homeowner's Association who will then become
p ,
' responsible to carry out the maintenance duties until such a time when the parkland will be
turned over to the City's Parks and Recreation Department.
' Weed Mana eg_ment
A weed management plan will be set in place to discourage the establishment of noxious weeds
in the West Winds Park areas. The noxious weeds, which are easily spread by traffic within park
' areas and trail corridors, could have negative effects on the park areas including increased soil
erosion, diminished water quality, and unpleasant aesthetic impacts.
Fundin
The developer of any portion of the West Winds Planned Community would be initially
responsible for developing their required share of the parkland areas. Upon build-out of the
specific phase, the Homeowner's Association would be responsible for park irrigation and
maintenance.
1
' Page 8 of 8
E N G I N E E 4 1 N�
� CITY OF BOZEMAN - PARKS
DESIGN GUIDELINES
� PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
AND
� AMENITIES
1
October 31, 2003
' Design Guidelines for City of Bozeman, Parks:
* New Park construction must be approved by the Park8 Division and the Recreation and Parks
' Advisory Board, and must comply with the master plan, if applicable. Any changes must be
approved and/or amended in the master plan.
' * Soils must meet specifications set by the City of Bozeman,Parks Division. Soil tests should be
performed prior to planting to determine soil type and nutrient deficiencies. Once soils meet
specifications, ground will be tilled at a depth of ten (10) to twelve (12) inches, and all rock in
texcess of 1 inch in diameter shall be removed. If soils do not meet specifications, soil must be
amended. Amendments may vary depending on existing soils, but will generally consist of 60%
' course sand (generally concrete sand),20%organics (C:N ratio below 30) and 20% approved
native soil. Soils will be mixed, prior to installation, with a screener/mixer machine, or applied
in layers on site and mixed thoroughly with a deep rototiller. Depth of amended soil will be a
' minimum of ten (10) inches. There will be no compaction following the grading process.
Fertilizer, and the rate at which it will be applied, should be dictated by the soil test report.
' Seeding ratios and mixes will be approved by the City of Bozeman Parks Division. Seeding will
be applied with a slit-type or drill-type seeder to insure good soil to seed contact. Before seeding,
the soil shall be loosened to a minimum depth of six inches in order to improve initial root
' development. The soil will not be compacted in any manner. Sufficient compaction is readily
achieved through the grading process and normal rainfall. Fertilizer should be applied prior to
planting to insure healthy plant development. Generally, a seed mix combination of Bluegrasses
and Rye are used in formally maintained Parks. Some low maintenance Kentucky bluegrasses
that perform well are: Kenblue,Park, Plush, Vantage, Victa, Vanessa, Barblue, Parade and S-21.
Perennial ryegrass will be used opposed to annual ryegrass. Athletic fields will be planted with
' new-improved Kentucky bluegrass types and new cultivars of perennial rye. Examples of some
of the new, aggressive types of KBG's are as follows: Award, Total Eclipse, Midnight,Nustar,
' Ram I, Limousine and Touchdown. Lower maintenance parkland may require different seed
mixes, and will be specified by the Parks Division.
' * Irrigation systems will be compatible with Maxicom systems. All water lines shall be
schedule 40 PVC. Black Poly pipe is unacceptable. Pipe shall be installed at a minimum depth of
twelve (12) inches, main lines at eighteen inch minimum depth. If this depth is unachievable, the
' Parks Division must be consulted. Four(4) inches of sand shall be placed beneath pipe, and four
(4) inches of sand above the pipe, to prevent compaction and settling. Sprinkler heads will be
installed on manufactured swing joints (schedule 80 w/o-rings). Heads to be installed must be
' approved by the Parks Division and shall be gear driven, with interchangeable nozzle sizes,
unless noted otherwise, and shall be capable of producing the specified gpm and coverage area
and shall be set to manufacturers' specifications. Electrical locate tape shall be installed along all
' lines. Upon completion of installation, all warranty and maintenance information, as well as well
logs and pump warranties and information, if applicable, and an"as-built"map shall be supplied
to the City of Bozeman Parks Division.
1
i1
* Playgrounds must be installed on property managed by the City of Bozeman. All playgrounds
' must be approved by a Certified Playground Safety Inspector(CPSI) and meet ASTM F1487-01,
CPSC and ADA guidelines and specifications. Playgrounds shall be age appropriate, for area
served, and be signed accordingly. There must be an adequate use zone area around equipment,
t approved material in use zone, which meets impact attenuation criteria as specified in ASTM
1292, and adequate drainage. All installation plans, materials list, construction guidelines,
maintenance information and manufacturer's name must be supplied to the City of Bozeman's
' Parks Division, upon completion of playground installation. All work will be overseen and
approved by a CPSI. No wooden structures will be approved.
' * Fencing shall be constructed with 9 gauge, commercial grade, chain link fabric. All posts and
top rails shall be schedule 80 galvanized pipe. Corner post will be 2 and 3/8 ", line post.will be 1
' 7/8", top and bottom rails will be 1 1/4". All post are to be set in concrete, spaced at 10 foot
intervals, and a concrete pad, 12" in width and 4" in depth shall be installed beneath the fence
line, along the entire length. A bottom rail will be installed between all sections of fence for the
' purpose of tying the fabric down as well as maintaining the strength and integrity of the fabric.
' * Trails shall be a minimum of 72 inches in width for Class 1 and for Class 2 trails. Trail bed
must be excavated 4 to 6 inches deep, prior to installation of tread mix. Tread mix shall be 3/8th
inch minus gravel (natural fines) with a minimum content of 20% clay binder. If tread mix does
not contain enough clay binder, additional clay must be mixed in. Alternative soil stabilizer
products are acceptable, but must be approved by the City of Bozeman Parks Division. Trail bed
must be filled up to original surface along both edges with a gentle crown reaching a height of 4
' inches, above edges, at the center of the trail. Tread mix must be rolled and compacted after
installation, maintaining 4 inch crown (If moisture content is not adequate for compaction, water
' should be added prior to rolling and compacting). Where terrain allows, slope of trail should not
exceed 12:1 with a cross slope no greater than 20:1 (5%) to provide for ADA accessibility. All
damage to surrounding features and/or vegetation shall be reclaimed immediately. Encroaching
' weeds, due to trail construction, shall be treated and controlled for a minimum of 2 years after
trail section is completed. Minimum overhead clearance shall be 96" for pedestrian and bike
traffic, and 120" for equestrian traffic.
1 *.Bridges shall have a minimum width of 36 inches, when 20 feet or less in length. Bridges
exceeding 20 feet in length shall have a minimum width of 72 inches, to allow wheelchair turn
' around and passing. Height of bridge is measured from bridge deck to bottom of stream or river.
If deck is more than 30 inches high, a protective rail is required. Rails are to be 42 inches high,
with at least one midrail at 34 inches, to be used as a handrail. All bridges to be installed on
' public lands must be certified by a civil or structural engineer. If bridge does not require a rail, it
must have a 4 inch high curb on, both sides, along entire length of bridge. Deck should be
' constructed of slip-resistant material. Deck of bridge shall not exceed a 12 to 1 slope along any
part of it's length. Deck, and ends of bridge, must have no abrupt change in surface level greater
than %2 inch. Cross slope shall not exceed 3%
* Hillside Grades shall be no steeper than 5:1, with 7:1 being preferred, to allow for
' maintenance equipment access and to minimize water runoff.
1
1
SECTION 02905 -LANDSCAPING
PART 1 - GENERAL
1.01 RELATED DOCUMENTS
Drawings and general provisions of each Contract, including General Conditions,
Supplementary Conditions, apply to work of this section.
1.02 DESCRIPTION
A. See plans for extent of landscaping.
B. Provide topsoil for all shrub and tree planting beds.
I1.03 RELATED WORK SPECIFIED ELSEWHERE
A. Section 2200 - Earthwork
B. Section 2215 -Earthwork for Surface Restoration
IC. Section 2760 -Irrigation System
D. Section 2935 -Lawns and Grasses
1 1.04 QUALITY ASSURANCE
' A. Comply with applicable Federal, state and county regulations governing
landscape materials and work.
B. ENGINEER reserves right to review and reject materials at growing site
and as delivered to site.
1 C. Observation at growing site does not preclude right of rejection at job site.
Remove rejected materials from site immediately.
ID. Personnel: Employ only qualified personnel familiar with required work.
1.05 REFERENCED STANDARDS
A. American Standard for Nurse Stock Edition approved 1985 b
I`Y � PP Y
1 American National Standards Institute, Inc. (ZGO.1) -plant materials.
B. Hortus Third, 1976 - Cornell University-plant nomenclature.
wC. ASTM: American Standard Testing Material - sharp sand.
LANDSCAPING 02905 - 1
D. Tree Pruning,by Alex Shigo.
1.06 SUBMITTALS
' A. Submit three ve re resentati samples of each variety of ornamental trees
p p Y
shrubs, and groundcover plants for ENGINEER's approval. When
approved, tag, install, and maintain as representative samples for final
installed plant materials.
' B. File Certificates of Inspection of plant material by State, County and
Federal authorities with ENGINEER, if required.
C. Submit within 30 days after award of contract, complete list of materials
to be furnished under this section and confirmed sources for materials.
tD. Provide and pay for material testing. Submit the following materials
certification and text report.
1. Topsoil (on-site or imported):
a. pH factor
b. Mechanical analysis
c. Percentage of organic content
d. Recommendations on type and quantity of additives required to
establish satisfactory pH factor and supply of nutrients to bring
topsoil to satisfactory level for planting
e. Identify source location of topsoil proposed for use on the
project if imported from off-site.
2. Peat Moss
a. Loss of weight by ignition
b. Moisture absorption capacity
c. Percentage of organic matter
td. pH factor
02905 -2 LANDSCAPING
1
' E. Submit the following material samples:
1. Mulch
2. Erosion control fabric
3. Filter fabric
1 4. Drainage matting
5. Edging
' 1.07 PRODUCT DELIVERY, STORAGE AND HANDLING
A. Preparation
1. Balled and Burlapped (B&B) Plants: Dig and prepare shipment in
1 a manner that will not damage roots, branches, shape, and future
development.
2. Container Grown Plants: Deliver plants in container sufficiently
rigid to hold ball shape and protect root mass.
1 B. Delivery
1. Deliver packaged materials in sealed containers showing weight,
analysis, and name of manufacturer. Protect materials from
deterioration during delivery and while stored at site.
1 2. Deliver only plant materials that can be planted in one day unless
adequate storage and watering facilities are available on job site.
3. Protect root balls by heeling in with sawdust if not planted within
24 hours of delivery.
4. Protect during delivery to prevent damage to roots at all times.
Cover all materials during transport.
5. Notify ENGINEER of delivery schedule 48 hours in advance so
plant material may be observed upon arrival at job site.
6. Remove rejected plant material immediately from site.
' 7. Do not lift, move, adjust to plumb, or otherwise manipulate plants
by trunk or stems. Avoid damage or stress by proper handling.
LANDSCAPING 02905- 3
1
Plant material dropped on the ground, rather than gently placed
into the storage area or planting bed, will be rejected.
1.08 JOB CONDITIONS
' A. Site Work Restrictions
i1. Care must be exercised to minimize disturbance or compaction of
areas adjacent to any project. In the vicinity of deciduous trees, this
1 includes an area of a radius from the trunk equal to twice the
height of the tree. In the vicinity of coniferous trees, this includes
an area of a radius from the trunk equal to one-half(2) the height
of the tree. Such preservation areas must be fenced off using four-
foot wood slat snow fence supported by five foot steel tee posts at
ten (10) foot intervals.
' 2. In order to prevent excessive soil compaction and destruction of
soil structure, no site work will be performed in cases where
' equipment or traffic must pass over wet soils or if wet soils must
be handled or manipulated in order for the work to progress. Wet
soil is defined as any soil within 90% of field capacity(saturation).
3. Do not move equipment over existing landscape or newly placed
structures without approval of ENGINEER and General
CONTRACTOR.
4. Provide board roading as required to protect paving. Protect other
improvements from damage, with protection boards, ramps, and
protective sheeting.
B. Planting Restrictions
1. Perform actual planting only when temperatures are between
' 32°and 85°F., in calm to moderate winds, and less than moderate
precipitation. Soil moisture conditions must be less than 90% field
capacity(saturation).
2. OWNER must approve all bedding Plants and ground covers.
3. A buffer zone of turf grass, pavers or other solid, anchored
material of at least five (5) feet in width must exist between
sidewalk margins and any planting bed. Paved walks or service
drives wider than eight feet must have buffer zones of ten feet,
minimum.
02905 -4 LANDSCAPING
4. Plant materials must be installed with spacing that allows, at
maturity, a maximum of 30% canopy overlap or interfingering.
This does not apply to species of widely disparate mature sizes,
such as between a large tree and understory shrubs, because their
canopies do not grow together.
5. Trees that are medium and small at maturity must be planted no
closer than fifteen feet to any building, sidewalk, or paved surface.
Trees that are large at maturity cannot be placed closer than twenty
' feet to any building, sidewalk, or paved surface. OWNER must
approve exceptions to these requirements.
C. Utilities
1. See Division 1 for Utility Locates.
' 2. Coordinate work with MSU - Bozeman irrigation specialist to
prevent damage to underground sprinkler system.
1.09 WARRANTY
A. Warranty plants and trees for one year after final acceptance. Replace dead
or dying materials not in vigorous, thriving condition as soon as weather
permits and on notification by ENGINEER. Replace plants, including
trees, which in opinion of ENGINEER have partially died thereby
damaging shape, size, or symmetry.
B. Replace plants and trees with same kind and size as originally planted, at
no cost to OWNER. Provide one-year warranty on replacement plants.
Trees should be replaced at start of next planting or digging season. In
such cases, remove dead trees immediately. Protect irrigation system and
other piping conduit or other work during replacement. Repair damage
immediately.
C. Warranty excludes replacement of plants after final acceptance because of
P P P
injury by storm, drought, drowning, hail, freeze, insects, or diseases.
Materials damaged by "Acts of God" prior to final acceptance are
responsibility of CONTRACTOR.
iD. At end of warranty period, remove staking and guying materials from the
site.
' 1.10 MAINTENANCE
' A. Water will be available on site. Provide necessary hoses and other
watering equipment required to complete work.
LANDSCAPING 02905 - 5
B. Maintain plantings and trees by watering, cultivating, weeding, spraying,
' cleaning and replacing as necessary to keep landscape in a vigorous,
healthy condition and rake bed areas as required until final acceptance.
C. Coordinate watering schedules with irrigation CONTRACTOR during
installation and until final acceptance. Provide deep root watering to
' newly installed trees.
PART 2 -PRODUCTS
2.01 PLANTS
' A. General
Plant quality shall be equal to well-formed No. 1 grade nursery stock.
1 Listed plant heights are from tops of root balls to nominal tops of plants.
Plants shall be specimen quality, typical of their species or variety.
B. Shrubs and Ground Covers
Plants shall be nursery grown, healthy, vigorous, of normal habit of
growth for species, free from disease, insect eggs, and larvae. Specified
sizes are before pruning and measured with branches in normal position.
Plants shall be well rooted and established in the container.
' C. Ornamental and Shade Trees
' Trees shall be healthy, vigorous, full-branched, well shaped, trunk
diameter and height requirements as specified. Balls shall be firm, neat,
slightly tapered and well burlapped. Trees with loose or broken balls at
time of planting shall be rejected. ENGINEER will individually approve
trees. Root balls shall be nine inches in diameter for each inch caliper,
measured twelve inches above root ball. Trees shall be free of physical
damage such as scrapes, bark abrasions, or split branches.
D. Special Requirements
Shade trees are to be
procured a minimum of 30 days prior to scheduled
P Y
installations. Trees are to be healed in at job site or at CONTRACTOR's
holding facility and maintained until site is ready. ENGINEER will review
trees at holding area prior to planting.
' E. Collected Trees
I Spray field grown trees immediately prior to digging with anti-desiccant.
Insure adequate coverage to trunks,branches, and foliage.
I02905 -6 LANDSCAPING
' F. Acceptable Plant Palette
1. Large Deciduous Trees
1
Acer platanoides Norway Maple
A. saccarinum Silver Maple
' A. saccharum Sugar Maple
Betula nigra River Birch
' B.papyrifera Paper Birch
B.pendula Weeping Birch
Celtis occidentalis Common Hackberry
' Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian Olive
Fraxinus pennsylvanica, `Patmore' Patmore Ash
Gleditsia tricanthos,var.inermis Thornless Common Honeylocust
Juglans cinerea Butternut
J. nigra Black Walnut
Populus acuminata Lanceleaf Cottonwood
' P. tremula, `Erecta' Swedish Tower Aspen
P. tremuloides Quaking Aspen
Quercus macrocarpa Bun Oak
Tilia americana American Basswood
T. americana, 'Redmond' Redmond Linden
T. cordata Littleleaf Linden
Ulnus americana, `Cathedral' Cathedral Elm
2. Medium Deciduous Trees
' Acer ginnala Amur Maple
Aesculus glabra Ohio Buckeye
Craetagus succulenta, `Toba' Toba Hawthorne
Malus spp. Crabapple
`Dolgo' Dolgo Crabapple
r `Red Splendor' Red Splendor Crabapple
`Spring Snow' Spring Snow Crabapple
' `Thunderchild' Thunderchild Crabapple
Prunus maackii Amur Chokecherry
P. virginiana Common Chokecherry
P. virginiana, `Shuberts' Shubert's Chokecherry
Sorbus aucuparia European Mountain Ash
S. decora Showy Mountain Ash
S. thuringiaca Oak-leaf Mountain Ash
Syringa reticulata Japanese Tree Lilac
' 3. Large Coniferous Trees
LANDSCAPING 02905 - 7
... ... ---.
Abies concolor Concolor or White Fir
' A. lasiocarpa Subalpine Fir
Larix decidua European Larch
Picea glauca densata Black Hills Spruce
P.pungens Colorado Spruce
P.pungens, var.glauca Blue Spruce
' Pinus contorta latifolia Lodgepole Pine
P.flexilis Limber Pine
P. nigra var. nigra Austrian Pine
' P.ponderosa Ponderosa Pine
P. sylvestris Scotch Pine
Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir
4. Medium Coniferous Trees
' Juniperus scopulorum (Rocky Mountain Juniper)
`Blue Haven' Blue Haven Juniper
`Cologreen' Cologreen Juniper
' `Welchii' Welchi Juniper
`Wichita Blue' Wichita Blue Juniper
Pinus aristata Bristlecone Pine
5. Large Deciduous Shrubs
I Acer ginnala Amur Maple
A. tatarica Tatarian Maple
Amelanchier alnifolia Saskatoon Serviceberry
' Amelanchier alnifolia, `Regent' Regent Serviceberry
Cornus sericea Redtwig Dogwood
C flavimera Yellowtwig Dogwood
' Cotoneaster lucidus Hedge Cotoneaster
C. acutifolius Peking Cotoneaster
Euonymus alatus Winged Euonymus
Lonicera tatarica, `Arnold's Red' Arnold's Red Honeysuckle
Rhus typhina Staghorn Sumac
R. typhina, `Laciniata' Laceleaf Sumac
Physocarpus opulufolius Common Ninebark
Prunus tomentosa Nanking Cherry
P. triloba var. multiplex Rose Tree of China
P. virginia Common Chokecherry
P. virginia, `Shubert' Shubert's Chokecherry
I Spirea x vanhouttei Van Houtte's Spirea
Syringa villosa Late Lilac
S. vulgaris Common Lilac
Viburnum dentatum Arrowwood Viburnum
V. lantana Wayfaringtree Viburnum
' 02905 - 8 LANDSCAPING
V. lantana, `Mohican' Mohican Wayfaringtree
' V. lentago Nannyberry
V. opulus European Cranberrybush
V. trilobum American Cranberrybush
6. Medium Deciduous Shrubs
' Aronia melanocarpa Black Chokeberry
Caragana pygmaea Pygmy Caragana
' Cornus sericea Redtwig Dogwood
C. sericea, Isanti Isanti Dogwood
C. sericea, `Elegantissima' Variegated Dogwood
Euonymus alatus Winged Euonymus
E. alatus, `Compacta' Dwarf Euonymus
Potentilla fruticosa, (Bush Cinquefoil)
' `Abbotswood' Abbotswood Potentilla
`Coronation Triumph' Coronation Triumph Potentilla
`Goldfinger' Goldfinger Potentilla
`Katherine Dykes' Katherine Dyke Potentilla
`Sunset' Sunset Potentilla
`Tangerine' Tangerine Potentilla
' Lonicera claveyi, `Nana' Clavey's Dwarf Honeysuckle
Prunus besseyi Western Sandcherry
Rhus aromatica Skunkbrush Sumac
Ribes alpinum Alpine Currant
Rosa rugosa Rugosa Rose varieties
Spirea x bumalda, `Anthony Waterer' Anthony Waterer Spirea
Spirea x bumalda, `Gold Flame' Gold Flame Spirea
Spirea japonica, `Little Princess' Little Princess Spirea
Syringa meyerii Meyer Lilac
Viburnum trilobum, `Compacta' Compact Cranberrybush
7. Large Coniferous Shrubs
' Juniperous chinensis, (Chinese Juniper)
`Gold Coast' Gold Coast Juniper
1 `Hetzii' Hetzii Juniper
`Wintergreen' Wintergreen Juniper
' J communis Common Juniper
J. sabina Savin Juniper
J. scopulorum, `Tabletop' Tabletop Jumper
Pinus mugo Swiss Mountain Pine
Thuja occidentalis, `Techny' Techny Arborvitae
LANDSCAPING 02905 - 9
8. Medium and Small Coniferous Shrubs
Juniperus chinensis `Mint Julep' Mint Julep Juniper
J. horizontalis (Creeping Juniper)
`Blue Chip' Blue Chip Juniper
' `Emerald Spreader' Emerald Spreader Juniper
`Hughes' Hughes Juniper
`Prince of Wales' Prince of Wales Juniper
1 `Wiltonii' Wilton's Juniper
J. sabina, (Savin Juniper)
`Arcadia' Arcadia Juniper
' `Buffalo' Buffalo Juniper
`Skandia' Skandia Juniper
var. tamariscifolia Tam Juniper
' Picea abies nidiformis Bird's Nest Spruce
Taxus cuspidata Japanese Yew
' 9. Turf Grass Species
Festuca arundinaceaa Tall Fescue
F. rubra rubra Creeping Red Fescue
Lolium multiflorum Annual Ryegrass
L.perenne Perennial Ryegrass
' Poa pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass
2.02 SOIL PREPARATION MATERIALS
' A. Soil amendments
Soil amendments are not to be used unless approved by OWNER.
' B. Topsoil
1. Friable, fertile, dark, loamy soil, free of clay lumps, stones and
other extraneous material and reasonably free of weeds and foreign
grasses,with pH of 5.0 to 8.0.
2. Organic matter shall be 4-12%total dry weight.
3. Provide tests for certification.
' C. Sharp Sand
Sharp sand shall be clean, washed, fine aggregate -ASTM C-33.
' 02905 - 10 LANDSCAPING
E. Peat Moss
Peat moss shall be commercial) produced, sterilized reed-sedge eat
YP g peat,
' equivalent to Martins Peat, Big Fork, MT. Peat must have a pH between
five and seven and an organic matter content not less than 90 percent.
E. Fertilizer
1. Type A- as recommended by testing agency.
' 2. Type B - Jirdon Nitroform Nitro at 12-9-14, 20 pounds per cubic
yard.
2.03 MISCELLANEOUS MATERIALS
' A. Ed in
Provide edging by Black Diamond, 6 inches, vinyl (or approved equal).
' B. Mulch
1. Shredded, medium grade, Douglas fir bark with a chip size of 1 V?
to 2%Z" average, free of wood chips and sawdust, as manufactured
by Model Log Homes, 75777 Gallatin Rd., Gallatin Gateway, MT
' 59730 (or approved equal).
2. 1%2" round, native, washed, river rock.
' 3. ENGINEER approved equivalent.
' C. Landscape Fabric
Heavy grade, spun-bonded nylon landscape fabric with six inch anchoring
pins. Woven fabric is unacceptable.
D. Anti-Desiccant
1. Protective film emulsion providing a protective film over plant
P g P
' surfaces; permeable to permit transpiration, as manufactured by
Wilt Pruf, Inc. P.O. Box 4280, Greenwich, CT 06830. Mixed and
applied in accordance with manufacturer's instructions.
2. ENGINEER approved equivalent.
1
' LANDSCAPING 02905 - 11
1
E. Staking and Gu3dng Materials
' 1. Tie Wire: 12 gauge, galvanized wire
2. Metal stakes: 24 inch T-stakes
' 3. Metal posts: 8'-0" T-stakes
4. Nylon strap: 3" wide 12" long white nylon strap with (1) %2" brass
' grommet in each end or ENGINEER approved equivalent.
F. Drainage
' Drainage fill shall be 3/8"-3/4" native crushed stone.
' PART 3 -EXECUTION
3.01 INSPECTION
' Examine sub grade and verify conditions under which work is to be performed.
Notify General CONTRACTOR and ENGINEER of unsatisfactory conditions.
3.02 BED PREPARATION
' Preserve and retain excavated native soil for reuse. Remove any debris and rocks
larger than I".
t3.03 SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTING
Place plants in a position on bed areas before cans have been removed. Obtain
' approval from ENGINEER. ENGINEER reserves right to interchange or shift
locations of plants prior to planting. Remove burlap from upper %2 of ball on BB
plants. Plant where located, setting plants with tops of balls even with tops of
beds. Backfill with native soil and compact soil carefully around each plant ball.
Water thoroughly to eliminate air pockets. Carefully prune plants to remove dead
or broken branches and hand-rake bed areas to smooth even surfaces.
3.04 TREE PLANTING
' A. Ornamental Trees and Shrubs
1 1. Stake locations for approval by ENGINEER.
2. Plant in pits 12 inches larger than ball for small to medium trees
' and shrubs, 24 inches larger than ball for large trees and shrubs or
to edge of tree leave-outs in paved areas.
02905 - 12 LANDSCAPING
' 3. Fill material should be the native soil removed from the hole. No
planting mix or soil amendments should be used.
' 4. Glazed sides of mechanically dug holes should be roughened or
scarified to allow root penetration.
5. Carefully settle by watering to prevent pockets.
' B. Root Balls
Root balls shall be properly located in relationship to adjacent soil as
required by referenced standards.
1. Planting holes must be dug to allow root balls to be completely
underground, leaving stem-root transition zones at finished grade
level.
2. Balls set too deep or too shallow shall be carefully removed and
replanted as required by the ENGINEER.
' 3.05 PERENNIAL PLANTING
A. Prepare planting beds as indicated on drawings. Provide two feet of
' thoroughly mixed and prepared soil as follows:
1. 1/3 sandy loam topsoil, (mix one part sand with three parts topsoil).
' 2. 1/3 ground aspen flakes.
' 3. 1/3 peat moss.
4. 201bs. Jirdon Nitroform nitrogen 12-9-14 per cubic yard.
B. Replace existing soil with planting mix.
C. Space plants as indicated on drawings. Obtain approval of plant layout of
ENGINEER before planting. ENGINEER reserves right to interchange
locations of plants prior to planting. Dig hole in plant mix, set plants and
' water in thoroughly to settle,but do not compact.
3.06 LANDSCAPE FABRIC
After planting has been completed and approved b the ENGINEER, install
P g P PP Y
landscape fabric across any planting bed. Sheets of fabric should have a six-inch
overlap minimum. At the bed margins, fabric should be installed under the bottom
LANDSCAPING 02905 - 13
of the plastic edging. Fabric lapping outside the edging should be trimmed to
1 below grade and buried when the edging is backfilled. Fabric should be well
anchored with 6" stakes pounded flush with the grade. Plant openings must be
large enough to allow for future growth.
3.07 TOP DRESSING
After landscape fabric has been installed and accepted by the ENGINEER, top
dress bed areas with bark or rock mulch, three inches deep. Fabric must not be
exposed or protrude above the mulch or edging.
3.08 TREE WRAPPING
Wrapped trees will not be accepted.
3.09 PRUNING OF NEW TREES
A. Do not cut back terminal branches. Remove sucker growth and broken or
badly bruised branches. Thin native trees more heavily than nursery grown
plants.
' B. Follow referenced standards and prune material as directed.
3.10 TREE SAUCERS
' Form a four-inch high saucer around each new tree for deep watering.
CONTRACTOR is responsible for deep watering until final acceptance. Tree
1 saucers are not required for trees with drip irrigation system installation.
3.11 TREE GUYING AND STAKING
' A. Stake and guy trees immediately following planting operation. Take
precautions during guying operation to prevent damage or injury to
branches and roots. Orient all stakes within each cluster or row of trees in
the same direction or as directed by ENGINEER.
' B. Trees of over 1" caliper should be staked with woven nylon straps and
wire. Tension on ties should be adequate to support tree, but slack enough
to permit movement and the development of reaction wood. Ties cannot
be fastened tightly to trunks: free movement or slack equal to at least
twice the caliper must be allowed.
' 3.12 PLANTING BED EDGING
Install vinyl edging at interface of planted areas and lawn areas unless indicated
otherwise on Drawings. Anchor securely with stakes provided with each length
02905 - 14 LANDSCAPING
of edging at even intervals. Set edging as indicated in true lines as designed with
top of edging one inch above finish grade.
3.13 CLEANUP
Keep premises neat and orderly including organization of storage areas. Remove
trash and debris from excavated planting areas, preparing beds, or planting plants
from site daily as work progresses. Keep paved areas clean by sweeping or
hosing.
End of Section 02905
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
LANDSCAPING 02905 - 15
' PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
� AMENITIES
•:• �':
'Imp@
74,
6 ;i z"•"'
x' iq F..
.ter•J •'! 73 4 IM M; 4
�7 _
.¢•.. �1 - �): � � 'r !ram ... l'�-s. � �{. •.a..
I
h I
p
------------
9
I -
WITH A STRONG COMMITMENT
TO IMPROVING THE FUTURE
a
OF OUR ENVIRONMENT :
EPS IS
o
c ns n imarowng
u one:
'_ `,.:.:'.?::'.5;',;:''.a^" a ;.: ... - .,.. _ �a�iC'•�..., :r
its own product through a persistent.':.,.
j4: ... .. `
strive for excellence: im::,e:n,/gi:n,ee! to
.I.
�?r
:t
J
7.�r
-i f
i
d e �i
a�n .r J, d.�:manufac.turin � �
• u �,�
_,...t..•+t•,•..n�'.......::a 1.... .._ ... ..i;r it. r�t.:y�
•s, 9
^f♦ y qqFF J
9 ..•yq.r
='M K Xy5
1. t.Y
.4 •rS ra..t.5 r,,. s.:_.�r,
i •a
;♦.'•.� 'R�e: ..),.. ,.
Ca l laoda: to a a:� u'ote fo:rf a r �o:d u ct 6.:r
21
y.
•ter
a _
?„ ,.,fi,•t. jw^C�'_ir:S.a,..: w41a ".• .'aN'.li_�.,,r:c p ..15' !''1 m'.
is
^ f
i�� r�:'b rJ�4�l'�-';3:,q ::�Y'•' .r,.�,L,t{A. .yt�'��-N���!` C Q �A,ye' �.'i�Aq�m }�:�>(�or'.,
.:%�• ,ids :,r:tZ.' `er!i. ��,' •'?,-•;S.'t'+:"T -:9 A t kr'^
..,..Ilau,zJ. �
_
the � . ;..�r
at :will br�nfM•� man ears �s:of�'fun
r, :,: Giii•:6` MN::yTr,.ri Y Y a :K:
t
., 6.,$.P `>fi
.a,
8
4�
,
e d��uc:alt i:o n' r iaa
e s.
-- <z•��:. ►%':':<: ;u�' :::i-: a:'� sir•.. ;:,� $ ny:p
r-
.R G
.d �(
f 'f 1'•i� +:J
• .v
.1..�..� C.'•1_.7-.. O— r
i.•'
�k, �d." �, b B u«rai .:�!.�_:."'j :oll °.fee'T^x r -
• i.
D -
( 1 -1
i.
_��•.:.4... ...:....... .... ' Im
�gg
3H r, 1 dFax 1-90 4 9�6:4.:
,. ..'. _ _..,,. *ram . ,.->,.... . .... ... .• -...... ...'..�<-. -:u� �,,I dK.�t ,:d'•: ,a.� 'QSs=�i;L•r�..i:• mr;�•..'r-�'
".•71:r .'r_ �'P71.';w ::q.. _C'.. J.��:.i::�+'.._.lr �i'S,'
..�.^,.y��n'...�,i 7•„i.v, '�.A:'M.•e��'•�.-',--:/°,....." Y�'��^I r'IZ _ ry.e" .aJ_:Le :yr TrM.-
....
.Jy '
,
'r•. 4 .� �,:•�:' 'i:.r.k,} .ra'iM,i:''ii�'�,.;t..:,'sti�:•.�v¢!l�`..:.>�'.'�:"' .?.,:.f'i.;�q_°'^yd."+^J.ri=ri,`fiN:'t.•.I.:c.,..;u'`7-:•=Ani�*.-y�,^".',«,,�,a.'..i.E.tla�;.a,'.:,-u.r,r.��;.P-r^am.='a..-,..::tt::-.�-�.,.... ..._. r-.�1•3-.rb-..l?.l.t.i..1.i.'.6'?a.s.:;•4,^w":,�.•.•:',i:,+r''..am:c'�.'4.•;^--,5,'_rs.e•a-^`.i..^,:E,rP^'T�':',^•:„a�^v�':;':^�oa''v`'q4-.•'�.A.,;•.��i7':-•7--;�+1,.,y's^+,s:•,•_
a..._yk _,�ArYb1'4f.._7.'
^'Xr..:.�:....r�r.'o..,:!Sw*.':+"_:r..ma=4 t•".!t'+.w,,!^=. ti•S:.waiw.'3,Id.,'wJ:•-b'n'•:•r'<�,a,�..a;•,.'c4,•,..9Y,��,'I'�.•
.•-�-Y,.;.''J.aM..'l.::...S.w�.:.,;:�c;em�:.ys:-.:`..:-}:-W.-..,;=..:a,.,-`.,t�.te•^ra.,R.,,.'.y�:Tw.:`.-.,r-'E•brrr✓.':.h_w",.:al[�'�ia'qN�.t•:J�.,.•:x•"v II�,':
,+:w;�,a,.�t,"r.y a:,f.•':'•;-;n'.•,:�t.:{13,.:r
r::_.y•:+_-�".c,_..�•t 1�;,`-".a•:s`L�•:•'tfit s. w"rY't•:i`.;, ti� .^"'^r Li, �x+w"?L"dit..�.a•, ram+" '� :. ,-,. a
r
v 1F1,
� I r Zy S , r.-. � t r ! [,. �,F• J.... � i .0 2 fi +��i���"`'' �5/�+.y ` �ei , v '.L, r.
�;� r fr::.}14 °:¢� �:- .G ,•r �., 1 Y..t �Y �k , v ,Y � rf ,Vi..
`h4( �� C..J J• �t fj F.� � 4 ;-' ' �•'':T' �! � � [•:fR r t �'"� }",�y � � 1 ��$ bl
.t.
t'
✓i
_A
1,
PwwPW
e�
}-
_ lowJ• _ ..,►' t.
o
i D OM d int and
R easi4�I from
EnviroPlaV"4
' - i Required Space: 33'x 44'
Systems surfaces.
\' Q I ' "!'�'; .t . r i rye{ —••r jj, ;' ts•
*Q
?�a.'*yA�-�,-� �.�' � �-je to Y •`rt• "�
r
(3 r /• 1.
..,..' _ r wwY,ad.�r-+.,« -�.,+. •.•ram« '..�K„r,•.3'•r•� y Q- Y S 1
IL
42
1 ��U/} , ' ,k"•t!g IMF 4'-���� , '�. ;�,• , '
a r'
R �• P o c :r
R
! I J
r► i c Y�7 I i w{ ;
•�,-,far :f o
� �' �a 1 i�,;�t�� f'� E'•Fp u��r 1
T• � .tom ,�,� i�`�}f►1�'��1 #�i
t ;fit" � f��" t.4:...�i+ �� y��4`' ,i �a•
' •.� , ,./': tY r 1. a•�� f H � Z }•Lµ
Vh
' 4
1 r-11LIN
sF i E5 General Series: For complete specifications and parts list for any product seen in
this catalog please call:Toll Free USA 1-800-250-8586 or 1-909-674-7529 (PLAY).
VA I
•
sF i e5 Basic Series:This is a simple, less complex version of the "G"series. This series
fills the general playground system needs but with a tighter budget in mind.
SCHp0!
�Ie
Pre-School Series:This series is designed for the pre-school or daycare,
' meeting the needs for 2-5 year olds.
E N 1 T/F�
sF i ES Amenities Series:This series is designed for accessorizing parks, playgrounds,
camping facilities and more. Call for our latest.brochure.
1
S� ORpIr
Sports Series:This series is for the sports related activities at playgrounds,
schools, apartment complexes and more.
For more inl rniation o,t any of'the prodcrct series listed above or more details on the
products found in this catalog please contact EPS or your local distrihutoi:
1
Environmental
PlaySystems CorpTm
Toll Free USA 1-800-250-8586 1-909-674-7529 (PLAY) • Fax 1-909-674-5949
PO Box 599 Lake Elsinore, CA 92531 USA • www.enviroplay.com
� 1
A Complete Setof Site Furnishings gs
t Designed for Children!
KID PICNIC TABLE: =4'long - Z4"call - l?"seacheiclhi.
1
KID TRASH RECEPTACLE: 27""call -hobs ;ccl;ei-? sr_e cras.'?can.
/shot t•n t tech c, 'Ji.car oiC-)
KID BENCH: long. - iZ"szu helci� .
Table
Kid
Kid
Trash
Kid
1h
Benc.. .
77A
u
^r •-a.
i
I
I� 5
i
M—�
E-Z
----------
........ ............
Oft,.
tsm�
rn�; j..
0)
C6
CL
Raw
kieuu&
ir I al
All
"rA
A
P :
P
PHASE 1/PARK MASTER u
PLAN
L
N
D
I
X
B
I o
I c
v
0
0
— — — — — — — — — n
0 m
I _ a
t— • `o
LEGEND o
Baxter Lane
__ - ___ -- - - - --- dti (CBS) COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE- 7
6
'K t -
N u�(PGA) PRAIRIE SPIRE GREEN ASH - 18 s Z gN"N
(ELM)
?Jr' I .r�vM • 3 m Z O
Vrye. ^s'r��• '^t!tJQ 3 ` '°...�6 of
S) i''7f (ELM) BRANDON AMERICAN ELM - 4 o z€i
':� -----------------'-y+-f---1 '> — — - o
1 ----I 1 PPK\R P ,'2�' Imo'- (SHL) SKYLINE HONEY LOCUST- 6 rn
O. I o
------------
I y._.
I,,•. I SOCCER I Q'" a s:
I '
PRACTICE I CLASS ITRAIL — - ��..:7 (NWM) NORTH WOODS MAPLE - 6 0
(SHL) I FIELD I (B' WIDE TYP) — _ }
�✓ I I 1 (HAK)-NORTHERN HACKBERRY- 7 z ~ Y^
1 �r:., I I 2 Q
aI ---------------- - a n
;; �i(SHL) �-- ----� (Rro) o W
-�m-,� WETLANDS NM (OMA) OAKLEAF MOUNTAIN ASH - 5 oa
' I (NWM) (NwM) (NWM) (ELM) sBB)bp'!' (�) ;---------- ; V d
(OMA) i
02
Trade Wind Lane I — (PSP) PRAIRIE SKY POPLAR — 9 c W Q
� Z Q 0 CC
(H ) ..`:� 4., �-------• (GWL) GOLDEN WILLOW- 1 J W (� Q
(HAK)
I (HAK) ti3'
' 1 (HAK) ...(RTD) �'--------------- 1 CID Q Q Q.
(HAK) (SBB) SILVER BUFFALO BERRY- 5 } Z m ? a
(HAK)
1` (OMA)
Y+ ?� �� (RTD) REDTWIG DOGWOOD - 9 • � W 0
(OMA) Trade Wind Lane co Z
(OMA ---------------
(CBS)
f,
------------i(PGA) ' I'---- --- a
' CLASS I TRAIL I
(B' WIDE TYP) I 1(PGA) i
RUN— (PSP) j SOCCER I ;--------------- I
' I PRACTICE -
I FIELD I(PGA) ,
' NOTE:
CITY OF BOZEMAN PARKS
DEPARTMENT TO APPROVE
TRAIL MATERIAL PRIOR TO
' I I(PGA) ----•—-- --------------- --' INSTALLATION.
I I Cj a
! I I Iazi
m
I--------------�(PGA) ro i _ 5•'0 o
: 1 C c V a
a _ -� owe? 1 I(PGA) ro I N 0- p �CO
N I' R I SOCCER I - - Lu s Z E co '?
I PRACTICE :(PGA) U N X
8 (R{oy'' ---------- 7 o
(see) I FIELD I x �'0 to v LL.
Tschache Lane (CBS) I i(PGA)
— — =
1 (ELM) (SHL) I I
I 1 I �
..�.:. (OMA - (PGA)
1 1 ,g`...' t t ;.•.:.. ,(+SHiE% I MARRY KECK
(ELM) GARDEN CREATIONS
(S L) (NWM) FEB. 2005
w
---------------- 2°C(N!M
i
(NWM)`
(ASH :c %Gil (NWM) Z
(A
r (ASH)a. - . ���••� - �'- 60 0 60 120 Sheet No.
scale feet P_1
1
NORTH PARK AREA
Copyright 0 2005 HKM Engineering Inc., All Rights Reserved. '
M M r r � M r M M M M M M M M M w M M
0-.\04\SD07110\PUD-FINAL\dwg\W.St-WNd-l.t—ol-Pa&dWg 3/14/2005 1:56:05 PM MST
-- —_Hunters Way I I
AD
C
Cb
��-PASSIVE rD
\ PARK AREA
\^ �—a
0100 ca
`
ca
tAiy rat.
y
r„ PMR
ASSIA A. Y _
ARK �r waftz I, pp > 1
in
m N Z D C
M,V N = m
CA �^
�♦ y' ----------
loss Now .i V 1
A i I m
------------
r
/ k c,
c"n" -
,..� I I10 f _
ey� -----------
r D n
00
b' y41
Buckrake Avenue
j ( / _. -
I
?a / I
� I I
Ln
I �~ O
,
I I •
I •
, v ^
, I ,
r yw ,x as d. 1 y
o n ; z o v
o v '0
m '0
z�1O1�11Qz c rn o o zp A r�m� v 0
O Dr> O C p A Fr. O Z O r A Or
F15 -0 m D m O F o R3 m Q
O 0'9 y V rn 9 O Al
r O
;G;O Al D < O I N <
0 O r�u Fn
o I (A I iO p m 1
_ o (A u
I
N
O
O
N +p1yy
!vbA
m < V)
o4x
P
n Z
D_
A
N
.11
A
G
•Project: 04SO67.110•West-Winds-Internal-Park.dwg•Date MARCH 2O05 •Designed MK •Drawn SE •Checked DS *Approved
HKM Engineering Inc. WEST WINDS PLANNED COMMUNITY WARNING No. Revision By Date
McChesney Professional Bldg.
601 Nikles Dr.,Suite 2 BOZEMAN, MT 0
P Bozeman,MT 59715 IF THIS BAR DOES
IF NOT MEASURE 1'
WEST WINDS COMMUNITY PARK THEN DRAWING IS
(406) 586-8834 CENTRAL PARK AREA (PHASE 4) NOT TO SCALE
ENGINEERING FAX (406)586-1?30
M M r r IM rr rr r� w rr rr rr r� rr rr r rr r� riir
a\a\soar"o\wo-vwAL\pro\W-t-Wt�d�-u,t.nd-Pa&d.9 3/14/2005 1:56:05 wi MST
I I I
lb tZ
j I ,
I I
I I \
I ,
j O i
I I tow
N �
-I I Hunters Way
y_.
Cb I I M 11`
I �rcc)
j ircc)
1Ircc L �,s J --
i JTL00
�
O
JTL) ARK A'
v P EA—�� ` 9HfgR�r
y j JTL) Z s Fq
JTL) ' �V-2.m moo „r
I(Icc • ,, -
v
b I( cc 0110.�
cc
cc 0*000
MOO
C 2
IIA
kcI ",.t. Z € € '
t/. (kc •v ,tiS
(yii I pp b
TCJ
I) I IS v ale \ 1 I I
(TC is
J, ----- — —
y I
I -----------------
Gale Court
( S rn I _—
P
( S --------------J I I I
M
i
S
m 0
MC
O ����� Oyy yC� — v m
r 22 X v
O'D I � A m C I
0 �0N I m I I w
N � �
N
,O N
� p I
® Y
N
O
O
N
� c4m
S
Z :C
n N
D_
22
e
m
X
m
m
n
•Project: 04S067.110•West—Winds—Internal—Park.dwg•Date MARCH 2O05 •Designed MK •Drawn�SE •Checked DS •Approved —
N HKM Engineering Inc. WEST WINDS PLANNED COMMUNITY WARNING No. Revision 8 Date
McChesney Professional Bldg. BOZEMAN, MT °
601 Nikles Dr.,Suite 2
p 6 THIS BAR DOES
Bozeman,MT 59715 WEST WINDS COMMUNITY PARK NOT E URc I5
(406) 586-8834 SOUTH PARK AREA (PHASE 1) NOT TO SCALE
ENGINEERING FAX(406) 5861730
M = = = = w M ft M M = M M M = = w
e\04\me?ltD\PUS-nNAL\d-g\W.d-vmd—blt.nm-Pa.k.d.g 3/14/2005 11:5e:05 w MST
Buckrake Avenue }�..�':�;<• '��� / --
.—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—
I I v
i - - - Davis Lane
I J >
•Y. I I I
j i I i I
Springview Court
Gale Court ' s
I
,o °p ,� I
f:
s Al
, I Tempest Court m= � ?
ySMe
I�;�m '
tiI 1 _ ----- — --i— — -----
O
. � S� ►xJ I
p I 1§6,Ey
I Nor t DA6g?i
- —K—nI Windward Avenue
-- —-—-—-—-—-—-—
O
cn
Cb -- — —
m
' I
i � - - —
, ` I
' o I
•a
1 1.c 1
10
1 r
g x g it ``
2 z x $ Z
1 0 way
R N y g C Hunters
F
I I — N
A �
-tI v 7
,. ,.
gg pp .y.
Z 1
b g i?
x. 1 g 8 g
6 Q
2 0 s ; Z
PC rn
x Z c o o 0 u rq 1 I I
In
In
A
,. ��A 0 A
orsly I _
> Aa T
0
a
o
•Project: 04SO67.110•West-Winds-Intemal-Pork.dwg•Date MARCH 2O05 •Designed MK •Drawn SE •Checked DS *Approved —
HKM Engineering Inc. WEST WINDS PLANNED COMMUNITY WARNING No. Revision By oats
McChesney Professional Bldg. BOZEMAN, MT
' 0 601 Nikles Dr.,Suite 2 IF THIS BAR DOES
4 �v Bozeman,MT 59715 NOT MEASURE 1'
(406)586-8834 WEST WINDS COMMUNITY PARK THEN DRAWING IS
EAST & WEST TRAL — PARK AREA EXTENSIONS NOT TO SCALE
ENGINEERING FAX (406) 586-1730
� -
r
t
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3802
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA,
DECLARING IT TO BE THE INTENTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, THE
INHABITANTS THEREOF AND THE OWNERS OF A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS TO
SAID CITY OF BOZEMAN, AND HEREIN MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED, TO
EXTEND THE BOUNDARIES OF SAID CITY OF BOZEMAN SO AS TO INCLUDE SAID
CONTIGUOUS TRACT WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS THEREOF.
Authorize Mayor to sign - Findings of Fact and Order for Cattail Creek Subdivision,
Phase III (subdivide ±51 acres located at the southeast corner of the future
intersection of Davis Land and Hulbert Road into 66 lots, including 38 single-
household residential, 24 multi-household residential and 4 light
manufacturing/commercial lots)
Authorize City Manager to sign - Amendment No. 2 to Professional Services
Agreement for Hyalite Transmission Main - Morrison-Maierle, Inc., Bozeman,
Montana - add $7,740.00 to cover additional design elements and $20,597.00
to cover oversight of bidding and construction
Authorize City Manager to sign - Roadway Lighting Agreement with NorthWestern
Energy-for West Babcock Street between Ferguson Avenue and West Main
Street
Authorize City Manager to sign-Water Pipeline and Access Easement and Agreement
- extending southward from East Main Street through new library site
Authorize City Manager to sign - Acceptance of Grant of Easement for Joint Open
Space - across properties along west side of South 19th Avenue at West
Dickerson Avenue (for Pineview Condominiums)
Authorize City Manager to sign-Contract Agreement with DuMar Construction, Inc.,
for Olive Street curb replacement and Ta marack/Wa I lace corner reconstruction
- in the amount of$18,998.80
Adopt master park plan for Baxter Square Major Subdivision PUD(subdivide 18 acres
on the north side of Baxter Lane, west of Thomas Drive, into 104 residential
lots
Adopt master park plan for West Winds Major Subdivision PUD(subdivide 161.3 acres
bounded by Oak Street, North 27th Avenue, Fowler Avenue and Baxter Lane
into 206 single household, 150 townhouse, 4 multi-household and 8 senior
assisted living lots)
Application for Beer and Wine License-The Emerson Grill,207 West Olive Street-for
Calendar Year 2005
Claims
It was moved by Commissioner Youngman, seconded by Commissioner Kirchhoff, that the
Commission approve the Consent Items as listed, and authorize and direct the appropriate persons to
complete the necessary actions. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye
being Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Kirchhoff, Commissioner Hietala, Commissioner Krauss
and Mayor Cetraro; those voting No, none.
Public comment
Mr. David Arnott stated he is one of a number of local residents disgruntled with the landscape code,
particularly Section 18.80.1500 of the Bozeman Municipal Code, which requires at least 75 percent lot
coverage in grass or other plant materials. He requested that the Commission strike that section of the
05-16-05
code, and submitted a proposed replacement that would promote water conservation. He encouraged the
Commission to recognize that this area is in a federally designated drought and that the levels in the local
reservoirs and aquifers are down, and that to maintain landscaping takes more water than regular
household use.
Ms. Debra Ramsdell, 2611 Snapdragon, noted she has been in a dispute with the City staff for the 1
last two years after xeriscaping her yard. She stated that,the same week she got a letter from the City citing 1
her for violation of the code, she received a pamphlet from the City suggesting water conservation through
xeriscaping and voiced concern about the mixed signals being sent. She encouraged the Commission to
be forward thinking and to allow more flexibility that encourages aesthetics and water conservation,
particularly in light of the existing drought.
Commissioner Youngman suggested a citizen task force to develop a standard that encourages
more creative landscaping and less water use, noting the City could then identify language to accomplish
the desired flexibility.
Planning Director Epple acknowledged that improvements can be made in the code to eliminate the
confusion, stressing that the laying of Kentucky blue grass sod is not the only way to meet the 75-percent
landscape requirements. He suggested that, by working with a landscape architect, staff could prepare a
proposed revision to the unified development ordinance to address the issue and provide greater flexibility.
Conditional Use Permit - allow conversion of a portion of a residential garage to a commercial
kitchen for home-based catsup making business- Mathew Henry, 405 Stillwater Avenue (Z-05055)
This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit requested by
Mathew Henry under Application No. Z-05055, to allow conversion of a portion of a residential garage on
Lot 6, Block 6, Valley Creek Subdivision, Phase 2, into a commercial kitchen for a home-based catsup
making business. The subject property is located at 405 Stillwater Avenue.
Distributed just prior to the meeting were letters of opposition from Michael Basile, owner of the
property at 404 Stillwater Avenue, and from Todd Fullerton, 406 Treasure Avenue.
Public hearing
Mayor Cetraro opened the public hearing.
Planner Ben Ehreth presented the staff report. He stated that staff has reviewed this application in
light of the applicable criteria, and staff's comprehensive findings are contained in the written staff report.
Based on those findings,staff has forwarded a recommendation for approval subject to eighteen conditions
plus code requirements.
The Planner noted that the Commission has received two letters of opposition, identifying seven
different concerns; and all but one of those issues is addressed in the conditions. The one outstanding
issue is the section of the restrictive covenants for the Valley Creek Subdivision that states no home based
occupations. He stressed that restrictive covenants are private agreements between the property owners,
and the City can neither enforce nor relax those covenants.
Mr. Matt Henry, applicant, noted that state statutes regarding food manufacturing do not allow the
production of food for sale in the same kitchen where meals are prepared. As a result, he proposes to
partition off less than one-third of the garage and install a commercial kitchen for his catsup making
business, noting he currently sells his product at venues such as Farmers Market.
Mr. Mike Basile, owner of the property across the street from this property, noted he wrote one of
the letters of opposition. He stressed that this is a residential subdivision and that the covenants preclude
commercial use, including home occupations. He then stated that,even though the property is zoned"R-4",
it has been developed with duplex condominiums on the perimeter and single-family homes in the
remainder of the subdivision. If this commercial kitchen is allowed, it will be incumbent on him as a realtor
to announce the kitchen, which tends to have a detrimental effect on sale of the property and results in
devaluation; and incumbent on property owners to monitor activities to ensure no other infractions of the
covenants occur. He suggested that, rather than approving this application, it would be preferable for the
05-16-05
CIF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260
20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263
P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozeman.net
MEMORANDUM
To: Design Review Board
From: Jami Morris,Associate Planner
Date: August 10, 2005 Design Review Board meeting
Subject: West Winds Final PUD Plan #Z-04050
On May 24, 2004 the City Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Development to establish a unified development plan of a 161.30 acre subdivision bound by Fowler
Avenue, Oak Street, Baxter Lane and North 27th Avenue with the following requested relaxations from
the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance: a) Section 18.50.020 "Park Requirements" to
allow the area requirement to be based on 11% net buildable area instead of 0.03 acres per dwelling unit
for the affordable housing lots; b) Section 18.16.020.B "Authorized Uses" to allow assisted
living/elderly care facilities and apartments within the "R-3" zoning district; c) Section 18.42.030.0
"Double/Through and Reverse Frontage" to allow double frontage lots adjacent to the arterial and
collector streets; d) 18.42.040.B "Block Length" to allow the block lengths to exceed 400 feet; e)
Section 18.42.040.0 "Block Width" to allow the minimum block length to be less than 200 feet for the
blocks with Restricted Size Lots; f) Section 18.42.180.0 "Number of Restricted Size Lots Required" to
allow the townhouse Restricted Size Lots to be less than 3,000 square feet and more than 3,000 for
corner townhouse lots; and g) Section 18.44.090.D.3 "Spacing Standards for Drive Accesses" to allow
residential lots that front on Hunter's Way and Buckrake and back onto the linear park to access local
streets within 150 feet of an intersection with an arterial street and to allow the proposed access
separation distance between the proposed local streets onto Oak Street, an arterial street, to be separated
less than 660 feet. On July 5, 2005 the City Commission approved a modification of the conditions of
approval as they related to the affordable housing requirements.
Condition #6 requires the Design Review Board to review the Final PUD Plan for any advisory
comments prior to approval by the City Commission. Planning Staff has reviewed the submittal and
determined the application to be complete. The Design Review Board must review the application to
verify whether the revisions are acceptable. The approved conditions of approval are as follows:
1. A trail shall be constructed connecting from 27`h Avenue to Davis Lane away from streets and in
addition to the sidewalk to provide a future connection between Rose Park and the Regional Park.
2. Mid-block trail crossing along Oak Street will not be permitted.
3. Hunters Way (from Baxter Lane to Oak Street) shall include a Signed Bike Route since this will be
an extension of an existing Signed Bike Route on Hunters Way.
4. The Home Owners Association shall be responsible for maintenance of Park,,park fixtures, trails,
etc.,until such time that a Park Maintenance District, or similar form of funding,is established.
planning o zoning • subdivision review . annexation • historic preservation . housing • grant administration • neighborhood coordination
5. A park master plan shall be submitted for approval by the City Parks Division with the Phase I Final
Plat and/or Final Site Plan,whichever comes first.
6. The Final Site Plan, including a Final Park Plan, shall be subject to review by the Design Review
Board and final approval by the City Commission.
7. The Final Site Plan shall include elaborated architectural guidelines with streetscape and entry details.
8. A building configuration plan shall be submitted for townhouse lots with subsequent subdivision
phases.
9. The Covenants and Design Guidelines must state the means in which building orientation will be
mitigated along the arterial and collector streets. The lots shall provide a front porch or false facade,
a sidewalk connection to each building, and the covenants shall prohibit the construction of fences
unless constructed less than 4 feet tall with a coordinated design for all of the lots backing up to Oak
Street,Baxter Lane,27`h Avenue and Davis Lane.
10. The declaration of covenants for the subdivision must be included and recorded with the Final Plat.
The City of Bozeman shall be parry to any changes or modifications made to the restrictive
covenants and Architectural Guidelines as they relate to any zoning and/or planning bylaws. The
covenants shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Office prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
11. The storm water detention ponds shall be designed in a more organic form and landscaped as a
water feature with 6" river rock and wet root tolerant plant types.
12. A one foot "no access" easement shall be provided along Baxter Lane, Oak Street, 27`h Avenue and
Davis Lane.
13. No lots shall be platted within the watercourse and wetland setback
14. The 0.07 acre isolated wetland in the southeast corner of the subdivision may be filled in exchange
for the existing vegetation being transplanted, as reasonably feasible, from the filled wetland to the
Cattail Creek wetlands,under the direct supervision of the wetland consultant.
15. At least 70% of the park perimeter shall be adjacent to a public street to allow for accessibility to the
park
16. The applicant shall provide and file with the County Clerk and Recorder's office an executed Waiver
of Right to Protest Creation of Special Improvement Districts (SID's) for the following:
a. Signalization of the intersection of W Oak Street and North 27`h Avenue.
b. Signalization of the intersection of W Oak Street and Fowler Avenue.
c. Signalization of the intersection of Baxter Lane and North 27`h Avenue.
d. Signalization of the intersection of Baxter Lane and Fowler Avenue.
e. Fowler Avenue trunk sewer main improvements.
The document filed shall specify that in the event an SID is not utilized for the completion of these
improvements, the developer agrees to participate in an alternate financing method for the
completion of said improvements on a fair share, proportionate basis as determined by square
Page 2
footage of property,tabe valuation of the property. traffic cont&tion from the development, or
a combination thereof.
17. As a part of the infrastructure plans submittal, 100-year flood elevations shall be computed for the
Section-Line Ditch and the center irrigation lateral (stream defined as Cattail Creek by the
Conservation District and as Harmon Ditch from Harvest Creek), and the limits of flooding
identified. Lots shall not be platted within the 100 year flood plain.. Hydraulic calculations and the
water surface profile of the ditches shall take into account the upstream and downstream culvert
capacities as well as the fact the ditch company may use the ditch as a blow-off at any time and
without notice.
18. Additional information is needed prior to approval of the Phase I improvements. The Traffic Study
Report shall include an analysis of possible warrants at all the proposed intersections with Oak
Street. The Traffic Study Report shall also address pedestrian crossing issues at the intersection of
Oak Street and N 27'Avenue and make recommendations for approval.
19. The applicant is advised that Baxter Road, along the property boundary, shall be improved, as part
of this development,to.one half of a minor arterial standard as shown in the Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan 2001 Update and shall match the section built by Baxter Meadows. West Oak
Street, along the property boundary, shall be improved, as part of this development,to one half of a
principal arterial standard and shall match the section built by Harvest Creek. North 27h Avenue,
along the property boundary, shall be improved, as part of this development, to one half of a
collector standard and shall match the section built by Harvest Creek Fowler Avenue, along the
property boundary, shall be improved, as part of this development, to one half of a minor arterial
standard. Where one half of a standard collector or arterial is being built 12 feet of pavement for the
opposing lane of travel shall be provided. City standard curb and gutter, and 6 foot wide sidewalk
will be required in the standard location on the development's side of the street. Detailed review of
the street and intersection design, and approval by the City Engineer will be required as part of the
infrastructure plan and specification review process.
20. Tschache Lane shall align with the road in Baxter Meadows west of Fowler Avenue.
21. Parking will not be allowed on W. Oak Street,North 27°'Avenue,Baxter Lane, and Fowler Avenue.
22. The Section Line Ditch shall not be piped. The "riparian" corridor shall be maintained within the
median planned for Fowler Avenue.
23. No existing mature vegetation within the watercourse setback, wetlands, park and along the Section
Line Ditch shall be removed from the site unless approved by the City of Bozeman Planning Office.
The Final Landscape Plan shall depict existing and proposed vegetation as well as proposed
vegetation to be removed.
24. Buildings proposed for construction with crawl spaces or basements shall include Engineer
Certification regarding depth of ground water and soil conditions and proposed mitigation methods
to be submitted with each Building Permit.
25. The 60 foot wide trail area,along Tschache Lane,shall be extended along the north side of Tschache
Lane to the Whisper Avenue intersection.
26. The 9 lots on the west side of Whisper Avenue that are directly adjacent to the park shall be
removed.
Page 3
27. More detailed Develop*t Guidelines shall be provided with thetal PUD Plan.
28. The subdivision shall provide for a better mix of housing types throughout the subdivision and shall
be reviewed by the Design Review Board and a final approval by the City Commission.
29. The mandatory 25 foot trail easement for the transportation pathways will not count towards the
dedicated parkland. Any additional width provided along the trail easement can be counted towards
the dedicated parkland requirement.
30. The City of Bozeman will accept the 11% calculation for parkland dedication for the affordable
housing lots so long as it includes some very low income housing.
31. The parkland shall be configured to provide adequate space for soccer fields along Whisper Avenue
and Buckrake Avenue.
32. The applicant shall reconsider the arterial treatment on Baxter Lane. The City Convrussion does not
support the large areas of open space along the arterial stress.
33. A density cap shall be applied to the build out of the subdivision. The cap will be based on the total
number of acres of dedicated parkland provided.
34. The interconnectivity of streets on the eastern part of the neighborhood shall reflect the
interconnectivity shown on the western portion of the subdivision.
35. At the time of final plat a deed restriction shall be placed on the "affordable housing parcel" as
identified in the Final PUD Plan that restricts the use of the parcel to affordable housing only, as
defined by the City of Bozeman with input form CAHAB. The deed restriction shall indicate that
the parcel will always be limited to use as an affordable housing project.
36. Calculations and an exhibit shall be submitted prior to Final PUD approval that guarantees there is
adequate space on the affordable housing lot to meet the minimum lot area requirements for the
zoning district and fulfill the 20 Planned Unit Development performance points.
37. Prior to filing the final plat for the last phases of the West Winds PUD, the affordable housing
parcel shall be 100% built-out based on the affordable housing needs as determined by the City of
Bozeman with input from CAHAB for the parcel. In the event that 100% of the affordable housing
units are not built prior to the filing of the final plat for the last phase of the PUD, the developer
shall pay cash-in-lieu for additional open space (18.36.090.E.(7)(b) to meet the required PUD
performance points. The affordable housing parcel shall remain deed restricted and price restricted
for affordable housing only.
38. In the event that the Assisted Living, as depicted in the plan, is not constructed in whole or
part, the effected area shall be developed consistent with SW Residential Alternative as
depicted in Figure 1.2.A of the plan and the parkland shall be recalculated based on the
additional dwelling units. Additional parkland shall be provided either in the form of on or
off-site dedicated parkland or as cash-in-lieu of parkland as determined appropriate by the
City Commission.
39. Prior to Final PUD Plan approval the developer shall provide written evidence of a good
faith agreement with an affordable housing developer and a concept plan for the
development of the "affordable housing parcel".
Page 4
A copy of the original plan will kovided at the Design Review Board n0ing for comparison.
Attachments: Applicant's Submittal Materials
DRB Minutes 4.27.04
Mailed to: HKM Engineering Inc., 601 N&des Drive,Suite 2,Bozeman,MT 59715
Cascade Development,Inc., 1627 West Main Street,Suite 223,Bozeman,MT 59715
Page 5
• DESIGN REVIEW BOARD` •.
TUESDAY,APRIL 27, 2004
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Vice Chairperson Bill Hanson called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. and directed the secretary
to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Christopher Livingston Jami Morris, Associate Planner
Mel Howe David Skelton, Senior Planner
Carol Asleson Susan Kozub, Planner I
Joseph Thomas Tara Hastie,Recording Secretary
Bill Hanson
Visitors Present
Clint Litle
John Dunlap
Lowell Springer
M. McGullum
Lee Hietala
Gene Mickolio
Dick Bridy
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF APRIL 13,2004
Vice Chairperson Hanson called for corrections or additions to the minutes of April 13, 2004.
MOTION: Mr. Howe moved,Mr. Livingston seconded, to approve the minutes as presented.
The motion carried 5-0.
ITEM 3. CONSENT
A. ASI Bozeman Senior Housing SP/COA #Z-04074 (Morris)
1441 North 15'h Avenue
* A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow
the construction of a 44-unit independent senior housing development
and related site improvements.
Planner Morris presented the Staff Report, noting the DRB had reviewed the conceptual
application, the Preliminary PUD, and the Preliminary Site Plan. Mr. Livingston stated he did
not remember seeing the submittal prior to this meeting. Planner Morris presented color
renderings and diagrams of the Concept and Preliminary PUD's.
MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Ms. Asleson seconded, to forward a recommendation of
approval to the City Commission for ASI Bozeman Senior Housing SP/COA #Z-04074. The
motion carried 5-0.
City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes-April 27,2004 1
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
A. West Winds Zoning PUD #Z-04050 (Morris)
E. of Davis Lane, S. of Baxter Lane, W. of North 27' Avenue, N. of Oak
Street
* A Zoning Planned Unit Development Application to allow a unified
development plan on 160.30 acres with single-household units,
townhouse, apartment, senior housing units (assisted and independent),
neighborhood community center facilities, and related park/open space
improvements.
John Dunlap and Clint Litle joined the DRB. Planner Morris presented the Staff Report,
noting the DRB had been provided with the minutes from the conceptual review. She stated
Staff supported the project without some of the requested relaxations (a, b, c, & i from the
Staff Report). She reviewed the relaxations requested by the applicant and Staffs position on
each.
Ms. Asleson asked if the DRB would be seeing the proposal again as she was concerned with
the landscape plan. Planner Morris responded the DRB might see a Site Plan, but not the
Final PUD unless requested by the DRB. Mr. Litle added that the stream setback and
landscape plan would be integrated at a later date.
Mr. Livingston asked Planner Morris to explain condition #34 from DRC. Planner Morris
responded that the condition stated the applicant had to take access from one of the interior
streets rather than from one of the collector/arterial streets.
Vice Chairperson Hanson stated he could find nothing akin to architectural guidelines in the
submittal. Planner Morris responded there was an option through the PUD process allowing a
more conceptual idea of architectural guidelines; instead, they had an architectural committee
that would sign off on each plan before the building permit was approved. Vice Chairperson
Hanson stated the one thing that was lacking in the submittal was the architectural guidelines
and it was a key piece of the proposal, he added he wanted to be sure the proposal was
reviewed under the same criteria as all the others had been. He asked if the diagram depicted
the true delineation of the wetlands. Mr. Litle explained grey depicted the wetlands and
passive park areas while green was depicting the areas that would be usable. Vice Chairperson
Hanson suggested some lots would be impacted by the edge of the wetlands. Mr. Litle
responded the watercourse ran through the center of the site, and he had measured the setback
from the edge of the watercourse. Mr. Litle added the groundwater was extremely shallow
(not a running brook) which allowed native wetland vegetation to grow there. Mr. Springer
noted one could have a wetland, respect the environment, and put a usable lot there. Planner
Morris responded the owner of the lot would not appreciate being unable to put anything in
that location, such as a fence or any other structure generally permitted in a rear yard.
Mr. Dunlap stated his intention was to work with the Park & Recreation Advisory Board, and
Staff was to govern the PUD as it grew, but he could not bring in all the information at once.
Mr. Dunlap stated the reason for the relaxation of the watercourse setback was to provide for
active recreation areas (soccer fields) and the use of the land would not change with the
City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes-April 27,2004 2
development of those recrOonal areas. Mr. Dunlap stated the ro-sted watercourse setback
relaxation was not to provide for a deficiency in parkland requirement. Planner Morris
responded the applicant would still have to plant the watercourse setback with native
vegetation.
Mr. Litle stated the 50 foot setback would cause the planting of native watercourse vegetation
in an alfalfa field. Mr. Springer added the native plants would not survive too far from the
actual watercourse and suggested transitional plantings. Planner Morris clarified that the
setback would still be required to be planted as outlined in the U.D.O. She added the
Wetlands Review Board wanted to see the area reconstructed back to its original state.
Vice Chairperson Hanson asked if Mr. Dunlap had anything else to discuss. Mr. Dunlap
responded that the relaxations were requested to provide for compliance in the submittal.
Vice Chairperson Hanson stated the park calculation from the planning office was .03 acres
per dwelling unit, and the applicant submitted calculations of .03 acres for single-household
lots and 11% for the rest of the lots. Planner Morris responded the Pre-Application stated
specific densities and the number of units were indicated. Mr. Dunlap responded he applied
those densities only as large parcels with an estimated sewer trunk capacity. Mr. Litle stated,
in a multi-family calculation, there was no way of telling the density. Planner Morris
responded there was a maximum density for an " R-3" lot. Vice Chairperson Hanson stated
the problem with the applicant's in terpretation of parkland requirements was that it amounted
to half of Staff's calcula tion and the proposal could not make up the difference the way it was
designed. Mr. Dunlap responded it was his understanding that he needed to follow the U.D.O.
as the regulatory document and according to the U.D.O. he had met his parkland
requirements. Planner Morris responded that the applicant could not provide estimated
densities for the sewer, water, etc. and not use the same estimations for parkland requirements.
Vice Chairperson Hanson summed up the conversation for the rest of the DRB. Mr. Litle
stated the applicant agreed to disagree with Planning Staff.
Mr. Livingston asked if there was a maximum density that could be calculated on the property
as the lots were zoned. Mr. Dunlap responded there was. Mr. Livingston stated the applicant
knew the overall acreage, they knew the maximum density allowed, and he could not see the
argument if they knew the key pieces to the calculation. Mr. Dunlap stated if he could not
offer a Section 42 housing project, the deal would be broken, but the property would still be
developed. He stated he was trying to meet and exceed the PUD standards and provide for
Section 42 housing.
Mr. Livingston asked if a.Cultural Resource Inventory had been conducted. Mr. Litle stated a
letter was sent and one would be done.
Vice Chairperson Hanson stated the PUD was regimented and not integrated. Mr. Litle
responded the applicant had attempted to integrate with the surrounding developments. Vice
Chairperson Hanson asked if the applicant had considered inter-mingling the types of homes
within the subdivision. Mr. Litle responded the uniform design was used to limit the crossing
City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes-April 27,2004 3
of streets over the wetlandWas. Vice Chairperson Hanson state was more concerned
with the streetscape not having rhythm. Mr. Dunlap stated the streets could not have been
moved because private access could not be made from Davis Lane. Vice Chairperson Hanson
suggested providing access using alleyways instead of streets. He added that he did not see
exceptional design elements proposed making it a project worthwhile for DRB support in
exchange for relaxations.
Mr. Livingston stated the grid street system and design had come a long way from the first
review with the DRB.
Ms. Aselson stated she could not support any relaxations in the landscaping. She stated since
the development itself changed use, so did the use of the watercourse. She stated she could not
support the watercourse setback relaxation, and would defer to Staff to calculate the parkland
requirements. Ms. Asleson stated she completely supported Staff recommendations.
Mr. Howe stated he did not see anything in the submittal that the DRB could review in the way
of architectural design. He stated green usable areas had to be included on the site; however,
he could only forward the proposal to the City Commission stating he supported Staff
recommendations.
Mr. Thomas stated he did not support the relaxation for the watercourse setbacks. He stated
the design of the parking lots could change. He stated he would like to see more of a lead into
the subdivision, using the buildings to bring people into the area instead of parking lots.
Mr. Livingston stated everyone would like to think the UDO was the perfect document, but it
would never be that way, and it all came down to how one interpreted the document. He
stated he had difficulty understanding why the applicant could not calculate the parkland
requirements based on the maximum density. Mr. Livingston stated people forget there is a
certain amount of natural vegetation for wildlife and the preservation of natural environments.
He stated he agreed with the Planning Staff with regard to parkland calculations, and he
supported Staff recommendations.
Vice Chairperson Hanson suggested the park required a different character. He stated he
could not support the requested relaxation for the watercourse setback. He stated he supported
Staff's parkland calcula tion. He stated the only internal street with bike lanes was Tschache
Lane and he suggested that Hunters Way or Buckrake Avenue include bike lanes.
Ms. Asleson asked to see the landscape plan when the other issues with setbacks and parkland
requirements had been met.
MOTION: Mr. Livingston moved, Ms. Asleson seconded, to forward a recommendation of
approval to the City Commission for West Winds Zoning PUD #Z-04050 with Staff
recommendations, denial of requested relaxations A, B, and C, and the addition of two
conditions; 1) the DRB is to review a Final P.U.D. Plan including the landscape plan and the
Park Master Plan, and 2) the DRB is to review the elaborated architectural guidelines including
streetscapes and entry details. The motion carried 5-0.
City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes-April 27,2004 4
• Commission Memorandum
CO. ,
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Andrew Epple,Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: West Winds Subdivision Final PUD Plan#Z-04050
MEETING DATE: Tuesday,September 6,2005 Action Item
BACKGROUND: Per condition of approval#6 of the West Winds CUP/PUD (approved May
24, 2004) the Final Site Plan, including a Final Park Plan, shall be subject to review by the Design
Review Board and final approval by the City Commission. The Final Park Plan was approved by the
City Commission on May 16, 2005. The Design Review Board reviewed the Final PUD Plan on
August 10, 2005 and commented that the trail should be angled toward the Hunter's Way and Oak
Street corner in order to discourage mid-block crossings.
The property is legally described as NW'/, Section 2, T2S, R5E, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County,
Montana, located between Oak Street, North 27`h Avenue, Baxter Lane and Fowler Avenue and
zoned R 3 (Residential Medium Density District).
RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission approve the West Winds Final PUD Plan as
submitted with a modification to the trail crossing at the intersection of Hunter's Way and Oak
Street as recommended by the Design Review Board (File No. Z-04050).
FISCAL EFFECTS: Fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time, but will include increased
property tax revenues from new the development.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Respe ully submitted,
An rew Epple,Planning ' it ctor Chris Kukulski, City Manager
Attachments: Applicant's Submittal Materials
Design Review Board Minutes
Report compiled on August 31, 2005
# r
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MEETING REVIEW SHEET
DATE: O/Or PROJECT NAME: U-)gQj t ,y,,ICLO C,O
PREPARED BY: . Jami Morris, Associate Planner FILE#: Z -O Y O T0
APPLICANTS/REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: , k l,
DRB MEMBERS PRESENT:
ADawn Smith ❑ Carol Asleson
n ❑ Joseph Thomas
N,9cott Hedglin ❑Randy Carpenter
0 Brian Krueger
Others/Alternates: `~ 0alsk Q AA I L. C-A-1 1-10
Questions/Comments:
AO
( .
Conditions:
ITEM 5. PROJECT IRVIEW
A. West Winds PUD Final Plan #Z-04050 (Morris)
E. of Davis Lane, S. of Baxter Lane, W. of North 27' Avenue, N. of Oak Street
* A Zoning Planned Unit Development Application to allow a unified
development plan on 160.30 acres with single-household units, townhouse,
apartment, senior housing units (assisted and independent), neighborhood
community center facilities, and related park/open space improvements.
John Dunlap and Clint Litle joined the DRB. Associate Planner Jami Morris presented the
Staff Report noting there would be no need for a formal motion.
Mr. Hedglin asked why there were two options for the arrangement of streets within the PUD.
Mr. Dunlap responded that the City Commission had expressed concern that the applicant
would have to rework the PUD proposal if the assisted living facility did not keep its site
within the PUD. Mr. Hedglin asked if condition #1 (trail constructed away from streets) had
been addressed as the plans depicted the trail right next to Durston Road. Planner Morris
responded that the trail had been moved further from the street than originally proposed and
had met Staff Condition#1. Mr. Hedglin asked if the proposed trail crossing mid-block was
allowable. Planner Morris responded the trail ended mid-block, but the sidewalk would take
the pedestrians the rest of the way to the intersection.
Chairperson Smith responded she disagreed with the mid-block configuration as people on
Durston Road were already crossing mid-block and not using the sidewalk to get to the
intersection. She suggested constructing the trail all the way through to the intersection and
added that duplicating Baxter Meadows poor trail design was not going to help the site
circulation. Mr. Litle responded that the trail could be continued through to the intersection.
Mr. Hedglin asked what condition#12 meant. Planner Morris responded it was an
Engineering condition to ensure that no one have access onto the external streets of the
subdivision. Mr. Hedglin asked how Engineering Certification for the crawl spaces would be
enforced. Planner Morris responded the applicant would have to supply certification
information for the Building Permit review process.
Chairperson Smith asked if the "very low income" inclusion in the conditions was defined
somewhere. Planner Morris responded the applicant would be working with the Affordable
Housing Committee and would know the definition based on square footage.
Mr. Hedglin asked if the PUD was strictly residential. Planner Morris responded it was
residential.
B. Stoneridge Business Park SP/COA #Z-05151 (Ehreth)
1091 & 1143 Stoneridge Drive
* A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow
the construction of three office buildings with leasable interior spaces
and related site improvements.
City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes-August 10,2005 2
1/ Ell
r,
NJ
AM
1�: 1 � , � r. Ik�:• ill ���
�II �
��, as .,�acz;.�/ , ems•ii�z�' — — �I •_�,,.-- �'. -_ - ;.
-�� ,�,_ INS:, ��}�- ��Ik� • ���r� ��ik�' ��;
-
����
l��l ��if ``/'►,�i'! ' ^t�'' "Ik S7-i� roc.
��1�r .a� � a i•
t;
:a
' / I Asp
� . . ■
��►11 J..lUiu2 g''"��'
ON
bTNOAVED -701
MA
i v 17 w# h �JP . tt m ��s!Ctt�'"�"��" i �A �'"r.` f: �' � '' �4 xl •�
7. s4.T!'af�iLtL u �•41=—Mms
- ✓ Ij �•:'?.'1"kL��j'. .�'`' '�r y'.. �•�.d%-'�+'� `r f .�7 rTY}.f t.t .:,, �! r i 4'...� !
• ' ,A,i'+",`{arg ! „k r i f �T,ia - � �k} '.7am !
N's�EfA"•• u �.,.� . tkl���.:''t,�t• h+rd �t jw+�� F
„r .
u� a"t6.S.� 3-•��
-CZ4
RD
�7�r+ J1am•1. J / ` •1 _ y+r�, ��/(�y w+.''. Oa
�,s�., ,> Y�r'L[y' i. iCc•�.! - !/�.,.. f� �' 4, �1�x�4 � 1 _ '(jf�C L.
as Y: �'�j j1 [ '� ,� .;,•�+� \` •11 R.:.
OL
� ✓� 'lfi'o�! '.'s z I i F i' t
441
C1
.a�t},�..�'i. �.,�u^:�,`.:r �� !- �:+��. �/yr/ .•�'��, .;i, �..1� 1 F �,, � ,j� to
�`5:s.•ii��'�,`•3l :+y 4 >�:�ti"�r'.'•'�"'�Ctarr`7" �� j'a S r t�f�. �i�..:_._._....r_ �+FF� �.«.�� 1�,.=1* `�', (� tZ
..� '�c tP,! �x•1 ,�.,•t •�,�.s'[,fFdf+.,"isc"rry, US
YS -s L1` •.Lf 1 }u
-sF74,.►W
� { /,_ -�• �.. r......�.+-.L. s�� L^ ..i-
�. - •� �"M"y �. ''4 .w -t G ,.!- Ni Y 1'�Jf �. '. .y —, .7 :Z•, ✓S.
'�+�r��1,. ;r �i.r.:J• +ryz4 G�}L"�;�r a � ,�I� r7 � t! �e G'° �` � '�
•.7`°�r'r� iaF S}� � IY.1t�.1 �;t.[ y +� ! F �� 11 � �_ � ".
t r 4zr r �xjti'��`'i� ,V7��g 1�Xt ' �r (. _—. _..__ _�yi.3ri)ip�t''! � 1 �tr•' ';9 �` {
7 f�+n �i.>�.•�� �c1?t �tty�r �ir �+ �J•:��4 t� .
> ;^ � •` ``.•�If -}•�.�"• ' 3�s" rf��~ '• r 1nr� 7►a Ai�: +" Fi
r �" cf I� i° t'C �1. s,1� +h {s
I Of-
t 01
cit
+.crt,,f; 4:.''?>•''�'•7�,y.s[C+�1y�t. +•d ( j) t,r`A - - i I�•
}I�'YK,�S it - L a'iY /i�
4 M .lia�i• , t t.• � 1�� � �r ,f7� �•/`c• �; V-� fn"`w.•..�::aa�aa'�i�1Vf �o�-,j'. :�{. •S •,�,i /
7 -
''"r-,,• ; , - + I "tea+ -� �:=•v1 ,. — '�_ r f +� r'.
�Del
lit
CID,
It
(1
G i r s: �•'!1 1 t
;,;yyt //jam sl , ! �a-; •.
t t r y (T.
�'}�''��4� (\ �:t� �IF 5 _ :�,;s?[,��.',�t.,�:�,�,fa.,.e.r�i.�.�Qw�, � •�.y�. .aw � �
,�;"� 1� r �''r, t •' _cam .`:Ct•.r 't.-
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE • •
WEST WINDS MAJOR SUBDIVISION PHASE IA & IB,
SITUATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 2, T2S, R5E, P.M.M.
GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA
PURPOSE OF SURVEY: TO CREATE PARCELS FOR FOR PHASE DEVELOPMENT.
g VrH)
\ \ 210
$ LOT e\ Lor s7
7Jss ears. I f 8 ,I ISsm w.n. I 9 0'
\ R=269.28 f, 7
J�s.�Il. l a I-' (RA) 1 T� -N-
i) I" LOT 7 I 1 .
L=110.21 �_______�� " )5.89 ''� Il.o, / ' won .- ' PA3'E ZB B-077NI1A77Y;wa —J I �'I SANITARY
N88'12'21"W, SEWER
A=23'26'S8"I833.16' PHASE IA BOUNDARY EASEMENT
N88'1BREEZE LANE60 0 60 120
\ 2936 ---------- L, -L30T
..9 won bJa scale feet
\ �+• a I Lor 1 i------ LOT 30 1 a __
\ �p 1\ a 13 I a I 3.9„ alt I ---------- � -� SCALE 1' = 6 '
r 7.So1 wn. LOI �„ '�' I (RA) / I LOT 28 i /' 1 I i
1 ' I z,eeo wn. I S
\ \\ ,u1' — I I [mao�) �� 1 % � J I 3277'
\ 1 8 1 LOT 2 \Lt\g I L07 12 1 80.00• I i�mm I LOT 28 / I I EASEMENT LEGEND:
\ 1 f 0 00' 8.' w.a. 1 8 1 1
\ \- I 71 TY 7( g 1,"LOT 2 x,880 wn. 1 B ) I I (R)RECORD BEARING AND DISTANCE
I —EI I I $I s..90.an. I ((RA) 1 60.00' 1 I
WEST WgVOS I J(TYP) I y I (R8L) I m I i 1 (M)MEASURED BEARING AND DISTANCE
\ PARK AREA, I yam LOT 27 )
\ 2340t7.4.n, 1 I i—— I 1 ww ;�,,�),II :'Pp I (RA)RESTRICTED SIZE LOT
\ 5..8 aces 1 LOT S t \a I 1 / ' I I m 1 1 I
i I U .g l \ I I Q -1/2'REBAR AND PLASTIC CAP.SET FOR
1 O 6 1 6s3t .n, 9 1 LOT 11 I g I L0T,,28 �1Jv�
J 6.J59 a LOT 3 1 x.li9�7.qn. I I I I THIS SURVEY MARKED'J.GOEBEL 16531 LS'
0 —1"O.D.IRON PIPE WITH YPC,FOUND MARKED
REM/NDER NOT/ TENDED ' \ — — o, I ••" a „xn I O I 4W /LOT 25 1 i�" I ! ,I /' ASS.&G.ENG..BOZEMAN,MY
R TRANS R o I 11 1 U won z880 w.n. 1 g I I
�p QWNERS' \\ I I y 11 ` l ' I I I (RA) I I 0 —2}l ll•ESRA55 CAP,FOUND MARKED
\ cl\ LOT 4 •� 1• I'' won I �' I �'%
O ES WEST, LOT 24
B JO P 1 8 \ 'm p00 .\ \ \ J,I O a I LOT,f x.eeo
NW J SEC IIDN 2, T25, \ . I I 6 \\ \M�\ �A1 / !I ` I 5..so.a.l!, gym) I" I ! NOTES
T25 l3 \ e a� ,mw Z ' f I LOT 23 1 �r I i d /� 1.Property shown harem was annexed to the City of Bozeman pursuant to
\\ LOT 6\ t I 1 U won 2.88a sa,.h ,8 I `/ Annexation Agreemmt dated and recorded on Dec.No._and
as
R=1099.69 \ \ I I \ 5253 i I MR ) a Commissars R—A.Uon No.—recorded on Doa No.
\ \ \ w.n. ( LO7 9 I g 1� w I I 1 i O)Y z All let.....3ee hall be neat to the tmdarde contained m Section\ a \ I ) LOT 5 LOT 22 i I 8.44.090 0l the Unified Development P inwe of he City at ea2emers.
1*0 220.55 \\ I ^\\ e' ±j Un00 �I 5..90...a. 2.B80 w.u. I B, I i 3.Derelwmem of sed,phase w111 not Interfere.Ion my egnc ltwol.ate,
1 \ I (RA) (IRS.) I [� 1 4 am facility or nrigation ditch..fm d—..t,—water ueer right..
t \; a4 t,( ' I EASEMEN 1 (� I ' i 3 I 1 4.Existing Zoning: R3
�Z2'40'53" won W
PHASE IA LOT 8 a (i (T P) LOT LOT 7
s.o31 w.n. 4, I 2.860 4a.IL 18
I a 1 ,59,37a.alt.
1 BOUNDARY i i \ yo „� , +J I 1 (;m) 1" e3 1 3.659 obe•
_�OY.if / I UTraROABIL iLY)
s,Is.1 n 1 i"LOT 20 1 I (uutn-rANn,7 i i EV
fPSRI ` i r r ''.);' "s LOT a 1 a z.eeo.a.. e Z I / I��� ` \:',p^� I 6,285 atilt �' BRA) I F 1 ,/ I
LQT�1 ^ =\\, � I- 1 .I w 1 0 ,�1 � I; I o , SITE STATISTICS SUMMARY
LOT 19- Q i at PHASE 1A
LOT 7 en, I a U I 1 I I LOTS 1-4, BLOCK 1 25,600 SQ. FT. 0.588 AC.
unuTY LO7 18 !' I I LOTS 1-13, BLOCK 2 81,806 SQ. FT. 1.878 AC-
\ "i`\ r i', o-� A E MENT J x,eeo w.a I a �I I Z h S LOTS 1-8, BLOCK 3 49,695 SQ. FT. 1.141 AC.
/{ L07 2 \ �d /ioT 7 (np R I I ! I W °4�01i LOTS 9-30, BLOCK 3 71,368 SO. FT. 1.638 AC.
6.400.a.n. .a.n. ) 1 z i 1 I ' Q
LOT (RESTRICTED SIZE LOTS-TOWNHOUSE)
^\ y 2.eeo,a a i ��Q�t LOTS 1-6. BLOCK 4 28,338 SO. FT. 0.651 AC.
:aR�> i i p�° Q�p LOT 7, BLOCK 4 159,369 SO FT. 3.659 AC.
\ _ \ LOT 3 ^\ 7 LOT 8 LOT 18 I // I (AFFORDABLE HOUSING/MULTI-FAMILY)
\ I I 6..00LOT w.n, x.eeo w.n. 1 e i 1 a PARK AREA 238,622 SO FT. 5.478 AC.
Z a / •'; w"m) y R �� \� COMMON OPEN SPACE 3,898 SO. FT. 0.09 AC.
_ J=
\ W a d� LOT16, 1 Y W STREETS 287,377 SO FT. 6.597 AC.
2.e80 w.lr. e. 12a00' Q-
\\ „R R Un Tr — 1 �.(� ?0 GROSS AREA 946,073 SO. FT. 21.719 AC.
O _ j LOT q- \ IT' `+\` LOT B 4GT 14 1 EASEMENT
\ 6.x92 w It O. a o y o J �...w.n. 1 s (TMP) SINGLE FAMILY 25 LOTS 157,101 S0. FT. 3.607 AC.
a�r�a�„�a a won MULTI-FAMILY 1 LOT 159,370 SO. FT. 3.659 AC.
LOT 3 I i i TOWNHOUSE (28 LOTS) 99,706 SO. FT. 2.289 AC.
Dt ) \ f 7t i\ $ -- --- -- ---- --•iRsi)__
7o I
•y' I I Sato L Y'6L S.IIm}.W BL
I\ ;I COBBLESTONE COURT
�[r [s•
'3'• `� fJ 1 I 1 , 7 .n 34 35 vof s9n r
S69'43'51-W 2644.6r I77S,R5E
Q
- _•' ___J I �i 3 2
lzoo' -
\ IQ \ \ f Q -a6T 1-LOT- LOT-I' LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 8 ��7I��7y
' EA5EA1EN7'1 I �',�," 1)���
1 l Ec7 Is..se w.n!•ao w.11..,.ao w.n.4,.0o w. ♦.00 sal 15.zeo w.n. _ Typ I I I ? RE It 1 w s"wlk
2.
EXISTING '\ Q, ' 1 ��jj� / I I PK4SE IB
O r SANITARY < / � 1 1 gl. "o \\ '
m U) SEWER
T, \ `7' i C�J 15,..2 bon F.
won mm ..m I 1
I a r,
coRuw aPEH SPA¢Arm UWTY EASEYCNT —
/
2 r R,
._._. \ ._._._ ^,._._.—._._.� ./"`�r.—.—__—__--c_�__--__—___—__,—___—,_—___—__ _._._._._._._._._._.----._._._._._._._._._._.� 5g9'42'S2'W 2639.32'
a
\ -eane4-n6
- {� _ .__ �-�_-_,� �__1/�_ _ �i - ,----- -- --- _ --P m Location Map.of the L w
_.L._. -
= t 89'42 52-'E- ----- --- WEST WINDS SUBDIVISION
——— _ ——r:,d———_—— C.BN.T.6NS)F 5IS IOW 2
- '- - _-:>a-_��=-�R 1_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.__._ �.__._'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'----..............
----'-- -'"a in the'NW Ya of Section 2, T2S, R5E, P.M.M.
- -\ -----''°- -----___-- -OAX 57WEET7,FRINC/PAL ARTERI*L-}-4J _
_
----- v ------- -- / LO�(�
60.00' l y.J % SOU7H SIDE CT OAK STREET 60'ar HARDEST CREEK a(6-aP
\ 1�,.' ) I• PREWOUSCY DEDICATED AND SUBDII9SION
&PRO I£D BY HARWS'T CREEK ` ZDNED R-2-A\5�, PHASES 3&4
sueDiws7oN / PLAT J 315 HKM Engineering Inc. WEST WINDS
��`✓ 1015 S.Montana St. MAJOR SUBDIVISION
P.O.Box 3588
Butte,MT 59702 CLIENT:QUEST WEST,LLC DATE:MAR 2004
(406)723-8213 LOCATION: NW 1/4 Section 2,T2S,R5E,P.M.N.
c ENGINEERING FAX(406)723-8328
DRAWN BY:S.EILERS I SCALE 1--60• 1 PLAT
Copyrllght 0 2004 HKY Enghemleg Inc,All Rights Ren—Ki. PRQ,ECT:04SO67.110 PHI—PREUM—PLATDWG I SHEET:1 OF 3
• PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE • •
WEST WINDS MAJOR SUBDIVISION PHASE IA & IB,
SITUATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 2, T2S, R5E, P.M.M.
GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA
PURPOSE OF SURVEY: TO CREATE PARCELS FOR FOR PHASE DEVELOPMENT.
I j
i I I 1
I i
i I N
I 1 I
I
I ! >
' w I
I 60 0 60 120
ii 1 j scale feet
i ; I SCALE 1' = 60'
SS9• i � I
1'11�14fST WINDS •�O1^ '16. F I i i I LEGEND.
PARK AREA (R)RECORD BEARING AND DISTANCE
j R=465.00
=�•� 60L=236.58 i I , (M)MEASURED BEARING AND DISTANCE
00, j i Tan=120.91 (RSL)RESTRICTED SIZE LOT
� 1
P 0• --1/2-REBAR AND PLASTIC CAP,SET FOR
�29•09,00'• ! I •1\0 THIS SURVEY MARKED•J.GOEBEL 14531 LS•
--- L= 16.2 0 i B/ ,C / ��/ i S88.23'05"E 386.99' ` '- �I f ho -T•s O.D. GENC.E BOZEMAN.NTH FOUND NARKED
ioT/
6)9 1 Y/n\R�s,JO� I ��S101.36'41"W G -2 1/ ES'
CAP FOUND MARKED
t a =59'40 �va.i
8`5�'49n / 4p\�/ A/ `�� /" CIC 1 4.95' - _ -
S / �/ , � T.-.NACRE LANE
?f 5 NOTES was-netted' a f LOT 2 j / LOT 15 I 60.00' am 30.Ooi 1.Praperl shove hereon to the Cityof Bozeman pu,eaanl m
all,+11. 1 I 8.Me ae.n. I$ r--�G_ 9e pee 1 Annexatlan Agreement dated and racmd,d on Dec.No._and
;9�18- ✓ Commissbnsesolullon No.—reoe,ded on Doc No.
,,, 1_ 60.00• 1------ ----------- ! I 2.All tot Rs shall be built to the landards c tained'm Section
er.
,g'1 LOT 1 (RaI I I // 1 ! "� 18.44.090 of the United Development sOrdinace of the City of Bozeman.
1000' :a I 9.Te,+an. 8 om I/ 1 3.Development of eoch phase will not Interfere wilh any aWi,,It...I water
\\ EXISTING 6 I UI--��� 1 1 (Ra) I LOT T7 I I s,foallily or irrigation ditches for downstream voter use,nghts.
I r I S LOT 3 1 1 EASEMENT I / 1 I I I h 4.Existing Zoning: R3
SANITARY I L,� 1 fi.e.t w.n. I SEME LOT/4 1 8/ 1 m " 1 2.°°D+a.n.
SEWER I 1 6.e43+R.n. 1 IRS!.) l a I W
EASEMENT I ''( I w.70.00' to.
/ __ "•m .1 „w'l ' I UTIUtt 1 LOT
/ I a l f ll /' 1 8 ASHEN I�2.nw)n. f13 1 I I IV "T
I 1 a1L0T2 O " j 1 i R1" h Cq \ S 1 be.OiT+4" 1/ ,� LOT 13 1 3 Is,esD w.n. i°OeyT r I ' ' (y Ec)
`n° j y °°" i (Ream (W i$ i i i c z 4° SITE STATISTICS SUMMARY
PHASEB ") W 1 \ m \ Y• LOT 14 1 /�? ` PHASE 1B
BOUND RY > I �1 „•.m I �:. zseo ti
( % I I C LOT 3 I (pa) l y o; 1 I i I Q LOTS 1-15, BLOCK 5 105.293 SO. FT. 2.417 AC.
8 1 gssa rau.;% m J /' I .
S I LOT 6 _ 1 a 1 (Ra 1 / I LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 6 36,457 SQ. FT. 0.837 AC.
La) I se•s w.°- 1 I 6sO3+11. I S (J ' .i V 1 iR0°ar.a�.n. I e C3 ' / I I :9 RSL LOTS 7-18, BLOCK 6 36,731 SQ. FT. 0.843 AC.
(,R) 1^ Z 1� , LOT 1 i s j I N (RESTRICTED SIZE LOTS FOR TOWNHOUSES)
`1 LOT Yt I Rt I`!/ °'!O I I �� LOT 1, BLOCK 7 81,174 SO. FT. 1.864 AC.
1 I O I s.eeo+a.n. a q 1^^^II1 1Bfi'�"' i x h S (AFFORDABLE HOUSING/MULTI FAMILY)
l r ——— - C3 LOT
4 ' (Aa) a 1 (AFF MOAfiME HOUSING) F q STREETS 150,650 SQ FT. 3.458 AC.
i O s Lore ® ' �' °1 s.6so+a n.V I m '1 \ aDLn-r.wa» I I C 0 00 OOa
e.a.3 A. 1 1 LOT n a a 1 °a) Q \,J J
1 6B 3 ap11. 19 Loin O a 1 I 1 30 yP /ti GROSS AREA 410,305 SQ. FT. 9.419 AC.
1 +R.a 1 s / I ' V
/ M \ ' 1 I I (gym) 1a 1® deP1
/ to °"° ,, SINGLE FAMILY (21 LOTS) 142.024 SO. FT. 3.260 AC.
\ 1 ,,.m I ,. I 1 LOT m ' IT Q
2seo 411 � 1 1 MULTI-FAMILY 1 LOT 81,174 SQ. FT. 1.864 AC.
5�wfsT WINOS I \\s I I ' / g I LOT 6 I \� TOWNHOUSE (12 LOT) 36,457 SO. FT. 0.837 AC.
PARK AREA O I LOT 7 I ,. LOT 10 I S/ a 1 s.8so.aT. I
J `YYY Z 6.eu.a.11. 11a 12.00' 1 (R L �F 'LOT f.Bit. 18 I� � /
nuTY I I (Ra) 12.00' '12.00'
%1 EASEMENT / naa I" n TY
' I \ 1 1• (TVP) I <m. I LOT 8 I EASEMENT I / ASE2—MENT"'� Q'J�0
2.11eo+an. g (TYP) I (iYp) I Q'yP
f I I 8 LOT 8 ' LO,(B g 1 ,(COT B 1 (am) I
f , 2.)ss aart.� I '1 '8 I :5.slo+a.rt I I 9 0'' x+ro+ea xsmxm+.m
\ i R=269.28 3 1 a,xn ZY8.
~'•'. ,, r ___)- ___ '�( R I lsls+a.n, 1' I , 'm Es'.an• 39 95 �ml_r
\ 1 L=110.21 m u'm __-__-_1L_ J i I I 3o.ao stow S89.4s5t•w 2644.6T ns R5E
\ - 5.89 I/ ( 11 o I / am / •¢4T21HlOHGr-ZB SOUNDA7�Y,w�-J ! -{ sANITARr its R5E
f Y N88.12'21"W m I sEI ER R 2
833r16 PHASE lA BOUNDARY EASEMENT r4-° 7
\ 1 a23.26'58n \ o -
N88.12'2 W o 0
I
I 79116'\�(o m I ; BREEZE LANE - �a Of -
N 36 0 a' D�P e:
I
„N a �;
e..>o
,LOTI T11
1 ( LOT 19 1in LOT 30 l, r----------:' OT1 ;(RSU.n ! I ! I ¢.- e�U" �-%
get /-
m -10
a
wm x fens a � \3' -
zn:z r ooa �Hti" 6 2
S89'42'S2•W 2639.32'
p.ee a s,a'o,2
1'on vm rpA
Location Map of the g
WEST WINDS SUBDIVISION
in the NW y of Section 2, T2S, R5E, P.M.M.
HKM Engineering Inc. WEST WINDS
1015 S.Montana St. MAJOR SUBDIVISION
P.O.Box 3588
Butte,MT 59702 cuENr:aLlEsr WEST,LLc DAM'MAR 2004
(406)723 8213 LOCATION: NW i/1 Section 2 725 RSE P.M.M.
e ENGINEERING �FAX1406�723-8328
'6 ORAWN BY:S.FILERS SCALE 1'-60' PLAT
Cep,rlghl 0 2054 HKM EngSlaering Inc,Al,Rights Reseed. PRQECT:04SO67.110 PHI-PREl -PLAT.DWGj SHEET:2 OF 3
LAND & WATER- CONSULTING,.INC.
214 S. Wilson, Suite B P.O. Box 1.122 Bozeman, Montana 5977,1 •Tel (406) 586-1411
E-mail info@landandwater.net • Fax(406) 586-4035
April 9, 2004
City of Bozeman
Wetlands Review Board
P.O. Box 1230
East Olive St.
Bozeman, MT 59771
RE: Isolated Wetland Fill
Dear Wetlands Review Board,
Enclosed is a plan for the West Winds Community. There Will be less than 0.5 acre impact and a
Nationwide 404 application will be submitted to the COE during the second week of April.
There is one•non jurisdictional wetland that will be filled in its entirety for a total of 0.07 acre. A
functional assessment has been done on the wetland and it rated as a Category III as a result of
the shrub layer. Emergent vegetation within this wetland is primarily comprised of nightshade.
Mitigation for the non jurisdictional wetland loss(for City concerns)and loss of jurisdictional
wetlands(COE concerns)will entail re-establishing the hydrologic connection of BB/W-1
(central natural drainage)to its original corridor. In addition, we will enhance the northern-most
reach of that drainage by planting shrubs and naturalizing the surrounding topography. This
central drainage will also be preserved as open space park;the original wetland acreage was
comprised of 1.94 acres.and the acreage for the park totals 21 acres. Although open space is
required by the City of Bozeman,the land owner has agreed to set aside this particular area to
preserve the diverse riparian and wetland community.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter and please feel free to contact me any
time on my mobile phone(580-6993)or at the office(586-1411).
• ;Si erel ,
JL nL
lt)/Biologist
Enclosure:Wetland Delineation Map; Park Plan,
Cc:. Clint Litle, HKM Engineering
Hydrogeology Hydrology Water Rights Soil Science Wetlands Biological Sciences Environmental Engineering
l t
f'
t•l
4
V
. T
.t Durston Road I-90
Approximate Property
Boundary
Oak Street E ,�
NW 1/4 Section 2,T1S,R5E i Two i!e r
Pa fk f 4
• I i Cl
_ —L.--------- -• --- -
• ' I '; s ':� # City of '
Bozeman
l -2 9ED
Jr
• --
(/, i Pork
Fire 1. West Winds Project Site(USGS Bozeman, MT, 1992).
MDT MONTAVA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM(revissMay 25, 1999) "
1. Project Name:West Winds Community 2. Project#:430009 Control#:
3. Evaluation Date: 2/252004 4.Evaluator(s): 5.Wetland/Site#(s): W-3
6. Wetland L6cation(s) i. T:2 S R:5 E S:2 T:_N R:_E S:
ii. Approx.Stationing/Mileposts:
iii.Watershed: 10020008 GPS Reference No.(if applies):
Other Location Information:
7. A.Evaluating Agency LWC 8.Wetland Size(total acres): (visually estimated)
(measured,e.g.GPS)
B. Purpose of Evaluation:
❑Wetlands potentially affected by MDT project 9. Assessment Area(total acres): (visually estimated)
❑ Mitigation wetlands;pre-construction 0.07 (measured,e.g.GPS)
❑ Mitigation wetlands;post-construction Comments:proposed fill for this isolated wetland and NJ(404)wetland
® Other
10. CLASSIFICATION OF WETLAND AND AQUATIC HABITATS IN AA
HGM CLASS' SYSTEM' SUBSYSTEM' CLASS' WATER REGIME' MODIFIER' %OF
AA
Depression Palustrine None Scrub-Shrub Wetland Saturated --- 100
=Smith et al. 1995. 2=Cowardin et al. 1979.
Comments:
11. ESTIMATED RELATIVE ABUNDANCE(of similarly classified sites within the same Major Montana Watershed Basin)
Common Comments:
12. GENERAL CONDITION OF AA
i. Regarding Disturbance: Use matrix below to select a ro riate response.)
Predominant Conditions Adjacent within 500 Feet)To AA
Land managed in predominantly natural Land not cultivated,but moderately grazed Land cultivated or heavily grazed or logged;
state;is not grazed,hayed,logged,or or hayed or selectively logged or has been subject to substantial fill placement,grading,
otherwise converted;does not contain roads subject to minor clearing;contains few roads clearing,or hydrological alteration;high
Conditions Within AA or buildings. or buildings. road or building density.
AA occurs and is managed in predominantly
a natural state;is not grazed,hayed,logged,
or otherwise converted;does not contain low disturbance
roads or occupied buildings.
AA not cultivated,but moderately grazed or
hayed or selectively logged or has been
subject to relatively minor clearing,or fill --- ---
placement,or hydrological alteration;
contains few roads or buildings.
AA cultivated or heavily grazed or logged;
subject to relatively substantial fill
placement,grading,clearing,or hydrological
alteration;hi�h road or building density.
Comments:(types of disturbance,intensity,season,etc.)hayed all around circumference of WL
ii. Prominent weedy,alien,&introduced species: tansy and thistle
iii. Briefly describe AA and surrounding land use/habitat:agricultural
13. STRUCTURAL DIVERSITY(Based on`Class'column of#10 above.)
Number of`Cowardin'Vegetated >_3 Vegetated Classes or 2 Vegetated Classes or <_1 Vegetated Class
Classes Present in AA >_2 if one class is forested 1 if forested
Select Rating Moderate
Comments: WL comprised of shrubs(willows)and primarily nightshade(FAC)in emergent laver.
1
14A. HABITAT FOR FEDERALLY LISTED ORROPOSED THREATENED OR ENDANGERED PLAQ AND ANIMALS
i. AA is Documented(D)or Suspected(S)to contain(check box):
Primary or Critical habitat(list species) ❑D❑S
Secondary habitat(list species) ❑D❑S
Incidental habitat(list species) ❑D❑S
No usable habitat ❑D❑S
H. Rating(Based on the strongest habitat chosen in 14A(i)above,find the corresponding rating of High(H),Moderate(M),or Low(L)for this function.
Hi hest Habitat Level I doe/primary sus/prim doc/seconda sus/seconda doc/incidental sus/incidental none
Functional Point and Rating --- --- -- 0(L)
If documented,list the source(e.g.,observations,records,etc.):
14B. HABITAT FOR PLANTS AND ANIMALS RATED AS S1,S2,OR S3 BY THE MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM.
Do not include species listed in 14A(i).
i. AA is Documented(D)or Suspected(S)to contain(check box):
Primary or Critical habitat(list species) ❑D❑S
Secondary habitat(list species) ❑D❑S
Incidental habitat(list species) ❑D❑S
No usable habitat ❑D❑S
iii. Rating Based on the strongest habitat chosen in 14B(i)above,find the corresponding rating of High(H),Moderate(M),or Low(L)for this function.
Hi hest Habitat Level: J doc/ rim sus/primary doc/seconda sus/second doc/incidental sus/incidental none
Functional Point and Rating --- --- --- --- I --- --- 0 L
If documented,list the source(e.g.,observations,records,etc.):
14C. General Wildlife Habitat Rating
i. Evidence of overall wildlife use in the AA: (Check either substantial,moderate,or low)
❑Substantial(based on any of the following) ❑Low(based on any of the following)
❑ observations of abundant wildlife#s or high species diversity(during any period) ❑ few or no wildlife observations during peak use periods
❑ abundant wildlife sign such as scat,tracks,nest structures,game trails,etc. ❑ little to no wildlife sign
❑ presence of extremely limiting habitat features not available in the surrounding area ❑ sparse adjacent upland food sources
❑ interviews with local biologists with knowledge of the AA ❑ interviews with local biologists with knowledge of AA
®Moderate(based on any of the following)
❑ observations of scattered wildlife groups or individuals or relatively few species during peak periods
❑ common occurrence of wildlife sign such as scat,tracks,nest structures,game trails,etc.
® adequate adjacent upland food sources
® interviews with local biologists with knowledge of the AA
ii. Wildlife Habitat Features(Working from top to bottom,select appropriate AA attributes to determine the exceptional(E),high(H),moderate(M),or low(L)
rating. Structural diversity is from#13. For class cover to be considered evenly distributed,vegetated classes must be within 20%of each other in terms of
their percent composition in the AA(see#10). Duration of Surface Water: P/P=permanent/perennial;S/1=seasonal/intermittent;
T/E=temporary/ephemeral;A=absent.
Structural Diversity(from 413) ❑Hi h ®Moderate ❑Low
Class Cover Distribution ❑Even ❑Uneven ®Even ❑Uneven ❑Even
(all vegetated classes)
Duration of Surface Water in>_ P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/1 T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A
10%of AA
Low disturbance at AA(see#12) -- -- -- -- -- M - -- --
Moderate disturbance at AA
see#12 -High disturbance at AA(see#12) - - -- - -- --
iii.Rating(Using 14C(i)and 14C(ii)above and the matrix below to arrive at the functional point and rating of exceptional(E),high(H),moderate(M),or low(L)
for this function.
Evidence of Wildlife Use Wildlife Habitat Features Rating from 14C ii
from 14C(i) ❑Exceptional ❑High I ®Moderate ❑Low
Substantial --
Moderate .5(M)
Low
Comments: Possible migratory and likely non-mo rg atory(magpie)bird habitat:deer.
2
14D.GENERAL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT DING ®NA(proceed to 14E) •
If the AA is not or was not historically used by fish due to lack of habitat,excessive gradient,then check the NA box above.
Assess if the AA is used by fish or the existing situation is"correctable"such that the AA could be used by fish[e.g.fish use is precluded by perched culvert or other
barrier,etc.]. If fish use occurs in the AA but is not desired from a resource management perspective(e.g.fish use within an irrigation canal],then Habitat Quality
[14D(i)]below should be marked as"Low",applied accordingly in 14D(ii)below,and noted in the comments.
i. Habitat Quality Pick the appropriate AA attributes in matrix topick the exceptional(E),high(H),moderate(M),or low L)quali rating.
Duration of Surface Water in AA ❑Permanent/Perennial ❑Seasonal/Intermittent ❑Tem orar /Ephemeral
Cover-%of waterbody in AA containing cover objects(e.g.
submerged logs,large rocks&boulders,overhanging banks, >25% 10-25% <10% >25% 10-25% <10% >25% 10-25% <10%
floating-leaved vegetation)
Shading->75%of streambank or shoreline of AA contains -riparian or wetland scrub-shrub or forested communities
Shading—50 to 75%of streambank or shoreline of AA contains --riparian or wetland scrub-shrub or forested communities.
Shading-<50%of streambank or shoreline of AA contains -riparian or wetland scrub-shrub or forested communities.
ii. Modified Habitat Quality: Is fish use of the AA precluded or significantly reduced by a culvert,dike,other man-made structure or activity or is the waterbody
included on the`MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development'with`Probable Impaired Uses'listed as cold or warm water fishery or aquatic life support?
❑Y ❑N If yes,reduce the rating from 14D(i)by one level and check the modified habitat quality rating: ❑E ❑H ❑M ❑L
iii. Ratio Use the conclusions from 14D(i)and 14D ii above and the matrix below to ick the functional eoint and rating of exceptional(E),hi h(H),moderate M,or low(L).)
Types of Fish Known or Modified Habitat ality from 14D(ii
Suspected Within AA LJ Exceptional El High LJ Moderate Low
Native game fish
Introduced game fish
Non-game fish No fish
Comments:
14E. FLOOD ATTENUATION ®NA(proceed to 14G)
Applies only to wetlands subject to flooding via in-channel or overbank flow.
If wetlands in AA do not flooded from in-channel or overbank flow,check NA above.
i. Rating(Working from top to bottom,mark the appropriate attributes to arrive at the functional point and rating of high(H),moderate(M),or low(L)for this
function.
Estimated wetland area in AA subject to periodic flooding ❑z 10 acres ❑<10,>2 acres ❑<2 acres
%of flooded wetland classified as forested,scrub/shrub,or both 75% 25-75% <25% 75% 25-75% <25% 75% 25-75% <25%
AA contains no outlet or restricted outlet -- -- --
AA contains unrestricted outlet -
ii. Are residences,businesses,or other features which may be significantly damaged by floods located within 0.5 miles downstream of the AA?(check)
❑Y ❑N Comments:
14F. SHORT AND LONG TERM SURFACE WATER STORAGE ❑NA(proceed to 14G)
Applies to wetlands that flood or pond from overbank or in-channel flow,precipitation,upland surface flow,or groundwater flow.
If no wetlands in the AA are subject to flooding or ponding,check NA above.
i. Rating(Working from top to bottom,use the matrix below to arrive at the functional point and rating of high(H),moderate(M),or low(L)for this function.)
Abbreviations: P/P= permanent/perennial;SA=seasonal/intermittent;T/E=tem or /e hemeral.
Estimated maximum acre feet of water contained in wetlands within ❑>5 acre feet ❑<5,>1 acre feet ®<_I acre foot
the AA that are subject to periodic flooding or ponding.
Duration of surface water at wetlands within the AA P/P S/1 T/E P/P SA T/E P/P SA T/E
Wetlands in AA flood or pond z 5 out of 10 years - - -
Wetlands in AA flood or pond<5 out of 10 years - 1 L
Comments: Wetalnd is 0.07 AC,slight chance of minimal ponding may occur infreouesntly.
14G. SEDIMENT/NUTRIENT/TOXICANT RETENTION AND REMOVAL ®NA(proceed to 14H)
Applies to wetlands with potential to receive excess sediments,nutrients,or toxicants through influx of surface or ground water or direct input.
If no wetlands in the AA are subject to such input,check NA above.
i. Ratio (Working from top to bottom,use the matrix below to arrive at the functional 2oint and rating of high(H),moderate(M),or low(L for this function.
AA receives or surrounding land use has potential to deliver low Waterbody on MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL
to moderate levels of sediments,nutrients,oc compounds such that development for"probable causes"related to sediment,nutrients,or
Sediment,Nutrient,and Toxicant Input toxicants or AA receives or surrounding land use has potential to
Levels Within AA other functions are not substantially impaired. Minor deliver high levels of sediments,nutrients,or compounds such that
sedimentation,sources of nutrients or toxicants,or signs of other functions are substantially impaired. Major sedimentation,
eutrophication present. sources of nutrients or toxicants,or signs of eutro hication resent.
%cover of wetland vegetation in AA ❑2 70% ❑<70% ❑a 70% ❑<70%
Evidence of flooding or pondinp in AA ❑Yes ❑No ❑Yes 1 ❑No 1 ❑Yes 1 ❑No I ❑Yes 1 ❑No
AA contains no or restricted outlet
AA contains unrestricted outlet
Comments:
3
r 14H. SEDIMENT/SHORELINE STABILIZATIP ®NA(proceed to 14I) •
Applies only if AA occurs on or within the banks or a river,stream,or other natural or man-made drainage,or on the shoreline of a standing water body that is
subject to wave action. If this does not apply,check NA above.
i. Ratio (Working from top to bottom,use the matrix below to arrive at the functional point and rating exceptional E,high(H),moderate M,or low L for this function.
%Cover of wetland streambank or Duration of Surface Water Adjacent to Rooted Vegetation
shoreline by species with deep,binding
❑
rootmasses. Permanent/Perennial ❑Seasonal/Intermittent ❑Temporary/Ephemeral
z 65%
35-64% --
<35%
Comments:
141. PRODUCTION EXPORT/FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
i. Rating(Working from top to bottom,use the matrix below to arrive at the functional point and rating of high(H),moderate(M),or low(L)for this function.
A=acreage of vegetated component in the AA. B=structural diversity rating from#13. C=Yes(Y)or No(N)as to whether or not the AA contains a surface or
subsurface outlet; P/P=permanent/perennial;S/I=seasonal/intermittent;T/E/A=temporary/ephemeral/absent.
A ❑Ve etated component 5 acres ❑Vegetated component 1-5 acres ®Ve etated comportent<1 acre
B El igh ❑Moderate El Low ❑High El Moderate El Low ❑High ®Moderate ❑Low
C ON ❑Y ON ❑Y ❑N ❑Y ❑N ❑Y ON ❑Y ON ❑Y ❑N I ®Y I ON ❑Y ❑N
P/P - - -- -
S/1 - - - - - - -
T/E/A - - - - - 4M
Comments:
14J. GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE/RECHARGE(D/R)(Check the indicators in i&ii below that apply to the AA)
i.®Discharge Indicators ii.®Recharge Indicators
❑ Springs are known or observed. ® Permeable substrate presents without underlying impeding layer.
® Vegetation growing during dormant season/drought. ❑ Wetland contains inlet but not outlet.
❑ Wetland occurs at the toe of a natural slope. ❑ Other
❑ Seeps are present at the wetland edge.
❑ AA permanently flooded during drought periods.
❑ Wetland contains an outlet,but no inlet.
❑ Other
iii.Rating: Use the information from 14J i and 14' ii above and the table below to arrive at the functional point and rating of high(H)or low(L)for this function.
Criteria Functional Point and Rating
AA has known Discharge/Recharge area or one or more indicators of D/R resent I (H
No Discharge/Recharge indicators present
Available Discharge/Recharge information inadequate to rate AA D/R potential
Comments:
14K. UNIQUENESS
i. Rating or ing from top to bottom,use the matrix below to arrive at the functional point and rating of high(H),moderate(M),or low L for this function.
AA contains fen,bog,warm springs or mature AA does not contain previously cited rare AA does not contain previously cited rare
Replacement Potential (>80 yr-old)forested wetland or plant types and structural diversity(413)is high types or associations and structural
association listed as"Sl"by the MTNHP. or contains plant association listed as"S2"by the MTNHP. diversity(#13)is low-moderate.
Estimated Relative Abundance from#11 ❑rare ❑common ❑abundant ❑rare ❑common ❑abundant ❑rare ®common ❑abundant
Low disturbance at AA(#12i) -- 4M
Moderate disturbance at AA(#12i) --
High disturbance at AA(#12i)
Comments:
14L. RECREATION/EDUCATION POTENTIAL
i. Is the AA a known recreational or educational site? ❑Yes(Rate❑High(1.0),then proceed to 14L(ii)only] ®No [Proceed to 14L(iii)]
ii. Check categories that apply to the AA: ❑Educational/scientific study ❑Consumptive rec. ❑Non-consumptive rec. ❑Other
iii. Based on the location,diversity,size,and other site attributes,is there a strong potential for recreational or educational use?
❑Yes[Proceed to 14L(ii)and then 14L(iv).] ®No[Rate as low in 14L(iv)]
iv. Rating(Use the matrix below to arrive at the functional point and rating of high(H),moderate M,or low L for this function.
Disturbance at AA from#12(i)
Ownership ®Low ❑Moderate ❑High
Public ownership
Private ownership --
Comments: LOW .1
4
FUNCTION,VALUE SUMMARY,AND OVERALL RATING
Function and Value Variables Ratin Actual Possible Functional Units
g Functional Points Functional Points (Actual Points x Estimated AA
Acreage)
A. Listed/Proposed T&E Species Habitat L 0.00 1
B. MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat L 0.00 1
C. General Wildlife Habitat M 0.50 1
D. General Fish/Aquatic Habitat NA
E. Flood Attenuation NA
F. Short and Long Term Surface Water Storage 1 0.10 1
G. Sediment/Nutrient/Toxicant Removal NA
H. Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization NA
I. Production Export/Food Chain Support M 0.40 1
J. Groundwater Discharge/Recharge H 1.00 1
K. Uniqueness M 0.40 1
L. Recreation/Education Potential L 0.10 1
Totals: 2.50 8.00 0.175
Percent of Total Possible Points: 31%(Actual/Possible)x 100[rd to nearest whole#]
Category 1 Wetland: (Must satisfy one of the following criteria. If not proceed to Category 11.)
❑ Score of 1 functional point for Listed/Proposed Threatened or Endangered Species;or
❑ Score of 1 functional point for Uniqueness;or
❑ Score of I functional point for Flood Attenuation and answer to Question 14E(ii)is"yes";or
❑ Percent of total Possible Points is>80%.
Category 11 Wetland:(Criteria for Category 1 not satisfied and meets any one of the following Category II criteria.If not satisfied,proceed to Category IV.)
❑ 'Score of 1 functional point for Species Rated SI,S2,or S3 by the MT Natural Heritage Program;or
❑.Score of.9 or 1 functional point for General Wildlife Habitat;or
❑ Score of.9 or 1 functional point for General Fish/Aquatic Habitat;or
❑ "High"to"Exceptional'ratings for both General Wildlife Habitat and General Fish/Aquatic Habitat;or
❑ Score of.9 functional point for Uniqueness;or
❑ Percent of total possible points is>65%.
® Category III Wetland:(Criteria for Categories 1,11,or 1V not satisfied.)
Category IV Wetland:(Criteria for Categories 1 or 11 are not satisfied and all of the following criteria are met;If not satisfied,proceed to Category 1II.)
❑ "Low"rating for Uniqueness;and
❑ "Low"rating for Production Export/Food Chain Support;and
❑ Percent of total possible points is<30%.
OVERALL ANALYSIS AREA(AA)RATING:(Check appropriate category based on the criteria outlined above.)
❑ I ❑ II ® III ❑ IV
5
i
N
SUMMARY OF WETLANDS AND WATERS OF THE U.S.
I �
Q
SITE ACRES JURISDICTIONAL STATUS
I! I BB-1 0.60 Y M N N 1 Z
BB-2 0.59 N SCALE: 1• = 300'
I
BB/VV-1 1.39 Y
W 1 0.20 Y
• 2 W-2 0.22 Y
J r I W 3 0.07 N I I
TOTAL 3.07
I ®®pp
—1 /CULVEW 1313-1
"= BAXTER LANE
- - - 1313-1 --
I I I I
I I I I
SR/W-1 UN-NAMED
IRRIGATION
I I LATERAL I I
SECTION LINE
DITCH
I I I
-2 SP-5
SS-2
SP-4 / SS/W-1
W
SS-1
� SP-3 I I W
� ! r
W-3 a sP-7
31 I SP-g Z
o
Lo
I
� BB/W-1
NOTE: ASP-1 I I
I I WETLAND DELINEATION ,%%- SP-2
BY 10
LAND&WATER CONSULTING, INC. SP 11
— l
— -OAK STREET L —
aLve�r
_ �D-1
I I LEGEND I I
1 BB = BED & BANK I I F-1
BB/W= BED, BANK/WETLAND
I g COMPLEX 1
W= WETLAND
. SP = SAMPLE POINT
PROD NO: 43M DRAWN: $D PROIECT NAME
�,�p FlLENAMEpxhjbj(A120M.ft CHECIuD: LB WEST WINDS COMMUNITY
"owLANDBN/A.TERCONSULTING INC.
P.o.�XB LocAT . O.Mr �.LB EXHIBIT A: WETLAND DELINEATION
aD� M'rssauta�,NIIf 59807
ENGINEERI N G
April 1, 2004 McChesney Professional Building
Rec. No. 04S067.110 601 Nikles Drive
Suite 2
Bozeman, MT 59715
Phone: 406.586.8834
Ms. Jamie Morris Fax: 406.586.1730
City of Bozeman www.hkminc.com
Planning Office
P.O. Box 1230 w�
Bozeman MT, 59771 r�I L C E Q �I
I APR - 2 2004 ��
RE: West Winds Planned Community 1
Response to March 29, 2004 E-Mail ,T
DEPA.RTMEN OF PI_ANP'.i !b
AND I;O:flt_i;!!C.'DF`,,E1.OPN1 NT
-.-...-...-----------_-
Dear Ms. Morris,
I am in receipt of your March 29, 2004 e-mail regarding the West Winds Planned Community.
The following is our response to your comments.
1. Park Area Requirement:
Firstly, the park area requirements for West Winds Planned Submittal was based on a combined
total of.03 acres per known lot count (single-family and townhouse lots)(18.50.020(A.)(1.)), and
11% of net area for multi-family areas (18.50.020(2.)(a.)), per your direction. The original PUD
submittal was in conformance with your directed methodology. Literally, 1000's of man-hours
were spent on the preparation of the submittal based on your direction. To change the rules at
this point is unacceptable. That being said, we respond to your Park Area Required Area
comment as follows.
Section 18.50.020(A.)provides two methods of determining park area requirements.
Section 18.50.020(A.)(2.) is clearly the applicable sub-section to determine park area
requirements.
18.50.020(A.)(2.) If a development is proposed within a multi-household zoning
district and the density of the property is unknown, land dedication or cash
donation in-lieu of land dedication shall be provided. This park requirement is
based on the community need for parks, as identified in an adopted Citywide park
plan. The land dedication or cash donation in-lieu of land dedication shall be
based upon the size of the land proposed to be developed into lots for multi-
household or condominium use as follows:
a. 11 percent of the area of the land proposed to be subdivided into
parcels of one-half acre or smaller.
Further dissecting this sub-section, the multi-household areas where 11% was used in
calculating park area, the final density of the property is truly unknown. The densities
that were provided represent the absolute maximum density based on the XL Annexation
agreement. The maximum densities were only provided as a worst-case scenario in
BILLINGS,MONTANA BUTTE,MT BOZEMAN LAB MILES CITY,MT SHERIDAN,wY HELENA,MT
406.656.6399 406.723.8213 406.585.5915 406.232.6666 307.672.9006 406.442.0370
April 1, 2004
West Winds Planned Community
evaluating project impacts to infrastructure. Furthermore, your statement during our
3/25/04 meeting with the Park Board that we could be potentially short of park area for
the later phases of the PUD is not supported by Section 18.50.020. In no part of the
referenced section does it state that once the final unit count is known that the park area is
recalculated. The intent of the Master Plan for West Winds is to clearly define the
precise amount of park that will be dedicated. It will not be adjusted based on final unit
count.
Section 18.50.020(A.)(2.) also states "This park requirement is based on the community
need for parks, as identified in an adopted Citywide park plan. " "The Bozeman Area,
Recreation, Parks, Open Space and Trails, Master Plan, 1997," is the adopted Citywide
park plan. "Table 1 —Park Standards",page 14 of said Master Plan specifies a minimum
neighborhood park size of 7-acres and 3.5-acres/ 1000 persons. The full maximum build-
out population of the West Winds Planned Community using 960 units at 2.54 persons
per DU is approximately 2,440 persons, which is very conservative considering the senior
and skilled nursing areas of the community that would have lower persons per DU. This
standard would require West Winds to provide 8.54-acres (2.44 x 3.5 ac/1000) of
dedicated park land. As currently submitted West Winds Park will provide
approximately 12.55-acres net park area assuming a 50' setback, or 149% of the area
recommended by the adopted park master plan. If gross area of West Winds Park is
considered (21.14-acres), 248% of the recommended area is provided.
As you are aware the West Winds Planned Community has been submitted as a PUD.
Section 18.36.010(A.) of the UDO states that the number 1 intent of a PUD is "To ensure
that the future growth and development occurring within the City is in accord with the
City's adopted growth policy, it's specific elements, and its goals, objectives, and
policies. " Referencing to the City adopted growth policy, specifically Chapter 9 Parks,
Recreation, Pathways, and Open Space of the 20/20 Plan, we site the following sections
that support the Section 18.50.020(A.)(2.) as the appropriate park area criteria and
demonstrate that West Winds Planned Community is meeting and greatly surpassing the
intent of the 20/20 Plan for Park dedication as currently proposed.
Section 9.1.3 (20/20 Plan)National Park Standards (2"d paragraph)— "Although widely
accepted in the past, there is increased recognition that national-based standards may
not be resulting in what communities really want. A growing school of park and
recreation planners argue that these standards (1) emphasize "how much"rather than
"how good, " (2) reflect past desires and expectations rather than today's needs, (3) do
not recognize unique conditions, resources, and needs of different communities, and(4)
often are unrealistic and difficult to implement. " To utilize .03 acre/DU is a classic
example of the "how much verses the "how good" argument. If.03 acre/DU is used as
the basis for park area allocation approximately 30-acres of Park would be required. This
is significantly more park area than is needed based on local and national standards for
the full build-out population of West Winds. Furthermore to maintain a 30-acre park
would constitute a substantial hardship to the homeowners association and would
significantly affect"how good"the park will be by stretching limiting resources to far.
Section 9.1.4 (20/20 Plan) Parks by type— "Neighborhood Parks. Neighborhood parks
provide a combination of active and passive recreation opportunities for all age groups
HAMS0671 I OTreliminary PUD\040329la5 JM.doc 2
FNGN
April 1, 2004
West Winds Planned Community
in a defined neighborhood. The park should be centrally located within a neighborhood
and provide some forms of passive recreation, such as picnic areas, shade trees, or
walking areas. However, the primary emphasis of neighborhood parks is to provide open
space for active play areas to be used by neighborhood residents. Neighborhood parks
should include at least one ballfield, but are frequently not large enough to accommodate
afield. Centennial Park and Jarrett Park are good examples of neighborhood parks.
The NRPA recommends that neighborhood parks be approximately fifteen to twenty acres
each and be provided at the ratio of one to two acres per 1,000 people.
West Winds Park perfectly matches the"Neighborhood Park" description within the
growth policy. West Winds Park provides both active and passive recreation
opportunities for all age groups through the tot play equipment, soccer fields and trail
system. The park is centrally located, will have picnic area facilities and the mature
vegetation is being preserved. The park provides substantial open space for active
recreation. The 20/20 Plan recommends that neighborhood parks be 15-20 acres in size,
West Winds Park has a net area of 12.55-acres assuming the 50' stream setback, and
21.15-acres gross. As discussed above the maximum population of the community is
approximately 2,440 persons. Again using the conservative figure of 2-acres/ 1000
persons, the 20/20 Plan recommends that the West Winds Planned Community provide
4.88 acres of dedicated park area. Using 12.55-acres net West Winds Park is 257% of the
recommended park area per the growth policy.
The growth policy and the adopted park plan both reference the NRPA Standards. The
NRPA Standards recommend that neighborhood parks be+15 acres and use 1 —2 acres/
1000 persons or 4.88 acres of dedicated park for West Winds. It is important to note that
if 0.03-acre/DU for park area requirement was used, it would equate to 11.8 acres per
1000 people, or 5.9 times the recommended national standard.
Section 76-3-621. Park dedication requirement, State of Montana subdivision code
requires "I I% of-the area to be subdivided into parcels of one-half acre or smaller.
In our position the use of 0.03-acre per DU for West Winds is not the correct interpretation of the
UDO, nor is it in compliance with the growth policy, adopted park plan, nor national standards.
The quantity of park land proposed by the current West Winds submittal greatly exceeds the park
area recommended by the growth policy, adopted park plan and national standards. As
proposed, West Winds Park will provide a quality neighborhood park closely matching the
definitions provided within the adopted growth and park plans. Furthermore, it would be poor
land planning to create a 30-acre park that would be under utilized and would displace density
within a planned community that has placed significant emphasis on creating a affordable
housing product to the low and mid-income families of Bozeman. The under-utilization of a 30-
acre park would be further aggravated by the close of Rose Park(1 8-acres,just to east) and the
100-acre Regional Park adjacent to the west.
We believe that West Winds as proposed is the correct application and interpretation of the
UDO, adopted growth policy and park plan. However, if needed we will formally request a
relaxation to Section 18.50.20 that will default to the Montana State Statute of 11% of the net
area. This equals 10.26-acres or 4.21-acres per 1000 persons, or 120% of the recommended 3.5-
HAMS067110\Preliminary PUD\040329la5 JM.doc 3
Ff NGINFf
0 •
April 1, 2004
West Winds Planned Community
acres within the adopted Citywide park plan. The 11% is to be applied to the entire net area of
the project, not just multi-family areas.
In regard to the use of the excess park area for PUD Points calculation, I have identified through
review with Russ Squire that the affordable housing proposed for tracts E-MF-1 and S-4 shown
on Figure 3.1,will meet Section 42 of Federal Code and will be under a 30-year contract for
affordable housing to the Montana Board of Housing. Therefore we will utilize Section
18.36.090(E.)(7.)(a.) to meet PUD performance point requirements. Specifically, 144 affordable
housing units will be provided on these two parcels, which equals 15% (144/960) of maximum
DU, or 30 (2 points x 15%) PUD Points. In regard to our telephone conversation on 3/30/04
where we discussed the use of affordable housing for PUD performance points and Section
18.42.180(C.) that requires 10% of building area be RSL's or affordable, and your concern that
we would be"double dipping"if we used the affordable housing in both areas. The two
sections, specifically (18.36.090)(E.)(7.)(a.) and 18.42.180(C.) apply to two separate distinctive
criteria, section (18.36.090)(E.)(7.)(a.) refers to constructed dwelling units, section
18.42.180(C.) is in regard to building area. The sections are not mutually exclusive and the
affordable housing should be used to demonstrate compliance to the UDO for both sections.
2. Water Course Setback Requirements:
On Thursday 3/25/04, we completed a hearing with the Gallatin Conservation District regarding
stream classification. During the hearing it was determined that the east irrigation lateral was not
a stream but rather an irrigation ditch and is not jurisdictional for a 310-permit. The center ditch
however, was found to be a stream and will be reviewed through the 310-permit process.
Based on this finding we will address the watercourse through West Winds Park as a
watercourse with setbacks. In question, is the appropriate width for the watercourse setbacks.
As stated in Section 18.42.100(2.) relaxations of the setback are allowed, and furthermore,
Section 18.36.030(D.)(1.) states, "..., in order to encourage creativity and design excellence that
would contribute to the character of the community, deviations from the requirements or the
standards of this title may be granted by the City Commission ...."
The watercourse is essentially a low spot in the topography that daylights to groundwater during
the high groundwater season. The majority of the year the watercourse is dry, with water within
the channel only during storm events and when waste irrigation water is cut from the Farmers
Canal. During storm events the channel has adequate capacity to handle the storm flow
generated in the small up-stream drainage basin. The setback width is further mitigated by
wetlands that buffer the stream. Setbacks will be measured from the edge of wetlands.
Furthermore, it is our understanding that a primary concern of the setback is to limit structure
encroachment and stream course maintenance. As currently proposed no roads or structures will
be within 50' of the watercourse or edge of adjacent wetland. From a maintenance perspective,
the Homeowners Association will maintain West Winds Park and the City will not have any
maintenance liability.
If a full 50' wide setback to each side is used, it will significantly impact the playfield areas
(active areas)within the park. Based on the Section 18.42.100 of the UDO the setback areas are
not given park area credit. If no park credit is given for the area, there is no incentive to improve
HAMS067110\Preliminary PUD\040329la5 JM.doc 4
CNGINCF
April 1, 2004
West Winds Planned Community
the setback areas for active use. The West Winds owner truly wants to improve the active areas
of West Winds Park to bring benefits to both West Winds residents and City of Bozeman
residents who would use the active park areas (Soccer fields).
Based on the above discussion we request a relaxation to Section 18.42.100(3.)(c.). We request
that the setback be reduced to 15', which is more appropriate to the conveyance characteristics of
the watercourse. A 15' foot setback will also allow development of the active areas of the park
and encourage creativity and design excellence that would contribute to the character of the
community per Section 18.36.030(D.)(1.)by allowing full development of the park active areas.
3. Figure 1.2 :
As requested, the proposed open space areas have been added to the figure as requested.
4. Neighborhood Center Parking
The neighborhood center parcel has been modified to divide parking between the park and the
center. See attached figure M-1.
5. Restricted Size Lots:
Based on recent affordable housing discussion with Russ Squire we are slightly modifying our
approach to meeting Section 18.42.180, specifically the 10% area requirement. Tracts E-MF-1
and S-4 on Figure 3.1 will be delineated as Section 42 parcels to be developed for affordable
housing per Section 42 of Federal Code. These two parcels will provide 7.38-acres of affordable
housing. The remaining 1.94-acres will be provided by townhouse parcels.
Table 3.4 -- Affordable Housing Areas
Area (See Figure 3.1 —Parcelization Map) Area (Ac.
E-MF-1 3.66
S-4 3.73
E-TH-3 0.67
E-TH-4 1.64
Total Affordable Housing Area Provided = 9.69
Net Development Area 1 93.28
Required Affordable Housing Area(10%) = 1 9.33
Therefore, we are able to retract any RSL relaxation requests for single-family larger than 5000
square feet. In regard to RSL size for both single-family and townhouse, I do not believe a
relaxation is required. Specifically, Section 18.42.180(C.) states " A RSL shall not be greater
than 5,000 square feet for single household detached dwelling and 3,000 square feet for single
household attached dwelling units." The section states, shall "not be greater than", not exactly or
less than. It is reasonable and logical to assume that RSL's can be smaller than 5,000 or 3,000
square feet.
HAOMS067110\Preliminary PUD\040329la5 JM.doc 5
E tEOif,fE
•
April 1, 2004
West Winds Planned Community
6. Watercourse Planting
As discussed in Item 2 above the center channel has been defined as a stream by the
Conservation District. We have requested a relaxation to the setback to 15' each side, measured
from the edge of the wetlands. A 404 permit is being prepared at this time which include
wetland or watercourse plantings. A copy of the planting plan will be provided to the City upon
submittal to the Corp. The trails will be kept out of the 15' setback.
7. Plat Table
The Site Statistics Summary Table on sheets 2 & 3 of the plat have been amended to include a
total for each specific type of lot.
8. Street Lighting
HKM prepared the lighting plan in conjunction with the Rocky Mountain Agency. Under
18.78.060(R.) there is no uniformity requirements for subdivision street lighting and the plan that
we provided is in conformance with Table 42.2 on page 42-16 of the UDO. As you state, we can
discuss further.
9. Landscape Plan
See attached.
10. Wetlands Permit
Lynn Bacon with Land &Water is preparing an application for a nationwide permit (less than .5-
acre impact)(Section 10, 404 Permit). The application will be submitted in early April. The
Corp will respond within 30 to 60 days with findings. The formal letter of finding should be a
condition of final approval.
11. Senior Park Area
After further consideration we have decided to make the senior park area and senior
neighborhood center in common space area.
12. Blocks 2 & 3 of Phase IA.
See Attached map
13. RSL Lot Size.
See Item 5 above for discuss of RSL's less than 5,000 or 3,000 square feet in area.
14. Subsequent review process
H:\04\5067110\Preliminary PUD\040329la5 JM.doc 6
April 1, 2004
West Winds Planned Community
For subsequent submittals beyond Phase I subdivision, we foresee preliminary plats and site
plans being submitted to the City for review to comply with the approved final PUD. Through
this process we can coordinate concurrent construction issues.
15. Park Well
The proposed park well(s)will be for exclusive use by the park. The wells will require water
rights and to allow residential use would significantly complicate permitting.
16. Wetland Area Location
The following is a summary of wetland location.
Location Area(Ac.)
Park dedication wetlands 1.94
Wetlands to be filled 0.4998
Oak Street 0.0565
Baxter Lane 0.1119
Trade Wind Lane 0.0046
Tschache Lane 0.0077
Breeze Lane 0.0157
East Irrigation Ditch 0.3035
W-3 (non jurisdictional) 0.07
Section Line Ditch(non jurisdictional) 0.56
Total 3.07
Wetland Deliniation total 3.07
17. Private Access
The.private access road section provided was based on DRC pre-application comments provided
by Jamie Morris in a memorandum dated 10/28/03. Specifically item 4 that stated"Private roads
must be a minimum of 20 feet in width for two lanes and 28 feet for two lanes of traffic and one
parking lane." The private road section submitted is 21' feet wide for two lanes of traffic, no
parking.
18. Townhouse lots
All townhouses will be duplexes.
19. Park Use
The park use language was based on an advisory meeting with the Park Board that we had during
the pre-application process. I was under the impression they did not want league soccer play at
the park. We are open to allowing league soccer play at the park if the City desires.
HAMS0671 I OTreliminary PUD\040329la5 JM.doc 7
f NGINE
April 1, 2004
West Winds Planned Community
20. PUD Points Table
I did not include private open space because I was calculating the amount of open space to be
provided by the PUD to meet the performance point criteria.
21. Sim Plan
I did not include a sign plan. I would suggest that a sign plan be a condition of final approval.
Any sign plan will be in conformance with the sign ordinance.
22. Wetlands
BB/W-1 is the wetland surrounding the watercourse through West Winds Park. BB-2 is the
wetland on Sectionline Ditch.
Preliminary Conditions of Approval/ Code Provision
1. Ditch Abandonment Letter
I spoke to Bob Davis,President of Farmers Canal Ditch Company. The ditches through the
property are private laterals and there are no users down stream. I requested a letter from Bob
concerning abandoning the ditches and he responded that the ditch company does not supply
letters and never has!
2. Park Trails
Plans and specifications will be provided to the City for review.
3. Trail Crossing
We will work with the City in siting trail crossings.
4. Oak Street Bike Path
I will verify within the transportation plan, we will need to pinch the trail down at the wetland
crossing for Oak Street.
5. Cultural Resource Inventory
An inventory will be conducted and provided to your office.
6. Stormwater ponds
We need to discuss this item, I do not understand what is meant by 1/3 of front yard.
7. Stormwater discharge.
HAMS067110\Preliminary PUD\040329la5 JM.doc 8
f NOiNE
April 1, 2004
West Winds Planned Community
The stormwater is being discharged into the watercourse through West Winds Park, which
discussed above has been classified as a stream. Required discharge permits will be obtained.
8. Cash in-lieu of water rights
We will need to discuss and quantify.
9. Perimeter irrigation
Developer will install perimeter irrigation.
10. Lots backing onto park.
The park as submitted meets and exceeds Section 18.50.060 which requires 50% frontage to
public streets. West Winds Park as submitted provides 60%park frontage onto City streets.
11. Building orientation
We should discuss and integrate into the design guidelines appropriate language.
12. Trail Between Rose and 100-acre parks.
We concur that a sidewalk with a wide boulevard strip would be a good means of connection.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office.
Sincerely,
HKM Engineering Inc.
Clint Litle, P.E.
Cc: John Dunlap
Attachments
HAMS067110\Preliminary PUD\040329la5 JM.doc 9
ENOINEE
R I N E E R P V. .&
April 8, 2004 McChesney Professional Building
Rec. No. 04SO67.110 601 Nikles Drive
Suite 2
Bozeman, MT 59715
Phone: 406.586.8834
Ms. Jamie Morris Fax: 406.586.1730
City of Bozeman www.hkminc.com
Planning Office
P.O. Box 1230 _ -
Bozeman MT, 59771 iJ E E 0 v E I
�I F
APR - 8 2004 '
RE: West Winds Planned Community
Response to April 6, 2004 E-Mail
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
qp n i^I,iP,ill";TY NT-�
Dear Ms. Morris,
I am in receipt of your April 6, 2004 e-mail regarding the West Winds Planned Community. The
following is our response to your comments.
1. Park Area Requirement:
We have recalculated the park area requirement based on your comments:
1. Skilled nursing units do not require park; and
2. Wetland area being included in park dedication area.
Based on this approach 24.3-acres of park would be required and 14.69-acres of park is provided
(assumes 50' watercourse setback). This equates to 11.81 acres of park per 1000 persons. The
adopted City Park plan recommends 3.5 acres/ 1000 persons. We believe using .03-acre per
dwelling unit, which is the maximum allowed under State Statute causes an unreasonable
hardship to the project and the future homeowners association that will have to maintain the park
facilities. Furthermore, requiring a park of this size does not conform to a primary objective of
the growth policy to promote higher densities.
Based on these concerns and the related discuss in my April 1, 2004 letter we have requested a
relaxation to a park requirements of 11% of net area(see attached revised relaxation list). As
you know 11% of net area is the recommended park allocation under State Statute for One-half
acre and smaller parcels. 11% park will provide approximately 5-acres per 1000 persons or
143% of the recommended.3.5-acres in the adopted park plan.
2. Water Course Setback Requirements:
In question, is the appropriate width for the watercourse setbacks. As stated in Section
18.42.100(2.) relaxations of the setback are allowed, and furthermore, Section 18.36.030(D.)(1.)
states, "..., in order to encourage creativity and design excellence that would contribute to the
character of the community, deviations from the requirements or the standards of this title may
be granted by the City Commission ...."
BILLINGS,MONTANA BUTTE,MT BOZEMAN LAB MILES CITY,MT SHERIDAN,wY HELENA,MT
406.656.6399 406.723.8213 406.585.5915 406.232.6666 307.672.9006 406.442.0370
i •
April 8, 2004
West Winds Planned Community
The watercourse is essentially a low spot in the topography that daylights to groundwater during
the high groundwater season. The majority of the year the watercourse is dry, with water within
the channel only during storm events and when waste irrigation water is cut from the Farmers
Canal. During storm events the channel has adequate capacity to handle the storm flow
generated in the small up-stream drainage basin. The setback width is further mitigated by
wetlands that buffer the stream. Setbacks will be measured from the edge of wetlands.
If a full 50' wide setback to each side is used, it will significantly impact the playfield areas
(active areas) within the park. Based on the Section 18.42.100 of the UDO the setback areas are
not given park area credit. If no park credit is given for the area, there is no incentive to improve
the setback areas for active use. The West Winds owner truly wants to improve the active areas
of West Winds Park to bring benefits to both West Winds residents and City of Bozeman
residents who would use the active park areas (Soccer fields).
We have requested a relaxation to Section 18.42.100(3.)(c.). We request that the setback be
reduced to 15', which is more appropriate to the conveyance characteristics of the watercourse.
A 15' foot setback will also allow development of the active areas of the park and encourage
creativity and design excellence that would contribute to the character of the community per
Section 18.36.030(D.)(1.)by allowing full development of the park active areas. As an alternate
relaxation we have requested a relaxation of Section 18.42.100 to allow watercourse setbacks be
counted toward park area. This would allow us to develop the active areas and maintain setbacks
from the watercourse of roads and structures. As currently proposed no roads and structures are
within a 50' setback.
3. Parkland Tables
See attached tables, I calculated park area required and provided with and with relaxations.
4. Lot Clustering
See attached plan for portions of blocks 2 & 3 of Phase I Subdivision.
5. Street Lighting Lumens
Lumens were included in the original submittal on the lower left hand corner of the photometric
sheet of the lighting plan. I have included an additional manufactures catalogue cut with the
lumen information.
6. Landscape Plan
A landscape plan will be prepared and provided to your office by Friday.
7. PUD Performance Points
Affordable housing is being used for PUD Performance Points. A revised table is attached.
H:\04\50671 I OTreliminary PUD\040729la5 JM.doc 2
ENGINE
April 8, 2004
West Winds Planned Community
14. Review process
For current construction review process we purpose the following process. A preliminary site
plan or plat is prepared and submitted to the City for review. The site plan will include all
infrastructure improvements. Upon receiving approval from planning and engineering for the
structures, roads and utilities we will draw building permits and proceed with concurrent
construction of the structures and utilities. Upon completion of the road and utility work the
final plan or plat will be filed with CO's on the building following thereafter.
If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call our office.
Sincerely,
HKM Engineering Inc.
e
/Y 4-1
Cl6f L>tle, P.E.
Cc: John Dunlap
Attachments
H:\04\50671 I wreliminary PUD\040729la5 JM.doc 3
MemoE N G I N E E R I N G
To: Jami Morris J
From: Clint Litle '� i' APR - 2 2004
CC:
Date: 4/2/2004 DEPAP MENT Of PL,aNP!"`1G
Re: West Winds
Jami;
Attached is figure M-1 that was revised show the Neighborhood Center specific to the
structure and 28 parking stalls. The remainder of the parking (48 stalls) will be in the park,
and dedicated to the park.
I also gave you a revised Block 2 &3 Building and Fence Plan that has the building envelopes
shaded and building envelope area identified.
Thanks
Clint Litle,P.E.
HKM Engineering
601 Nikles Drive, Suite 2
Bozeman,MT 59715
406.586.8834
406.586.1730(fax)
clitle@hkminc.com
www.hkminc.com
1
LAND & WATER- CONSULTING,.INC.
214 S. Wilson, Suite B P.O. Box 1122 Bozeman, Montana 59771 •Tel (406) 586-1411
E-mail info@landandwater.net • .Fax (406) 586-4035
April 9, 2004
City of Bozeman
Wetlands Review Board
P.O. Box 1230
East Olive St. "
Bozeman, MT 59771 _
RE: Isolated Wetland Fill
Dear Wetlands Review Board,
Enclosed is a plan for the West Winds Community. There will be less than 0.5 acre impact and a
Nationwide 404 application will be submitted to the COE during the second week of April.
There is one non jurisdictional wetland that will be filled in its entirety for a total of 0.07 acre. A
functional assessment has been done on the wetland and it rated as a Category III as a result of.
the shrub layer. Emergent vegetation within this wetland is primarily comprised of nightshade.
Mitigation for the non jurisdictional wetland loss(for City concerns)and loss of jurisdictional
wetlands(COE concerns)will entail re-establishing the hydrologic connection of BB/W-1
(central natural drainage)to its original corridor. In addition,we will enhance the northern-most
reach of that drainage by planting shrubs and naturalizing the surrounding topography. This
central-drainage will also be preserved as open space park;the original Wetland acreage was' .
comprised of 1.94 acres.and the acreage for the park totals 21 acres. Although open space is
required by the City of Bozeman,the land owner has agreed to set aside this particular area to
preserve the diverse riparian and wetland community.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter and please feel free to contact me any
time on my mobile phone(580-6993)or-at the office(586-1411).
Si erel ,
L n acon .
tland Scientist Biologist
Enclosure:Wetland Delineation Map; Park Plan,
Cc:.Pint Litle, HKM Engineering
Hydrogeology Hydrology • Water Rights • Soil Science Wetlands 0 Biological Sciences Environmental Engineering
• • . .
.`
_ � i. -
. , - � - � � _
�.
N t Z-1
T— _
T
I as57 T Durston Road -90
f
Approximate Property
Boundary
Oak Street
NW 1/4 Section 2,TIS,R5E le I""
P.
J4
A I
11 4LI
City of N
Bozeman
4
--2 -9
ED
Figure 1. West Winds Project Site(USGS Bozeman,MT, 1992).
LAND & WATER
n3' W I I - - I I I ,y13h�,,?���,,�' S I ��joD. o I I I •�
' I ;ty'.•i I Q e"tli1A.IO 3I I/.
✓:.4.NfYC /::T::RJ t'•V _ JL'L .lJ
O I I R:LLL.^.4 L'.':':'L.4 TC..
I - 1 ALIT I 1'�'•
_ 34 35 _ BAXTER LANE (MINOR ARTER/AL!
�
i 1
-I�L_L_L- L.J_J L—i_1__L_L_1_i — ---
I
- - —I 7- r--- -
__ I _- - - - �-aj
T 1 -1 I
- i
I L_+1--�-L-�J--_AIL>-_�L-_+I�— _JIf_--+r-I__'Lr--_rJl_--�—L_
-
fi_T l_F TT— '
iI . : : I : , I ! , - - II �--
�----��, I
a l� II I ------ ------ II
07OIY/5I0N
L_1J J=--�=L-�
(-i-T-1-7-T-T—I f 7777-
I ---I IiI , '
-- _
I III O RL Y 1 II M1;
i1
L 'P ESTL-1.1_J_ _L_l� Le Ili, l
17- T7 1-7-- -1-1--1-11- I a \ 1 1 i i I 1,
li r-----
—. 2
Tj
Ll
RCNERAL NOTES: �L-- 1 I
1. WEST WINDS PARK SHALL BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY.
2. THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER SHALL BE ON A SEPARATE
PARCEL OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS "S
ASSOCIATION.
3. PUBLIC RESTROOMS SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY.
4. SOCCER FIELDS SHOWN FOR GRAPHIC PURPOSES ONLY.
ACTUAL POSITION OF PRACTICE FIELDS WILL VARY.
5. SEE PUD PHASING PLAN FOR PHASING OF PARK \�
IMPROVEMENTS.
DETENTION WETLAND CLASS II A` ✓ ! 0
POND TRAIL --�
2' MAX. WATER
DEPTH , I I T 11 I ♦0'
} T 5
4.0
BOTTOM AND SIDES ARTERIAL) _ --
-----------
-------------�T-----_------------
OF DETENTION POND - -- - _----
TO BE LAWN WITH 1 I I tiAfTl%F:. t:it FA'
rA-"� SECTION A:A IRRIGAMON SYSTEM
DIQIf NOT TO SCALE 1 i 1 i i L it�`` I -ici.aS': ::R 1 I l• E aV�
1. DEMNACN PONDS SHALL BE DRY PONDS I I 1 I I F BNTEIR OF $. 2
I
WIN P057T1VE DRAINAGE. I I I I I
LEGEND WES T WINDS COMMUNI T Y
JA=CnQt4&VE11.At10S UMSTURBED NW 114 SECT/ON 2, T.2.S., R.S.E., P.M.M.
® WWOATED ACTIVE RECREATION AREA
® PASSIVE RECREATION AREAS,NATURAL GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA
9NOIN 99RIN0 r_ CONDITION.UN-UtRIGATED
® STORM WATER DETENTION FACILITY -N-
�n�me«1n�Inc. PARK PL A N
cChesney ftfeWonal Mg. — — PROPOSED TRAIL SYSTEM
Sol waesDr„suae2 „�,"0Rii00D COMMU„TY CENTER WEST WINDS PARK
Bomna%MT59715
g (406)586.M =11F PEDESTRIAN TRAIL CROSSWC 200 o 20D FIGURE M-1
e FAX(406)5861790 BwDDE �. iiiia
tat DATE: FEB.19.2004 PROECT NO.04S067.110
CopplIght 0 2004 1901 Engineering Ina,AU Rights R.swwd.
MDT MONTAVA WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM revissMa
� Y 25, 1999)
1. Project Name:West Winds Community 2. Project#:430009 Control#:
3. Evaluation Date: 2/25/2004 4.Evaluator(s): 5.Wetland/Site#(s): W-3
6. Wetland Location(s) i. T:2 S R:5 E S:2 T:_N R:_E S:
ii. Approx.Stationing/Mileposts:
iii.Watershed: 10020008 GPS Reference No.(if applies):
Other Location Information:
7. A.Evaluating Agency LWC 8.Wetland Size(total acres): (visually estimated)
(measured,e.g.GPS)
B. Purpose of Evaluation:
❑Wetlands potentially affected by MDT project 9. Assessment Area(total acres): (visually estimated)
❑ Mitigation wetlands;pre-construction 0.07 (measured,e.g.GPS)
❑ Mitigation wetlands;post-construction Comments:proposed fill for this isolated wetland and NJ(404)wetland
® Other
10. CLASSIFICATION OF WETLAND AND AQUATIC HABITATS IN AA
HGM CLASS' SYSTEM' SUBSYSTEM' CLASS' WATER REGIME' MODIFIER' %OF
Depression Palustrine None Scrub-Shrub Wetland Saturated --- 100
=Smith et al. 1995. =Cowardin et al. 1979.
Comments:
11. ESTIMATED RELATIVE ABUNDANCE(of similarly classified sites within the same Major Montana Watershed Basin)
Common Comments:
12. GENERAL CONDITION OF AA
i. Regarding Disturbance: Use matrix below to select appropriate response.)
Predominant Conditions Adjacent within 500 Feet)To AA
Land managed in predominantly natural Land not cultivated,but moderately grazed Land cultivated or heavily grazed or logged;
state;is not grazed,hayed,logged,or or hayed or selectively logged or has been subject to substantial fill placement,grading,
otherwise converted;does not contain roads subject to minor clearing;contains few roads clearing,or hydrological alteration;high
Conditions Within AA or buildings. or buildings. road or building density.
AA occurs and is managed in predominantly
a natural state;is not grazed,hayed,logged,
or otherwise converted;does not contain low disturbance
roads or Occupied buildings.
AA not cultivated,but moderately grazed or
hayed or selectively logged or has been
subject to relatively minor clearing,or fill --- ---
placement,or hydrological alteration;
contains few roads or buildings.
AA cultivated or heavily grazed or logged;
subject to relatively substantial fill
placement,grading,clearing,or hydrological
alteration;high road or buildin densit .
Comments:(types of disturbance,intensity,season,etc.)hayed all around circumference of WL
ii. Prominent weedy,alien,&introduced species: tansy and thistle
iii. Briefly describe AA and surrounding land use/habitat:agricultural
13. STRUCTURAL DIVERSITY Based on'Class'column of#10 above.)
Number of'Cowardin'Vegetated >_3 Vegetated Classes or 2 Vegetated Classes or :51 Vegetated Class
Classes Present in AA z 2 if one class is forested I 1 if forested
Select Rating Moderate
Comments: WL comprised of shrubs(willows)and primarily nightshade(FAC)in emergent laver.
1
14A. HABITAT FOR FEDERALLY LISTED OOROPOSED THREATENED OR ENDANGERED PAS AND ANIMALS
i. AA is Documented(D)or Suspected(S)to contain(check box):
Primary or Critical habitat(list species) ❑D❑S
Secondary habitat(list species) ❑D❑S
Incidental habitat(list species) ❑D❑S
No usable habitat ❑D❑S
n. Rating Based on the strongest habitat chosen in 14A(i)above,find the corresponding rating of Hi (H),Moderate(M),or Low L for this function.
Highest Habitat Level I doe/primary sus/primary doc/second sus/second doc/incidental sus/incidental none
Functional Point and Rating --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 L
If documented,list the source(e.g.,observations,records,etc.):
14B. HABITAT FOR PLANTS AND ANIMALS RATED AS S1,S2,OR S3 BY THE MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM.
Do not include species listed in 14A(i).
i. AA is Documented(D)or Suspected(S)to contain(check box):
Primary or Critical habitat(list species) ❑D❑S
Secondary habitat(list species) ODDS
Incidental habitat(list species) ❑D❑S
No usable habitat ❑D❑S
iii. Rating(Based on the strongest habitat chosen in 14B(i)above,find the corresponding rating of High(H),Moderate M),or Low L)for this function.
Highest Habitat Level: I doc/ rims sus/primary doc/seconda sus/second doc/incidental sus/incidental none
Functional Point and Rating --- --- --- --- --- --- 0 L
If documented,list the source(e.g.,observations,records,etc.):
14C. General Wildlife Habitat Rating
i. Evidence of overall wildlife use in the AA: (Check either substantial,moderate,or low)
❑Substantial(based on any of the following) ❑ Low(based on any of the following)
❑ observations of abundant wildlife#s or high species diversity(during any period) ❑ few or no wildlife observations during peak use periods
❑ abundant wildlife sign such as scat,tracks,nest structures,game trails,etc. ❑ little to no wildlife sign
❑ presence of extremely limiting habitat features not available in the surrounding area ❑ sparse adjacent upland food sources
❑ interviews with local biologists with knowledge of the AA ❑ interviews with local biologists with knowledge of AA
®Moderate(based on any of the following)
❑ observations of scattered wildlife groups or individuals or relatively few species during peak periods
❑ common occurrence of wildlife sign such as scat,tracks,nest structures,game trails,etc.
® adequate adjacent upland food sources
® interviews with local biologists with knowledge of the AA
ii. Wildlife Habitat Features(Working from top to bottom,select appropriate AA attributes to determine the exceptional(E),high(H),moderate(M),or low(L)
rating. Structural diversity is from#13. For class cover to be considered evenly distributed,vegetated classes must be within 20%of each other in terms of
their percent composition in the AA(see#10). Duration of Surface Water: P/P=permanent/perennial;S/1=seasonal/intermittent;
T/E=temporary/ephemeral;A=absent.
Structural Diversity from 413 ❑Hi h ®Moderate ❑Low
Class Cover Distribution
all vegetated classes ❑Even ❑Uneven ®Even ❑Uneven ❑Even
Duration of Surface Water in>_ P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/1 T/E A P/P S/1 T/E A P/P S/I T/E A P/P S/I T/E A
10%of AA
Low disturbance at AA(see#12) M -
Moderate disturbance at AA
see#12
High disturbance at AA(see#12)
iii.Rating(Using 14C(i)and 14C(ii)above and the matrix below to arrive at the functional point and rating of exceptional(E),high(H),moderate(M),or low(L)
for this function.
Evidence of Wildlife Use Wildlife Habitat Features Rating from 14C(ii
from 14C(i) ❑Exceptional ❑High ®Moderate ❑Low
Substantial
Moderate .5(M)
Low
Comments: Possible mi rg atory and likely non-mo r�atory(magpie)bird habitat;deer.
2
14D.GENERAL FISH/AQUATIC HABITAT RATING ®NA(proceed to 14E) •
If the AA is not or was not historically used by fish due to lack of habitat,excessive gradient,then check the NA box above.
Assess if the AA is used by fish or the existing situation is"correctable"such that the AA could be used by fish[e.g.fish use is precluded by perched culvert or other
barrier,etc.]. If fish use occurs in the AA but is not desired from a resource management perspective(e.g.fish use within an irrigation canal],then Habitat Quality
[14D(i)]below should be marked as"Low",applied accordingly in 14D(ii)below,and noted in the comments.
i. Habitat Quality Pick the appropriate AA attributes in matrix topick the exceptional(E),high H),moderate(M),or low(L)quali rating.
Duration of Surface Water in AA ❑Permanent/Perennial ❑Seasonal/Intermittent I ❑Tem or /Ephemeral
Cover-%of waterbody in AA containing cover objects(e.g..
submerged logs,large rocks&boulders,overhanging banks, >25% 10-25% <10% >25% 10-25% <10% >25% 10-25% <10%
floating-leaved vegetation)
Shading->75%of streambank or shoreline of AA contains
riparian or wetland scrub-shrub or forested communities
Shading—50 to 75%of streambank or shoreline of AA contains riparian or wetland scrub-shrub or forested communities.
Shading-<50%of streambank or shoreline of AA contains riparian or wetland scrub-shrub or forested communities.
ii. Modified Habitat Quality: Is fish use of the AA precluded or significantly reduced by a culvert,dike,other man-made structure or activity or is the waterbody
included on the'MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL development'with`Probable Impaired lases'listed as cold or warm water fishery or aquatic life support?
❑Y ❑N If yes,reduce the rating from 14D(i)by one level and check the modified habitat quality rating: ❑E ❑H ❑M ❑L
iii. Ratio Use the conclusions from 14D(i)and 14D ii above and the matrix below to pick the functional point and rating of exce tional E,high moderate(M),or low(L).)
Types of Fish Known or Modified Habitat ality from 14D ii
Suspected Within AA U Exceptional U Moderate Low
Native game fish
Introduced game fish
Non-game fish
No fish
Comments:
14E. FLOOD ATTENUATION ®NA(proceed to 14G)
Applies only to wetlands subject to flooding via in-channel or overbank flow.
If wetlands in AA do not flooded from in-channel or overbank flow,check NA above.
i. Rating(Working from top to bottom,mark the appropriate attributes to arrive at the functional point and rating of high(H),moderate(M),or low(L)for this
function.
Estimated wetland area in AA subject to periodic flooding ❑>_10 acres ❑<10,>2 acres ❑__<2 acres
%of flooded wetland classified as forested,scrub/shrub,or both 75% 25-75% <25% 75% 25-75% <25% 75% 25-75% <25%
AA contains no outlet or restricted outlet
AA contains unrestricted outlet
ii. Are residences,businesses,or other features which may be significantly damaged by floods located within 0.5 miles downstream of the AA?(check)
❑V ❑N Comments:
14F. SHORT AND LONG TERM SURFACE WATER STORAGE ❑NA(proceed to 14G)
Applies to wetlands that flood or pond from overbank or in-channel flow,precipitation,upland surface flow,or groundwater flow.
If no wetlands in the AA are subject to flooding or ponding,check NA above.
i. Rating(Working from top to bottom,use the matrix below to arrive at the functional point and rating of high(H),moderate(M),or low(L)for this function.)
Abbreviations: P/P= permanent/perennial;S/1=seasonal/intermittent;T/E=temporary/ephemeral.
Estimated maximum acre feet of water contained in wetlands within >5 acre feet
the AA that are subject to periodic floodingor ponding. El ❑<5,>1 acre feet ®<_1 acre foot
Duration of surface water at wetlands within the AA P/P S/I T/E P/P S/I T/E P/P S/I T/E
Wetlands in AA flood or pond 2 5 out of 10 years --
Wetlands in AA flood or pond<5 out of 10 years l (L)
Comments: Wetalnd is 0.07 AC,slight chance of minimal ponding may occur infreouesntly.
14G. SEDIMENT/NUTRIENT/I'OXICANT RETENTION AND REMOVAL ®NA(proceed to 14H)
Applies to wetlands with potential to receive excess sediments,nutrients,or toxicants through influx of surface or ground water or direct input.
If no wetlands in the AA are subject to such input,check NA above.
i. Ratio (Working from top to bottom,use the matrix below to arrive at the functional point and rating of high(H),moderate(M),or low L for this function.
AA receives or surrounding land use has potential to deliver low Waterbody on MDEQ list of waterbodies in need of TMDL
to moderate levels of sediments,nutrients,or compounds such that development for"probable causes"related to sediment,nutrients,or
Sediment,Nutrient,and Toxicant Input other functions are not substantially impaired. Minor toxicants or AA receives or surrounding land use has potential to
Levels Within AA sedimentation,sources u nutrients or toxicants, in signs of deliver high levels of sediments,nutrients,or compounds such that
sedimentation,
a ion,ion present. ocher functions are substantially impaired. Major sedimentation,
eUtropsources of nutrients or toxicants,or signs of eutro hication present.
%cover of wetland vegetation in AA ❑2 70% ❑<70% ❑2 70% ❑<70%
Evidence of flooding or pondin,in AA ❑Yes ❑No ❑Yes I ❑No ❑Yes I No ❑Yes ❑No
AA contains no or restricted outlet
AA contains unrestricted outlet
Comments:
3
14H. SEDIMENT/SHORELINE STABILIZAT ®NA(proceed to 141) •
Applies only if AA occurs on or within the banks or a river,stream,or other natural or man-made drainage,or on the shoreline of a standing water body that is
subject to wave action. If this does not apply,check NA above.
i. Ratio Working from to2 to bottom,use the matrix below to arrive at the functional point and rating exceptional E,high H,moderate(M),or low L for this function.
%Cover of wetland streambank or Duration of Surface Water Adjacent to Rooted Vegetation
shoreline by species with deep,binding
rootmasses. ❑Permanent/Perennial ❑Seasonal/Intermittent ❑Temporary/Ephemeral
z 65%
35-64%
<35%
Comments:
141. PRODUCTION EXPORT/FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
i. Rating(Working from top to bottom,use the matrix below to arrive at the functional point and rating of high(H),moderate(M),or low(L)for this function.
A=acreage of vegetated component in the AA. B=structural diversity rating from 413. C=Yes(Y)or No(N)as to whether or not the AA contains a surface or
subsurface outlet; P/P=permanent/perennial;SA=seasonal/intermittent;T/E/A=temporary/ephemeral/absent.
A ❑Vegetated com onent>5 acres ❑Vegetated comportent 1-5 acres ®Ve etated com onent<1 acre
B ❑High ❑Moderate ❑Low ❑High ❑Moderate ❑Low ❑High ®Moderate ❑Low
C ❑Y ON I ❑Y I ON I ❑Y I ❑N ❑Y ❑N ❑Y ON I ❑Y ❑N ❑Y ON ®Y ❑N ❑Y ON
P/P
S/1
T/E/A AM
Comments:
14J. GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE/RECHARGE(D/R)(Check the indicators in i&ii below that apply to the AA)
i.®Discharge Indicators ii.®Recharge Indicators
❑ Springs are known or observed. ® Permeable substrate presents without underlying impeding layer.
® Vegetation growing during dormant season/drought. ❑ Wetland contains inlet but not outlet.
❑ Wetland occurs at the toe of a natural slope. ❑ Other
❑ Seeps are present at the wetland edge.
❑ AA permanently flooded during drought periods.
❑ Wetland contains an outlet,but no inlet.
❑ Other
iii.Rating: Use the information from 14J i and 14' ii above and the table below to arrive at the functional point and rating of high H or low(L)for this function.
Criteria Functional Point and Ratio
AA has known Dischaz a/Rechar a area or one or more indicators of D/R present l H
No Discharge/Recharge indicators present
Available Discharge/Recharge information inadequate to rate AA D/R potential
Comments:
14K. UNIQUENESS
i. Ratio (Working from top to bottom,use the matrix below to arrive at the functional point and rating of high H,moderate(M),or low L for this function.
AA contains fen,bog,warm springs or mature AA does not contain previously cited raretypes and structural diversity(#13)is high AA does not contain previously cited rare
Replacement Potential (>80 yr-old)forested wetland or plant or contains plant association listed as"igh types or associations and structural
association listed as"SI"by the MTNHP. by the MTNHP. diversity(#13)is low-moderate.
Estimated Relative Abundance from 911 ❑rare []common ❑abundant [I rare ❑common []abundant ❑rare ®common ❑abundant
Low disturbance at AA #12i -- AM
Moderate disturbance at AA(#12i)
High disturbance at AA(#12i)
Comments:
14L. RECREATION/EDUCATION POTENTIAL
i. Is the AA a known recreational or educational site? ❑Yes(Rate❑High(1.0),then proceed to 14L(ii)only] ®No [Proceed to 14L(iii)]
ii. Check categories that apply to the AA: ❑Educational/scientific study ❑Consumptive rec. ❑Non-consumptive rec. ❑Other
iii. Based on the location,diversity,size,and other site attributes,is there a strong potential for recreational or educational use?
❑Yes[Proceed to 14L(ii)and then 14L(iv).] ®No[Rate as low in 14L(iv)]
iv. Ratio Use the matrix below to arrive at the functional point and rating of high H,moderate(M),or low L for this function.
Disturbance at AA from#12(i)
Ownership ®Low ❑Moderate ❑High
Public ownership
Private ownership
Comments: LOW .1
4
FUNCTION,VALUE SUMMARY,AND OVERALL RATING
Actual Possible Functional Units
Function and Value Variables Rating Functional Points Functional Points (Actual Points x Estimated AA
Acreage)
A. Listed/Proposed T&E Species Habitat L 0.00 1
B. MT Natural Heritage Program Species Habitat L 0.00 1
C. General Wildlife Habitat M 0.50 1
D. General Fish/Aquatic Habitat NA --
E. Flood Attenuation NA --
F. Short and Long Term Surface Water Storage 1 0.10 1
G. Sediment/Nutrient/Toxicant Removal NA --
H. Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization NA --
1. Production Export/Food Chain Support M 0.40 1
J. Groundwater Discharge/Recharge H 1.00 1
K. Uniqueness M 0.40 1
L. Recreation/Education Potential L 0.10 1
Totals: 2.50 8.00 0.175
Percent of Total Possible Points: 31%(Actual/Possible)x 100[rd to nearest whole#]
Category I Wetland: (Must satisfy one of the following criteria. If not proceed to Category 11.)
❑ Score of I functional point for Listed/Proposed Threatened or Endangered Species;or
❑ Score of I functional point for Uniqueness;or
❑ Score of 1 functional point for Flood Attenuation and answer to Question 14E(ii)is"yes";or
❑ Percent of total Possible Points is>80%.
Category 11 Wetland:(Criteria for Category 1 not satisfied and meets any one of the following Category Il criteria.If not satisfied,proceed to Category IV.)
❑ Score of I functional point for Species Rated S 1,S2,or S3 by the MT Natural Heritage Program;or
❑.Score of.9 or I functional point for General Wildlife Habitat;or
❑ Score of.9 or I functional point for General Fish/Aquatic Habitat;or
❑ "High"to"Exceptional'ratings for both General Wildlife Habitat and General Fish/Aquatic Habitat;or
❑ Score of.9 functional point for Uniqueness;or
❑ Percent of total possible points is>65%.
® Category III Wetland:(Criteria for Categories 1,11,or IV not satisfied.)
Category IV Wetland:(Criteria for Categories I or 11 are not satisfied and all of the following criteria are met;If not satisfied,proceed to Category III.)
❑ "Low"rating for Uniqueness;and
❑ "Low"rating for Production Export/Food Chain Support;and
❑ Percent of total possible points is<30%.
OVERALL ANALYSIS AREA(AA)RATING:(Check appropriate category based on the criteria outlined above.)
❑ I ❑ II ® III ❑ IV
5
I
N
I �
W
SUMMARY OF WETLANDS AND WATERS OF THE U.S.
SITE ACRES JURISDICTIONAL STATUS M Lo 0 L
BB-1 0.60 Y I I'
SCALE: 1• = 300'
1313-2 0.59 N
BB/W 1 1.39 Y
ley i
W 1 0:20 Y
W-2 0.22 Y
Q N I W 3 0.07 N I I
TOTAL 3.07
Ilk. BB 1 /CULVERT BB 1
— 34 35 _ BAXTER LANE _ -
- 3 2
t BB—�
P � I
I
i
• U I
I I
BB/W-1 UN-NAMED
IRRIGATION
I LATERAL I I
SECTION LINE
I DITCH I
G I' I I
W-2
SP-5
f I /
BB-2
SP-4 BB/W-1
W
SP-3 BB-1 I W
LQ I
�11 I �
L
N
W-3 o SP-7 I I N
31 I SP-6
Z
I I
�[ E
BB/W-1
/Sp-1
I I
NOTE SP-2
I � �D DELINEATION a ��
BY LAND�WATER CONSULTING, INC. �SP-10
SP-9 SP-m - -
3 r OAK STREET CULVEFT CENTER OF S. 2
— BB-1
I — —
I E:: -
LEGEND . I I
J BB = BED & BANK
BB/W= BED, BANK/WETLAND
I I 'COMPLEX t I
W= WETLAND
SP = SAMPLE POINT
I
g PROD NO: 4MM DRAWN: SD PROJECT NAME
D FILE NAME:exhibitA120503.dwg CHECKED, LB WEST WINDS COMMUNITY
LAND�&WATER CONSULTING,INC.
o a.o.BOX ersa SCALE: 1'�00' A LB DRAWINOTITIE
w MT 59wLOCAMON:BOZg=D, MM-W EXHIBIT A: WETLAND DELINEATION
West Winds PUD
Design Review Board
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Applicant Response to Staff Report-
1. The applicant responses to the following staff relaxation comments.
Watercourse setback
Primary reason for request is to allow development of the active areas of the park
and encourage creativity and design excellence that would contribute to the
character of the community per Section 18.36.030(D.)(1.),by allowing full
development of the park active areas. A 50' watercourse setback would adversely
impact the proposed youth soccer fields. A 15' watercourse setback is more
appropriate to the conveyance characteristics of the watercourse. The subject
watercourse through West Winds Park is a minor watercourse that is typically dry
throughout the year and only conveys water during rainfall events. In addition
there is not a floodplain associated with the water course stated in the staff report
that was presented to the Planning Board on April 20, 2004.
Using the set back area for soccer fields will not change the past or existing use of
the property within the area proposed in this relaxation. The existing and past use
has been primarily a grass/alpha hay crop. As with this particular farming
practice the field (including the proposed setback area) is mowed several times a
year(as noted on the attached aerial photograph). The maintenance for the soccer
field will be the same as the maintenance currently used for the hay crop. Simply
put, we will mow the same area with a slightly different machine and the use will
stay the same.
The specific concerns outlined in the staff report are not applicable in regard to
this water course.
Specifically;
• The filtering of pollutants— Storm water will be treated by detention pond
facilities that will filter the stormwater flow and be equipped with oil/
water separators.
• Flood Control—the existing channel has more than adequate capacity to
convey the 100-year storm flow. The water course has a small drainage
basin and is not in a delineated flood plain.
• Bank Erosion—This is not a perennial stream and is dry the maority of the
year. The banks are well vegetated and stable.
West Winds Planned Community
DRB Staff Report Response
April 27, 2004
• Stream Warming—Again this is not a perennial stream, there is no water
to warm.
• Lateral movement—This is a very stable watercourse that has not shown
any movements for 50 years as documented by the 1953 water inventory
aerials.
• Protect Aquatic Habitiat—This is a dry water course, no aquatic life to
protect.
Linear Parks
The reason we have requested this relaxation is to promote the use of the area as
active park space. The staff report states that the Planning Staff, DRC and Park
board do not support the relaxation because it makes the park land"virtually
unusable for active recreation". This is why we are requesting the relaxation to
make the parkland available for active recreation. The property adjacent to the
watercourse is currently a mowed hay field (see attached aerial) and is well suited
as an active recreation(soccer field) area. As discussed above this is a minor
watercourse not prone to flooding. However, it is not an uncommon practice
throughout the United States to place soccer fields in flood prone areas, it is a
good dual land use.
As stated by the Parks Development Sub Committee, soccer is the fastest growing
sport in the Gallatin Valley. The need for practice fields is enormous and the
developers of the West Winds PUD feel this is an opportunity to provide the
necessary infrastructure for the community to help mitigate the lack of available
practice fields for our youth.
It is important to note that the relaxations to watercourse setback and linear parks
were requested solely for the betterment of the community and it's needs. Our
application is in compliance with the UDO and this relaxation is not needed for
that purpose. This relaxation is required so that the West Winds Planned
Community can provide the most benefit to the Bozeman community.
Park Requirements
During the pre-application period for this project, it was advised by staff to use
the multipliers set forth in the UDO to calculate the required parkland for the
West Winds PUD. According to Section 18.50.020 of the UDO it clearly states
that .03 —acre per known dwelling units and 11% of net area for multi-family
areas is to be used (see attached section directly from the UDO). We concurred
with staff s advice and proceeded with our application.
Page 2
West Winds Planned Community
DRB Staff Report Response
April 27, 2004
The West Winds PUD application did not originally request a relaxation to the
required parkland dedication. There was no need to do so since the application
was, and still is, in full compliance with the UDO as stated above. It was staff,
whom after their own advice, several months, several thousand man hours, and
hundreds of thousands of dollars spent informed the applicant that they could not
proceed due to non compliance with the park requirement and pulled the
application just before the second week of DRC. In order to proceed to
commission as well as the various review boards we were forced to request this
relaxation or staff would not have allowed this application to proceed.
Staff contends that the density is known since the annexation agreement for this
parcel of land states that there is a reserved sewer capacity of 307,200 gallons per
day. At the time of the annexation 307,200 GPD was the equivalent to 960
residential units, however according to the standards used today 307,200 is equal
to 1500+residential units. The only reason these densities were referenced in the
application (as stated in the staff report)was only to communicate to the
engineering department potential infrastructure impacts including water, sewer
and roads.
The actual density of any multi-family parcel is not known, as clearly stated on
Note 1 of Figure 1.2, "The internal road and building configurations in the multi-
family and senior areas are provided for illustrative purposes only. Site specific
plans will be provided through the site plan process." No site plans were included
in this application nor have any been submitted to the planning office that would
identify any specific known densities within the multi-family areas. Therefore, the
11%park area requirement per Section 18.50.020 (A.)(2.)(a.) of the UDO is the
correct interpretation of the parkland requirement for the multi-family areas.
Since there is no other alternative within the UDO to calculate unknown density
other than described above it would be inappropriate for the applicant or staff to
use any other method of parkland calculation.
Staff supports their argument by stating that the Development Review Committee
and the Recreation&Parks Advisory Board do not support the requested
relaxation. It is important to note that the both of these bodies were told by staff
that the application was not in compliance with the UDO, this is misleading and
may have impacted their recommendations.
In designing the West Winds PUD we have researched the parkland goals and
policies set forth in the Growth Policy and Parks Master Plan. In so doing we
have strived to implement these goals and policies within this PUD application.
Following are excerpts from the Growth Policy and Park Plan that demonstrate
our compliance with the documents.
Page 3
West Winds Planned fmmunity
DRB Staff Report Response
April 27, 2004
Section 9.1.4 of the 20/20 Plan states—"Neighborhood parks provide a
combination of active and passive recreation opportunities for all age groups in a
defined neighborhood. The park should be centrally located within a
neighborhood and provide some forms of passive recreation, such as picnic
areas, shade trees, or walking areas. However, the primary emphasis of
neighborhood parks is to provide open space for active play areas to be used by
neighborhood residents. Neighborhood parks should include at least one ball
field, but are frequently not large enough to accommodate afield. Centennial
Park and Jarrett Park are good examples of neighborhood parks. The NRPA
recommends that neighborhood parks be approximately fifteen to twenty acres
each and be provided at the ratio of one to two acres per 1,000 people.
Section 9.1.3 of the 20/20 Plan states— "Although widely accepted in the past,
there is increased recognition that national-based standards may not be resulting
in what communities really want. A growing school of park and recreation
planners argue that these standards (1) emphasize "how much"rather than "how
good," (2) reflect past desires and expectations rather than today's needs, (3) do
not recognize unique conditions, resources, and needs of different communities,
and(4) often are unrealistic and difficult to implement. "
The adopted Citywide park plan(The Bozeman Area, Recreation, Parks, Open
Space and Trails, Master Plan, 1997), specifically "Table 1 —Park Standards",
page 14 specifies a minimum neighborhood park size of 7-acres and 3.5-acres/
1000 persons.
The growth policy and the adopted park plan both reference the NRPA Standards.
The NRPA Standards recommend that neighborhood parks be+15 acres and use 1
—2 acres/ 1000 persons
It is our intent as the applicant and the developer of the West Winds PUD to comply with
the regulations set forth in the UDO, Growth Policy, and the Parks Master Plan. We look
forward to this project coming to fruition as it was submitted, as it embodies all of the
intent, goals, and requirements set forth in the UDO, Growth Policy, and the parks master
plan.
Page 4
Jurisdicleal Status of Lateral Ditch East of Coil Creek
HKM Engineering
Land & Water Consulting
4/15/04
Our primary concern is the jurisdictional status of a lateral ditch within the NE quarter of
Section 2, T 5 S, R 2 E. I will give you some historical perspective of the drainages
within this section of land as it is important in the development of our reasoning.
Photographs of the lateral ditch are enclosed for your review.
1. 1953 Water Resources Survey indicates that the central willow drainage that was
recently named "Cattail Creek"was indicated as a blue line or natural water
carrier (map enclosed). Ditches indicated on the map conveyed water into this
willow drainage from the south. The north end of the drainage is indicated as a
black dotted line which symbolizes that this reach was a"drain ditch". This is
evident on the landscape as the northern end of this drainage appears ditched and
somewhat linear. The 1993 FWP Streams and Ditches Map in the City of
Bozeman indicates that this drainage is a natural carrier (map enclosed).
2. When Harvest Creek south of Oak Street was developed the ditch system in this
parcel of land included several laterals (I delineated this land about 5 years ago).
These laterals were combined and placed in the center of the parcel for
stormwater conveyance. To my knowledge it has been dry all spring, even during
valley runoff. The 1953 Survey indicates that there was a natural carrier where
the stormwater ditch now exists, while the 1993 FWP map indicates that these
were red-line or"true" ditch laterals.
3. A culvert beneath Oak Street was installed to convey storm or irrigation water
into the lateral in question from the central ditch through Harvest Creek; it is
presumed the southern end of this lateral that once ran through the Harvest Creek
area has been filled. The 1953 Survey indicates that this lateral was once sourced
by the Farmers' Canal. The culvert installed under Oak Street conveys water into
the lateral rather than directly north into the willow drainage. I presume the
lateral was originally constructed to circumvent the natural drainages in what is
now Harvest Creek and the proposed West Winds Community. The south portion
of the willow drainage in West Winds has no bed and bank for approximately
1,000 feet, possibly indicating that this drainage has not conveyed water for some
time.
4. Current conditions:
a. "Cattail Creek": No standing or flowing water was observed in the willow
drainage on 4/13/04; during runoff some standing water was noted in the
northern-most reach.
b. Lateral: Water is currently collecting and being conveyed by the lateral
drainage approximately 600 feet south of Oak Street. This week flows
were considerably lower than during the valley runoff(perhaps 20 vs 10
GPM??).
5. Proposed Plan:
a. "Cattail Creek": The proposed plan is to install 4 culverts perpendicular to
the central willow drainage; one 310 application will be submitted.
b. Lateral: Fill the lateral ditch with local materials and compact.
MINUTES
GALLATIN CONSERVATION DISTRICT
USDA Service Center Conference Room—3710 Fallon Street#B —Bozeman, MT
59718
Thursday, April 15, 2004
7:00 p.m.
Lynn Bacon/Land & Water& Clint Litle/HKM Engineering RE: Cattail Creek
> SEE ATTACHMENT "B"
> Lynn said that it appears that the lateral east of Cattail Creek is a drain ditch
when looking at the history. Clint said that Bob Davis also stated this was a
ditch and could be filled in. The Planning Department has asked Lynn and
Clint to get a letter from the GCD stating that this is non jurisdictional under
the 310 permitting process. Colter told the supervisors that he has walked this
site. Colter stated that there were spoils piles along the ditch and it does
appear to be man made. Lynn showed the board photos and explained that
there are conflicting survey's — FWP 1993 survey shows both Cattail Creek
and the lateral east of Cattail Creek as a stream however, the 1953 Water
Resources survey shows them both as a ditch. Bill asked if there were any
irrigation diversions or water rights along this lateral. Clint stated there were
no irrigation diversions and that Bob Davis had said there were no water
rights. Bill asked how much peak water goes through. Lynn said maybe 20
gpm, she said that in July of 2003 there was about the same quantity as there
was now and possibly more during spring run off. Bill asked if it had ever
been used for blow off for Farmers Canal. Don McAndrew commented that
he didn't believe it had ever been used for blow off. Bill stated that the GCD
has been trying to get away from parallel ditches such as this. Sherwin asked
Lynn if she has applied for a 310 permit yet. Lynn said they had not
submitted a 310 application yet. John asked Lynn and Clint if they were
asking the GCD to determine this lateral non jurisdictional, Lynn and Clint
confirmed. Sherwin told Lynn and Clint that when they submit a 310
application for Cattail Creek to include any fill that may be added to east
lateral that would affect the banks of Cattail Creek, Lynn agreed. Bill said
that he would not object to determine this site non jurisdictional. Bill Wright
made the motion to declare the lateral east of Cattail Creek from Point A to
Point B as shown on page 7 of 7 of ATTACHMENT `B" and labeled as "Un-
named Irrigation Lateral", Sherwin Leep seconded, passed. Clint asked Renee
for a copy of the Minutes which he will give to the Planning Department as
proof of this determination. Renee agreed.
0
Renee told the supervisors that this was an incomplete application due to lack of signatures. ill Wright made the motion to put this
application on hold until the GCD receives a complete application,John Venhuizen seconded,passed.
Signatures and complete application received.
Joel explained that this was a pretty small maintenance issue—at the site inspection he said there was a significant amount of sediment
present and that it appeared to look more like a dyke. Bill asked if this was West of the bridge, Joel confirmed. Joel said he felt
comfortable with this project. Bill asked if there would be any problems with the Country Club,Joel didn't believe so and Renee said
that there was a signature on the 310 application that she thought was from the Country Club. Colter said that he had spoken with
Dean Crowe and he was pretty sure that the Country Club was the landowner. Bill Wright made the motion to grant final approval
with modifications, seconded by Sherwin Leep,passed.
tanllel;d':%orservalm.Ds i!
wcsatiin�s.rxt.m�nutes'l..tlec
. •;,0AM
'' � '� v � � ���_� y✓err »,�� ���^� �� ��
r
•: 'll t_�.�� y .e . a`�1_'=�. � '��a��—�:t�``�La�"`a,._!"•` 1 -9. �`��`� �i.r!.,.'�i ,1';; �' !� i
��^�•�..c�►,� .,.:,�,;�w r,P�, uu � o � n '1 � � �'7®i® is �� � a ��� , i.
any
�'1 f�r�'.. ��"v+•�a��'�Qs". r 1:r�.�+y �. ��Y^r�9��`7f:. a, �1�j7 V� �` ..,�*-„���-,�`�� �� •
o• /�ic`,� -.t aa.S�yT4 "i�i dl�� �t\ ���®\1i I/.,S�Y1,' �,Q� `"�� ny,�r ,Y�+R-Yx� ! �'`r� �` �5•,riT_ „k�� .
\�,a .•st-�1�t.pfi ,S �n,�j t�s'?,�'• ��a•1' .�.� ys �' _ 7'lw, tw T'71��Cy x '
Y�ILT'1A,1,1�71
t.M �i� j` SYx.G.,� rP� _,e e"'IC,v�`a a•�es�• i tY <,.;'• �'�`Id an �'v� �� s
f:�3 a-. x� 1,�k���tin::��'`\y`A�• f` .r+^; ��: 11,�, N� �`1Q$�,�r"� � � aF'S f�
,f� n�,y ti d v�,.t�-, �+�--C'i^ �.�i. �, s�` ��, i� �.. ✓�aa�t1 e„ ��."� ;s.
A,,
Photo 3. South end lateral. View to south.
o f � bufi
can
r C ova ■
-
MUX
FIR
1-7
�^. 3,.�"�w ` l `� : �., � i � dt���t;, � _���"•;—.r{i ,�. f ,ln�ti�.r,E'�� r� �i
��'H�w b� �C, 1 � ".T.iLt, �1 :!z � ��� ^� ��jF{�'L] 'v _ 1•
f*'�y,.� `ts t , y5',�1i1�pt�t'9yt��`.{i'S.,���,'��v,f�1''•'� �'��`i f' � ,.,. r) 41 ���,o�� ii!3t�t.'.�.•� �j��j.'�,1:t�+N,t��,.,
` � p� t +'p�}'IffY�l li- 1• ^�J y� ,t�la f�ll��e. �E`±,,,5���ii.�,a; e;1�;�s�`, �i'�'} `. ,f"t
'•� y� ,�A �! �{7!{'t+.., 4�'� �' � +•'11 �f X�v.1 4�C.�� .'t P is��� ,t�� �3t t�,� + �„�t���
,�����°t }��. �•°."' � ; `�, � �•� cc.. ''>c��'s������u�,�ty� �'� � ^��.z�•� ,Y11\��1I�t��i'',H��is�Y?
N � 'Y � 4 .`�Fa��, '`�" :��}- ,�y S.3'`' tt�'E 3 A. ��1t • �1e �c.
.Q •1r„ 4 .��;� l VIA"!
�'b ALL' •s(I ' _ .A 7)J),,.����icl .. ` >°•r�(y�'ti"' 'c� Y., �. r ���*~
_ �1...� �H'�i�_� �•�I�Av" ��" �F• ��• - w�.� yr
Photo 4. Lateral reach adjacent to Oak Street.
INN
_ 1
1 I44J
A6..�
4•4
` � � y .j 0 el,,y� i- .�` ' j1p is y`•;, Rrli,1hi AARMS
Photo 5. Culverted reach across to Harvest Creek. View is south.
�' tf'!
f �r • 'R, �7 p 1 � N/ � JJ�� q�r`{/'{'ill
E � I• � r� 1 ��'
Photo 6. Proposed culvert alignment from Cattail Creek to Harvest Creek drainage.
View is south.
so CITY O&POZEMAN
DEPAR') NT OF PLANNING AND COMW- NITY DEVELOPMENT
v 9x
• Street address: Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building Phone: (406) 582-2260
=== - = =• Z� 20 East Olive Street Fax: (406) 582-2263
co.Mo��e Mailing address: P.O.Box 1230 E-mail: planning@bozeman.net
Bozeman,Montana 59771-1230 World wide web: www.bozeman.net
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Harper-Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
Sue Harkin-Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
Pat Byorth-Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
Colter Seitz-Natural Resources Conservation Service
State Historic Preservation Office J,
FROM: Tara Hastie, Planning Secretaryt7
RE: West Winds Preliminary Plat#P-04009 and Zoning PUD#Z-04050
Applications
DATE: March 17, 2004
Attached you will find the preliminary plat application for the proposed Major Subdivision
referenced above to subdivide 93.28 acres into 88 residential lots. The property is legally
described as a tract of land located in the NW'/4 of Section 2, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., Gallatin
County, Montana, and is generally located north of West Oak Street, east of Davis Lane, south of
Baxter Lane, and west of North 27th Avenue.
Please review the attached information and provide comments to this office no later than
Tuesday, April 6, 2004. The proposed subdivision will be discussed by the Development
Review Committee on Tuesdays, March 23, 30, and April 6, 2004, at 10:00 a.m. The meetings
will be held in the Conference Room of the Alfred M. Stiff Building, 20 East Olive Street. The
City Planning Board will discuss the Preliminary Plat application on Tuesday, April 20, 2004, at
7:00 p.m. and the City Commission will conduct a public hearing on both proposals at 7:00 p.m.
Monday, May 10, 2004, in the Commission Meeting Room at City Hall, 411 East Main Street.
You are welcome and encouraged to attend these meetings. ,
Please return all materials as they are needed for packets for
Planning Board and City Commission.
If you are unable to respond in writing by the above deadline or if you have questions or concerns
regarding the application, we ask that you contact Associate Planner Jami Morris at 582-2260
Thank you for your cooperation.
TH/th
Attachments
planning• .zoning • subdivision review • annexation historic preservation• housing • grant administration neighborhood coordination
so CITY OMPOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND CO&NITY DEVELOPMENT
V 9�
* �• Street address: Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building Phone: (406) 582-2260
Ck
`=== -===•' ?� 20 East Olive Street Fax: (406) 582-2263
e`•�r�N d► e Mailing address: P.O. Box 1230 E-mail: planning@bozeman.net co
Bozeman,Montana 59771-1230 Worldwide web: www.bozeman.net
March 17, 2004
Quest West, LLC
3825 Valley Commons Dr., Ste. 4
Bozeman, MT 59718-6436
Re: West Winds Preliminary Plat#P-04009 and Zoning PUD #Z-04050 Applications
Dear Sirs:
The applications for the above referenced Subdivision Preliminary Plat and Zoning Planned Unit
Development have been received and assigned to Associate Planner Jami Morris. The applications were
reviewed in accordance with the submittal checklists and appear to meet the submittal requirements.
However, please understand that during the course of review there may be items or issues identified
which need to be addressed. Should that occur, Planner Morris will contact you.
The Development Review Committee (DRC) will discuss the applications on three consecutive
Tuesdays, March 23, 30, and April 6, 2004, at 10:00 a.m. The Design Review Board (DRB) will
discuss the Zoning PUD application on Tuesday, April 13, 2004, at 3:30 p.m. All DRC and DRB
meetings are held in the Conference Room, Alfred M. Stiff Professional Office Building, at 20 East
Olive Street. The City Planning Board will discuss the Preliminary Plat application on Tuesday, April
20, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. and the City Commission will conduct a public hearing on both proposals at 7:00
p.m. Monday, May 10, 2004, in the Commission Meeting Room-at City Hall, 411 East Main Street.
You and your representative(s) are encouraged to attend the last two DRC, the DRB, the Planning Board,
and the City Commission meetings to answer any questions that may arise. You and your
representatives) will be sent information prior to each meeting.
Please feel free to contact Planner Morris at 582-2260 if you have any questions regarding the
application or the review process in general.
Since ely,
'�q 1
Cl
Tara Hastie
Planning Secretary
TH/th
cc: Quest West, LLC, ATTN: John Dunlap, 1627 W. Main St., Ste.223, Bozeman, MT 59718
HKM Engineering, Inc., ATTN: Clint Litle, 601 Nikles Dr., Ste. 2, Bozeman, MT 59715
planning• zoning • subdivision review annexation historic preservation housing • grant administration neighborhood coordination
r
City of Bozeman ,
Receipt
$ � ` 3C
`n44
Bozeman, Montana 1 , C'_ , 20
Received of \ � P � ��. f 4 i_
the sum o _ _ k xq �1 k SAY`P A �Ae4u' pars za
for f" . 1�..)P� Al � IV 1(`k,t
�� 1 1 By
i
t
i
CITY OF
BDZ-,-E 16-N
03/05/04 4=15PM
001A04515
FLND UMIMED DEV
ITEMS IC
CHEC6` $6420.00
CTOF BOZEMAN
DEf ARTMENT OF PLANNING AND AMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260
20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263
P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozeman.net
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
1.Name of Project/Development: ; S `� ��
d n�
2. Property Owner Information:Name: QUeS� UOSA L- _C_ E-mail Address: iko lop d1)095CA0eh0ff'XP'6Vin
38J� Va l l> �_f rornmcY)5 bN o e
Mailing Address: So,jp 4
aUZ61PW1, FAX
Phone: Nd 140(9 - 5- (s - /05'7
3.Applicant Information:
Name: L✓U�S4- ��� L L C E-mail Address: J d un I0p Co
3Oas VAIN 6 nn-xx)5 Dn-ut
Coneg Address: S u,+e 4. �IOCD c�3 FAX: 4A0 — SS60 _. l
4. Representative Information:
�nc, / Tic. I
M-
Name: E-mail Address: d1�1k � hk 10C'.Carr)
Mailing Address: (D0/ N,'Kk-
S bt'i Ue, Su i Ve a
1, \- - 597I,57
Phone: O - (9 83 FAX. - SUP - /1730
5.Legal Description: I Gt1 Y4 04 S��'Un 0 / Tdwnship of .5Uv , lam-�q� S' qs�i 7?m-fl)
i CU o
G. Street Address:
iccyp
7. Project Description: Jw 3 -t�-Ce 67/OSS') tn;xed Use PSI de-n A/-o
Un,Y OPvP rl e pnL�Y
Zoning Designation(s): _ 9. Current Land Use(s):
10.Bozeman 2020 Community Plan Designation:
Page 1
- -CC or- a< < ,
eS Boz®man
office
Express
58 -3775
I
[11. Gross Area: Acres:/(D�. Squ re Feet: T12,Net Area: AN: (7a� Square Feet:
Is the Subject Site Within an Overlay District? ❑ Yes,answer question 13a No,go to question 14
M.Which Overlay District? ❑ Casino ❑ Neighborhood Conservation ❑ Entryway Corridor
14.Will this application require a deviation(s)? Yes ❑ No
15.Application Type (please check all that apply): ❑ O.Planned Unit Development—Concept Plan
❑A.Sketch Plan for Regulated Activities in Regulated Wetlands L4 P.Planned Unit Development—Preliminary Plan
❑B.Reuse,Change in Use,Further Development Pre-9/3/91 Site ❑ Q.Planned Unit Development—Final Plan
❑ C.Amendment/Modification of Plan Approved On/After 9/3/91 ❑R.Planned Unit Development—Master Plan
❑D.Reuse,Change in Use,Further Development,Amendment/COA ❑S.Subdivision Pre-application
❑E.Special Temporary Use Permit ❑T.Subdivision Preliminary Plat
❑F.Sketch Plan/COA ❑U.Subdivision Final Plat
❑ G.Sketch Plan/COA with an Intensification of Use ❑V.Subdivision Exemption
❑ H.Preliminary Site Plan/COA ❑W.Annexation
❑I.Preliminary Site Plan ❑X. Zoning Map Amendment
❑J.Preliminary Master Site Plan ❑Y.Unified.Development Ordinance Text Amendment
K.Conditional Use Permit ❑ Z.Zoning Variance
L.Conditional Use Permit/COA ❑AA.Growth Policy Map Amendment
❑M.Administrative Project Decision Appeal ❑BB.Growth Policy Text Amendment
❑N.Administrative Interpretation Appeal ❑ Other.
This application must be accompanied by the appropriate checklist(s),number of plans or plats,adjoiner information and materials,and fee
(see Development Review Application Requirements and Fees). The plans or plats must be drawn to scale on paper not smaller than 8/2-
by 11-inches or larger than 24-by 36-inches folded into individual sets no larger than 81/2-by 14-inches. If 3-ring binders will be used,
they must include a table of contents and tabbed dividers between sections. Application deadlines are 5:00 pm every Tuesday. This
application must be signed by both the applicant(s)and the property owner(s) (if different) before the submittal will be accepted.
As indicated by the signature(s) below, the applicant(s) and/or property owner(s) submit this application for review under the terms and
provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code. It is further indicated that any work undertaken to complete a development,approved by the
City of Bozeman shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and any special conditions established by
the approval authority. Finally,I acknowledge that the City has an Impact Fee Program and impact fees may be assessed for my project.
I (We) hereby certify that the above information true and correct to the best of my(our)knowledge.
Applicant's Signature: Date: 0
Applicant's Signature: Date: d L
Property Owner's Signature: 1 Date: V1
operty Owner's Signature: Date:
roperty Owner's Signature: Date:
Page 2
(Development Review Application—Prepared 11/25/03)
• SITE PLAN CHECKLIST •
e checklists shall be completed and returned as part of the submittal. Any item checked "No" or"N/A" (not applicable)
W be
explained in a narrative attached to the checklist. Incomplete submittals will be returned to the applicant.
A. Does the proposal one or more of the following.
Yes No
20 or more dwelling units in a multiple household structure or structures ❑ ❑
30,000 or more square feet of office space,retail commercial space,service commercial space or industrial ❑ ❑
space
More than two buildings on one site for permitted office uses,permitted retail commercial uses,permitted ❑ ❑
service commercial uses,permitted industrial uses or permitted combinations of uses
20,000 or more square feet of exterior storage of materials or goods ❑ ❑
Parking for more than 60 vehicles ❑ ❑
B. General Information.
General Information Yes No N/A
Location map,including area within one-half mile of the site ❑ ❑ ❑
List of names and addresses of property owners according to Chapter 18.76,BMC(Noticing) ❑ ❑ ❑
A construction route map shall be provided showing how materials and heavy equipment will travel ❑ ❑ ❑
to and from the site. The route shall avoid,where possible,local or minor collector streets or streets
where construction traffic would disrupt neighborhood residential character or pose a threat to
public health and safety
• Boundary line of property with dimensions ❑ ❑ ❑
Date of plan preparation and changes ❑ ❑ ❑
North point indicator ❑ ❑ ❑
Suggested scale of 1 inch to 20 feet,but not less than 1 inch to 100 feet ❑ ❑ ❑
Parcel size(s)in gross acres and square feet ❑ ❑ ❑
Estimated total floor area and estimated ratio of floor area to lot size (floor area ratio,FAR),with a ❑ ❑ ❑
breakdown by land use
Location,percentage of parcel(s)and total site,and square footage for the following-
Existing and proposed buildings and structures ❑ ❑ ❑
Driveway and parking ❑ ❑ ❑
Open space and/or landscaped area,recreational use areas,public and semipublic land, ❑ ❑ ❑
parks,school sites,etc.
Public street right-of-way ❑ ❑ ❑
Total number,type and density per type of dwelling units,and total net and gross residential density ❑ ❑ ❑
and density per residential parcel
Detailed plan of all parking facilities, including circulation aisles, access drives, bicycle racks, ❑ ❑ ❑
compact spaces, handicapped spaces and motorcycle parking, on-street parking, number of
employee and non-employee parking spaces,existing and proposed,and total square footage of each
The information required by '18.78.0601, BMC (Streets, Roads and Alleys), unless such ❑ ❑ ❑
information was previously provided through a subdivision review process,or the provision of such
information.was waived in writing by the City during subdivision review of the land to be
developed, or the provision of such information is waived in writing by the City prior to submittal
of a preliminary site plan application
• Description and mapping of soils existing on the site,accompanied by analysis as to the suitability of ❑ ❑ ❑
such soils for the intended construction and proposed landscaping
Page 3
(Site Plan Checklist—Prepared 12/05/03)
Building design information(on-site):
Building heights and elevations of all exterior walls of the building(s)or structure(s) ❑ ❑ ❑
Height above mean sea level of the elevation of the lowest floor and location of lot outfall ❑ ❑ ❑
when the structure is proposed to be located in a floodway or floodplain area
Floor plans depicting location and dimensions of all proposed uses and activities ❑ ❑ ❑
Temporary facilities plan showing the location of all temporary model homes,sales offices and/or ❑ ❑ ❑
construction facilities,including temporary signs and parking facilities
Unless already provided through a previous subdivision review, a noxious weed control plan ❑ ❑ ❑
complying with '18.78.0501- ,BMC(Noxious Weed Management and Revegetation Plan)
Drafts of applicable supplementary documents as set forth in Chapter 18.72,BMC(Supplementary ❑ ❑ ❑
Documents)
C. Site Plan Information. The location,identification and dimension of the following existing and proposed data, onsite
and to a distance of 100 feet (200 feet for PUDs) outside the site plan boundary, exclusive of public rights-of-way,
unless otherwise stated:
Site Plan Information Yes No N/A
Topographic contours at a minimum interval of 2 feet,or as determined by the Planning Director ❑ ❑ ❑
Adjacent streets and street rights-of-way to a distance of 150 feet, except for sites adjacent.to major ❑ ❑ ❑
arterial streets where the distances shall be 200 feet
On-site streets and rights-of-way ❑ ❑ ❑
Ingress and egress points ❑ ❑ ❑
Traffic flow on-site ❑ ❑ ❑
Traffic flow off-site ❑ ❑ ❑
• Utilities and utility rights-of-way or easements:
Electric ❑ ❑ ❑
Natural gas ❑ ❑ ❑
Telephone,cable television and similar utilities ❑ ❑ ❑
Water ❑ ❑ ❑
Sewer(sanitary,treated effluent and storm) ❑ ❑ ❑
Surface water,including:
Holding ponds,streams and irrigation ditches ❑ ❑ ❑
Watercourses,water bodies and wetlands ❑ ❑ ❑
Floodplains as designated on the Federal Insurance Rate Map or that may otherwise be ❑ ❑ ❑
identified as lying within a 100 year floodplain through additional floodplain delineation,
engineering analysis,topographic survey or other objective and factual basis
A floodplain analysis report in compliance with Chapter 18.58,BMC(Bozeman Floodplain ❑ ❑ ❑
Regulations)if not previously provided with subdivision rmiew
Grading and drainage plan, including provisions for on-site retention/detention and water quality ❑ ❑ ❑
improvement facilities as required by the Engineering Department, or in compliance with any
adopted stone drainage ordinance or best management practices manual adopted by the City
All dtainageways, streets,arroyos,dry gullies,diversion ditches, spillways,reservoirs,etc.which may be incorporated into the
storm drainage system for the property shall be designated:
The name of the drainageway(where.appropriate) ❑ ❑ ❑
The downstream conditions(developed,available.drainageways,etc.) ❑ ❑ ❑
Any downstream restrictions ❑ ❑ ❑
• Significant rock outcroppings, slopes of greater than 15 percent or other significant topographic ❑ ❑ ❑
features
Sidewalks, walkways, driveways, loading areas and docks, bikeways, including typical details and ❑ ❑ ❑
interrelationships with vehicular circulation system, indicating proposed treatment of points of
conflict
Page 4
Provision for handicapped ty, including but not limited to, wheelchair ps, parking ❑ El Elspaces, handrails and curb cuts, uding construction details and the applicant'sMitification of
ADA compliance
Fences and walls,including typical details ❑ ❑ ❑
• Exterior signs. Note—The review of signs in conjunction with this application is only review for ❑ ❑ ❑
compliance with Chapter 1852, BMC (Signs). A sign permit must be obtained from the
Department of Planning and Community Development prior to erection of any and all signs.
Exterior refuse collection areas,including typical details ❑ ❑ ❑
A site plan, complete with all structures, parking spaces, building.entrances, traffic areas (both ❑ ❑ ❑
vehicular and pedestrian),vegetation that might interfere with lighting,and adjacent uses,containing
a layout of all proposed fixtures by location and type. The materials required in ,18.78.0602,BMC
(Lighting Plan),if not previously provided
Curb,asphalt section and drive approach construction details ❑ ❑ ❑
Landscaping - detailed plan showing plantings, equipment, and other appropriate information as ❑ ❑ ❑
required in 118.78.100, BMC (Submittal Requirements for Landscaping Plans). If required,
complete section C below.
Unique natural features, significant wildlife areas and vegetative cover, including existing trees and ❑ ❑ ❑
shrubs having a diameter greater than 2.5 inches,by species
Snow storage areas ❑ ❑ ❑
Location of City limit boundaries, and boundaries of Gallatin County's Bozeman Area Zoning ❑ ❑ ❑
Jurisdiction,within or near the development
Existing zoning within 200 feet of the site ❑ ❑ ❑
Historic,cultural and archeological resources,describe and map any designated historic structures or ❑ ❑ ❑
districts,and archeological or cultural sites
Major public facilities,including schools,parks,trails,etc. ❑ ❑ ❑
Landscape Plans. If a landscape plan is required,the following information shall be provided on the landscape plan:
Landscape Plan Information Yes No N/A
Date, scale, north arrow, and the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of both the property ❑ ❑. ❑
owner and the person preparing the plan
Location of existing boundary lines and dimensions of the lot ❑ ❑ ❑
Approximate centerlines of existing watercourses,required watercourse setbacks,and the location of ❑ ❑ ❑
any 100 year floodplain;the approximate location of significant drainage features; and the location
and size of existing and proposed streets and alleys, utility easements, utility lines, driveways and
sidewalks on the lot and/or adjacent to the lot
Project name,street address,and lot and block description ❑ ❑ ❑
Location,height and material of proposed screening and fencing (with berms to be delineated by ❑ ❑ ❑
one foot contours)
Locations and dimensions of proposed landscape buffer strips,including watercourse buffer strips ❑ ❑ ❑
Complete landscape legend providing a description of plant materials shown on the plan,including ❑ ❑ ❑
typical symbols, names (common and botanical name), locations, quantities, container or caliper
sizes at installation,heights,spread and spacing.The location and type of all existing trees on the lot
over 6 inches in caliper must be specifically indicated
Complete illustration of landscaping and screening to be provided in or near off-street parking and ❑ ❑ ❑
loading areas, including information as to the amount (in square feet) of landscape area to be
provided internal to parking areas and the number and location of required off-street parking and
loading spaces
An indication of how existing healthy trees (if any) are to be retained and protected from damage ❑ ❑ ❑
during construction
• Size, height, location and material of proposed seating, lighting, planters, sculptures, and water ❑ ❑ ❑
features
A description of proposed watering methods ❑ ❑ ❑
Page 5
Location of street vision triangles on the lot(if applicable) ❑ ❑ ❑
Tabulation of points earned by the plan—see '18.48.060,BMC(Landscape Performance Standards) ❑ ❑ ❑
• Designated snow removal storage areas ❑ ❑ ❑
Location of pavement,curbs,sidewalks and gutters ❑ ❑ ❑
Show location of existing and/or proposed drainage facilities which are to be used for drainage ❑ ❑ ❑
control
Existing and proposed grade ❑ ❑ ❑
Size of plantings at the time of installation and at maturity ❑ ❑ ❑
Areas to be irrigated ❑ ❑ ❑
Planting plan for watercourse buffers, per -18.42.100, BMC (Watercourse Setbacks), if not ❑ ❑ ❑
previously provided through subdivision review
Front and side elevations of buildings, fences and walls with height dimensions if not otherwise ❑ ❑ ❑
provided by the application.Show open stairways and other projections from exterior building walls
•
Page 6
PIONED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CHECOT
The appropriate-checklist shall be completed and returned as part of the submittal. Any item checked "No" or"N/A" (not
�licable) must be explained in a narrative attached to the checklist. Incomplete submittals will be returned to the applicant.
A. ❑ Planned Unit Development- Concept Plan. The following information and data shall be submitted:
PUD Concept Plan Information Yes No N/A
Data regarding site conditions, land characteristics, available community facilities and ❑ ❑ ❑
utilities and other related general information about adjacent land uses and the uses of land
within one-half mile of the subject parcel of land
Conceptual (sketch) drawing showing the proposed location of the uses of land, major ❑ ❑ ❑
streets and other significant features on the site and within one-half mile of the site
A computation table showing the site's proposed land use allocations by location and as a ❑ ❑ ❑
percent of total site area
B. Planned Unit Development- Preliminan,Plan. The following information and data shall be submitted:
PUD Preliminary Plan Information Yes No N/A
The following information shall be presented in an 8'h-- by 11-inch vertically bound document.The document shall
be bound so that it will open and he flat for reviewing and organized in the following order.
Application forms ® ❑ ❑
A list of names of all general and limited partners and/or officers and directors of ❑ ❑
the corporation involved as either applicants or owners of the planned unit
development
Statement of applicable City land use policies and objectives achieved by the 'ri ❑ ❑
• proposed plan and how it furthers the implementation of the Bozeman growth
Policy
Statement of the proposed ownership of open space areas (Z ❑ ❑
Statement of the applicant's intentions with regard to future ownership of all or [X ❑ ❑
portions of the planned unit development
Estimate of number of employees for business,commercial and industrial uses ❑ ❑
Non- CommerrrFJ l App.)�oWl on
Description of rationale behind the assumptions and choices mace by the ❑ ❑
applicant
Where deviations from the requirements of this title are proposed, the applicant Rl ❑ ❑
shall submit evidence of successful completion of the applicable community
design objectives and criteria of 1 18.36.090 (PUD Design Objectives and
Criteria), BMC The applicant shall submit written explanation for each of the
applicable objectives or criteria as to how the plan does or does not address the
objective or criterion. The Planning Director may require, or the applicant may
choose to submit, evidence that is beyond what is required in that section. Any
element of the proposal that varies from the criterion shall be described
Detailed description of how conflicts between land uses of different character are �] ❑ ❑
being avoided or mitigated
Statement of design methods to reduce energy consumption, (e.g., ❑ ❑
home/business utilities,transportation fuel,waste recycling)
A development schedule indicating the approximate date when construction of ❑ ❑
the planned unit development, or stages of the same, can be expected to begin
and be completed, including the proposed phasing of construction of public
• irnprovements and recreational and common space areas
One reduced versibn of all preliminary plan and supplemental plan maps and ❑ ❑
graphic illustrations at 8'h- by 11-arches or 11- by li-inches size
Page 3
(PUD Checklist-Prepared 12/2/03)
In addition to all of ormation listed on the Site Plan Checklist, Rowing information shall be included on
the site plan:
Notations of proposed ownership, public or private, should be included where ❑ ❑
• appropriate
The proposed treatment of the perimeter of the planned unit development, ❑ ❑
! including inaterials and techniques used, such as screening, fences, walls and
other landscaping
I
Attorneys or owner's certification of ownership (� ❑ ❑
Viewsheds: i
Looking onto and across the site from areas around the site, describe and map 4�J ❑ ❑
the views and vistas from adjacent properties that may be blocked or impaired by
development of the site
Describe and map areas of high visibility on the site as seen from adjacent off-site ❑ I ❑
locations
Street cross-section schematics shall be submitted for each general category of street,including:
The proposed width ❑ ❑
Treatment of curbs and gutters,or other storm water control system if other than ❑ ❑
curb and gutter is proposed
Sidewalk systems ❑ ❑
Bikeway systems, where alternatives to the design criteria and standards of the ❑ ❑
City are proposed
Physiographic data,including the following:
A description of the hydrologic conditions of the site with analysis of water table ❑ ❑
fluctuation and a statement of site suitability for intended construction and
proposed landscapin,in compliance with '18.78.1203.3.c,BMC
• Locate and identify the ownership of existing wells or well sites within 400 feet of fA ❑ ❑
the site
If the project involves or requires platting, a preliminary subdivision plat, subject to the J ❑ ❑
requirements of this title relative to subdivisions,shall be submitted
Not withstanding the waiver provisions of '18.78.080.B.9,BMC, at the discretion of the ❑ ❑
City Engineer, a traffic impact analysis shall be prepared based upon the proposed
development. The analysis shall include provisions of the approved development
guidelines, and shall address impacts upon surrounding land uses. The Director of Public
Service may require the traffic impact analysis to include the information in ' 18.78.050.L,
BMC If a traffic impact analysis has been submitted as part of a concurrent subdivision
review,that analysis shall meet this requirement
If the development's compliance with the community design objectives and criteria is ❑ ❑
under question,the City Commission may require additional impact studies or other plans
as deemed necessary for providing thorough consideration of the proposed planned unit
development
A proposed draft of a legal instrument containing the creation of a property owner's ❑ ❑
association sufficient to meet the requirementsof ' 18.72.020 (Property Owners
Association),BMC shall be submitted with the preliminary plan application
C ❑ Planned Unit Development—Final Plan. The following information and data shall be submitted:
PtiJD Final Plan Information Yes No N/A
A list of names of all general and limited partners and/or officers and directors of the ❑ ❑ ❑
corporation involved as either applicants or owners of the planned unit development
• A final plan site plan shall be submitted on a 24- by 36-inch sheet(s) at the same scale as the approved preliminary
plan.If a different scale is requested or required,a copy of the approved preliminary plan shall be submitted that has
been enlarged or reduced to equal the scale of the final plan. However,only the scales permitted for the preliminary
plans shall be permitted for final plans. The final plan site plan shall show the following information:
Page 4
Land use da me information as required on the prelimina , plan) ❑ i ❑ ❑ I
Lot lines,easements,public rights-of-gray as per subdivision plat ❑ ❑ ❑
Attorneys or owner's certification of ownership ❑ ❑ ❑
• Planning Director certification of approval of the site plan and its conformance ❑ El Elwith the preliminan,plan
Owner's certification of acceptance of conditions and restrictions as set forth on ❑ ❑ ❑
the site plan
A final landscape plan consistent with the conditions and restrictions of the approved ❑ ❑ ❑
preliminary plan shall be submitted. It shall also be consistent with the Chapter 18.48
(Landscaping), BMC, except that any stated conditions and restrictions of the preliminary
plan approval shall supersede the provisions of Chapter 18.48 (Landscaping),BMC
An official final subdivision plat of the site must accompany the final planned unit ❑ ❑ ❑
development plan when applicable. City approval of the final subdivision plat shall be
required before issuance of building pernuts
Prior to submission of the final plan to the DRC and ADR staff, engineering plans and ❑ ❑ ❑
specifications for sewer,water, street improvements and other public improvements, and
an executed improvements agreement in proper form providing for the installation of such
improvements,must be submitted to and approved by the City
A plan for the maintenance of open space, meeting the requirements of ' 18.72.040 ❑ El El
(Common Area and Facility Maintenance Plan and Guarantee), BMC, shall be submitted
with an application for final plan approval. Open space shown on the approved final plan
shall not be used for the construction of any structures not shown on the final plan
•
Page 5
CERTIFICATE OF.ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
I, hereby certify that, to the best of my
knowledge, the attached name and address list of all adjoining property owners within 200 feet of the
NL-J `/y 04 SERTJ,0--) c9, 7ocwn sh,p a-500 hh, F-,9�
property located at �.Ct,.n-, , G A Il n L, n( )n-} rncn bA✓Jn , is a
true and accurate list from the last declared Gallatin Courivi tax records. I further understand that an
inaccurate list may delay review of the project. q ..• `
110766 ICE
Signature E6C,�'• Sy"-
CIP
0 IL
(Certificate of Adjoining Property Owners List—Prepared 11/20/03) M
e;
ShcVIS1d from page Al -
- town'- able housing than what the city th n o�erciin the state
single family homes, own g ty at o
houses and senior assisted-liv- requires of developments. requires such a large portion of
ing lots.It's bordered by Baxter But that's not economically land be set aside for parks.
Lane to the north and 27th realistic if the developers are Also rejected by staff was
Avenue to the west. required to set aside a full 37 plans to put park lands in the
The developers—Quest percent of subdivision devel- watercourse set-back.Soccer
West LLC of Bozeman—are opable lands as parks,as they fields don't provide suitable
asking for several relaxations would under current rules, wetland habitat and wouldn't
from city codes. project manager Clint Litle said. protect the area from human
Among other things,they "I don't see how that goes in traffic,they stated.
want to develop land within 15 hand-in-hand"with affordable Commissioners spent nearly
feet of a stream running housing,he said."I struggle two-hours nitpicking over
through the property even with that." things they didn't like about the
though city codes specify a set- Instead,the developers want subdivision.But where they
back of 50 feet;to place soccer to relax the rules so that only 22 would weigh down on the
fields and other park land percent of the land is set aside affordable housing vs.park
within that setback;and to have as parks. issue was hard to figure out.
the city require less space for Their argument has been Only two commissioners—
park land than what the rules turned down by every city Kirchhoff and Marcia Youngman
currently allow. board and committee involved —have expressed unwavering
The last exemption worried in city planning.City staff also support for city affordable hous-
Parks Foreman Ron Dingman, were unsympathetic,saying in a ing requirements.
who said he is flooded by memo to commissioners the The newest commissioner,
requests from recreation groups city's method of calculating Jeff Krauss,indicated he would
to provide more room for base- park land is"the correct support more park land first,
ball,soccer and a myriad of method:' saying there are"economic reali;
other activities. "It is not up to the property ties"with providing affordable
"I have to keep telling these owner or the applicant to tell housing,but he didn't elaborate'
people I don't have any land the City of Bozeman how to A public hearing on fhe mat-
left,"he said. interpret its text,"the memo ter is scheduled for Monday.
What the developers are stated. Walt Williams is at
offering in return is more afford- The project's planners replied wwilliams@dailychronicle.com
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
r
r l��1411rr�,
i
F
F
e
we
r ,
e When you participate in March of Dimes WalkAmerica, the money you raise
helps fund research to discover why 1 in 8 babies are born prematurely in
Bozeman -- and across the country -- each year. If they survive the first '
month, these babies are often at risk for birth defects and mental retardation.
We hope you'll help us make this WalkAmerica a great success and do your
Dart to preserve the health of our most imoortant future resource- children
City 1*e
landpark �
rules for
subdivision
West Winds development
includes 200 units
By NICK GEVOCK
Chronicle Staff Writer
The Bozeman City Commission unan-
imously approved a large subdivision on
the west side of town Monday while
allowing the developer to count wetlands
and setback areas as park land.
The unanimous vote to approve the
161-acre West Winds subdivision came
after Commissioner Steve Kirchhoff's
motion to deny the project failed.Only
Commissioner Marcia Youngman voted
with him.
Kirchhoff said the project shouldn't be
given the exceptions to the park land set-
aside requirement.
'i "`HOW much do we absolutely have to
gived—that's been the tone,"he said."It's
too much of a war and too little of a con-
tribution to the neighborhood."
(More on Subdivision,page A8)
rr a%jUauluricWlllllcl al rlvc\ll.11
Wednesday night's annual Jimmy Bul
awards as entertaine a year-r�� "Thank
and male vocalist an his al- o'e'ourse a
bum"Shock'n Y'All"and the this such a.
video"Beer for My Horses" the radio;'
.with Willie Nelson. entered thii
"I always kept hoping this leading eig,
night would come,"he said as male-dom.
he picked up the night's biggest —two of r
award. gle categor
Keith,who had won only Martina
three times before,was named female voc
entertainer of the year in 2003, straight ye;�
but left the venue after being manitariar
snubbed for other awards. "I'm ju:
"Thank God for blessing us," get to live t
he said."Let's all go partyin'and share it wit
rock out here in Vegas. people,"sa
Brooks&Dunn added to Group
their record 17 Academy of went to Ra
Country Music awards,beating, and straigl
out Montgomery Gentry and Randy'
three other groups for the top winner for
vocal duo award. "Three We
Alan Jackson won single "It's bee
Fantasia Barris
NEW YORK(AP)— DeGarr
FantasiaiBarrino's fantasy,of;--�+-^,through to
POP stardom becain'e'a reality'.;: :.;proud to h
edanes�
w 'she waWl -Fantasia.S
d
name�d the winner of"American guys will ti
Idol:' IThe jud
Barrino grabbed runner-up singing coi
Diana DeGarmo in a bear hug crowned B
and twisted'her around as'teats previous n
streamed down her face. zled them
"Thank you so much,"she sion of Gei
sobbed."I broke my shoe!" "Summert
S 'hdivision from page Al
West Winds includes more But they still wanted to count "There has got to be a give and about making the developer
than 200 homes,townhouses wetlands,setback areas and the take,"she said"We have ample meet the exact amount of park
and senior-assisted living units buffer along a trail toward the park space and we have got to land required as long as the city
on lots bordered by Baxter Lane overall park land requirement stop driving away young families." got soccer fields out of the deal.
to the north and 27th Avenue to Opponents and proponents Commissioner Jeff Krauss In the end,commissioners
the west. of allowing West Winds the walked over to a map of the allowed wetlands to count as
Developers Quest West LLC, relaxations from the rules subdivision and outlined park land and waived some of
of Bozeman,had asked the city showed up to testify. changes in the plan that he the acreage requirement
to relax several code require- Park advocate Mary Vant needed to vote for the project: because of the contribution to
ments,including allowing soc- Hull said the people who need eliminate 12 lots to make space affordable housing.
cer*ANithin the required 50 affordable housing are often for more soccer fields;and allow Youngman said the commis-
fooand setback The devel- young families,the same people realignment of a trail so it more sion was agreeing to the subdi-
opers also wanted to set aside who need parks. easily crossed a street. vision without knowing how
less than the 16 percent park "If developers pay too much In return,Krauss said he'd much park land was really
land required—in this case 25 for their land,it is not the City agree to add some lots in other there.In the end,she joined
acres—saying the exception Commission's job to bail them places. Kirchhoff,Krauss,
was needed to include afford- out,"she said. "We can go forward if you Commissioner Lee Hietala and
able housing in the project. But mortgage broker Tami want to do some horse trading," Mayor Andrew Cetraro in vot-
After meeting with the com- McLaughlin said mandating such Krauss said."I know it's cutting ing for the subdivision,saying
missioners last week,the devel- a large percentage of land to parks into your profit margin,but I she wanted to compromise.
opers agreed to move the soccer only drives up the cost of the lots don't really care about that." Nick Gevock is at
fields out of the wetland setback. and ultimately of the homes. Krauss said he didn't care ngevock@dailychronicle.com
uiurtues Baia earner. 1 ne were -'�`�'`""`b""`a` "'1CV'—
y dence and Bur dorf was still
treated for minor injuries. g
listed as missing Wednesday.
Deputy Yellowstone County
Ex-Butte lawmaker Attorney David Carter said he �—
was waiting to see what
Stimatz dead at 84 Minnesota authorities do be-
BUTTE—Retired Butte at- fore pursuing felony and mis-
torney and former legislator demeanor charges filed against
Lawrence Gregory"Larry" Forrester in the two-car crash.
Stimatz died Sunday at the. t . i From Chronicle wire services
Butte Convalescent Center.He
was 84. f
Following his graduation t 1 ` I
from the University of
Montana law school in 1951, CENTER — _
Stimatz worked for the Social .New Dentures
Security Administration and as .Partials
an insurance adjustor.He •Relines
served as deputy county attor- •Repairs
r
ney for Silver Bow County from 'Medicaid .
Provider
1957-1960,assistant U.S.attor-
ney for Montana from 1961- over zs years P] 1�01 qv
1965,and as Silver Bow County Making Beautiful p i ti►y����� /
Smiles In Southwest John Mateskon
attorney from 1971-1974.He Montana Licensed Denturist
also maintained a private lawt " • ' '
practice. Msu►cnl,Am BUILDING `. Y
Stimatz served in the 300 N.•w�CQ.KSKC2Q B ,,,_
50 Cents
T
.
eve o er,
city spar
over codes
Park land requirement
in the way of affordable
housing, commission told
By WALT WILLIAMS
Chronicle Staff Writer
The planners of a new subdivision say their
efforts to provide affordable housing are being
thwarted by city codes requiring them set aside
park land,and now they're asking the Bozeman
City Commission to bend the rules a bit.
So far,however,the city isn't budging,and the
developers have been turned down at every stage
in the development process.
"I'm going to be blunt:This is just a badly
designed neighborhood,"Commissioner Steve
Kirchhoff told the developers Monday.
The city commission held a rare 3 p.m.meet-
ing to discuss ways to make plans for the West
Winds subdivision better fit with city codes.
West Winds is a proposed subdivision sprawl-
ing over 161 acres and containing more than 200
(More on Subdivision,page A8)
gaps in communication ana cooramationbetween
the police and fire departments.But members o
the commission and others familiafwith its
said it would also seek to dispel what they c
misconceptions that cast the city's rescue efforts in
a poor light.
What's more,New York's efforts to improve
emergency response since Sept.11 will be cited as
Climber
dies after
resc u e
Co ter plucks man
off Mount Rainier
TACOMA,Wash.(AP)—
An injured climber plucked by
rescue helicopter from high on
the north slope of Mount
Rainier has died,a Pierce
County medical examiner's
spokeswoman confirmed
Monday night.
"We have been advised he
has passed away,"said Mary
deTracy,a medical investigator
with the medical examiner's of-
fice here. Peter Cooley,
She declined to identify the both from Cal:
climber by name but Peter Saturday In a f
Cooley,39,of Cape Elizabeth, who began the
Maine,has been rescued several Repeated me:
hours earlier from the 12,300- Monday night fr
foot level of the 14,410-foot Rainier National
mountain southeast of here. ,.,,,..,o„
Bozen, .;a:n City Cor -Ymssion to hold .r," `e 3 p.m. meeting
north,Davis Lane.on the east,Oak 'Wetlands Review Board. ■A discussion whether to re-
By WALT WILLIAMS Street on the south and 27th Avenue The developers took their case to model the professional Building on!
Chronicle Staff Writer on the west. the commission last week,and com- Olive Street,where many city-offices
It would hold more than 300 sin- missioners voted to continue a pub- are housed.
The Bozeman City Commission gle-familyhomes,'townhouses and he hearing or<the matter to today. ■A vote whether to approve
will hold an unusual afternoon senior assisted-living lots. The special meeting starts at 3 plans to build a 6,700-square-foot
meeting today to consider plans for But its developers want the city p.m.in the Bozeman"Municipal restaurant on North Seventh Avenue
a large new subdivision that's re- to relax rules regarding watercourse Building.The hearing is the only called"Famous Dave's BBQ:'
questing several exemptions from setbacks and park land dedication. item on the schedule. ■A presentation on budget re-
city design codes. Their requests have been turned The commissioners will meet quests for the 911 emergency dis-
The West Winds subdivision,if down by various city boards and again at 7 p.m.for their regular patch system for the 2005 fiscal year.
approved,would cover 160 acres, committees,including planning meeting.Items on the agenda in- Walt Williams is at
bordered by Baxter Lane on the staff and the newly formed dude: wwilliams@dailychronicle.com.
f
A-7*P,
co
le-
e-ZIfAll
�e Re //e ev"p?Q�s Ceo c�
7-
-eye
a 2�d z/5,q /',e��A e-
dlp
yo
OX/
IeA
y yy
40"
%Nli�,�
-e Al
J
i 0
JAMES T. KLUG
912 HUNTERS
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59VT8 ^" 1
!'l
M AY 1 0 2004
p `.,E±JT OF PLANNING
May 7, 2004 _ IITv ciFl oP^._SIT
City of Bozeman
Department of Planning and Community Development
Post Office Box 1230
Bozeman, Montana 59771
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing this letter to comment on proposed subdivision project north of Oak
Street and adjacent to the Harvest Creek development. Being a resident of Harvest
Creek myself, it would be somewhat hypocritical for me to outright oppose the
continued movement north of any development. With the growth of our city,this
type of building is inevitable.
I am, however, opposed to a relaxation of the of the established buffer zone
surrounding the wetland area north of Oak. If a subdivision is to be built,these
wetlands need to be protected as much as possible.
One positive solution might be the continuation north of the existing Harvest Creek
park. A nature trail that skirted the wetlands area might be a strong asset for the new
subdivision, and create a walking trail system that would continue on for more than a
mile in one direction.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Sincerely,
Jim Klug
--Great act-�
I attended a number of meetings of
the City Commission regarding the.
West Winds development.The commis-
sioners huffed and puffed,told the
developer what a bum design he had,
Ietc.,etc.In the end the developer moved!
some soccer fields out of the wetland
and the commission voted unanimously
to approve the development.
The city commissioners deserve
Emmys for their acting abilities.
Victor.H.Hanson'
_ Bozeman
LETTERS
Why do we have rules if we don't enforce them?
r I have a question for the three to skirt the city's park space and It sure is nice to know that
Bozeman city commissioners stream setback requirements so all those developers driving
(Cetraro,Hietala and Krauss) they could squeeze in some addi- around in$60,000 Humvees are
who recently caved in to devel- tional lots and boost their prof- so concerned about us working
opers and approved the West its. folk.
Winds subdivision in the open It seems like the way things Clear air,clean water,and safe'
i fields just west of the Home operate in Bozeman is that places to recreate are not things
Depot.Why have rules on the whenever a developer wants to. that only the wealthy in
` books if you have no intention of bend the'rules dealing with Bozeman should enjoy.I,for
enforcing them?Heck,that's the parks,traffic abatement,or other one,would gladly pay an extra
most basic tenant of Child quality of life issues,all they have $100 a year on my 30-year mort-
C Rearing 101. to do is cry that complying with gage to live in a city that made
In this case,the City them would inflate the cost of those things a basic right and
Commission bucked the recom- homes so high that ordinary not a privilege. j
mendations of its own planning working people couldn't afford Scott Bosse
staff and allowed the developer them. Bozeman
Page 1 of 1
•
Jami Morris
From: Victor H. Hanson [vhanson@theglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 9:08 PM
To: Jami Morris
Subject: West Winds Community
Dear Ms. Morris,
I spotted the hearing notice last Saturday on Oak St. We live on Harris St. a couple of blocks south. I was in the
Planning office on Monday and looked over the developer's proposal. Also, someone dropped off a paper about
the development at our door today.
We found the density of all land uses very high with the exception of the single-family residential units. At an
average of 7000 sq ft lot size they would appear like Harvest Creek. All other uses would be overpopulated in our
opinion. In our opinion the proposal to reduce the buffer between the wetland and the developed property from
50 ft to 15 feet is totally unacceptable. I noted that storm runoff was going to be routed via existing irrigation
ditches. When you think of the petroleum products from the streets, the herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers from
the gardens and grass, the storm runoff will be polluting the local ground water in no time at all.
I question the amount of parking for the high density structures. I understand that the figure of 2.25 inhabitants
per dwelling unit is normal. Are there going to be 2.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Our daughter has a
condo in Morgan Creek where there is at least one garage and one parking space per unit and about 9 spaces
total for visitors for 112 units. Many units have three college students who have each a car. Parking is a big
problem there.
The entire area is supposed to be 161 acres. The structures take up 93 acres and the wetland 21. Is the
remainder roads and sidewalks?
A buildout time of ten years seems to be suggested. At what point in time would the developer construct N. 27th
Ave. and Davis Lane between Oak St. and Baxter Lane?
We will likely attend the meeting on May 10th and would be willing to express our opposition to allowing any
reduction in buffers or setbacks.
Sincerely,
Mr. & Mrs. Victor H. Hanson, 2735 Harris St
582-0067
5/6/2004
•
OPEN FIELD BECOMING ANOTHER SUB"b� C.O
MAY 1 9 2004
DEPAPTP,1ENT OF PLANNING
r.,��\
A7f1� 1��. - iri rig"GPIT
The field and wetland north of Oak St. and adjacentto �.,�" I
Harvest Creek is being converted into another subdivision.
This planned unit development calls for single household,
multi-household and senior assisted-living units.
By law the wetland area will remain, however, the
developer is asking for a relaxation from Code of 50 feet to
15 feet for the buffer between his development and the
wetland.
There is a public meeting between the developer and the
Bozeman City Commission in which public testimony
will be heard on this Monday, May 10 at 7pm in the
Commission meeting room downstairs at City Hall, 411
E. Main. Please attend to learn and make comment
about this issue and any others you think are
appropriate pertaining to our northern developing
neighborhood.
If you're unable to attend, written comment on this issue
will be accepted by the City of Bozeman Department of
Planning and Community Development, P.O. 1230,
Bozeman, MT, 59771.
7 e;z
lu�d
✓Y;r m�� S9�id
0
Memo to: Mayor Andrew Cetraro; Commissioners Lee Hietala, Steve Kirchhoff, Jeff
Krauss and Marcia Youngman; Commission Clerk Robin Sullivan
From: John Harper, subdivision review committee,Recreation and Parks
Advisory Board
Date: May 4, 2004
RE: West Winds Preliminary PUD and Phase I Subdivision Preliminary Plat
Applications
Please refer to our comments dated April 13, 2004 and March 26, 2004, copies of which
are attached.
Our April 13, 2004 memo deals specifically with the erroneous statements in the
applicant's request for relaxation from Unified Development Ordinance requirements,
and addresses the significant loss in parkland should the request be approved.
In order to grant the applicant's request, the Commission must determine "that the
deviation will produce an environment, landscape quality and character superior to that
produced by the existing standards of this title, and which will be consistent with the
intent and purpose of this chapter, with the adopted goals of the Bozeman growth policy
and with any relevant adopted Design Objectives Plan." If this finding is not made, "no
deviation shall be granted." (18.36.030 D 3,BMQ The relevant intent and purpose is
defined, in part, at 18.36.010 D, "To ensure adequate provision of public services such
as....open space and public parks."
Your decision will affect not just the two thousand or more residents of this
development, but all residents of Bozeman. We believe the potential loss of as much as
58%of the parkland required is reason for urging the Commission to deny this relaxation
request and to give favorable consideration to the other recommendations we have made.
CastleBar II Limited Partnership Peter&Kay I Kelly
413 W. Idaho Street, Suite 201 2719 McCormick Street
Boise, ID 83702-6065 Bozeman,MT 59718
George C &Mary Ellen Stewart David O Chrest
160 W 66th Street, Apt 25C 415 Buckhom Trail
New York,NY 10023-6559 Bozeman, MT 59718
Ira Martin &Barbara J Bakken Joe &Joyce Albro
3333 Fieldstone Drive W 2713 Allison Ct.
Bozeman,MT 59715. Bozeman,MT 59718
Steven M &Deanne L Smith David J &Lavern C Parisi
2717 Allison Ct. 509 Arbor Drive
Bozeman,MT 59718 Livingston, MT 59047
David&Adelaide Astrom Anne J Schneider
Astrom 1993 Trust 2324 Shenandoah Place
3831 Lincoln Road
Santa Barbara, CA 93110-1533 Davis, CA 95616-6602
David Wallis &Bobbe Ann Kerr Richard J &Nancy K Ojala
14711 Stanbridge Drive 2741 Allison Ct.
Houston, TX 77083-5606 Bozeman, MT 59718
Michael P Renaud Gordon& Leesa W Gregory
2803 Allison Ct. 2807 Allison Ct.
Bozeman, MT 59718 Bozeman, MT 59718
Dragan B Danevski
Bojana V Susak Ryan A Anderson
2811 Allison Ct. 2813 Allison Ct.
Bozeman, MT 59718 . Bozeman, MT 59718
Lloyd G &Lorraine S Jacobsen William E&Kimmer Elise Penniman
2820-Allison Ct. 2812 Allison Ct.
Bozeman, MT 59718 Bozeman,MT 59718
Mary J Christiansen Jay Edwin&Lola Beth Conner
2806 Allison Ct. 1221 Buckrake Ave'.
Bozeman, MT 59718 Bozeman,MT 59718
Andrew L Cetraro Jason C &Rachelle M Brinkman
1213 Buckrake Ave. 1222 Buckrake Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59718 Bozeman,MT 59718
William R Fiedler
Lynn MJ Fiedler Jared A&Tracy Rasmussen
1228 Buckrake Ave. 1229 Barley Ave.
Bozeman,MT 59718 Bozeman,.MT 59718
Tracy Larimer Nicole Wood
1227 Barley Ave. P.O. Box 134
Bozeman, MT 59718 Bozeman,MT 59771
Matthew L & Angela R Jamison Terrance E &Kirsten K Kubat
1229 Hunters Way 1223 Hunters Way
Bozeman, MT 59718 Bozeman,MT 59718
City of Bozeman
Dept. of Planning&Community Development �' J
P.O. Box 1230 "° MAY - 4 2004
Bozeman,MT 59771 1
May 3,2004
Re: West Winds subdivision
Dear City Commissioners:
I would like to have my comments considered in the May 10, 2004 hearing before the City
Commission regarding the proposed West Winds subdivision.
The future West Wind subdivision will extend Hunters Way from Oak Street to Baxter Lane.
The traffic on Hunters Way north of Durston is already very high for a non-collector, residential
street. It is currently at 1500 cars per day with most cars at a speed of 29 mph. (See attached data
from the City of Bozeman.) I'm very concerned about safety of children and pedestrians as well
as property values dropping. Extending Hunters Way to Baxter will only exasperate these
problems.
I would like to have the Commissions support in keeping Hunters Way a safe residential street
and encouraging traffic to use 271h Avenue which is designed as a collector street. Ideally the
proposed Hunters Way would be staggered from the existing Hunters Way at Oak. At the very
least traffic calming measures should be required for proposed Hunters Way while the West
Winds subdivision is in the planning stages.
Unfortunately I will be out of town on May 10, 2004 and will not be able to attend the hearing. I
can be reached at 586-5678 (hm) or 586-8364(wk) if needed.
Thank you,
C
Linda Stansbury
710 Hunters Way
y y (D -� -->
D
y <
SOUTHBOUND:
85TH PERCENTILE: 32-6 MP
�11 AVG. SPEED: 26.7 MPH
—30
�1.26 ADT
S� q - 99 ADT .
PSI
- co
NOKi}TBOUND; -
a / LY �► - PERCENTILE 27.2 MPHl�l AVG.AVG. SPEED 20.7 MPH r
N0 2S 0 11PH r
-4 SOJttTPc5 1►PN
. � B5� SpEkD• � '` r
a E--54 ADT
89. ADT
4.
i1►�54
? " r r
p. r NORTHBOUND: D a
H 85TH PERCENTILE- 29.2 MPH N
r
00
r AVG. SPEED 23.6 MPHSOUTIqBoUCD
85TH PER NCENTILE. 30.0 MPH D. N 0) r •b -
AVG. SPEED. 24.6 MPH r 00(p '�
r
CD
r
�v,esTo�J
/3 00 (N.;swp
Z0 30Vd �NvW3Z08 d0 hlIO E9'LZZ8590b 05 bT b00Z/0E/b0
I.
a (D McCormick St
ase Ct 1 y � 1
Iv
Harris St y
MCD
� i
l N
y 1 Goldenrod Ln ?
Daisy Dr
1 1 . � MCn y
SOUTHBOUND: 0- F" NORTHBOUND: C:
85TH_PERCENTILE: 32.6 MPH 85TH PERCENTILE: 32.5 MPH C1
AVG. -SPEED: 25.7 MPH AVG. SPEED 26:2 MPH
-� 6 DTT 99 A t Annie St ,� T
t t
? Lily Drk.
NORTHBOUND: F
\AIVG.
5TH PERCENTILE 27.2 MPH
SPEED 20.7 MPH
z
t
T t • t
—>
---)P.89 ADT t rv-i- Rose St
t t t t D t
T t
T t t t
t NORTHBOUND: D
F-I- 85TH PERCENTILE: 29.2 MPH
t < t AVG. SPEED 2].6 MPH
< t CD Snapdragon St t
T 7:.rn T
60 39vd 6W:W3Z09 30 AiI3 �9zzzesgot7 09:VT b00Z/OE/00
W. oak st
-Allison Ct
<< NORTHBOUND.
CD y ABVCH SPEED 24L MPH MPH
SOUTHBOUND: d
86TH PERCENTILE: 29.0 MPH r__Ln Case Ct
AVG. SPEED: 22,9 MPH
CD
y x �
N D
y ( l
oCvoo\\
1 y �
b0 39Vd ONVW3ZOS 30 AiID 9ZZZ85 0b 05 :bti b00Z/0E 00
MONTANA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
225 North Roberts o P.O. Box 201201 o Helena, MT 59620-1201
o (406) 444-2694 o FAX(406) 444-2696 o www.montanahistoricalsociery.org o
h r E V Marc 22, 2004
Tara Hastie MAR 2 2004 i
i
Alfred M. Stiff Prof. Building
20 East Olive ST DEPA.RTMIENT OF PLACJN!NG
PO Box 1230 Any'.
Bozeman MT 59771-1230
RE: BOZEMAN-WEST WINDS SUBDIVISION SHPO#2004032203
Dear Tara:
I have conducted a cultural resource file search for the above-cited project located in
Section 2, T2S, R5E. According to our records there have been no previously recorded
sites within the designated search locale. The absence of cultural properties in the area
does not mean they do not exist but rather may reflect the absence of any previous
cultural resource inventory in the area, as our records indicate none.
Based on the lack of previous inventory and the ground disturbance required by this
undertaking we feel that this project has the potential to impact cultural properties. We,
therefore, recommend that a cultural resource inventory be conducted in order to
determine whether or not sites exist and if they will be impacted. Thank you for
consulting with us.
If you have any further questions or comments you may contact me at (406) 444-7767 or
by e-mail at dmurdo@state.mt.us.
Sincerely,
W4�w
Damon Murdo
Cultural Records Manager
FILE: LOCAL/SUBDIVISION/2004
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE o 1410 8d,Ave o P.O. Box 201202.0.Helena,MT 59620-1202
o (406)444-7715 o FAX(406)444-6575
0 +b-
C OF BOZEMAN
Q
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260
•� 20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263
P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozemon.net
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A MAJOR SUBDIVISION AND A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of a public hearing before the BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION on Monday,
May 10, 2004 to be held at 7:00 p.m., in the Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 411 East Main Street,
Bozeman, Montana.
The Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development would allow the property owner Quest West
LLC, 3825 Valley Commons Drive, Suite 4, Bozeman, MT 59718 represented by HKM Engineering, 601 Nikles
Drive, Suite 2, Bozeman, MT 59715, to establish a unified development plan for a 161.30 acre subdivision for the
development of 213 single-household, 92 townhouse, 5 multi-household and 8 senior assisted living lots with the
following requested relaxations from the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance: a) Section 18.42.100
"Watercourse Setback" to allow a the watercourse setback to be reduced from 50 feet to 15 feet; b) Section
18.50.070.A.1 "Linear Parks" to allow the watercourse setback to count towards the parkland dedication
requirement; c) Section 18.50.020 "Park Requirements" to allow the area requirement to be based on 11% net
buildable area instead of 0.03 acres per dwelling unit; d) Section 18.16.020.E "Authorized Uses" to allow assisted
living/elderly care facilities and apartments within the "R-3" zoning district; e) Section 18.42.030.0
"Double/Through and Reverse Frontage" to allow double frontage lots adjacent to the arterial and collector streets;
f) 18.42.040.E "Block Length" to allow the block Lengths to exceed 400 feet; g) Section 18.42.040.0 "Block Width"
to allow the minimum block length to be less than 200 feet for the blocks with Restricted Size Lots; h) Section
18.42.180.0 "Number of Restricted Size Lots Required" to allow the townhouse Restricted Size Lots to be less than
3,000 square feet and more than 3,000 for corner townhouse lots; and i) Section 18.44.090.D.3 "Spacing
Standards for Drive Accesses" to allow residential lots that front on Hunter's Way and Buckrake and back onto the
linear park to access local streets within 150 feet of an intersection with an arterial street and to allow the proposed
access separation distance between the proposed local streets onto Oak Street, an arterial street, to be separated
less than 660 feet.
The applicant has also submitted a Preliminary Plat application to subdivide 31.05 acres, as Phase lA and
1B of the 160.30 acre parcel, into 46 single-household, 40 townhouse and 2 multi-household lots and a 129.25
acre remainder.
The subject property is legally described as the NWI/a, Section 2, T2S, R5E, Gallatin County, Montana, and
located between Baxter Lane, Oak Street, 27'h Avenue and Davis Lane. The property is zoned "R-3" Residential
Medium Density District.
Public testimony will be taken at the public hearing. Written comments may be submitted to the City of
Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development, P.O. Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771-1230.
Data pertaining to the application may be reviewed in the City of Bozeman Department of Planning and
Community Development, 20 East Olive Street, 582-2260. For those who require accommodations for disabilities,
please contact Ron Brey, City of Bozeman ADA Coordinator, 582-2306 (voice), 582-2301 (TDD).
#Z-04050 West Winds Zoning PUD #P-04009 West Winds MaSub
SUBMITTED 04/15/04 FOR SUNDAY, 04/18/04 DISPLAY AD PUBLICATION. PLEASE PRINT WITH
NORTH ARROW UP, BOLD WHERE INDICATED, AND SEND AFFIDAVIT TO CITY PLANNING OFFICE.
planning • zoning • subdivision review • annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration neighborhood coordination
BPS R 3 R-1 BP B
BARTER
R-3
PLI
BPQ R-3 R-1 BP B=2
BAXTER
Subject
Property R=3
PLI
1
® OAK
Y
N
m
coOF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260
20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263
CI
P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozeman.net
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETINGS AND A PUBLIC HEARING
FOR A MAJOR SUBDIVISION AND A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of public meetings before the CITY OF BOZEMAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMITTEE on Tuesday, April 13, 2004, at 10:00 a.m. and the CITY OF BOZEMAN DESIGN REVIEW BOARD on
Tuesday, April 27, 2004 at 3:30 p.m. Both meetings are to be held in the Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building, City
of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development, 20 East Olive Street, Bozeman, Montana. A
public meeting is also scheduled before the CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 to
be held at 7:00 p.m., in the Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 411 East Main Street, Bozeman, Montana.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN, of a public hearing before the BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION on Monday,
May 10, 2004 to be held at 7:00 p.m., in the Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 411 East Main Street,
Bozeman, Montana.
The Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development would allow the property owner Quest West
LLC, 3825 Valley Commons Drive, Suite 4, Bozeman, MT 59718 represented by HKM Engineering, 601 Nikles
Drive, Suite 2, Bozeman, MT 59715, to establish a unified development plan for a 161.3 acre subdivision for the
development of 213 single-household, 92 townhouse, 5 multi-household and 8 senior assisted living lots with the
following requested relaxations from the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance: a) Section 18.42.100
"Watercourse Setback" to allow a the watercourse setback to be reduced from 50 feet to 15 feet; b) Section
18.50.070.A.1 "Linear Parks" to allow the watercourse setback to count towards the parkland dedication
requirement; c) Section 18.50.020 "Park Requirements" to allow the area requirement to be based on 1 1% net
buildable area instead of 0.03 acres per dwelling unit; d) Section 18.16.020.E to allow assisted living/elderly care
facilities and apartments within the "R-3" zoning district; e) Section 18.42.030.0 "Double/Through and Reverse
Frontage" to allow double frontage lots adjacent to the arterial and collector streets; f)l 18.42.040.E "Block Length"
to allow the block lengths to exceed 400 feet; g) Section 18.42.040.0 "Block Width" to allow the minimum block
length to be less than 200 feet for the blocks with Restricted Size Lots; h) Section 18.42.180.0 "Number of
Restricted Size Lots Required" to allow the townhouse Restricted Size Lots to be less than 3,000 square feet and
more than 3,000 for corner townhouse lots; and i) Section 18.44.090.D.3 "Spacing Standards for Drive Accesses"
to allow residential lots that front on Hunter's Way and Buckrake and back onto the linear park to access local
streets within 150 feet of an intersection with an arterial street and to allow the proposed access separation distance
between the proposed local streets onto Oak Street, an arterial street, to be separated less than 660 feet.
The applicant has also submitted an application for Phase I and 1B to subdivide 31.05 of the 160.3
acres into 46 single-household, 40 townhouse and 2 multi-household lots and a 129.25 acre remainder.
The subject property is legally described as the NWIA, Section 2, T2S, R5E, Gallatin County, Montana, and
located between Baxter Lane, Oak Street, 271h Avenue and Davis Lane. The property is zoned "R-3" Residential
Medium Density District.
Public testimony will be taken at the public hearing. Written comments may be submitted to the City of
Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development, P.O. Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771-1230.
Data pertaining to the application may be reviewed in the City of Bozeman Department of Planning and
Community Development, 20 East Olive Street, 582-2260. For those who require accommodations for disabilities,
please contact Ron Brey, City of Bozeman ADA Coordinator, 582-2306 (voice), 582-2301 (TDD).
#Z-04050 West Winds Zoning PUD #P-04009 West Winds MaSub
BPS 3 R-1 BP B
BNffER
R-3
PLI
IF, L
IE
planning zoning subdivision review • annexation historic preservation housing grant administration neighborhood coordination I
THE CITY OF BOZEMAN
o..,.......F
20 E.OLIVE P.O.BOX 1230
*E 2�
BOZEMAN,MONTANA 59771-1230
98 GIS DEPARTMENT
PHONE: (406)582-2250—FAX: (406)582-2263
E-MAIL: ihenderson@bozeman.net
MEMORANDUM
TO: JAMI MORRIS, PLANNER
FROM: JON HENDERSON, BICYCLE ADVISORY BOARD
RE: WEST WINDS PUD #Z-04050
DATE: MAY 5TH, 2004
Below are comments from the Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board (BABAB) regarding the
West Winds Community PUD.
The Bicycle Advisory Board recommends a combination of bicycle facility treatments including
Signed Bike Routes, Bike Lanes and Bike Paths (shared-use paths). In order of priority(highest
first), the Board recommends the following.
• Oak Street (from Fowler Avenue to N. 271h Avenue) should include both a Bike Lane and
a Bike Path (shared-use path) for both sides of the road. The Bike Path (shared-use path)
will be in accordance with the Bike Route Network(Figure 6-4) in the Greater Bozeman
Area Transportation Plan, which calls for a Bike Path(shared-use path) for the entire
extent of Oak. The Board also recommends installing a Bike Lane on Oak to provide
connectivity to other planned Bicycle Facilities in the area. Since Bike Lanes and Bike
Paths serve two different user groups (commuters vs. school children), the Board feels it
is important to provide safe and adequate facilities for both user levels in this area.
• Baxter Lane (from Fowler Avenue to N. 271h Avenue) should include a Bike Lane in
accordance with the Bike Route Network (Figure 6-4) in the Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan, which calls for a Bike Lane for the entire extent of Baxter Lane.
• Davis/Fowler Lane (from Baxter Lane to Oak Street) should include a.Bike Lane in
accordance with the Bike Route Network(Figure 6-4) in the Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan, which calls for a Bike Lane for the entire extent of Davis Lane.
• North 27`h Avenue (from Baxter Lane to Oak Street) should include a Bike Lane to
provide connectivity to other planned Bicycle Facilities in the area. The Board feels that
this connection will be a vital alternative to travel on 19`h once it is completed.
• Hunters Way (from Baxter Lane to Oak Street) should include a Signed Bike Route since
this will be an extension of an existing Signed Bike Route on Hunters Way.
0 •
• The Board also recommends that the proposed park land include a ten foot Bike Path
(shared-use path). The Path will be an extension of an existing trail to the south and will
provide a vital connection to the trial system. The Board suggests the construction
material be consistent with what the development wants (i.e., paved OR dirt) in order to
be consistent with the surrounding park land.
• • Pagel of 3
Jami Morris
From: JOHN HARPER Uslsharper@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 5:08 PM
To: Jami Morris
Cc: anne banks; Ron Dingman; Sue Harkin
Subject: West Winds
Jami,
The attachment is in Microsoft Works. In case you can't open it, it is pasted here.
John
To: Jami Morris (jmorris@bozeman.net)
From: John Harper
Recreation and Parks Advisory Board, subdivision review committee
Date: 3-26-04
RE: West Winds Preliminary PUD and Phase I Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications preliminary
meeting 3-25-04.
attending: Jami Morris (Planning Dept.), Ron Litle (HKM Engineering, Inc.), John Dunlap (Quest
West LLC), Anne Banks, John Harper
Description: 93.28 Acres; North of Oak, East of Davis Lane, South of Baxter Lane, West of 27th
St.
Note: Due to the fact that the Planning Department had found several significant problems with
the application on 3-25-04, the Planning Department decided put the application process on hold
until applicant resolved these problems. Since the subdivision review committee already had
several questions to ask Jami Morris about the application, we held the meeting as a preliminary
discussion and will hold the normal preliminary review when the application is resubmitted. We
submit the following comments for Planning Department and applicant to consider before the
application is resubmitted. The first two comments are items already noted by Jami Morris.
1. The city records indicate the Harmon Ditch, in the lineal park, may be a watercourse which
would require set backs and would reduce the amount of park land dedication to less than is
shown in the application. Page M-7 , paragraph j, of the application indicates it is not a
watercourse. This may need corrected, depending on resolution of this issue.
2. Table 2-4 in the application shows specific numbers of units to be developed (with multi-family,
SNF and apartments estimated based on maximum density) at 960. Because of this, the Planning
Department feels that the density is known and that use of the 11% standard in 18.50.020 A 2 is
not appropriate. Applying the .03 A/unit standard results in about 10 more acres than is presently
proposed for park land.
3. The lots, about fifty in number, along the linear park, screen the public park from public view
and discourage use by the general public. In addition, lots backing up to public park land have
3/29/2004
• • Page 2 of 3
often resulted in encroachment into the public park. This configuration should be reconsidered,
with the goal of minimizing residential lots bordering the public park. Afterward, compliance with
the fifty percent street frontage test will need to be verified; at present it apparently exceeds the
minimum.
4. The phased build out (seven phases in this proposal) can result in park land dedication falling
behind the acreage/units developed if standards based on the .03 A/unit are not applied from the
initial phase. This becomes a greater problem when the multi-family units are in the early phases
of the development. Adherence to this standard will be strongly recommended. It will be affected
by the resolution of point #2 above.
5. The dedication of the linear park (including public restrooms) to the city is proposed in page 3-
14, Appendix M-7, paragraphs c, f and j. The application proposes that the city will maintain the
park land (excepting the Community Center, page M-7 paragraph c). It also proposes that the
city will maintain the public restrooms (page M-7 paragraph f) and the irrigation system (page M-
7, paragraph h) and recreation pathways (page M-7, paragraph j, in reference to 18.50.110).
Also, Part II of the Covenants , Article 6.2, indicates the association maintains all parks. Jami
Morris agreed to review this with Ron Dingman to see whether or not a joint agreement on
maintenance is appropriate, whereby the city would maintain the active play area and the
homeowners association would maintain the linear portion of the linear park. In any event, the
last reference in the application to 18.50.110 is not correct; 18.50.070C and 18.50.110E require
the developer, and ultimately, the property owners association to maintain recreation pathways.
Also, 18.50.080 A 2 imposes a similar duty on the developer and homeowners association
regarding irrigation.
6. The description in page M7 paragraph d indicates the Neighborhood Center is private open
space while page 3-14 paragraph g includes the Neighborhood Center in publicly accessible open
space. Page 6-13 implies a public use when it says "To allow for all residents of Bozeman and
(sic) use the community center". In addition, page m-7 paragraph g indicates the Neighborhood
Center parking lot will be shared space. These inconsistencies need corrected, along with any plat
indications, in order to reconcile park land dedication and public access to parking.
7. The number of stalls of parking at the Neighborhood Center is governed by UDO standards,
based on square feet of building floor space. However, as noted above, this parking lot is to be
shared with the public park users. Is the parking adequate, even though parking is apparently
allowed on the streets?
8. The comment in page M-7 paragraph a that the soccer fields are for practice purposes only and
are not intended for league play is too restrictive. Under 18.50.040, the City Commission will
determine final use.
9. The Senior Center Park/Center is included in Table 3-2 for 1 A of park land dedication. Page 3-
14 states that the Senior Park and Center are to be finally dedicated to the Senior Homeowners
Association. The ownership of this, if it is park land, is in need of resolution. There is no
description of this park. The park is not shown on all of the maps. On some maps, it is indicated
to include a building and a parking lot. Generally, park land would not have a building centered
on it.
10. The application indicates the trails will be constructed to Class II standards (page M-7,
paragraph i). Jami Morris said she will consult with Ron Dingman as to whether or not this is the
appropriate level of trail development.
3/29/2004
0 • Page 3 of 3
11. Sue Harkin, in a memo dated 11-17-03, had requested the applicant redesign park land to
accommodate space for an outdoor aquatic facility and to group all active play space in one area.
This request should be addressed.
12. The possibility of eliminating Trade Wind Lane between Whisper Avenue and Hunters Way in
order to obtain more contiguous park land (and active play area) and to eliminate one street
crossing for the trail should be considered. Although it is understood that the city often prefers a
simple grid system for streets, 18.42.040 B states that "Block lengths can be longer than 400 feet
if necessary due to ...adjacency to existing parks or open space." This would allow more useable
park land and increase trail user safety and seems more appropriate than adherence to a grid
concept.
13. The application mentions the trail system will connect the Regional Park (adjacent to the west
side of West Winds) and Rose Park (several hundred feet east side of West Winds) in page M-7,
paragraph a. The trail is not noted on the plat maps. Ron Litle and John Dunlap suggested the
trail would be along the sidewalk on the south side of Tschache Lane on the east and along either
Autumn Grove Street or Winter Park Street on the west. Ron Dingman must be consulted on this
and results detailed.
14. It was noted that the soccer fields are only proposed to be active play spaces, not fields
equipped with goals. The improvements listed at page M-7 paragraph a are the minimum
required under the UDO for any park land. Ron Dingman should be consulted regarding standards
for grading, soil remediation, seeding and irrigation in these areas, which will be heavily used.
3/29/2004
APR 1 3 2004
To: Jami Morris Omorris@bozeman.net)
DEPART;9ENT OF PLANNING
From: John Harper
Date: 4-13-04
RE: West Winds Preliminary PUD and Phase I Subdivision Preliminary Plat
Applications meeting 4-9-04
attending: Jami Morris(Planning Department),Ron Dingman(Parks Manager),
Sue Harkin(Recreation Director), Sandy Dodge,Anne Banks,John Harper
Description: 93.28 Acres; North of Oak,East of Davis Lane, South of Baxter Lane, West
of 27th Street
West Winds developer has not responded to any of the fourteen comments in memo dated 3-26-
04. Instead,the developer now requests relaxation of basic requirements of the Bozeman
Unified Development Ordinance. Without addressing all of the relaxation requests,the
following are the most egregious:
1. The request to reduce the watercourse setback to fifteen feet from the minimum fifty feet
would, in effect, reduce useable park land by over four acres. The request to count all of the
setback as park land would increase the loss to over six acres.
2. The request to apply 11%park land dedication standard to all of the net buildable area
results in a loss of over fourteen acres in park land. In our previous memo, at comment#2,we
pointed out that the density of the development is known and,under 18.50.020 A 2, the 11%
standard is inapplicable. The developer claims the proposed relaxation is in accordance with the
adopted Citywide park plan. That claim is based on a standard,taken out of context,which is
but one of several standards, which are by no means mutually exclusive. Note that from
information in the last sentence of the third relaxation standard requested by the developer it is
simple math to infer that the developer expects over 2,400 residents in West Winds(10.26 A/
4.21A per 1000 persons=2,437). If this is not a reasonably known density,what is? Further,
the developer claims that this "...is in compliance with Montana State Statute of 11%of the net
area." This is clearly not the case; refer to 76-3-621 (2)MCA. The .03 A per dwelling unit
applies.
We also emphasize that the proposal now claims that only 10.26 A parkland dedication will be
required, rather than the 24.3 A required by state code and Bozeman ordinance. If the 11 %
standard is applied,will the developer next contend that the 10.26 A is the controlling number,
which might include the full amount of watercourse setbacks?
At this point,we strongly recommend that the plan be totally revised, with a trail corridor along
the watercourse(with setbacks in compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance)and
that the park land dedication,based on the .03 A per dwelling unit standard, be designed in a
large block(in accordance with 18.50.050 A) in consultation with Ron Dingman,Parks
Manager. The design should also include connecting trail corridors running east and west in
addition to those running north and south.
Jami Morris
From: anne banks [anban@bigsky.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 10:09 AM
To: Jami Morris
Subject: West Winds
Jami,
Sorry I didn't get this off to you Friday. This is the gist of my concerns; John addressed
most of these in more detail in his comments.
Anne
The phased sell-off and build-out. The parkland is located in phases 1A, 3B,
5B and 7. It' ll take a long time before all of this happens (estimated at 5-12 years in
their document) .
Amount of dedication: I haven't done the numbers, but it' s clearly less than
the amount originally indicated. In their little chart, it' s divided into known unit count
and unknown, figured at 11% of the remaining area. If density changes in the various
phases, parkland dedication my not meet requirements.
The neighborhood center is private open space.
The senior area park—shown as 1 A. on the chart and counted as parkland but
it doesn't appear on the plat.
very long blocks along Hunter' s Way with no breaks except for a couple of
those tiny paths between lots. This makes the park virtually invisible from the west.
Lots backing up to the park, almost all of those on Hunter's Way, 4 at the
S. end and 6 at the N. end of Buckrake Ave, , 9 in the narrow section along Whisper Ave.
They're saying 70% road frontage along the park; I'd question this.
Detention ponds not counted in dedication but are in prominent places
interfering with rec opportunities.
Definition of watercourse as stream or ditch and effect on setbacks.
Width of trail corridors along backs of lots: can site accomodate these?
1
The property will be divided into 12 phases. The developer has estimated parkland for the
entire development as (0.03 acres x 113 lots) + (11% x 28.38 acres) = 14.58 acres total. All
of the reports suggest a total of 960 dwellings expected so 0.03 acres x 960 = 28.8 acres
total.
There is also a question as to whether the north to south watercourse is a ditch or a stream.
All of the City's records indicate a stream which would have a 50 foot setback on each side
of the stream and the area within the setback would not count towards parkland.
1:✓ Is the dedication of the park (including public restrooms) to the City for
maintenance consistent with 18.50.080 A 2 and 18.50.070 C of the UDO? The
mzenants rust rflect the irrigation maintenance; path and park maintenance as outlined in the
2J Is the description, found in Appendix M, noting that the parking lot at the
,3 Neighborhood Center(which is in private open space) is to be shared with the public
' for park use an adequate identification? Parking can be cWicated as parkland if it is serdng
the parkland The area whether public park or priwe open space nwt be noted on the final plat
�0 ' V Although the parking at the Neighborhood Center appears to exceed the UDO
standards for a neighborhood center, is there adequate parking for the parka Should
CJ" there be street parking? There will be on,sm-et parkingawdable on the local strez.
44Is the comment in Appendix M to the effect that the soccer practice area not be used
for scheduled league play a problem? The UDO at 18.50.040 says this is up to the
City Commission, but if they accept this language, are we stuck with that restriction?
The r5bution is not penmsible unless the Oaty ConDrzsion agrees to this language If this
yestnazon were approzed then it would need to be outlined in the park Master Plan
5.J Shouldn't the 1 A Senior Center be described and why isn't it on all maps or the
plat?I believe this is still a coning target and the dezeloper can go into greater detail on this matter.
v' A cry areas being calw&bel towards dedicated parkland mat be id ntifted on the plat
c� 7 JApparently the 'dry water course through the park does not constitute a stream, and,
therefore, is not subject to setback rules? The designation of the water came still needs to be
8JTalzed
e filing calls for a Class II trail; is that sufficient? The Advi ory Baird needs to make
(; this detern nation
9. Jknne noted the very long time span for build out and selling of lots and the fact that
part of this park land is based on the percentage estimate; how can we protect the
park land interests when this is done in phases? There aren't any guaranies. The UDO
y requires a proportionate anrunt with eadh phase
10. ue Harkin's made an earlier request about putting some of the land adjacent to Rose
Park, with the idea of using it for a future pool; shouldn't that have been answered?
The dezeloper neck to answer this question
11-Are the placement of the irrigation lines noted on Figure M-1 adequate? (I'm not
promoting more water use; I'd really like to see some xeriscape if possible). The UDO
does not speL*how mwr irrigation nwt be prou" The dezeloper will rid to coordinate with
the Rwwtion Depannvz and installer based on the park reds and the landscape design
12. If they do have 70% street frontage as claimed (is that correct?), can't they break up
the line of residential lots along Hunters Way more so people can see the extent of
the park from the major road? Otherwise, it seems fairly well hidden. Each portion cf
the park nwt hale at 50%frontage to an a4aa-7rt public strwt
• MINUTES •
GALLATIN CONSERVATION DISTRICT
USDA Service Center Conference Room—3710 Fallon Street#B—Bozeman,MT 59718
Thursday,April 15,2004
7:00 P.M.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE-CHAIRMAN:
John Venhuizen, also present was Renee Staker, Colter Seitz, Gordy Hill, Sherwin Leep,Bill Wright,Joel Tohtz,Bruce Anderson and
Don McAndrew.
READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 2O04 MEETING:
Renee asked the board to note these corrections to Minutes of the March 25`r'Board Meeting:
x Also present Associate Supervisor,Tom Milesnick
x Myla McGowen/Confluence RE: 223 Grant for Thompson Creek Watershed Group—at the end of this discussion the minutes
currently state that Mike and Tom both stated that none of the landowners have expressed any desire for a fee fishery. This
should read: Mike and Tom both stated that, other than the Milesnick reach of the stream which is already a fee fishery, none of
the other landowners have expressed any desire for a fee fishery.
Bill Wright made the motion to accept the March minutes as corrected,seconded by Sherwin Leep,passed.
GUESTS:
Ron Carlstrom/County Agent
> Ron updated the board on what has been happening with the Drought Committee. Next monthly Drought Committee
meeting is Tuesday, April 20`'. Ron said that there has been major winter wheat damage due to winter kill and also
drought damage to alfalfa crops. They have applied for a WSARE grant to study the different winter wheat varieties.
> Ron stated they.applied for and received a $14K grant from the Noxious Weed Trust Fund (total project being
approximately $42K). This money will go toward controlling noxious weeds in the 16 Mile area with aerial spraying.
Gordy asked if they were using helicopter for spraying,Ron said that 99%of the spraying is by helicopter however,there
is one canyon that the helicopter can not get to. Bill told Ron that they have been doing a great job and that there appears
to be a lot of support from beef producers.
> Ron said that they are working on creating an e-mail data base for their newsletters. This will save a lot of money in
postage. They will be able to blind copy the producers,this way others on the mailing list would not be accessible to the
e-mail addresses of others on the mailing list. Sherwin asked if it would be possible for the GCD to get these e-mail
addresses. Ron said he could get this list to Renee.
Josh Kellar/RC&D RE: Ag Tourism
> SEE ATTACHMENT"A"
> TRI COUNTY AGRICULTURE DIRECT MARKETING PROJECT
_ a Josh presented and explained to the board an example map of the direct marketing idea for Gallatin County
Producers. This map will be a great way for producers to market their products.
■ Extension Meeting on April 2151.
> CONSERVATION INNOVATION GRANTS
• Josh would like the boards input and ideas for this grant. Grant deadline is May 28`h.
• Josh will attend the GCD board meeting on May 20'h to get the GCD's input and ideas for this grant.
> METHANE DIGESTER PROJECT
• Bill asked Josh what MSU's grant administration fee was for the WSARE grant. Josh wasn't sure of the exact
amount but stated that it wasn't very much.
■ Methane Digester Meeting on April 261h tentatively set for 1:00 pm.
Lynn Bacon/Land&Water&Clint Litle/HKM Engineering RE: Cattail Creek
-- " > SEE ATTACHMENT"B'
Lynn said that it appears that the lateral'east Cattail Creek is a drain ditch when looking at the history. Clint said tha
Bob Davis also stated this was a ditch and could be filled in. The Planning Department has asked Lynn and Clint to get a
letter from the GCD stating that this is non-jurisdictional under the 310 permitting process. Colter told the supervisors
that he has walked this site. Colter stated that there were spoils piles along the ditch and it does appear to be man made!
Lynn showed the board photos and explained that there are conflicting survey's—FWP 1993 survey shows both Cattail
Creek and the lateral east of Cattail'Creek as a stream however, the 1953 Water Resources survey shows them both as a
ditch. Bill asked if there were any irrigation diversions or water rights along this lateral. Clint stated there were no:
C:;ailatin Corscrvati:;n Gisuirt _ � . __..._
wesltwinds.M.min utes2.doo
Last ;ririted 40,12004 8:27 AM Page 1 of 21
irrigation diversions and th�Bob Davis had said there were no water rights. Bill asked how much peak water goes
'through. Lynn said maybe 20 gpm,she said that in July of 2003 there was about the same quantity as there was now and
possibly more during spring run off. Bill asked if it had ever been used for blow off for Farmers Canal. Don McAndrew
commented that he didn't believe it had ever been used for blow off. Bill stated that the GCD has been trying to get
away from parallel ditches such as this. Sherwin asked Lynn if she has applied for a 310 permit yet. Lynn said they had
not submitted a 310 application yet. John asked Lynn and Clint if they were asking the GCD to determine this lateral,
non jurisdictional, Lynn and Clint confirmed. Sherwin told Lynn and Clint that when they submit a 310 application for
Cattail Creek to include any fill that may be added to east lateral that would affect the banks of Cattail Creek, Lynn',
agreed. Bill said that he would not object to determine this site non jurisdictional. Bill Wright made the motion to,
declare the lateral east of Cattail Creek from Point A to Point B as shown on page 7 of 7 of ATTACHMENT `B" and
labeled as"Un-named Irrigation Lateral", Sherwin Leep seconded, passed. Clint asked Renee for a copy of the Minutes
which he will give to the Planning Department as proof of this determination. Renee agreedr
Chuck Gordon/NRCS RE: Smithsonian 223 Grant
> SEE ATTACHMENT"C"
> Chuck quickly re-capped the $5,250.00 Smithsonian 223 grant that he was requesting the GCD to sponsor and also
passed out an e-mail response from Valerie J. Breunig, Director of Development and Membership addressing the
questions and concerns expressed by the supervisors at the March board meeting. Sherwin stated that he was
impressed and feels very confident with the people on this committee. Bill said that he was very encouraged by the
comments and response that the GCD received regarding their concerns. Sherwin Leep made the motion to support
the Smithsonian Soils Exhibit 223 Grant request in the amount of$5,250.00,Bill Wright seconded,passed.
Jennifer Mohler RE:Pasture Management Classes
> Jennifer updated the supervisors on the Pasture Management Classes and gave a power-point presentation of the
materials covered in the class. Jennifer said that she has seven people signed up for the fall class so far. Bill asked
how many people per class; Jennifer said there were 15 per class plus spouses or neighbors for a total of 30 people.
Jennifer showed the board the 3-ring binder of materials used by the class and stated that she is working on distilling
this information into a more"user-friendly"and more cost-effective manual that students would be able to download
from a web-site. The new manual would be easier to follow,easier to read,and easier to take notes.
> After Renee reminded Jennifer that the next 223 grant deadline would be May 10`h Jennifer asked the board to
sponsor a second Pasture Management 223 Grant in the amount of$5,000.00 which would cover two fall classes,
one in Gallatin County and one in Park County. Jennifer said that the budget would be identical to the budget used
in the previously approved 223 grant. Sherwin asked Renee what the 223 Grant cycle was and Renee stated that it
was quarterly. The supervisors all agreed that these pasture management classes are a very important educational
tool for small landowners and agreed that they would be in favor of sponsoring the proposed 223 grant. Sherwin
Leep made the motion to support the Pasture Management 223 Grant request in the amount of$5,000, Bill Wright
seconded,passed.
310's/NEED INSPECTIONS TO BE SCHEDULED:
310 INSPECTION REPORTS—READY FOR DECISION:
APPL# NAME OF APPLICANT PERENNIAL STREAM SECTION T R
GD-13-04 Donna J. &Janis D.Hoffman East Gallatin River
NAME OF LANDOWNER
City of Bozeman?
PROPOSED ACTIVITY
Removal of sediment&vegetation if any that is restricting the flow of water to the headgate.
INSPECTION RESULTS
Approval with modifications
INSPECTION MODIFICATIONS
Dispose of all excavated material in upland area. Submit Landowners signature prior to board meeting.
COMMENTS
Gallatin Conservation Distri:
�kisa i.-ids.ai.minutes2.don
.asi printr€1»I'l. ..0.,4 f,:r;AM Page 2 of 2
GALLATIN cONsMATION D OARD MEETINQ-APRIL 15.2004-page 7 of 7-ATTACHMENT' i
i I DIAAhf f.RDGERS
I (1�K
0, II LYANNf PMRSDN SCC,RS !VQ! .,cxz.i••7C6'( fDN'RRD I
WILIAM a PT&Psav cDre , PR
eel
.6
2 '
I IF
TfEr-71 s.
R/FR0019S
svevlwSrov, j_Ej'IL}_LI__L-LJ�� 3
IS
I .
i
L__J
Ilf�
�i
a
r
a ;I;
L I
W:3 - =r
-�� j,i N
r fI TION ,, i --- is,
—DAK STREET PR/NC7PAL AR j L -- --- --------� -
���� UNPLAMD
j �•P b I Ii9LLlAR/H. dt ARVFST £EX.^� � � 5ilHGfN,9 r� � i
BETTY ANN I 1 SUBDINS1Di (' 1 111 c �.' °� P
' SkIpLE OWST
w�a�a mod.,.Tow.• I
! wal*a A= dnrlsdldonaI Iwp.m tlon
! w saga" w we 1i.ndvlalionweend
j WWI o.6o' Y 1 0278
0.0a7 6 0.109 an Wedands'
i BB-Iliottvwb�c6 6 '
0.59. N DNA m X310'pam
j &B1QV-I 139 Y• 2 0,005 1.39
. 3 O.00i.
a 0.016 4
0.20 Y
w x om Y
w3 O,p7 N DR&4 !
•(otal 3.07 - 0A71
Pedjac "o't"outs aide of HmaeYLonr. .
lYl Do-1q.Appjy.Rdewl(404)XoajUt9icdo m0sada, '
in asmoladon NMk Wr 13M. + .
is WEST WINDS COMMUNITY
D "ra>=14od AMM La oamm�5i
."."...... LOCIlIate, n UT —La WETLAND DELINEATION
E006 886'ON 29ZZZ8S F 'SN00 �OiUM '8 GNU-1 S0117T b00ZiLZibO
3ffidauit of 7publiption
STATE OF MONTANA, SS.
County of Gallatin
L"Olkt5sli
, being duly sworn, deposes and
says: That�&he is of the Bozeman Daily
Chronicle; a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published Bozeman,
Gallatin County, Montana; and that the notice here unto annexed
PIAhiI&A
041950W 6& s& has been
correctly published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said paper for
1 �eew �ww , the first of which publication was made on
the �"' day of 20 and the last on
the day of 0
\���N,D.,4 8 URA': S scribed ands om to before this
p T A R 1,q ' 2 day of �20 i
- - 4
.SEA ' Q': otary blic for a Sta of Montana,
OF 9��^' ' • ' '�P�` residing at Bozeman, Montana.
Notary Public for the State of Montana
Residing at Bozeman, Montana
My Commission Expires June 27,2004
m� BOZEMAN DAILY CHRONICLE, Su*April 18, 2004 � . • ECONOMY r � •
People/from page D1 Indians from page D1
But businesses also are re- high school graduates and im- time job despite an exhaustive have encouraged many workers U.S.firms began shifting The United States has l:
sponding to increasing demand migrants. search. to retrain.But,unlike in the late work to India in 1985.The shift come India's biggest trade
by relying more on temporary The economy has added jobs But since the start of the 1990s when acquiring computer gained momentum in the past ner.And the business isn't
workers,freelancers and con- for seven consecutive months, year,she's logged roughly 16 skills was seen as a sure bet for five years,during which U.S.of- flowing toward India.Indi
tract workers.Many work off but the March gain is the first weeks of work as a freelancer landing a job,figuring out where ficials here estimate 150,000 are buying American good
payroll and without benefits— time it has significantly out- for a company whose own staff the new opportunities will be American jobs have been "In my office,we use
and aren't tracked in the most paced that break-even figure. is overwhelmed,but whose now feels like a gamble to many. moved to India.That's a tiny Compaq computers,HP e.
closely watched set of govern- The reluctance to hire full- budget allows only outside ex- Agnes Feldman,a former sliver of the U.S.labor market, ment and Cisco routers.Ri
rtient jobs figures. time workers has almost cer- penses without any addition to factory worker,will graduate in with its nearly 131 million non- now,I am watching a Peps
Employers also are harness- tainly been exacerbated by the payroll.The company's no-hire July with a two-year degree in farm workers,but it has put. on television,"said L.S.Rai
ing technology,streamlining rising expense of adding em- policy is at least partly rooted in business administration from India in the middle of an elec- executive director of
and automating operations to ployees in an era of skyrocket- its,effort to boost the running Mitchell Community College in tion-year debate over the loss of Crossdomains,a Bangalore
reduce the need for labor,and ing health-care costs,as well as tally of revenue-per-employee Mooresville,N.C. millions of American jobs. based company that does
some are pushing remaining lingering concerns about the so- that it shows investors,she says. Feldman lost a job on the line For India,outsourcing is a counting work for compar
workers to do more.Those lidity of the rebound. Shea has also been offered at a compressor factory three fruit of its toil—13 years of eco- abroad.
changes mean they often can re- Those concerns will ease contract jobs through agencies years ago,when Matsushita nomic liberalization that created India spent$7.2 billion
spond to increased demand over time,and employers are that supply companies with Corp.of America moved pro- a business-friendly environment, U.S.goods and services in
without hiring. likely to convert some of the short-term workers.Several duction to China.She found, but also saw widespread job loss- or double the level of five)
"What employers have really jobs now staffed with temps to agencies have urged her to con- then lost,another job at an auto es,particularly in areas where big earlier,according to the m(
discovered is...you can have full-time positions.But the new Sider picking up for three-to-six parts plant when Eaton Corp. multinational companies bought recent figures from the Ind
just-in-time employment,"says approach to employment is month assignments out of state, shifted work to Mexico last year. up or beat local competition. government.
David Wyss,chief economist at likely to be more permanent, including one'that urged her to Now she's looking ahead to Now Indians,in the midst of Of course,the United-Si
Standard&Poors in New York. analysts say. sell her home even though the graduation,wondering what their own national elections, spent more here—$17.5 t
New jobs are essential to sus- The change is evident to position promised no long-term she'll find out there,trying to worry the U.S.backlash may lion in 2002,also double fr
taining an economy that is far both workers and employers,al- hiring commitment and no answer the very question that damage their efforts to build five years before—and the
from static.The United States though the two groups see it benefits.She turned down the brought her to this point:Will from that painful economic feeds protectionist sentime
needs to gain about 150,000 through different lenses. job,but the recruiter told her he there be new jobs to replace the overhaul. among Americans uneasy
jobs each month just to keep Consider the experience of had plenty of other takers. old ones? "Free trade has proved to be about economic trends.
pace with the growth of the la- Peggy Shea,a project manager "OK,at the end of six "It's supposed to be picking (beneficial to us.There is no n "The loss of 3 million jo
bor force,economists say.Since and graphic artist who lost her months,what do I do?, Shea up,but yet,there are still a lot ing back,"sait�Kirjkn Karnik, over the last three years is a
the economy began losing jobs job in a layoff at Cisco Systems says. people who are not finding chief lgbbyist for ndia's boom- political issue,"former U.S.
in early 2001,about 2.8 million more than a year ago.Shea,who The evaporation of once-de- jobs Feldman says."Right now, 4ig software industry,which Trade Representative Carla
people have joined the labor lives in Scotts Valley,Calif.,has pendable jobs and the uncertain- it frightens me that I will be- leas annual revetlues of about Wd Indian business leader:
force,including new college and been unable to find a new full- ty built into new hiring practices come one of those people! $f6 billion. New Delhi in April.
.i
NOTICE OF FLOODPLAIN PERMIT APPLICATION NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A MAJOR SUBDIVISION AND A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of a public hearing before the BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION on Monc
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Gallatin County Floodplain May 10,2004 to be held at 7:00 p.m.,in the Commission Meeting Room,City Hall,411 East Main Street,Bozeman,Montt
Administrator will consider a floodplain permit request by Joseph Urbani & The Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development would allow the property owner Quest West Ll
3825 Valley Commons Drive,Suite 4,Bozeman,MT 59718 represented by HKM Engineering,601 Nikles Drive,St
Associates, Inc. on behalf of Ken & Shelley Williams. The purpose of the 2,Bozeman,MT 59715,to establish a unified development plan for a 161.30 acre subdivision for the development of
request is to construct two ponds in the floodway and 100-year floodplain Of single-household,92 townhouse,5 multi-household and 8 senior assisted living lots with the following requested rel
ations from the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance:a)Section 18.42.100"Watercourse Setback"to allo
Sourdough Creek. The application states that the ponds will provide fish & the watercourse setback to be reduced from 50 feet to 15 feet;b)Section 18.50.070.A.1"Linear Parks"to allow the wa
course setback to count towards the parkland dedication requirement;c)Section 1850.020"Park Requirements"to all
wildlife habitat and function as a water supply for firefighting purposes. the area requirement to be based on I I%net buildable area instead of 0.03 acres per dwelling unit;d)Section 18.16.02,
"Authorized Uses"to allow assisted living/elderly care facilities and apartments within the"R-3"zoning district;e)Sect
18.42.030.0'Double/Through and Reverse Frontage"to allow double frontage lots adjacent to the arterial and colle<
The proposed project is located in the Northeast One-Quarter (NE 1/4) of the streets;f)18.42.040.B`Block Length"to allow the block lengths to exceed 400 feet;g)Section 18.42.040.0`Block Wid
Southeast One-Quarter (SE 1/4) of the Northwest One-Quarter (NW 1/4) Of to allow the minimum block length to be less than 200 feet for the blocks with Restricted Size Lots;h)Section 18.42.181
to allow
of Restricted Size Lots Required"to allow the townhouse Restricted Size Lots to be less than 3,000 square 1
Section 31,Township Two South (t2S), Range Six East WE), P.M.M., Gallatin and more than 3,000 for corner townhouse lots;and i)Section 18.44.090.D.3"Spacing Standards for Drive Accesses'
allow residential lots that front on Hunter's Way and Buckrake and back onto the linear park to access local streets within
County, MT. The project is generally located two and one-half (2.5) miles feet of an intersection with an arterial street and to allow the proposed access separation distance between the proposed lc
streets onto Oak Street,an arterial street,to be separated less than 660 feet.
south of Bozeman, west of Streamside Lane.
The applicant has also submitted a Preliminary Plat application to subdivide 31.05 acres,as Phase IA and 1B
the 160.30 acre parcel,into 46 single-household,40 townhouse and 2 multi-household lots and a 129.25 acre remainc
A copy of the application is available for public review at the Gallatin County The subject property is legally described as the NWI/4,Section 2,T2S,R5E,Gallatin County,Montana,,
Planning Department, Room 208, 311 W. Main, Bozeman, MT Written com- located between Baxter Lane,Oak Street,27th Avenue and Davis Lane. The property is zoned"R-3"Residential Medii
Density District.
ments will be accepted until May 10, 2004. A determination will be made to 6P 8' Pl blic testimony will be taken at the public hearing. Written comments may be submit
approve, conditionally approve or deny the application no sooner than May 12, to the City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development, P.O. Box 12
Bozeman, MT 59771-1230. Data pertaining to the application may be reviewed in the City
2004. Please contact Sean O'Callaghan at the Gallatin County Planning Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development,20 East Olive Street,582-22
Department with any questions, (406) 582-3130.
P11 For those who require accommodations for disabilities,please contact Ron Brey,City of Bozen
ADA Coordinator,582-2306(voice),582-2301 (TDD).
#Z-04050 West Winds Zoning PUD#P-04009 West Winds MaSub
2004 Audi A4 1.8t QuaHro Premier Purchase the
• 5 speed automatic transmission " new A4 Quattro for just
• Cold Weather Package
• Leather $321 68 per month
• Sunroof I Stock number 24087, Deal Number 23152,
• Homelink Transmitter UI, $15,645.60 balloon payment,$329.68/month for 4
• Power Driver's Seat, years, 12,000 miles per year,$3,000 trade or cash
due at contract signing.
• Information Display area.
'Y
2004 Audi A6 3.0 Quattro Sedan Premier Purchase the
• Silver with Black Interior 4 new A6 Quattro for just
• Cold Weather Package Mu t:*
• Multi Function Steering wheel 444173perAuto Dimming inside and ,.y t month
/
outside mirrors Stock number 24022, Deal Number 23176,
• Homelink Transmitters ',$18,715.50 balloon payment,$443.73/month for 48
months,12,000 miles per year,$3,900 trade or cash
• Memory Driver and due at contract signing.
! ! ! ! Passenger Seats
• Xenon Headlights
r r .
2004 Audi Aliroad 2.7t Premier Purchase the
• TiptrOnic �� a Aliroad QuaHro 2.7t for just
• Cold Weather Package
• Multi Function Steering wheel• Auto Dimming inside and $493a73por month
f f outside mirrors -"stock number 24112, deal number 23166,
• Homelink Transmitters 22,059.80 balloon payment,$493.73/month for 48
onths,12,000 miles per year,$4000 trade or cash
! / ! Memory Driver and ue at contract signing.
Passenger Seats
! ! I Xenon Headlights
• Sunroof
A DIFFERENT KIND OF DEALERSHIP
I �
{ WALTE R NEVER FOLLOW
AU61
{
i a
• f a a• + ECONOMY BOZEMAN DAI HRONICLE, Sunday, April 18, 2004 110s :
3mike
300M
A 's
aby boomers
irn to cycling
stay trim, fit
. . a
NEW YORK(AP)—It's a
xnd dreaded by baby
omers—the creaks and pops - } ',• • ►J�11�L.7L4S CfL] G�
it can emanate from knees af- r it,
years of running,skiing and Y
ier strenuous exercise. l
To stay in shape and keep the j �► ? '
unds off,many boomers are
-going running and turning
bicycling.Retailers are seeing Bloomies
isk sales of bikes to boomers, Bud Vases
)ecially ones that emphasize J A perfect gift to say
mfort. `\ Thank you!
Charlie McCorkell,who
ms the Bicycle Habitat store y 9 9
Manhattan,says he has seen
increase in sales to boomer- AP �. 1
e customers over the past year Charlie McCorkell talks with Dana Gordon as she looks at bi- i -
so,especially of easy-to-ride cycles at his store"Bicycle Habitat,"In New York on April 10.
:)dels that have an upright Gordon,42,Is a news librarian who lives In the city. EVERYDAY LOW PRICE
ling position that's easier on
back. doing more to reach out to formance and comfortable. L,
But these customers,who boomers: Seven Cycles makes about 2,500
11 see themselves as fairly ath- ■Next month,a national bikes a year that average around
ic,shy away from bikes that cooperative of bicycle retailers $5,000,and business has been / Appreciation
!m to be designed for older called Ya Ya!Bike is launching a growing about 30 percent a year
Pr
ople,with wider saddles and marketing campaign specifically since the company was founded �,�• �J ' Balloons
s(�
;her handlebars. aimed at drawing boomers into in 1997. Assorted 18" mlar to Y
"I don't think the boomers stores.The cam ai n,the first Harve Mins balloons.
p g y ky,a 56-year- . -
ready to be written off yet," of its kind,will be headed by old computer network techni- ` l/�k" a e � � Starting at:
cCorkell said."These are peo- Michael Basch,one of the cian,says he got seriously into a^�+G► ,
e who had mountain bikes in founders of FedEx.The cam- cycling about three years ago for �� _ 99
eir 20s and 30s,and they're paign begins in four markets a reason cited by many boomers .I�,t
)king to recapture thai expe- this year and go national in his age:"Basically,my knees
mce." 2005."The untapped potential were going:'
Despite this large,ready- is huge,"Basch says. Now,he leads hard-core '
ade market,industry experts ■Bill Fields,a leading con- rides of enthusiast riders with a EVERYDAY LOW PRICE
bicycle makers have done an sultant for the bicycle industry, New York City-based cycling
erall poor job catering to has been recruited to do in- club,and has even pulled off
-omers,choosing instead to fomercials for a company that several double centuries,or
after young enthusiasts who markets easy-to-ride bicycles rides of 200 miles in one day. ,AN
Lest the latest in cool,high-pe- with automatically shifting Along the way,he's met a ,+ �+�r� Appreciation
rmance machines that will gears directly to consumers. number of people in his age `=t' ' 'r Bouquet
rn heads. "The demographic is clearly group,who are either single or Q
A beautiful bouquet to
"Our industry underserves boomers,"Fields says.After with kids who are grown up,
by boomers, says Jay starting up last spring,the com- who now find themselves with a
show your appreciation
-wnley,a bicycle industry con- parry,Landrider,has already little extra income to pay fora SAVE up to$1.00
ltant based in Lyndon Station, sold 40,000 units. fancy bike as well as some more 9 9
is. ■Several high-end manu- available time.
However,there are a growing facturers are catering to "There's.a certain group of ' ; A z
umber of signs that bicycle boomers by making custom us that are getting grayer,"
anufacturers and retailers are bikes that are both high per- Minsky says with a chuckle.
' SAFEWAY CLUB PRICE
•,r.ina rel nn:nr;•.nl rt J
3anks, launch "fife e n' ro rams r p - s
r g � - - —:�; � � Stephany's
i _: Gift Boxed
:o helpidentitytheft victims = i -= , ;� �`�`` Chocolates
. 4 Assorted sizes
NEW YORK(AP)—More and debit card holders who fall r J f 4/'. ,� o ( and varieties.
1p is on the way for victims of FTC study finds victim to identity thieves will be Starting at:
entity theft,one of the na- referred to as a case worker
)n's fastest growing crimes. nearly 10 million dealing with their problems.
Two big banks—Citigroup r "We find that the first thing 50
id Washington Mutual— people a year fall they need is a lot of reassur-
ve started free programs to victim to ID theft ance,"Burns said.
>ist customers whose names Seattle-based Washington -•
accounts are compromised Mutual began offering help"be-
EVERYDAY LOW PRICE
thieves.And in June,a na- egregious cases,the thieves cause we found in talking to our
anal organization representing open new accounts using stolen customers that they were very
me of the largest banks,bro- Social Security or other identi- concerned about ID theft,"said
rages and finance companies fying numbers,or they buy cars Cathy Pricco,first vice president -
11 launch an Identity Theft or even homes.In other cases, for deposit strategy and product rr
;sistance Center to help vic- they tap into consumers'act management.
ns clear their names• counts and empty them. Customers must sign up for
"ID theft has reached epi- The FTC maintains a reg- the service,which will give
:rruc levels in the United istry and provides guidance for them access to the savings Spray Roses
ates,and our customers are victims at its Web site bank's ID theft center if they `` •-
I5-stem bunches of
wing real problems,„said www.consumer.gov/idtheft. have problems. i�"l� fragrant blooms.
eve Bartlett,president and Still,the government can do The free service comes with '-�p -'1r': 1• , '�') 1 SAVE up to$1.00
lief executive of the Financial little to reduce the time and ex- ID theft insurance of up to =::• \.
,rvices Roundtable,the pense that consumers must in- $5,000"to help offset recovery -
'ashington,D.C.,organization vest to try to undo the damage, costs,including legal fees,lost 99
:hind the center. estimated to cost consumers wages and out-of-pocket ex-
There's no question that ID some$5 billion a year,and busi- penses,"Pricco said.
eft is a growing threat to nesses and financial institutions Washington Mutual also is
merican consumers. nearly$50 billion,according to offering a broader service,for a 1` 'L� y ' ,, ,`
A study last year for the the FTC study. monthly fee of$10,that will in- SAFEWAY CLUB PRICE
:deral Trade Commission Ronni Burns,director of clude monitoring of credit re- - ''� y
and that nearly to million business practices for Citi ports,e-mail alerts of credit
:ople a year are falling victim Cards,a division of New York- changes and ID theft insurance
identity thieves.In the most based Citigroup,said Citi credit - of up to$15,000. rr C PC Show your appreciation with
EXPRESSIONS i
toffee/from page D1 'BUY 3 from Hallmark oo URCARDS
Greeting Cards&Get
Hay said the company also is buyers to pay a minimum of fee selling,as well as coffee pro- ; 2 ; from your favorite retailers!
ding the program because $1.26 per pound of coffee. during."
'e want Starbucks to be Starbucks said it is already a Some of Starbucks'rust y+-�+y ,a ;' Choose from My Choice, _en, `T"�;'
own for doing the right large purchaser of Fair Trade tomers will certainly applaud ••
1 • ' s
ng. coffee,but that there isn't efforts to be more environment � �`� ' ' Safeway Companies,Starbucks,g�,gad&B ond',
The company has been tar- enough that meets its quality- tally or socially responsible,said '"a REssi eY
:ed by social and environ- standards. Carl Sibilski,an equity analyst ,fie °tiN Nordstrom and many more.
ntal activists who complain Chris Willer chief of sustain- with Chicago-based '"" Purchase Gift Cards at your '
out everything from its grow- able agriculture for the environ- Morningstar.But he said the one coupBB percuslaner cooPBr ualB4naro4 local Safeway store. UL
worldwide pervasiveness to mental group Rainforest biggest advantage of such pro- ;mru4R4/04atyourSafe"Compance551are8 II II II II II II IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII � l ,J
coffee-bar practices. Alliance, raised the com an 's rams is that the farmers will 1 ady.Excluding'WARM WISHES*cards. , Product r d available in a I safes.
coffee-buying P P P Y g I COUPON CANNOT BE DOUBLED.
hough some activists have effort to understand environ-
.grow better coffee. i________________________________
plauded the company's recent mental concerns in coffee- "In the end,I think what it
orts,others still criticize the growing countries,such as comes down to is the supply is- `
►FE Practices program for wildlife protection and reduc- sue,"Sibilski said."Of course it's
t going far enough to help ing chemical use.It's an attitude ethical to keep your supplier in Prices good Sunday, April 18 thru Saturday, April 24, 2004 at your Safeway stores.
ms survive. he said is catching on across the good shape,but the one that's
hcros and prim in this ad art aailaMc 7 a.m"Sunday,Apnl IB thN SaNrday,April tA,2004,Midnjgh4 as put Wmem Wsshington(Fittpt in auk,Cowlite,Rlid:int,Skamaw car Wahkiakum counties)Finch
What we would like to see coffee industry. going to benefit from this the w ahingtort Idaho,Mona and Mikon Freenter,oregnn Sakway corm only.No aks to dmlers,rateurana a ins6mrionx Sala in read quantidn only.Quantidn o(some items wy be Bmiicd and wbjcct m
Irbucks do is really use its Kraft Foods recently started most is Starbucks." aeailability.Silo ofpmdum containing cphrdrinc,pseudorybedrine orphmylpmpanolwine limited by 6w.Na ropoNible,for typyaphial or pictorial en eurn ms.We r the riot to mrteaall printed carom
On Buy One,Go One Free rBOGOJ ofkn,customer mat purd—dre first item to re a eare the snd item free.BOGO ofrm art not 1/2 prig ales.If ordy a single item purchased,the regular prig appha.
wer to transform the indus- a partnership with the Starbucks brushes off any MartAcNren'coupons may be used on purchased items only not onfree item limit one capon per purchased!item.Customer will be responsible for"CRV andlm bonle deposit on die purchaud and free
,"said Melissa Schweisguth of Rainforest Alliance,and Procter concerns about the cost of its items.No liquor Wa in was of52 gallons.No liquor ada for resale.liquor ales at licensed Safeway and Pak'nsave Foods stores only.C 2W4 Safeway lot
activist group Global &Gamble has started selling a programs.
change.It wants Starbucks to line of coffee that meets Fair "Our concern is having o o a
y more coffee under what are Trade standards. enough great quality coffee in w_v Mori TLIEs I WED n4uR fR, sAT ALL LIMITS ARE PER
led Fair Trade guidelines, "All the companies are wak- the world,"Hay said."That's a 18 19.20121 22 23 24 HOUSEHOLD,
rich promote better wages ing up;'Wille said."It's a new bigger concern than our bottom d working cor-ditions and ask day for coffee roasting and cof- line right now." PER VISIT PER DAY.
, j� �� BEW,W,SP2641mIM
t
BOZEMAN DAILY CHRONICLE, S April 18, 2004 ECONOMY '
1 e ul ,
4
People/from page D1 Indians/from page D1
But businesses also are re- high school graduates and im- time job despite an exhaustive have encouraged many workers U.S.firms began shifting The United States h
sponding to increasing demand migrants. search. to retrain.But,unlike in the late work to India in 1985.The shift come India's biggest tr,
by relying more on temporary The economy has added jobs But since the start of the 1990s when acquiring computer gained momentum in the past ner.And the business i
workers,freelancers and con- for seven consecutive months, year,she's logged roughly 16 skills was seen as a sure bet for five years,during which U.S.of- flowing toward India./
tract workers.Many work off but the March gain is the first weeks of work as a freelancer landing a job,figuring out where ficials here estimate 150,000 are buying American g
payroll and without benefits— time it has significantly out- for a company whose own staff the new opportunities will be American jobs have been "In my office,we us
and aren't tracked in the most paced that break-even figure. is overwhelmed,but whose now feels like a gamble to many. moved to India.That's a tiny Compaq computers,H
closely watched set of govern- The reluctance to hire full- budget allows only outside ex- Agnes Feldman,a former sliver of the U.S.labor market, ment and Cisco router;
ment jobs figures. time workers has almost cer- penses without any addition to factory worker,will graduate in with its nearly 131 million non- now,I am watching a F
Employers also are harness- tainly been exacerbated by the payroll.The company's no-hire July with a two-year degree in farm workers,but it has put on television,"said L.S.
ing technology,streamlining rising expense of adding em- policy is at least partly rooted in business administration from India in the middle of an elec- executive director of
and automating operations to ployees in an era of skyrocket- its effort to boost the running Mitchell Community College in tion-year debate over the loss of Crossdomains,a Banga
reduce the need for labor,and ing health-care costs,as well as tally of revenue-per-employee Mooresville,N.C. millions of American jobs. based company that do
some are pushing remaining lingering concerns about the so- that it shows investors,she says. Feldman lost a job on the line For India,outsourcing is a counting work for com
workers to do more.Those lidity of the rebound. Shea has also been offered at a compressor factory three fruit of its toil—13 years of eco- abroad. •
changes mean they often can re- Those concerns will ease contract jobs through agencies years ago,when Matsushita nomic liberalization that created India spent$7.2 billi
spond to increased demand over time,and employers are that supply companies with Corp.of America moved pro- a business-friendly environment, U.S.goods and services
without hiring. likely to convert some of the short-term workers.Several duction to China.She found, but also saw widespread job loss- or double the level of fi
"What employers have really jobs now staffed with temps to agencies have urged her to con- then lost,another job at an auto es,particularly in areas where big earlier,according to the
' discovered is...you can have full-time positions.But the new sider picking up for three-to-six parts plant when Eaton Corp. multinational companies bought recent figures from the
just-in-time employment,"says approach to employment is month assignments out of state, shifted work to Mexico last year. up or beat local competition. government.
David Wyss,chief economist at likely to be more permanent, including one that urged her to Now she's looking ahead to Now Indians,in the midst of Of course,the Unite
Standard&Poors in New York. analysts say. sell her home even though the graduation,wondering what their own national elections, spent more here—$17
New jobs are essential to sus- The change is evident to position promised no long-term she'll find out there,trying to worry the U.S.backlash may lion in 2002,also doubl
taining an economy that is far both workers and employers,al- hiring commitment and no answer the very question that damage their efforts to build five years before—and
from static.The United States though the two groups see it benefits.She turned down the brought her to this point:Will from that painful economic feeds protectionist senti
needs to gain about 150,000 through different lenses. job,but the recruiter told her he there be new jobs to replace the overhaul. among Americans Linea
jobs each month just to keep Consider the experience of had plenty of other takers. old ones? "Free trade has proved to be about economic trends.
pace with the growth of the la- Peggy Shea,a project manager "OK,at the end of six "It's supposed to be picking beneficial to us.There is no go- "The loss of 3 million
bor force,economists say.Since and graphic artist who lost her months,what do I do?,"Shea up,but yet,there are still a lot of ing back,"said Kiran Karnik, over the last three years
the economy began losing jobs job in a layoff at Cisco Systems says. people who are not finding chief lobbyist for India's boom- political issue,"former L
in early 2001,about 2.8 million more than a year ago.Shea,who The evaporation of once-de- jobs;'Feldman says."Right now, ing software industry,which Trade Representative Ca
people have joined the labor lives in Scotts Valley,Calif.,has pendable jobs and the uncertain- it frightens me that I will be- has annual revenues of about told Indian business lea(
force,including new college and been unable to find a new full- ty built into new hiring practices come one of those people." $16 billion. New Delhi in April.
NOTICE OF FLOODPLAIN PERMIT APPLICATION NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A MAJOR SUBDIVISION AND 7
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of a public hearing before the BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION on M
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Gallatin County Floodplain May 10,2004 to be held at 7:00 p.m.,in the Commission Meeting Room,City Hall,411 East Main Street,Bozeman,Mi
Administrator will consider a floodplain permit request by Joseph Urbani & The Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development would allow the property owner Quest West
Associates, Inc. on behalf of Ken & Shelley Williams. The purpose of the
3825 Valley Commons Drive,Suite 4,Bozeman,MT 59718 represented by HKM Engineering,601 Nikles-Drive
2,Bozeman,MT 59715,to establish a unified development plan for a 161.30 acre subdivision for the development
request is to construct two ponds in the floodway and 100-year floodplain of single-household,92 townhouse,5 multi-household and 8 senior assisted living lots with the following requested
ations from the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance:a)Section 18.42.100"Watercourse Setback"to a
Sourdough Creek. The application states that the ponds will provide fish & the watercourse setback to be reduced from 50 feet to 15 feet;b)Section 18.50.070.A.1"Linear Parks"to allow the
course setback to count towards the parkland dedication requirement;c)Section 18.50.020"Park Requirements"tc
wildlife habitat and function as a water supply for firefighting purposes. the area requirement to be based on I I%net buildable area instead of 0.03 acres per dwelling unit;d)Section 18.16
"Authorized Uses"to allow assisted living/elderly care facilities and apartments within the"R-3"zoning district;e)S
18.42.030.0"Double/Through and Reverse Frontage"to allow double frontage lots adjacent to the arterial and cc
The proposed project is located in the Northeast One-Quarter (NE 1/4) of the streets;f)18.42.040.B`Block Length"to allow the block lengths to exceed 400 feet;g)Section 18.42.040.0`Block v
to allow the minimum block length to be less than 200 feet for the blocks with Restricted Size Lots;h)Section 18.42.
Southeast One-Quarter (SE 1/4) of the Northwest One-Quarter (NW1/4) of "Number of Restricted Size Lots Required"to allow the townhouse Restricted Size Lots to be less than 3,000 squa
Section 31,Township Two South-(t2S), Range Six East (R6E), P.M.M., Gallatin and more than 3,000 for corner townhouse lots;and i)Section 18.44.090.D.3"Spacing Standards for Drive Acces
allow residential lots that front on Hunter's Way and Buckrake and back onto the linear park to access local streets with
County, MT. The project is generally located two and'one-half (2.5) miles feet of an intersection with an arterial street and to allow the proposed access separation distance between the propose,
south of Bozeman, west of Streamside Lane. streets onto Oak Street,an arterial street,to be separated less than 660 feet.
The applicant has also submitted a Preliminary Plat application to subdivide 31.05 acres,as Phase IA and
the 160.30 acre parcel,into 46 single-household,40 townhouse and 2 multi-household lots and a 129.25 acre rema
A copy of the application is available for public review at the Gallatin County The subject property is legally described as the NWI/4,Section 2,T2S,R5E,Gallatin County,Montana
Planning Department, Room 208; 311 W. Main, Bozeman, MT Written com- located between Baxter Lane,Oak Street,27th Avenue and Davis Lane. The property is zoned"R-3"Residential Me
Density District.
ments will be accepted until May 10, 2004. A determination will be made to BP B° Public testimony will be taken at the public hearing. Written comments may be subs
approve, conditionally approve or deny the application no sooner than May 12, to the City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development, P.O. Box
2004. Please contact Sean O'Calla han at the Gallatin Coun Plannin Bozeman, MT 59771-1230. Data pertaining to the application may be reviewed in the C
g ty g Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development,20 East Olive Street,582-
Department with any questions, (406Rt For those who require accommodations for disabilities,please contact Ron Brey,City of Boz
582-3130. ADA Coordinator,582-2306(voice),582-2301(TDD).
#Z-04050 West Winds Zoning PUD#P-04009 West Winds MaSub
2004 Audi A4 1.8t Quattro _AV Premier Purchase the
• 5 speed automatic transmission -- x new A4 Quattro for just
• Cold Weather Package "--
• Leather $329ouU`• Sunroofpier month
Stock number 24087, Deal Number 23152,
• Homelink Transmitter $15,645.60 balloon payment,$329.68/month for 4
• Power Driver's Seat, years, 12,000 miles per year,$3,000 trade or cash
due at contract signing.
• Information Display area.
r 2004 Audi A6 2.0 Quattro Sedan ' Premier Purchase the
• Silver with Black Interior new A6 Quattro for just
Cold Weather Package _ r.� ��
• Multi Function Steering wheel $441147
Auto Dimming inside and � t � er month
outside mirrors Stock number 24022, Deal Number 23176.
• Homelink Transmitters $18,715.50 balloon payment,$443.73/month for 48
months,12,000 miles per year,$3,900 trade or cash
• Memory Driver and due at contract signing.
Passenger Seats
• Xenon Headlights
r �
/ 2004 Audi Allroad 2.7t Premier Purchase the
• Tiptronic Aliroad Quattro 2.7t for just
• Cold Weather Package
• Multi Function Steering wheel c $44740810Auto Dimming inside and �' - per month
outside mirrors _ ft stock number 24112, deal number 23166,
• Homelink Transmitters , $22,059.80 balloon payment,$493.73/month for 48
t Memo Driver and ! months,12,000 miles per year,$4000 trade or cash
r Memory •,�� due at contract signing.
Passenger Seats
t I I Xenon Headlights
• Sunroof
PJk�ADIFFERENT KIND OF DEALERSHIP
WALTER NEVER FOLLOW 1''
UC31 ,
ECONOMY BOZEMAN DAILORONICLE, Sunday, April 18, 2004
Akeff
YI 0
loom
)y boomers
n to cycling
D
;tay trim, fit }
W YORK(AP)—It's a '
1 dreaded bybaby c
ers—the creaks and pops
an emanate from knees af- t;
irs of running,skiing and a;
strenuous exercise.
stay in shape and keep the t �'
3s of,many boomers area
ing running and turning
ychng.Retailers are seeing �' Bloomies
sales of bikes to boomers, Bud Vases
ially ones that emphasize i A perfect gift to say
art. Thank you!
iarlie McCorkell,who
the Bicycle Habitat store 9 9
mhattan,says he has seen 1A 4
rease in sales to boomer- AP
istomers over the past year Charlie McCorkell talks with Dana Gordon as she looks at bi-
especially of easy-to-ride cycles at his store"Bicycle Habitat,"In New York on April 10.
is that have an upright Gordon,42,Is a news librarian who lives in the city. EVERYDAY LOW PRICE
position that's easier on
ack• doing more to reach out to formance and comfortable.
it these customers,who boomers: Seven Cycles makes about 2,500
ee themselves as fairly ath- ■Next month,a national bikes a year that average around
shy away from bikes that cooperative of bicycle retailers $5,000,and business has been , Appreciation
to be designed for older called Ya Ya!Bike is launching a growing about 30 percent a year 7 - ( Balloons
le,with wider saddles and marketing campaign specifically since the company was founded ( f
.r handlebars. aimed at drawing boomers into in 1997. y lar
� � .'',J balloons.Assorted 18" m
don't think the boomers stores.The campaign,the first Harvey Minsky,a 56-year- °. d ��
!ady to be written off yet;' of its kind,will be headed by old computer network techni- oZk �v,J Starting at:
orkell said."These are peo- Michael Basch,one of the cian,says he got seriously into
7ho had mountain bikes in founders of FedEx.The cam- cycling about three years ago for9 9
20s and 30s,and they're paign begins in four markets a reason cited by many boomers ,
ing to recapture that expe- this year and go national in his age:"Basically,my knees iq` Va ,
,e.' 2005."The untapped potential were going."
,espite this large,ready- is huge,"Basch says. Now,he leads hard-core
e market,industry experts ■Bill Fields,a leading con- rides of enthusiast riders.with a + EVERYDAY LOW PRICE
aicycle makers have done an sultant for the bicycle industry, New York City-based cycling ,
all poor job catering to has been recruited to do in- club,and has even pulled off
ners,choosing instead to fomercials for a company that several double centuries,or
fter young enthusiasts who markets easy-to-ride bicycles rides of 200 miles in one day.
t the latest in cool,high-pe- with automatically shifting Along the way,he's met a Appreciation
lance machines that will gears directly to consumers. number of people in his age t BOUgUeC
heads. "The demographic is clearly group,who are either single or ' air
- A beautiful bouquet to
Our industry underserves boomers,„Fields says.After with kids who are grown up, y show your appreciation
r boomers, says Jay starting up last spring,the com- who now find themselves with a �� SAVE u to prec prec
nley a bicycle industry con- pany,Landrider,has already little extra income to pay for a t1.00
p
cut based in Lyndon Station, sold 40,000 units. fancy bike as well as some more r' 99
■Several high-end manu- available time. , �
lcwever,there are a growing facturers are catering to "There's a certain group of
fiber of signs that bicycle boomers by making custom us that are getting grayer;'
iufacturers and retailers are bikes that are both high per- Minsky says with a chuckle. y
SAFEWAY CLUB PRICE
inks"la urichMfree n• ro rams ��� . _�.-��� �.. : . ,��o,raf.0, �.,^.�, . ..r,.�,�����
r Ig - Stephany's
identity
Clft Boxed
hel theft victimsChocolates
p Assorted sizes
JEW YORK(AP)—More and debit card holders who fall / : and varieties.
2 is on the way for victims of FTC Study finds victim to identity thieves will be �. ,o i
- ( Starting at:
iti theft one of the na- referred to as a'case worker'
ty nearly 10 million r
i s fastest growing crimes. y dealing with their problems.Cwo big banks—Citigroup "We find that the first thing �o" r °'
Washington Mutual— people a year fall they need is a lot of reassur-
e started free programs to ante,"Burns said.
st customers whose names victim to ID theft Seattle-based Washington
ccounts are compromised Mutual began offering help"be- EVERYDAY LOW PRICE
hieves.And in June,a na- egregious cases,the thieves cause we found in talking to our
fal organization representing open new accounts using stolen customers that they were very
ie of the largest banks,bro- Social Security or other identi- concerned about ID theft,"said
Eges and finance companies Eying numbers,or they buy cars Cathy Pricco,first vice president
launch an Identity Theft or even homes.In other cases, for deposit strategy and product :
istance Center to help vic- they tap into consumers'ac- management. !� `
s clear their names. counts and empty them. Customers must sign up for `+►� t �'� �
'ID theft has reached epi- The FTC maintains a reg- the service,which will give
iic levels in the United istry and provides guidance for them access to the savings Spray Roses
P Y
es,and our customers are victims at its Web site bank's ID theft center if they .`~z, "' - �` ,,+ 5-stem bunches of
ing real problems;'said www.consumer.gov/idtheft. have problems. '/!"lr "�°��' '`� ti' fragrant blooms.
ye Bartlett,president and Still the government can do The free service comes with ` ;✓ � SAVE up to$1.00
... `wl r�y\s �f• /
:f executive of the Financial little to reduce the time and ex- ID theft insurance of up to
rites Roundtable,the pense that consumers must in- $5,000"to help offset recovery t'
;hington,D.C.,organization vest to try to undo the damage, costs,including legal fees,lost �� '� r` r g g
ind the center. estimated to cost consumers wages and out,of-pocket ex-
[here's no question that ID some$5 billion a year,and busi- penses;'Pricco said.
3 is a growing threat to nesses and financial institutions Washington Mutual also is
erican consumers. PRICE
CLUB nearly$50 billion,accordingto offering a broader service,fora ►� E
k study last year for the the FT C study. monthly fee of$10,that will in- M : w 5 C
eral Trade Commission Ronni Burns,director of dude monitoring of credit re-
nd that nearly 10 million business practices for Citi ports,a-mail alerts of credit
ple a year are falling victim Cards,a division of New York- changes and ID theft insurance
ientity thieves.In the most based Citigroup,said Citi credit of up to$15,000. " a Show your appreciation with
,BUY 3 EXPRESSIONS ' /�I F T CARDS
offee/from page D1 � from Hallmark � F lN9
4 Greeting Cards&Get F
-lay said the company also is buyers to pay a minimum of fee selling,as well as coffee pro- ; 200FOF
; from your favorite retailers!
ling the program because $1.26 per pound of coffee. ducing."
want Starbucks to be Starbucks said it is alreadya Some of Starbucks'cus- i +-�+ ; .� "^ i MV yiD`
r� , Choose from My Choice, CHOt
wn for doing the right large purchaser of Trade tomers w certainly applaud
-+' ne.• a
g„ co di hih l h f Fair Td ill il ld
, ®• r , Safeway Companies,Starbucks, -
t . �coffee,but that there isn't efforts to be more environmen- � '�"'� 11 Bed,gash&Beyond',
[he company has been tar- enough that meets its quality tally or socially responsible,said • ,.✓ ` ;-� QREssro ► Nordstrom and man more.
�d by social and environ- standards. Carl Sibilski,an equity analyst tiN y
�tal activists who complain Chris Wille,chief of sustain- with Chicago-based Purchase Gift Cards at your
ut everything from its grow- able agriculture for The environ- Morningstar.But he said the I One coupon percustemer Coupon Mid 4yf804 Iota!Safeway store. O
worldwide pervasiveness to mental group Rainforest biggest advantage of such pro- I ihtu424104ai your saloar Companies stores II IIII,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII i PradudnolovailableinaNsbres. �►
:offee-bar ' practices. Alliance, raised the company's rams is that the farmers will 'COUPON BE DOUBLED.
caps. I ' `
Yu'►g P Pg �cauPoe cr�fror et rauetEo.
lough some activists have effort to understand environ- grow better coffee. '
lauded the company's recent mental concerns in coffee- "In the end,I think what it
rts,others still criticize the growing countries,such as comes down to is the supply is-
FE Practices program for wildlife protection and reduc- sue,"Sibilski said."Of course it's Prices good Sunday, April 18 thru Saturday, April 24, 2004 at your Safeway stores.
going far enough to help ing chemical use.It's an attitude ethical to keep your supplier in
ns survive. he said is catching on across the good shape,but the one that's Item,and es in this ad are aeaihMe 7 Len,Sunda I IB then Samna l24,2004,Midnight,t rW tern Washita on Esu t in Co lita,Kliititat.Skawnu or Wahkialum counties Eastern
c prices Y.April 1,April a 1'•• M ( P i �
What we would like to see coffee industry. going to benefit from this the Washington,Idaho,Monona and Milton Frmrat",Oregon Satiny storm only.No sales to dmkrs,restaurants or imurmions.Sales in retail quantitin only.Q 66a of smm,items may be limited and subject to
7bueks do is really use its Kraft Foods recently started most is Starbucks." naikblity.Salm ofprodum containing ephedrine,psmdaphedi.or phaaylpmpaookmins limited by law.Not mponciblcfor rypograpltid or pictorial umm.We rmcm the right to coma ail paimcd mcn,
On Buy One,Cm One Free(BOGOJ of en,customer must purchase the first item to mein the snood item Gar.BOLO o(fm in not I/2 price salm Erectly a single item purefused,the regular price applies.
,rer to transform the indus- a partnership with the Starbucks brushes off any Manukrn ors coupons may be used oo produce!items only•nor oo free item limit one coupon per purchased item.Customer will be responsible fen tam,CRV and/or bottle deposit on the purdnsed and fiu
'said Melissa Sehweisguth of Rainforest Alliance,and Procter concerns about the cost of its items.No liquor sake in mcess of52 gallom.No liquor sales for castle.Dquor sales at licensed Safeny and PA'n Sac Foods storm only.C 2004 Safeway Inc
activist group Global &Gamble has started selling a programs. RF9
hange.It wants Starbucks to line of coffee that meets Fair "Our concern is having
more coffee under what are Trade standards. enough great quality coffee in sur4 nwN rUEs WED 7MUR Flu SAT ALL LIMITS ARE PER
Ed Fair Trade guidelines, "All the companies are wak- the world,"Hay said."That's a 18 19 20 21 221231241HOUSEHOLD,
ch promote better wages ing up,"Wille said."It's a new bigger concern than our bottom PER VISIT PER DAY.
i working conditions and ask day for coffee roasting and cof- line right'now." V BEW,W,SP,6%JM
_V 1, ;.
Page 1 of 1
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION
BOZEMAN,MONTANA
May 24,2004
i h re p@rsoriri@
At 6.40 pm,Mayor Cetraro announced that, pursuant to Section 2-3.203(3),M,C.A.,the Montana
Constitution and tho Montana Supreme Court rulings,he,as presiding officer,has determined that the right
to privacy dourly oxcoods the merits of public disclosure. He noted that a level of confidentiality has been
identified in lite process of selecting a nevo City Manager,tit.least until the final round. He then called an
executive session for the purpose of reviewing the applications and tabulation of mutts from the
Commissioners'individual roviews.
At 7:0S pm.Mayor CetMro closed the executive session and convened the open meeting.
Brea - :12
Mayor Cetrarb declared a break from 7:05 pm to 7,12 pm to give the Commission an opportunity
to prepare for the formal meeting.
Callao Order.Pledgo of Allegiance arrdMorntf�, 5e r
The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in regular session in the Commission Room,Municipal
Building,on Monday.May 24,2004,at 7:00 pm_ Present were Mayor.Andrew,Cetraro,Commissioner Jeff
Krauss,Commissioner Marcia Youngman, Commissioner Steve Kirchhoff, Commissioner Lee Hietala,
Acting City Manager Iron Grey,Director of Public Service Debb.e Arke=l,planning Oirettor Andy Eppte,City
Attorney Paul Luwe,and Deputy Cterk of the Commission Karen DeLath wer.
Minutes April 19.Aorii 26.,lay 3,—Ma_10,Maj and May 17'.2004
It was moved by Commissioner Krauss,seconded by Commissioner Youngman,that the minutes
of the mectirigs of May 10 and May 14,2004 beapproved as submitted. The motion carried bythe fotlovr ng
Aye and No vote:those voting Aye being Commissioner Krauss,Commissioner Youngman,Commissioner
Kirchhoff,Commissioner Hieta$,and Mayor Cetroro;those voting No,none.
Mayor Cetraro deferred action on the minutes of the meeting of April 19,April 26.May 3,and May
17,2004 to a later date.
Consent.items
Acting City Manager Srey presented to the Commission the following Consent Items.
CornmiS;sion Resolution No,3688 reimbursame>yt resolution tot parkiriagarage
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO,3688
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITYOF BOZEMAN,MONTANA.
RELATING TO FINANCING OF CERTAIN PROPOSED PROJECTS; ESTABLISHING
COMPLIANCEWITH REIMBURSEMENT BOND REGULATIONSUNDER THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE.
05.24,04
http://www.bozeman.net/WebLink7/lmageDisplay.aspx?cache=yes&sessionkey=WLImag... 2/14/2007
• - 13 - •
great residential community. He does, however, agree with Commissioner Kirchhoff that there should be
more of a grid transportation plan.
Commissioner Krauss stated he believes soccer fields could be developed in this park, and the
applicants need to complement what is going on within the entire city by providing soccer fields in exchange
for the community center. The nine lots located on Whisper Avenue, adjacent to the park, should be
removed to provide room for soccer fields; and the lots on Tschache Lane, between Whisper Avenue and
Buckrake Avenue, should also be removed to extend the parkland. Additional lots could be added to the
extreme extensions of Buckrake Avenue and Hunters Way, if desired. He acknowledged that both the
Section 42 affordable housing and the senior assisted living facility are benefits to the community.
Commissioner Krauss agreed with Commissioner Kirchhoff that this has been an entirely too long and
contentious process, and the master plan has not been as finely ground as it should be have been before
it came before the Commission. The architectural design elements need to go back to the Design Review
Board for approval, and then the Commission will look at this again. He also agrees that parkland
dedication requirement is the wrong place to start the design process.
Commissioner Youngman pointed out that adding more soccer fields without restrooms is a definite
problem and needs to be addressed.
Mr. Dunlap stated he is agreeable to the"horsetrading" suggested by Commissioner Krauss, and
he is also agreeable to capping the housing at the .03 acre per dwelling unit parkland dedication, with the
11 percent to only apply to affordable housing units.
Commissioner Youngman responded the planned unit development becomes meaningless because
it isn't known:how much affordable housing,-senior living housing, or parkland is being provided. If those
lots shift to single-family units, that will create a very different development. She asked if the:Commission
is accepting a set amount of parkland or allowing the applicant to go below the standard.
Commissioner Krauss stated.it is more important to him-to extend the trail and eliminate.the lots on
Whisper Avenue, rather than getting an exact-parkland:calcUlation. c
Mayor Cetraro stated he is willing to provide that.guidance and move forward in a positive manner.
Commissioner Kirchhoff noted that, ,while the-spirit of horesetrading is admirable, the design
concerns of this neighborhood are more than what has been suggested. There are some other significant
issues with this plan that need to be addressed;and he hopes the Design Review Board will be encouraged
to look at some of those other things, as well.
Planning Director Epple reminded the Commission that it is looking at granting conditional
preliminary approval,and the applicant must still come back with a final planned unit development plan that
reflects all concerns voiced this evening. Staff can require that final plan approval come back to the
Commission to make sure it meets the Commission's intent.
It was moved by Commissioner Kirchhoff, seconded by Commissioner Youngman, to deny approval
of the requested conditional use permit for West Winds Planned Unit Development. The motion failed by the
following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Kirchhoff and Commissioner Youngman;
those voting No being Commissioner Hietala, Commissioner Krauss, and Mayor Cetraro.
Itwas moved by Commissioner Krauss,seconded by Commissioner Youngman,that the Conditional
Use Permit for West Winds Planned Unit Development,as requested by HKM Engineering for Quest West,
LLC, under Application No. Z-04050, to establish a unified development plan for a 161.30-acre subdivision
for development of 213 single-household, 92 townhouse, five multi-household, and eight senior assisted
living lots,with relaxations from the Unified Development Ordinance as follows:(a)from Section 18.50.020,
to allow the parkland dedication requirement to be based on 11 percent of net buildable area instead of 0.03
acres per dwelling unit for the affordable housing parcels; (b)from Section 18.16.020.B., to allow assisted
living/elderly care facilities and apartments within the "R-3", Residential—Medium-density, zoning district;
(c)from Section 18.42.030.C.,to allow double frontage lots adjacent to arterial and collector streets;(d)from
Section 18.42.040.B.,to allow block lengths to exceed 400 feet;(e)from Section 18.42.040.C., to allow the
minimum block length to be less than 200 feet for blocks with restricted size lots; (f) from Section
18.42.180.C.,to allow townhouse restricted size lots to be less than 3,000 square feet and more than 3,000
square feet for corner townhouse lots;and(g)from Section 18.44.090.D.3.,to allow residential lots that front
05-24-04
• - 10 - •
37. That the applicant, upon submitting the final site plan for approval by the Planning
Director and prior to issuance of a building permit,will also submit a written narrative
outlining how each of the above conditions of approval have been satisfied.
38. The applicant must comply with all provisions of the Bozeman Unified Development
Ordinance,which are applicable to this project prior to receiving final site plan approval.
The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not
specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or
other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state
law.
The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Krauss,
Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Kirchhoff,Commissioner Hietala,and Mayor Cetraro;those voting
No, none.
Public hearing - Conditional Use Permit for West Winds Planned Unit Development - establish a
unified development plan for a 161.30-acre subdivision for development of 213 sin Ill e-household,
92 townhouse, 5 multi-household, and 8 senior assisted living lots with relaxations from various
sections of the Unified Development Ordinance - HKM Engineering for Quest West, LLC (lying
between Baxter Lane and West Oak Street, and between North 27th Avenue and Davis Lane
Z-0( 4050)
This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit for West Winds ;..
Planned Unit Development,as requested by HKM Engineering for Quest West, LLC, under Application No. ;
Z-04050, to establish a unified development plan for a 161.30-acre subdivision for development of 2.13
single-household,92 townhouse,five multi-household,and eight senior assisted living lots,with relaxations
from the Unified Development Ordinance as follows: (a)from Section 18.42.100, to allow the watercourse
setback to be reduced from 50 feet to 15 feet; (b)from Section 18.50.070.A.1., to allow the watercourse .
setback to count toward the parkland dedication requirement; (c) from Section 18.50.020, to allow the
parkland dedication requirement to be based on 11 percent of net buildable area instead of 0.03 acres per.
dwelling unit; �d)from Section 18.16.020.B., to allow assisted living/elderly care facilities and apartments .,
within the"R-3%Residential—Medium-density,zoning district;(e)from Section 18.42.030.C.,to allow double
frontage lots adjacent to arterial and collector streets; (f)from Section 18.42.040.B.,to allow block lengths
to exceed 400 feet; (g)from Section 18.42.040.C., to allow the minimum block length to be less than 200
feet for blocks with restricted size lots;(h)from Section 18.42.180.C.,to allow townhouse restricted size lots
to be less than 3,000 square feet and more than 3,000 square feet for corner townhouse lots; and(i)from
Section 18.44.090.D.3., to allow residential lots that front on Hunters Way and Buckrake Avenue and back
onto the linear park to access local streets within 150 feet of an intersection with an arterial street and to
allow the access separation distance between the proposed local streets onto West Oak Street to be less
than 660 feet. The subject property is bounded by Baxter Lane, West Oak Street, North 27th Avenue, and
Davis Lane.
Acting City Manager Brey reminded the Commissioners that they had conducted the public hearing
on this application at the May 10th meeting. Following that hearing and discussion, they voted to continue
the discussion to this time and to reopen the public hearing. He then noted that, included in the
Commissioners' packets were a memo from Associate Planner Morris, forwarding requested information
and the recommended conditions of approval; draft minutes from the work session held on May 17; letter
from Sandy Dodge, Chair of the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board, dated May 17; information packet
from HKM Engineering,dated May 19,2004;and a letter from Bonnie Hash, 1204 North 9th Avenue,dated
May 18, encouraging the Commissioners to not approve relaxations.
It was moved by Commissioner Youngman, seconded by Commissioner Hietala, that the public
hearing be reopened. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being
Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Hietala, Commissioner Krauss, and Mayor Cetraro; those voting
No, none. Commissioner Kirchhoff was absent from the voting.
Mayor Cetraro opened the public hearing.
Associate Planner Morris reminded the Commissioners that all conditions of approval are included
in her memo, and a letter from Mrs. Jay Conner is also attached.
05-24-04
Clint Litle, HKM Engineering, noted they have made changes to the plan, based on Commission
input,and changed their position on staff's conditions. Changes made to the plan include removing the four
lots on the west side of Buckrake Avenue that fronted the park; removing two lots on the west side of
Buckrake Avenue, adjacent to Baxter Lane; providing an additional park access on Aspen Grove Street;
continuing the linear trail park through the project to establish an east/west connection;widening the park
accesses on Winter Park and Breeze Lane; removing two lots east of Hunters Way,adjacent to Oak Street;
and removing two lots on the east side of Hunters Way, between Breeze Lane and Trade Wind Lane.
They are also withdrawing their request to relax the watercourse setback;they are agreeable to the 50-foot
setback. With this change,soccer fields are no longer feasible within the park and have been removed from
the plan. They are also agreeable to not counting the watercourse setback toward the parkland
requirement. Mr. Litle further noted they are withdrawing the requested relaxation from the linear park
requirement. Regarding parkland requirements,they are requesting that the 11 percent park allocation be
applied only to the affordable housing parcels; they are willing to go with the 0.03 acre per dwelling unit
requirement on the remainder,yielding 20.62 acres of net park for 660 dwelling units. They are requesting
that no parkland allocation be required for the skilled nursing facility,which will not have kitchen units. Mr.
Litle stated they are entitled to parkland credit for the linear trail park, and it is included in the 20.62 acre
calculation. The applicant is requesting that, on the trail that connects from the south with Harvest Creek
subdivision, they be granted a mid-block crossing for pedestrian safety. Referring to the condition that the
Design Review Board shall review and approve the final site plan, including a final park plan,the applicants
want to change that condition to read, "The final site plan, including a final park plan, shall be reviewed by
the Design Review Board", deleting"and approve". Mr. Litle noted the applicants are willing to provide 70
percent road frontage for the park, rather than the 50 percent required by the Unified Development
Ordinance.
John Harper,Recreation and Parks Advisory Board,pointed outthe developer wants to earn planned .
unit development points with affordable housing, rather than dedicated parkland; however, that is not the
Commission's problem and is something that should be negotiated between Mr. Dunlap and Mr. Squires.
In examining an-ahalysis of parkland within other developments; calculations show West Winds is only
providing one third of the parkland provided-in the Baxter Meadows and Valley West subdivisions. The .
Unified Development Ordinance requires superior development from relaxations; and if relaxations are
granted, then they need to be clearly and specifically documented as to how these relaxations will result in
't a superior-design.
Sandy Dodge, Recreation and Parks Advisory Board,°.noted the parkland requirement is 26 acres;
but the West Winds plan does not contain enough contiguous parkland to contain a regulation size soccer
field. This proposed parkland does not meet the community's needs in any way.
Commissioner Youngman asked if the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board discussed the
community center, or counting the corridor, which connects Rose Park and the regional park, toward the
parkland requirement. Mr.Dodge answered the community center was a nice feature,but they are not sorry
to see it go if it is to be replaced by usable recreation area. Even though the community center has been
eliminated, there is still no usable recreation area provided in its place.
Mary VantHull, ,noted a lot of people need low-and moderate-income housing
because it is a struggle to raise young children to adulthood in this town;and they need parkland more than
anybody else because of the small yards. Some developers just pay too much for their land, and it is not
the Commission's responsibility to bail them out of a financial embarrassment. The Commission is
responsible for overseeing the good of the public.
Tami McLaughlin, , pointed out that if this community thinks a single
mother raising her children is worried about more park space, it is mistaken. She is a mortgage broker,
and she knows firsthand that lower income people cannot afford housing in Bozeman. This developer is
proposing 21 acres of parkland and affordable housing, but the Commission is forgetting that they are
pushing young families out of town by requiring additional parkland dedication. She suggested the
Commission needs to compromise, as the developer already has.
Mr. Litle responded that, as proposed, there is 23 percent parkland included in this proposal.
Commissioner Youngman noted the senior assisted living areas have already been dropped out of
the parkland calculations and asked what is affordable to the west of the park. Mr. Dunlap answered those
are the two parcels they have identified for Section 42 housing.
05-24-04
• - 12 - •
Mr. Springer pointed out that a couple of weeks ago, the applicant was having problems with eight
conditions; but through conversations with staff,the applicant has conceded to every condition. Now he is
willing to give 20 percent more parkland than the minimum.
Associate Planner Morris stated that, by her estimates, even if they are allowed to count all 60 feet
of trail corridor, they are still 17 acres of parkland short. Mr. Litle responded that they have provided 20.62
acres of parkland. The Associate Planner suggested that she and Mr. Litle need to sit down and discuss
how parkland is being calculated.
Responding to Commissioner Krauss, Associate Planner Morris stated some of the trail is in the
stream setback, and typically the 25-foot stream setback easement would not be calculated as part of the
parkland because it is part of a transportation plan.
Regarding Condition 2, City Engineering staff requires pedestrian crossings at the nearest
intersecting streets, which are controlled intersections, rather than mid-block crossings.
Commissioner Youngman asked if the land where the community center was proposed to be located
was not counted toward the parkland dedication because it was private property. Associate Planner Morris
answered that is correct, but the parking area did count toward the parkland calculation because it could
be used for park visitor parking.
Associate Planner Morris noted Condition 7, requiring final site plan review by the Design Review
Board, was included because the Design Review Board felt there was a lot of work to be done to address
lot design rhythm and harmony,the entrance to the subdivision,and development guidelines,which are not
detailed enough. The Design Review Board desires to seethe whole plan put together,so they can provide
better input and have a better idea of the total project.
Commissioner Youngman asked if staff still opposes the 11 percent parkland requirement for
affordable housing. The Associate Planner answered staff typically tries to enforce the code to the letter
of the law; but if given that direction by the Commission, they will approve it.
No one was present to speak in opposition of this application.
Since there were no Commissioner objections, Mayor Cetraro closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kirchhoff stated his motion will be for denial of the project because he can't find it
satisfies the spirit or letter of the planned unit development. Calculating the number of units by how much
parkland must be provided to get approval is unacceptable, and the tone of all conversations with the
applicant has been in terms of what they have to give. The inclusion of the community center would have
given the Commission a point to consider this as a superior product; but he cannot find that this
neighborhood, as defined, is a superior product. Because the applicant has failed to show he is providing
a superior product, the Commission is compelled to deny this application.
Commissioner Youngman stated that if a majority of the Commission is interested in approving this
project, she wants to work hard on the conditions because this revised plan still needs so much work. She
feels a better product can be produced if all parties involved work things out before the application comes
before the Commission. Regarding parkland dedication calculations for affordable housing, she would like
the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board, staff, the Community Affordable Housing Board, and the
applicants to sit down and discuss possibly granting some relaxation of the parkland requirement. It would
be a good precedent to set for future applications.
Commissioner Kirchhoff stated that it has been a very long time since the Commission has had an
application this raw, and it is not their job to redress insufficiencies in the application.
Commissioner Youngman added there isn'ta single project that hasn'tfar exceeded what is required
in parkland dedication,without staff or the Commission even talking to them about it. Therefore,she doesn't
want to set a precedent for accepting less than is required. Already the wetlands are entirely counted as
parkland dedication, as a concession by staff to the applicant.
Commissioner Hietala stated he believes the community center would have been a great amenity
for the affordable housing residents, and he thinks the plan has real potential for being a great plan for a
05-24-04
- 14- •
on Hunters Way and Buckrake Avenue and back onto the linear park to access local streets within 150 feet
of an intersection with an arterial street and to allow the access separation distance between the proposed
local streets onto West Oak Street to be less than 660 feet, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A trail shall be constructed connecting from North 27th Avenue to Davis Lane away
from streets and in addition to the sidewalk to provide a future connection between
Rose Park and the Regional Park.
2. The mid-block trail crossing along Oak Street will not be permitted.
3. Hunters Way(from Baxter Lane to Oak Street)shall include a signed bike route since
this will be an extension of an existing signed bike route on Hunters Way.
4. The Homeowners' Association shall be responsible for maintenance of park, park
fixtures, trails, etc., until such time that a Park Maintenance District, or similar form
of funding, is established.
5. A park master plan shall be submitted for approval by the City Parks Division with the
Phase I final plat and/or final site plan, whichever comes first.
6. The final site plan,including a final park plan,shall be subject to review by the Design
Review Board and final approval by the City Commission.
7. 't • .The final site plan shall include elaborated architectural guidelines with streetscape
and entry details.
8. A building configuration plan shall be submitted for townhouse lots with subsequent
subdivision phases.
9. The covenants and design guidelines must state the means in which building
orientation will be mitigated along..the arterial and.collector streets. The lots shall
provide a front porch or false facade,a sidewalk connection to each building,and the
:. covenants shall prohibit the construction of fences unless constructed less than four
feet tall with a coordinated design for all of the lots backing up to West Oak Street,
Baxter Lane, North 27th Avenue, and Davis Lane.
10. The declaration of covenants for the subdivision must be included and recorded with
the final plat. The City of Bozeman shall be party to any changes or modifications
made to the restrictive covenants and architectural guidelines as they relate to any
zoning and/or planning bylaws. The covenants shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Planning Office prior to the issuance of a building permit.
11. The stormwater detention ponds shall be designed in a more organic f orm a nd
landscaped as a water feature with 6-inch river rock and wet root tolerant plant types.
12. A one foot "no access" easement shall be provided along Baxter Lane, West Oak
Street, North 27th Avenue, and Davis Lane.
13. No lots shall be platted within the watercourse and wetland setback.
14. The 0.07 acre isolated wetland in the southeast corner of the subdivision may be
filled in exchange for the existing vegetation being transplanted, as reasonably
feasible, from the filled wetland to the Cattail Creek wetlands, under the direct
supervision of the wetland consultant.
15. At least 70 percent of the park perimeter shall be adjacent to a public street to allow
for accessibility to the park.
05-24-04
- 15-
16. The applicant shall provide and file with the County Clerk and Recorder's office an
executed Waiver of Right to Protest Creation of Special Improvement Districts(SIDs)
for the following:
a. Signalization of the intersection of West Oak Street and North 27th
Avenue.
b. Signalization of the intersection of West Oak Street and Fowler
Avenue(aka Davis Lane).
C. Signalization of the intersection of Baxter Lane and North 27th
Avenue.
d. Signalization of the intersection of Baxter Lane and Fowler Avenue
(aka Davis Lane).
e. Fowler Avenue(aka Davis Lane)trunk sewer main improvements.
The document f iled s hall specify that in the event an SID is not utilized for the
completion of these improvements,the developeragrees to participate in an alternate
financing method for the completion of said improvements on a fair share,
proportionate basis as determined by square footage of property, taxable valuation
of the property, traffic contribution from the development, or a combination thereof.
17. As a part of the infrastructure plans submittal, 100-year flood elevations shall be
computed for the section line ditch and the center irrigation lateral(stream defined as
Cattail Creek by the Conservation District and as Harmon Ditch from Harvest Creek),
and the limits of flooding identified. Lots shall not be platted within the 100 year flood
plain.Hydraulic calculations and the water surfaceprofile of the ditches shall take into
account the upstream and downstream culvert capacities as well as the fact the ditch t:
company may use the ditch as a blow-off at.any time and without notice.
18. Additional information is needed prior to approval of the Phase I improvements.The
Traffic Study Report shall include an analysis of possible'warrants at all the proposed'
intersections with West Oak Street.-The Traffic Study Report shall also address
pedestrian crossing issues at the intersection of West Oak Street and North 27th sw,:
Avenue and make recommendations for approval. E
19. The applicant is advised that Baxter Lane, along the property boundary, shall be
improved, as part of this development, to one half of a minor arterial standard as
shown in the and shall match the section built by Baxter Meadows.West Oak Street,
along the property boundary, shall be improved, as part of this development, to one
half of a principal arterial standard and shall match the section built by Harvest Creek.
North 27th Avenue, along the property boundary, shall be improved, as part of this
development, to one half of a collector standard and shall match the section built by
Harvest Creek. Fowler Avenue(aka Davis Lane), along the property boundary, shall
be improved, as part of this development, to one half of a minor arterial standard.
Where one half of a standard collector or arterial is being built, 12 feet of pavement
for the opposing lane of travel shall be provided. City standard curb and gutter, and
6-foot-wide sidewalk will be required in the standard location on the development's
side of the street. Detailed review of the street and intersection design and approval
by the City Engineer will be required as part of the infrastructure plan and
specification review process.
20. Tschache Lane shall align with the road in Baxter Meadows west of Fowler Avenue
(aka Davis Lane).
21. Parking will not be allowed on West Oak Street,North 27th Avenue, Baxter Lane,and
Fowler Avenue(aka Davis Lane).
22. The section line ditch shall not be piped. The "riparian" corridor shall be maintained
within the median planned for Fowler Avenue.
05-24-04
- 16 - •
23. No existing mature vegetation within the watercourse setback, wetlands, park, and
along the section line ditch shall be removed from the site unless approved by the
City of Bozeman Planning Office. The final landscape plan shall depict existing and
proposed vegetation, as well as proposed vegetation to be removed.
24. Buildings proposed for construction with crawl spaces or basements shall include
Engineer Certification regarding depth of ground water and soil conditions and
proposed mitigation methods to be submitted with each building permit.
25. The 60-foot-wide trail area along Tschache Lane shall be extended along the north
side of Tschache Lane to the Whisper Avenue intersection.
26. The nine lots on the west side of Whisper Avenue that are directly adjacent to the
park shall be removed.
27. The Section 42 affordable housing and the senior assisted living, as depicted in the
plan, shall remain in the planned unit development plan.
28. More detailed development guidelines shall be provided with the final planned unit
development plan.
29. The subdivision shall provide for a better mix of housing types throughout the
subdivision.
30. The mandatory 25-foot-wide trail easement for the.:transportation pathways will not
count toward the dedicated parkland.' Any additional width provided along the trail . .
easement can be counted toward the dedicated parkland requirement.
'31. The City of Bozeman will accept the 11 percent calculation for parkland dedication
for the affordable Section 42 housing lots so long as it includes some very low
Income housing.
32. The parkland shall be configured to provide adequate space for soccer fields along
Whisper Avenue and Buckrake Avenue.
33. The applicant shall reconsider the arterial treatment on Baxter Lane.
34. A density cap shall be applied to the build out of the subdivision. The cap will be
based on the total number of acres of dedicated parkland provided.
The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Krauss,
Commissioner Youngman,Commissioner Kirchhoff, Commissioner Hietala,and Mayor Cetraro;those voting
No, none.
It was moved by Commissioner Kirchhoff, seconded by Commissioner Youngman, that the
conditions of approval be amended to include the following condition:
35. The interconnectivity of streets on the eastern part of the neighborhood shall reflect
the intercohnectivity shown on the western portion of the subdivision.
The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Kirchhoff,
Commissioner Youngman, and Commissioner Hietala; those voting No being Commissioner Krauss and
Mayor Cetraro.
Continued public hearing - preliminary plat for West Winds Subdivision, Phases IA and IB - allow
subdivision of 31.05 acres lying at northwest corner of intersection of West Oak Street and North
27th Avenue into 46 single-household.40 townhouse and 2 multi-household lots-HKM Engineering
for Quest West, LLC (P-04009)
05-24-04
0 - 17 - 9
This was the time and place set for the continued public hearing on the preliminary plat for West
Winds Subdivision, Phases IA and IB, as requested by HKM Engineering for Quest West, LLC, under
Application No. P-04009, to allow the subdivision of 31.05 acres lying at the northwest comer of the
intersection of West Oak Street and North 27th Avenue into 46 single-household, 40 townhouse, and two
multi-household lots.
Mayor Cetraro reopened the continued public hearing.
Associate Planner Morris presented the staff report,noting an additional condition has been added.
Staff has reviewed this application in light of the applicable criteria and recommends conditional approval.
City Attorney Luwe recommended the public testimony on the previous agenda item be taken into
consideration on this item, as well.
No new public testimony was received.
Mr. Dunlap indicated he agrees with the conditions as presented by staff.
Since there were no Commissioner objections, Mayor Cetraro closed the public hearing.
Responding to Commissioner Krauss,Planning Director Epple stated the design of West Oak Street
will need to be coordinated between this project and the Harvest Creek project.
Commissioner Krauss noted that with lots that back up to parkland, people have a tendency to N
extend their property into the park and asked if there is some language that could be included:to address
that. Commissioner Youngman added that some people have'delineated their property borde'r.with bushes
to protect the sanctity of the parkland and their private property..Associate Planner Morris indicated it would
be appropriate to require natural screening with the covenants and, recommended the City Parks
Department.weigh in on that.
It was moved by Commissioner Hietala, seconded by Commissioner Krauss,that the preliminary plat
for West Winds Subdivision, Phases IA and IB, as requested by HKM Engineering for Quest West, LLC,:
under Application No. P-04009,:to allow the subdivision of 31.05.acres lying at the northwest corner of the
intersection of West Oak Street and North 27th Avenue into 46 single-household, 40 townhouse, and two
multi-household lots, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Phase 1A and 1B of the West Winds Subdivision shall comply with the approved
Planned Unit Development.
2. The final plat shall include a notation that, due to high ground water conditions, full
or partial basements are not recommended.
3. Cash-in-lieu of water rights, as calculated by the Director of Public Service, shall be
paid at the time the final plat is submitted.
4. The property owner has proposed that Lot 7 of Phase 1A will be developed with an
affordable housing project in order to meet the performance points for a Planned Unit
Development. The final plat shall note that Lot 7 is reserved for affordable housing.
The plat shall also note that, in the event the lot does not get developed with
affordable housing,the property owner shall provide an alternative means to meet the
planned unit performance standards.
5. The final plat shall contain a note prohibiting direct access from single family or
duplex lots to West Oak Street and North 27th Avenue.
6. The west half of North 27th Avenue, from West Oak Street to Breeze Lane, and the
north half of West Oak Street, from North 27th Avenue to Hunters Way, must be
constructed and accepted by the City prior to filing the final plat for Phase 1A. The
west half of North 27th Avenue, from Tschache Lane to Breeze Lane, must be
constructed and accepted by the City prior to filing the final plat for Phase 1 B. The
overall design of West Oak Street shall include a detailed assessment of traffic
05-24-04
• - 18 - •
needs and design solutions for the phasing.The timing of the development of Harvest
Creek shall betaken into account as well.The Phase 1 A infrastructure improvements
shall include improvements to the intersection of West Oak Street and North 27th
Avenue to provide a transition between the existing and the future roadway. Design
of the intersection is also to accommodate the existing overhead power lines. The
intersection design will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Office as
a part of the infrastructure improvements review process.
7. There is a discrepancy between traffic impact studies provided for the North 19th
Avenue and Durston Road intersection regarding the level of service.If it is confirmed
the intersection operates below Level of Service D, then the final plat for Phase 1
may not be filed until the improvements necessary to raise the level of service at the
intersection of North 19th Avenue and Durston Road to Level of Service Care
installed and accepted by the City of Bozeman.
The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Hietala,
Commissioner Krauss,Commissioner Youngman,Commissioner Kirchhoff,and Mayor Cetraro;those voting
No, none.
Break 10:02 - 10:13 pm
Mayor Cetraro declared a break from 10:02 pm until 10:13 pm in accordance with Commission
policy.
Work session - City Manaaer selection~process r
Acting City Manager Brey encouraged the Commission to use the handout prepared by:the Clerk
of the Commission as a basis to work from and to get as much finalized as possible this evening,so the
process can be started.
Commissioner Youngman noted Mayor Kennedy,of Kalispell,suggested one social mixer for all the..
candidates, so the public can see how they interact, which also saves time and money. Commissioner
Youngman said she would prefer to have one mixer with all four candidates in attendance. She then
suggested the social mixer be held on June 10th,with interviews being held the 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th of
June.
Mayor Cetraro suggested that,during the social mixer, he could introduce the candidates and have
them tell a little bit about themselves and why they'd be a good fit for Bozeman. Public feedback forms will
be available at the mixer and during the interviews for the public to complete.
Commissioner Kirchhoff indicated he wants a question included in the interview questions that will
clearly identify if the candidate is a leader. He then questioned if it is legal for a Commissioner to bring up,
in an indirect way, comments that were made by references. Acting City Manager Brey answered that it is
not always necessary to directly follow up a reference check;the reference check has identified something
that the Commission needs to probe further.
Commissioner Krauss stated he believes the questions should test their knowledge of Bozeman in
some way.
Acting City Manager Brey asked if the Commission prefers to have the candidates tour City facilities
before their interview, or leave the candidates to do that on their own accord. Commissioner Youngman
expressed her preference for conducting tours before the interviews.
Commissioner Youngman stated her approval of the questionnaire prepared by Human Resources
Director Berg. Mayor Cetraro suggested reducing the list to 15 questions. Acting City Manager Brey
proposed giving the candidates the questions in advance, otherwise those interviewing later will have an
advantage. The Commissioners agreed to give the candidates the questions in advance, except for the
scenario question.
05-24-04
- 19-
Following further discussion, the Commissioners agreed to hold candidate and spouse dinners at
5:00 pm on Tuesday,Wednesday,Thursday,and Friday at the Savory Olive,Ferraros,Louie's Down Under,
and Boodles. The social mixer will be held.at the GranTee on Thursday at 7,30 pm and will include simple
fruit and dessert fare with a cash bar. Interviews will be held on Wednesday and Friday, mornings and
afternoons.
Acting City Manager Brey asked if the Commissioners would like the candidates to have breakfast
with the department heads, and the Commissioners agreed that would not be necessary; the facilities tour
should be sufficient.
Discussion - FYI Items
The following "For Your Information" items were forwarded to the Commission.
(1) Letter from Ronald Eklund, voicing concern that the
Commission is not requiring installation of sidewalks in New Hyalite View Subdivision.
(2) Letter from MSU President Geoff Gamble, dated May 18, regarding the Story Mansion.
(3) Letter from Richard Smith, president of Southwest Montana Building Industry Association,
regarding parkland dedication requirements and their impact on multifamilyand affordable housing projects.
(4) Letter from Lloyd Bender regarding the changes that are occurring in R-1 districts as a result
of absentee and/or entrepreneurial landlords.
(5) Information items from • Neighborhood Coordinator Oulman resulting from the
InterNeighborhood Council, including the mission statement and proposed brochures on neighborhood
safety and:fireworks.
(6) Memo from Engineering Assistant Kerr, dated May 18, forwarding the results of a traffic
calming study on Hunters Way, along with the petition requesting the installation of four'way stops at its
intersections with Annie Street and Rose.Street.'
(7) Agenda for the School District-No..7 Board of Trustees meeting to be held at 7:00 pm on
Monday, May 24, at the Willson School.
(8) Agenda for the County Commission meeting to be held at 9:00 am on Tuesday, May 25, at
the Courthouse.
(9) Agenda for the County Planning Board meeting to be held at 6:30 pm on Tuesday, May 25,
at the Courthouse.
(10) Agenda for the Development Review Committee meeting to be held at 10:00 am on Tuesday,
May 25, at the Professional Building.
(11) Agenda for the Design Review Board meeting to be held at 3:30 pm on Tuesday, May 25,
at the Professional Building.
During his FYI, Acting City Manager Brey forwarded the following: 1) The Commissioners have
received an invitation to the County Commission breakfast. 2) The County has sought Neighborhood
Coordinator Oulman's services as a mediator between the County and NENA regarding the proposed
amphitheater. 3)He will begone Thursday through Wednesday;Director of Finance Gamradt will be Acting
City Manager in his absence. 4) Since Hunters Way does not meet the warrants for installation of 4-way
stop signs,it will be coming before the Commission next week for a decision. 5)The City Manager's budget
is off to the printers.
Commissioner Youngman offered the following FYI item:1)Shetalked with a group of eighth graders
yesterday regarding having a positive voice in the community and encouraged them to apply for a seat on
the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board.
05-24-04
-20 -
Commissioner Krauss, during his FYI, noted the following: 1)He would like to meet with the County
Commissioners regarding 911 and transfer of development rights programs, but only meet with NENA for
10 or 15 minutes. Acting City Manager Brey indicated 911 monies have been included in next year's
budget,and the number of 911 calls coming from cell phones is impressive. Mayor Cetraro added that the
only way he is willing to meet with the County Commission is if there are issues included for discussion
besides NENA. 2) He attended another meeting of the Montana Public Power Authority and has learned
that this issue has appeared in a nationwide public utility newsletter.
Adjournment- 11: 33p.m.
There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, it was moved by
Commissioner Kirchhoff, seconded by Commissioner Hietala, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion
carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Kirchhoff, Commissioner
Hietala, Commissioner Krauss, Commissioner Youngman, and Mayor Cetraro; those voting No, none.
ANDR L: CETRARO, Mayor
ATTEST:
R IN-L:.SULLIVAN
Clerk of the Commission
PREPARED BY:..; ...
KA EN L. DeLATHOWE
Deputy Clerk of the Commission
05-24-04
0
rk ' a t•/^ t _
WI L 1
,;♦-' O rr•a_a_•,.• • • •._ •c_r..i•,•• " ,/ ,/♦ • /♦/ ••.•r•• ♦. rrr-r. -'^ ' ♦ • `1,' -1♦//rL_./ ,
/ •1 - 1
3� 35 BAXTER LANE �M/NOR � ARTER/AL) SS MH- - -- - - - -- -
-----------------
I it 2t
1 I , Cb
u „ � 1 '
1 I I I I I I 1
- - - TflADE-VIN LANE- - -—-—-
r- --T-����-�
-
I7 MDC L7-i1YL ---
II ,
1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I , 1 , , , 1 —_ 3 I ► ' r----,
I 1 �J —L--I L_—L_1-1 I L--I I_----I I
—ASPEN -GIR I
-
:i I 1 ►
r .. ' ( 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 ' ' ' I I I , � ► .:► , �� 1 1--'1 1 1
i FL
....,,•.....,. 1 J. I 1 I I I I I I 1 t 1 , ,,fl ;`� I —1
- - - - - --- SC
L—v;;:E -—-
I -
I I I a I
t-+ -1-1--+ t--d k--1-++-
1 _ �,
1 I I � , I I I I I t t 1 I 1 I I I I . . 1 t ♦r ' ,` � u-1,: i ,1 ..
I
QZ
, ;;�� R�=-1—STREET-
o� I— _
�—
O TRAIL
!1
r-
�� I 1 I
WATER `C URSE \'� O
ZONE BOUNdARY
B NE--_
v
'\
(UBflEEZE D&.NE—-—-—- -
----- -- -- '- -- -0%
t N
CD
_
cu
�S 1
v
u, I I I , f j I BBL-ESTANS C
ICS
— — — '
---------------------- ------------ --------- -------------- ----- --------- ----
- - - -—-—- - -—- -
--
d t♦ - ' ------ -------------------- I ----- ------------ --- R—/---C----- ------ --- ---- ---------- -------------- ---------- OAK STREET PNP - -
-------------------- ------------------- — --
----------------
Y ------------
-———
—————————
—
,♦1 I I r♦. - -•-• I t_° ' ' "1 I ....tea:::/; :::::/
1 r
n I , .
1 If7CENTER OF S. 2
----------------
1
bi
3 —
LEGEND VIES T WINDS COMMUNI T Y
J
W _
a- JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS UNDISTURBED
a-
IV W 114 SEC T/ON 2 T 2.S. R A � ;��r.. _� ���� .-.•.1 IRRIGATED ACTIVE RECREATION AREA , . `--M�� 5.E., P.M.M.
' STORM WATER DETENTION FACILITY GALLATJ- N COUNTY- ONTANA
ENGINEERING PROPOSED TRAIL SYSTEMCD
-
- N
HKM Engineering Inc. ® PEDESTRIAN TRAIL CROSSING E,V/' S A STER
PLAN
McChesney Professional Bldg. � BRIDGE � 2 �h 2
601 Nikles Dr., Suite 2
0041 ,
o —-—————50' WATER COURSE OFFSET
Bozeman, MT 59715r „
C) (406) 586-8834 zoo o zoo
FAX (406) 586-1730
i scale feet DATE: MAY 24, 2004 PROJECT NO. 04S067.110
es
Copyright ® 2004 HKM Engineering Inc., All Rights Reserved. ,
Q
Page 1 of 1
Jami Morris
From: Jami Morris
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 4:57 PM
To: 'lynn.bacon@landandwater.net'
Subject: West Winds
Lynn,
I took a look at the Watercourse Setback Planting Plan for West Winds and I have a couple of comments. One,
the plan should be in the form of a landscape plan that depicts the location of all existing vegetation and then the
approximate placement of the-new vegetation. The exhibit should give us an an approximate location of each
tree and shrub along the stream just like Shelly Engler's Plan for the park landscaping.
Second, the code does not require exact spacing of,one tree every 25-35 feet or shrubs every 5-15 feet like the
street trees. It just outlines the number of trees and shrubs based on the length of adjacency to the stream. So if
you have a 100 foot long stream you have to do 3 or 4 trees and 7 to 20 shrubs (depending on size)within the
setback. The total required can be reduced depeding on the number of existing trees and shrubs. Also, the trees
can be grouped. Planning Staff would rather see a more natural design than evenly spaced trees but you have to
provide the total number of plants as outlined in the LIDO. The only way to reduce the number of trees and
shrubs is to request a variance from the City Commission.
Jami Morris, Associate Planner
Bozeman Planning & Community Development
20 East Olive Street
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, Montana 59771
phone 406-582-2260
fax 406-582-2263
Imorris@bozeman.net
1/10/2005
i
Post-it®Fax Note 7671 Date pages
ol
To From
1 � �
Co./Derft. Co.
Phone# Phone#
Fax# (i` l� Fax# v`OCG
September 21, 2004 �1j!_
E N G I N E E R I N G
S EP 2 1 2004 ' McChesney Professional Building
Rec. No. 04S067.110 �
601 Nikles Drive
LLL� Suite 2
DEPARR-IEW OF PLAN Bozeman, MT 59715
Ms. Jamie Moms
Phone: 406.586.8834
Fax: 406.586.1730
City of Bozeman www.hkminc.com
Planning Office
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman MT, 59771
RE: West Winds Planned Community
Watercourse Setback Planting Plan
Dear Ms. Morris,
::Please-find-attached-for your-re'View the Watercourse Setback Planting-Plan for the WestWinds
PUD. This plan has been prepared by the Lynn Bacon, Wetland Scientist with Land &Water
Consulting, Inc. Within the attached plan Lynn has strived to adhere to the UDO requirements
while also adhering to the MT 310 and Section 404 permitting and mitigation parameters. It is
my understanding that Lynn has discussed her approach with you at a recent WRB meeting and
that allowances were made within the plan to remain ecologically sensitive to the hydrological
constraints of the landform. Lynn has supplied explanations in support of these requested
changes, specifically regarding plant material survivability and water availability. The attached
plan is based on Lynn's professional judgment for plantings appropriate for the site.
If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call our office.
Sincerely,
BKM Engineering Inc.
Clint Litle, P.E.
Cc: John Dunlap
Attachments
BILLINGS,MONTANA BUTTE,MT BOZEMAN LAB MILES CITY,IAT SHERIDAN,wY HELENA,MT
406.656.6399 406.723.8213 406.5B5.5915 406.232.6666 307.672.9006 406.442.0370
OF
3
- 34 3 5 - - - - _ BA X TER LANE- (MINOR A R TER/A L) SS MH - - - - - - — - -
1
II
♦ � 1 -- 1 1 �. I � I I I I 1 I � 1 I I I I I F-, '} 1
-i�L--L_1--CiJ_-J
I - - - TRADE-MND—'--LANE- - - - - - --- '
. � -TRADE
VIM] NE- —1
--- - - ASPEN-GR6VE— — EE7
1
I II � - -
'
I
-- I......
I-1_-_J L_-_l- -1_—L__.L_1 I -- -- -- -- --
-77
COVERED
PICNIC. TABLES
CIL
i-Li ' L_1-1--I-1_J
/ I
�TR€€f-
-- T
r- r_ -ram __� --►
I 4
't■ I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 OU PMENT
W s
un�rrEo owov 1 41
— — —Y�11'Ifl �— a7TfiCC1 I i I
�= 1 1
r
i
ti
I
TRAIL
L_
—BREQ NE— _ _ I ill
� Q1
1 I
-BREEZ&LANE-- - --- -- -;
Q 1 — 1 --J --_ •
S III
CD
Lo
� � L__ I I ►
cu
d
I I
o
BBE=EST6NE-C�
1
O
d9 N M M a
— SS MH
---------------------}- -------- S J--_ — — - ------------------- —
Ifl ——————— -------- -S-�tfil-t---------------------- - t- . .�5---------_--- -----SS--------- ---- -- —
L — - --- - - - - -—-— - - - - SS MH - - - - -
------------------- - ----------------- ------------------------------------
--- -- ---------- ----------- OAK STREET (PR/NC/PAL ARTER/A L) ----- - -
- - - --------------_-------- '
_ _ I I
' I
- I
:.r I
y
CENTER OF S. 2 I I
1 I ( I I I `I ,
-
3 I
LEGEND
_ WEST WINDS COMMUNI T Y
J -
W
a- JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS UNDISTURBED
a IRRIGATED ACTIVE RECREATION AREA NW 114 SECTION 2, T.2.S., R.5.E., P.M.M.
a.
STORM WATER DETENTION FACILITY GALLA T/N COUNTY, MONTANA
E N G I N E E R I N G — PROPOSED TRAIL SYSTEM — N —
i
M HKM Engineering Inc. ® PEDESTRIAN TRAIL CROSSINGRE VISED MA S TER L A At
McChesney Professional Bldg. � BRIDGE � �/ � t� 2
601 Nikles Dr., Suite 2
o Bozeman, MT 59715 ——-————50' WATER COURSE OFFSET a
CD (406) 586-8834 zoo o zoo
FAX (406) 586-1730
i ' scale feet DATE: MAY 24, 2004 PROJECT NO. 04S067.110
C3
Copyright ® 2004 HKM Engineering Inc., All Rights Reserved.
n
� � r
aaGc5 OrL.
/� ��
�,�s � � �
/ f
� j
�� �, i
• 0
WAIVER OF RIGHT TO.PROTEST
CREATION OF SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
The undersigned owner of the real property situated in the County of Gallatin, State of
Montana, and more particularly described as follows:
A tract of land being NW'/4, Section 2, T2S, R5E, Gallatin County, Montana, and
located between Baxter Lane, Oak Street, 27`h Avenue and Fowler Avenue,
Said tract contains 161.30 acres, more or less, and is subject to all existing easements
or apparent on the ground.
IN CONSIDERATION of receiving approval for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Unit Development on the subject property from the City of Bozeman, along with accompanying
rights and privileges and for other and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, and in recognition of the impacts to Oak Street, Fowler Avenue, Baxter Lane,
North 27`' Avenue and the City of Bozeman Sewer System, which will be caused by the
development of the above-described property,the owner has waived and do hereby waive for itself,
its successors and assigns, the right to protest the creation of one or more special improvement
districts for: a) Signalization of the intersection of W Oak Street and North 27`' Avenue; b)
Signalization of the intersection of W Oak Street and Fowler Avenue; c) Signalization of the
intersection of Baxter Lane and North 27`k Avenue; d) Signalization of the intersection of
Baxter Lane and Fowler Avenue;and e) Fowler Avenue trunk sewer main improvements, or
to make any written protest against the size or area or creation of the district be assessed in response
to a duly passed resolution of intention to create one or more special improvement districts which
would include the above-described property.
In the event a Special Improvements District is not utilized for the completion of these
improvements, the developer agrees to participate in an alternate financing- method for the
completion of said improvements on a fair share, proportionate basis as determined by square
•
footage of property, taxable valuation of the property, traffic contribution from the development, or
a combination thereof.
This waiver shall be a covenant running with the land and shall not expire with dissolution of
the company,provided however this waiver shall apply to the lands herein described.
The terms, covenants and provisions of the waiver shall extend to, and be binding upon the
successors-in-interest and assigns of the parties hereto.
DATED this day of ,20
LANDOWNER
John Dunlap
Managing Member
STATE OF MONTANA )
:ss
County of Gallatin )
On this day of , 2004, before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public for the State of Montana, personally appeared John Dunlap, known to me to be the
Managing Member of west_West, L.L.C, the company that executed the within instrument, and
acknowledged to me that he executed the same for and on behalf of said company.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set myhand and affixed my Notarial Seal the
day and year first above written.
(SEAL)
Printed Name
Notary Public for State of Montana
Residing at: Bozeman,Montana
Commission Expires:
(Use 4 digits for expiration year)
CONCURRENT INSTALLATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE
HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT
This agreement is made and entered in to this day of , 2004, by and
between Quest West, L.L.C, hereinafter referred to as "Developer" and the City of Bozeman, a
Municipal Corporation of the State of Montana, hereinafter called the "City".
1. The Subdivider agrees to release, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its
officers, directors, agents and employees from and against any suit, cause of action, claim, cost,
expenses, obligation, and liability of any character, including attorney's fees, which are brought
or asserted for any injury, death, or physical damage to property received or sustained by any
person, persons, property, business or any other entity, arising out of or resulting from, or in
connection with the issuance of building permits pursuant to the approved planned unit
development for Phases IA and 1B of West Winds Subdivision, and City Ordinances 1533.
2. Developer agrees to defend the City, its officers, directors, agents and employees,
should City, its officers directors, agents or employees be named as a defendant in any actions
concerning the issuance of building permits described herein. The obligations of the Developer
to release, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, will apply to any suit, cause of action,
claim, cost or obligation including, without limitation, those alleged under the common law or
pursuant to a federal or state statute or regulation such as those arising in tort, trespass, nuisance
and strict liability.
3. In the event the City is found proportionately responsible, the Developer will be
held responsible for only those damages, costs or liabilities as are attributable to the Developer's
percent of fault as compared with 100% of the fault, giving rise to the damages. The indemnity
required herein shall not be limited by reason of the specification of any particular insurance
coverage of this agreement.
4. Should either the City or the Developer be held responsible for any damages,
costs or liabilities resulting from an intentional act by an officer, director, agent or employee in
1
connection with the work specified in this agreement, then in that event, that party shall release,
indemnify and hold harmless the other as to any damages, costs or liabilities that result from or
arise out of that intentional act including reasonable attorney's fees and costs which shall include
costs and salary of the city attorney or other in-house counsel. Further, notwithstanding the
obligations set forth in paragraph 3 above, the Developer agrees to defend the City against all
allegations of intentional acts. However, should the City be found .responsible due to an
intentional act by its officer, director, agent or employee, then in that event the City agrees to
reimburse Developer for reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in that defense.
DEVELOPER
QUEST WEST, L.L.C. by
John Dunlap
Managing.Member
STATE OF MONTANA )
:ss
County of Gallatin )
On this day-of , 2004, before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public for the State of Montana, personally appeared John Dunlap, known to me to be the
Managing Member of Quest West, L.L.C, the company that executed the within instrument, and
acknowledged to me that he executed the same for and on behalf of said company.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Notarial Seal the
day and year first above written.
(SEAL)
Printed Name
Notary Public for State of Montana
Residing at: Bozeman, Montana
Commission Expires:
(Use 4 digits for expiration year)
2
CITY OF BOZEMAN, by
Debra H. Arkell, Director of
Public Service
STATE OF MONTANA )
:ss
County of Gallatin )
On this day of , 2004, before me, a Notary Public for the
State of Montana, personally appeared Debra H. Arkell, known to me to be the person described
in and who executed the foregoing instrument as Director of Public Service of the City of
Bozeman, whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that she
executed the same for and on behalf of said City.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal on the day
and year first written above.
(SEAL)
Printed Name
Notary Public for State of Montana
Residing at: Bozeman, Montana
Commission Expires:
(Use 4 digits for expiration year)
3
West Winds.Subdivi§ion #P=04009
DEVELOPER
QUEST WEST, L.L.C._by
John Dunlap
Managing Member
STATE OF MONTANA )
:ss
County of Gallatin )
On this dayof ,2004,before me,the undersigned,a Notary
Public for the State of Montana, personally appeared John Dunlap,known to me to be the Managing
Member of Quest West,L.L.C,the company that executed the within instrument,and acknowledged to
me that he executed the same for and on behalf of said company.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Notarial Seal the
day and year first above written.
(SEAL)
Printed Name
Notary Public for State of Montana
Residing at: Bozeman,Montana
Commission Expires:
(Use 4 digits for expiration year)
Im rovements'A reement = `Pa e'.5
West:Winds:Subdivision #P-040,09
CITY OF BOZEMAN, by
Debra H. Arkell, Director of
Public Service
STATE OF MONTANA )
:ss
County of Gallatin )
On this. day of ,2004,before me,a NotaryPublic for the State of
Montana,personally appeared Debra H. Arkell,known to me to be the person described in and who
executed the foregoing instrument as Director of Public Service of the City of Bozeman,whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that she executed the same for and on
behalf of said City.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set myhand and affixed my seal on the day and
year first written above.
(SEAL)
Printed Name
Notary Public for State of Montana
Residing at: Bozeman,Montana
Commission Expires:
(Use 4 digits for expiration year)
Improvements Agreement -Pa e::6
West Winds Community
Watercourse Setback Planting Plan
September 17, 2004
Introduction
The City of Bozeman's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section 18.42.100
determines watercourse setbacks for streams within the city limits that have been
impacted by development. The watercourse through West Winds Community is located
in the central area of the project site; conveyance is in a northerly direction from Oak
Street to Baxter Lane. The drainage was recently named Cattail Creek.
Within the development three (3) culverted road crossings are planned. Two (2) city
streets or roads currently cross the watercourse adjacent to the property at Oak Street and
Baxter Lane. At the time of this writing, the Cattail Creek drainage did not convey water,
likely as a result of a drain ditch that was excavated upslope and adjacent to the
watercourse more than 50 years ago. Storm and irrigation water from upstream reaches
are conveyed into the drain ditch by a culvert beneath Oak Street. Therefore, the only
potential source of water within the Cattail Creek drainage is supplied by'surface runoff
from the adjacent agricultural fields and perhaps groundwater(unconfirmed).
The following watercourse setback planting plan has been devised to satisfy several
criteria: 1) the MT 310 and Section 404 permitting conditions; 2) UDO Setback Planting
requirements (18.42.100 B.7); and 3) ecological limitations of the landform. West Winds
has received Section 404 (July 27, 2004: No. 2004-90-309) and MT 310 (5/21/2004: GD-
24-04)permits to fill the adjacent drain ditch and to install the culverts within Cattail
Creek.
The MT 310 permit also allows the re-establishment of the watercourse in the south reach .
of Cattail Creek. After completion of channel construction and seeding has occurred in
the south reach and the drain ditch has been filled, the Oak Street culvert will be
redirected-so that all storm and irrigation water from upstream properties will be
conveyed through Cattail Creek within the West Winds Community. This hydrologic
restoration scenario is part of the Section 404 mitigation plan.
Watercourse Reach Descriptions
The watercourse has been divided into three (3) reaches (Exhibit A). Reach 1 is the
northern or downstream end of the watercourse; this section that was historically ditched
for.drainage reasons (1953 Water Resources Survey, Gallatin County). As part of the
404 mitigation plan Reach 1 will be naturalized by extending the saturation zone 5 feet
on each side of the water channel and sloping the current 2:1 side-cast banks to
approximately 3:1. The 404 mitigation plan requires revegetation of the disturbed areas
with wetland grass seed and shrubs.
1 LAND&WATER
a
Reach 2 is characterized by a shallow water channel with shrubs and trees along 50% of
the watercourse. No physical change is planned for this reach except for light clearing of
the channel to enable proper conveyance of stormwater.
Reach 3, the south end of Cattail Creek (closest to Oak Street) is colonized with an
impenetrable willow gallery that had no discernible channel at the time of the wetland `
delineation. In August, 2004, a 10-foot swath of shrubs was cleared from approximately
300 linear feet of the scrub-shrub wetland. In addition, a 2 foot wide/lfoot deep channel
was excavated through the center of the swath.
UDO Requirements
The UDO requires that two (2)vegetation zones be established within the watercourse
setback. Zone 1 comprises 60% "of the setback closest to the watercourse" (18.42.100.6)
or 30 feet of the 50-foot setback. Zone 2 comprises the remaining 40% "of the setback
furthest from the watercourse" (18.42.100 B.6) or 20 feet.
The UDO further defines that within Zone 1 30% shall be comprised of"native riparian
sedges, forbes and grasses" (18.42.100 B.7a) and 70% shall be comprised of a"mixture
of new and existing trees and/or shrubs". We have translated this requirement into two
(2) sub-zones within Zone 1: Zone 1-A represents 10 feet of Zone 1 immediately adjacent
to the watercourse("native riparian sedges, forbes and grasses") and Zone 1-B represents
the outlying 20 feet of Zone 1 ("mixture of new and existing trees and/or shrubs").
Zone 2 shall be "planted with new or existing native grasses suited for a riparian area"
(18.42.100 B.7b). The UDO also requires expansion of the buffer to compensate for the
wetland area: the setback"buffer width shall be extended by the width of the wetland"
(18.42.100 B.4b). The buffer extensions will vary along the length of the watercourse
because of the varying wetland widths. The setback width is indicated on Exhibit A.
A proposed planting plan is provided for each watercourse reach and is illustrated by a
cross-section drawing. Species for each zone are listed on the cross-section. The
illustration and any deviations from the UDO are explained in the text below each cross-
section.
2 LAND&WATER
•
Cattail Creek Cross-sections: Reaches 1-3
Reach 1
new bank slope
current wetland width
current bank slope
upland seed upland
wetland mix seed mix if
seed mix (aspen disturbed
(willow cottonwood ;
dogwood snowberry
water alder) current')
channel
A B
(10 ft) (20 ft) ;
6—
Zone 2
Zone 1 (20,ft PLUS
(30 ft) wetland width)
All of the zones in this reach will likely require irrigation to supplement the low ground
and surface water levels to support the UDO recommended shrub and tree planting
densities (every 5'-15' for.shrubs and 25'-35' for trees). Because the channel does not
convey water at this time, and may not for several years until the system fully recharges,
all shrub and tree plantings will require frequent and timely irrigation, putting a strain on
water resources and park maintenance responsibilities. Without irrigation support it is
likely that there would be a high plant mortality rate. Therefore, we are requesting that
tree and shrub plantings within Zone 1-A be decreased in density and 1-B be delayed at ob
least two (2) years until data from groundwater monitoring wells installed along the
watercourse indicate that water levels are sufficient to support such efforts. Delaying
plant installation would also correspond with the phasing of the park improvements and L�
allow wetland plant material to be maintained concurrent with park plantings. This �� o�
request will not alter the width of the watercourse setback.
The application of seed mixes will not be appreciably affected by ground or surface water
levels and will persist with normal rainfall after initial start-up watering. Wetland seed
will be applied to Zone 1-A (Table 1) and a native upland seed mix to Zone 1-B (Table
2).
3 LAND&WATER
In the event that groundwater levels will support tree and shrub plantings after a 2-3.year
start-up watering effort, the following planting plan will be enacted. All shrub and tree
plantings will be naturally grouped and not evenly spaced. In Zone 1-A, groups of 2-3
wetland shrubs (alder, dogwood, willow) will be planted at least every 50 feet. Given the
thick shrub community upstream, we do not recommend plantings every 5-15 feet. In
Zone 1-13, groups of facultative wetland trees (aspen and cottonwood) and upland shrubs
(snowberry, current) and upland trees (city-accepted species) will be planted every 100
feet; a native upland seed mix (Table 2) will be utilized in this sub-zone.
Zone 2 will be seeded with the upland seed mix in areas that were previously colonized
by agricultural crops (alfalfa, wheat or barley).
*Note: If groundwater levels are sufficient to support shrub and tree growth.
Groundwater should be <2 feet below ground surface to support wetland trees and
shrubs (Zone 1-A) and < 3-4 feet below ground surface in uplands (Zone 1-B).
4 LANDA WATER
Reach 2
current wetland width
current vegetation ;
;
water if if
channel disturbed disturbed: upland
:wetland upland seed mix if
seed mix seed mix disturbed
' extension
A B
(10 ft) (20 ft)
Zone 2
Zone 1 (20 ft PLUS
(30 ft) wetland width
extension)
Reach 2 has an area of thick shrubs primarily on one side of the watercourse; these
characteristics are depicted in the Reach 2 cross-section. There is also a section in Reach
2 with no shrub vegetation which resembles Reach 1; this section will receive the same
planting efforts as Reach 1.
Within the shrub area of Reach 2, Zone 1 will not be disturbed or replanted. In the case
of disturbance a wetland seed mix (Table 1) will be applied to Zone 1-A and an upland
seed mix to Zone 1-13 (Table 2). Zone 1-B may be supplemented with aspen if the water
table permits. Zone 2 will not be disturbed or replanted unless an agricultural crop is
currently established in that area(alfalfa, wheat or barley): If this is this case, the upland
seed mix will be used to revegetate Zone 2.
5 LAND WATER
Reach 3
current wetland width
current vegetation
10 ft wide cleared
one and excavated
extension ' I I channel
B A
(10 ft) (10 ft)
Zone 2
(20 ft PLUS wetland Zone 1
width extension) (30 ft)
The 404 and 310 permits allowed clearing of a 10-foot wide strip through the shrub
community within Reach 3. Prior to this work no stream channel existed within this
reach. Therefore, a 2 foot wide/l foot deep channel was been excavated to convey
surface water. The disturbed area will be seeded with a wetland seed mix (Table 1). The
remaining portion of Zone 1-A will remain in its current state; no shrubs, trees or
reseeding will occur in this sub-zone. Zone 1-B will also not be disturbed. Zone 2 will
not be disturbed unless it extends into an agricultural crop (alfalfa, wheat or barley) or
weed control requires reseeding with the upland seed (Table 2).
6 WANED d WATER
Table 1 Wetland seed mix
Species Common Name PLS
Pounds/acre
Grasses
Descham sia caes itosa tufted hair grass FACW) 1.5
Elymus trachycaulus "Revenue" Slender 10.0
wheatgrass(FAC)
Puccinella distans alkali ass FACW) 1.5
Hordeum brach antherum meadow barley(FACW) 10.0
Gl ceria striata fowl mannagrass(OBL) 8.0
Grass-like
Eleocharis palustris creeping s ikerush(OBL) 1.0
Juncus balticus Baltic rush(OBL) 0.5
Total 32.5 PLS/acre'
Based on hand-broadcasting rate.
Table 2 Upland Seed Mix
Species Common Name PLS
Pounds/acre
Grasses
Pascopyrum smithii "Rosanna"Western 10.0
wheatgrass
Elymus lanseolatus "Criteria"Thickspike 12.0
wheatgrass
Poa canb i "Canbar"Canby bluegrass 4.0
Elymus trachycaulus "Revenue" Slender 10.0
wheatgrass
Forbs
Tri olium re ens White Dutch Clover 1.00
Ratibida columnaris prairie coneflower 0.5
Linum lewisii "A ar"blue flax 4.0
Total 41.5 PLS/acre'
Based on hand-broadcasting rate.
7 LAND&WATER
1
I
_� _ . - ........
_ I 1 1! -�3 v
34 35 BAXTER LANE (M/NOR_ ARTER/ L1
> IT,
-T-I I i,
' /1 l �j III
I' .—_— —.'.i1RADEiANNB— -L-ANE---. --+--�.� / i— �.. � •,:. - I.
I
JI
1—JI L 1_I J__J-1_J ' J i ll� III j
�
I`=_ ir-r OVE —STRi ZONE�I 1 r t i I''I II�II 11 l�- 1
,
I, � = 11
". :• � ,l 't ,� $If-� T � i'i; rl �;�-�'
--f-� i
�r LI
— _�EHIACH� -LAND —___- - - - Q 1 I I� —� -,�,,r-- -
r� i i-T-i-r-T-i r�-r --[—- , -- - W j
I �11 �
r
-
0 ZONE 2-� '/ - tl I l,l I:•t I
III 1 .1 J_L_L 1�' L 1J LlJ� Ir z;
I,� AIAFlMN�RUVE- STAEEr \,` I
Ili I�
�r T-ram- n- � I-r-� I I ,,,,� ,
JI IF
IL_l Ll_-L l� f III IT,LI LI 'I W
J �J_� �� _
41I I I. ��` \.�. --BREEi��-L-ANE--
Q` j III I'jj''i
' t ,
--�
a BREEZEi-ANE—I
I
I
I
' _—
--_-- _—----  -- -
,-�-,
v - ---- ------- - -- ------- ----- ---- -- - --- ---------- ----- _ - _---- ' -- -
a OAK TR ET INC/PA ART R/AL - — -
-- --
I I
n
X CENTER OF S. 2
_- WEST WINS COMMUNITY d
a' NW 114 SECT/ON 2, T.2.S., R.5.E., P.M.M.
a
GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA
ENGINEERING ViIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII —
N—H Engineering Inc. WA TERCOUPSE SET A CK
Y McChesney Professional Bldg.
601 NiNes Dr.,suite z PL A TING PL A N
Bozeman,MT 59715
ti (406)586-8834 zoo a zoo EXHIBIT A
o FAX(406)586-1730
0
scale feet DATE: SEPT 19,2004 PROJECT N0.045067.110
Copyright®2004 HKM En,ineerin,In,,,All Rights Reserved. �R
J
0 0 Page I of 2
Andy Epple
..........aa.........a-................ ........................... .........000tt........ ......
From: Andy Epple
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 4:37 PM
To: 'Litle, Clint'; 'John Dunlap'
Cc: Jami Morris; Steve Kirchhoff; Jeff Krauss
Subject: West Winds Master Plan
The Commission engaged in a thorough discussion last night about the June 29th Revised Master Plan for West
Winds Community. All Commissioners acknowledged and appreciated the changes you have proposed to date,
which address many of their concerns. Commissioners agreed, however,that two items in particular need to be
addressed further.
First, Commissioners would encourage you to connect the new, unnamed, east-west street between Cobblestone
Ct. and Breeze Lane back to Buckrake Ave.to the west. All Commissioners felt this would be a logical
connection to complete the grid-like pattern in the southeast quadrant.
Second, a majority of Commissioners indicated that they will only approve the final PUD Plan if a similar grid-like
street network is planned for and depicted in the southwest quadrant of the project. In giving us this direction,
Commissioners were aware of John's plans to develop a campus-like senior and assisted living complex in the
area, and they acknowledged that those types of housing complexes may best be served by fewer streets with
alternative pedestrian and vehicular circulation facilities. But they noted that owners and plans such as these can
change over time. In the event John or a subsequent owner decides not to do senior and assisted living in a
campus-like setting, the Commission wants to have a grid-like roadway system planned for, in advance, as the
basis for a more traditional neighborhood design. They don't want to negotiate with John or a future landowner
about the layout of a grid roadway system in this area when a new development is proposed;they want it ready
for immediate implementation at that time.
Commissioners further explained that the PUD process provides John or a future landowner with the opportunity
to propose varying from the planned grid system, when a specific, detailed development proposal is presented to
the City for review. At that time, in that review process, the applicant could make the case for alternative
pedestrian and vehicular facilities in the area, designed to accomplish the same objectives for interconnectivity
and ease of circulation through and around the development. Language to this effect could be included in the
PUD guidelines, according to the comments made by Commissioners last night,to make clear that the planned
grid system can be varied from in the face of an acceptable, alternative design proposal. But their intent is to
have a grid-like street system planned as the principal transportation design feature in this area, until such time as
an alternative design can be considered in conjunction with a specific development proposal. Discussed in this
context, all five of the Commissioners felt this was the most appropriate way to proceed, so it would be best for all
of us to immediately move in that direction.
I hope this information is useful, Clint. A number of other comments were made in the course of the discussion;
I've only described the two subjects that a clear majority of Commissioners agreed upon. Please give Jami or me
a call if you have any questions or want to meet. I'll be gone the 9th through the 16thrd, but Jami will be here. We
both look forward to seeing this project brought to successful conclusion in the near future.
Best regards,
Andy Epple
Director of Planning and Community Development
City of Bozeman
20 East Olive Street
Mailing address: P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771-1230
Phone: 406.582.2260
Fax: 406.582.2263
7/7/2004
•, • • Page 2 of 2
E-mail: aepple@bozeman.net
7/7/2004
4
ENGINEERING
{ McChesney Professional Building
1 a r nn:a
2 5 ✓, ,� 601 Nikles Drive
Suite 2
__. Bozeman, MT 59715
DER1" hIT C i't. Phone: 406.586.8834
Fax: 406.586.1730
June 25, 2004 www.hkminc.com
Project No. 045067.110
Mr. Andy Epple
City of Bozeman
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771
Re: West Winds Final PUD
Dear Mr. Epple:
We appreciate the time and effort that you and your staff have recently put toward the West
Winds Project, and specifically your work with the Commission in requesting clarification
to condition#35 (east side to be more grid-like) dun g last Monday's commission meeting.
As you are aware, we have also met this week directly with three of the commissioners-
Hietala, Kirchhoff(joint meeting) and Krauss (individual meeting)—to receive direct input
on how to address this condition and condition#29 that is in regards to distribution of land
use. Based on these informal meetings with the commissioners, we have revised the master
plan to meet the intent of Commissioner Kirckhoff's motion(condition#35), to what we
believe is the satisfaction of the majority of Commissioners.
We have specifically revised the master plan as follows:
1. Added an additional east—west road north of Tschache Lane.
2. Extended Garden Court northerly to Trade Wind Lane.
3. Shifted the 60' trail corridor from the north to the south side of Tschache Lane (staff
recommendation).
4. Revised the trail system alignment to stay within outer zone of the stream setback
(Krauss request). Please note that it is not practical to make all trail crossing at road
intersections when the trail is aligned within the stream setback.
5. The three (3) lots on the west side of Buckrake Avenue, adjacent to Oak,have been
removed.
BILLINGS,MONTANA BUTTE,MT BOZEMAN LAB MILES CITY,MT SHERIDAN,wY HELENA,MT
406.656.6399 406.723.8213 406.585.5915 406.232.6666 307.672.9006 406.442.0370
Andy Epple
June 25, 2004
Page 2 of 2
As mentioned above, we also discussed condition#29 with the Commissioners regarding
distribution of land use. Based on those discussions, we revised Figure 2.1 (attached)
adding RSL lots on Davis Lane north of Winter Park Street.
We are working diligently to complete the Final PUD submittal and Phase I Subdivision
infrastructure plans. These submittals require substantial time and effort and we need clear
direction if the revised plan meets the intent of conditions #29 and#35. To proceed blindly
could result in a train wreck that can easily be avoided with a little communication.
Therefore, we formally request a letter from your office providing your finding of
conformance regarding the revised plan dated June 25, 2004 to conditions #29 and#30, and
that Phase I Subdivision configuration will not change. Furthermore your timely response
would be greatly appreciated for we are proceeding with work on several of the Final PUD
elements—such as the Park Plan and Landscape Plan.
If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call our office.
Sincerely,
H1KM Engineering Inc.
Clint Litle,P.E.
Attachments
cc: John Dunlap
H:\04\S067110\General Correspondence\0406251a5_ae.doc
i�j L�n�M
� �
� 6 ��
emo E IV G LN E E R I N G �
To: Andy Epple
From: Clint Litle
CC:
Date: 6/29/2004
Re: West Winds PUD—Phase I Sub'd
Andy:
The attached map is intended to replace the map I supplied your office last Friday. I have
added an additional connection to 27d' between Tschache Lane and Oak Street on the East
side.
Any questions please call.
Clint Litle,P.E.
HKM Engineering
601 Nikles Drive, Suite 2
Bozeman,MT 59715
406.586.8834
406.586.1730(fax)
clitle@hkminc.com
www.hknunc.com.
E
1
�', 1 ! I -
- -
- � I i I
QIII — I 1:..".
. - II
• I
" �Ej - , - i I I
o� '
11 '-,"... I".,"I'-
J _ _ , I -
' III -1. - ;. ...,. ,: ;.1 =
`,.�• , .,., . •.. . - 1 It f_ -wr +I; ,`,�', ,-.,.,u_, I ``_ -i)
O ' _ I ' '' . . I �:
;: T.
. ,. , ,. . — — 1, 3
--- 35 --------_ _ BAXTER _LANE (MINOR ARTERIAL) -- - ----- --- - --
i No
77�
r Fk l
V I U-11 , - ar I
I
=,l I
I , , I I I I I I
--
1
I
I I I I I I I I ' I I l I' ,: 1 �•,, 3
_—L__I—L_ _1., L_� _l-1__J—_I___I 11-1 _. a� I
i �.,,
�11
1 ,; - - - TRADE-MD '- LANE- -—- - - - I. - _ I
_ __
`Y' t,j - -
-� � I � T� I �� � ��r—� � V, i g
.,1 I I I I , I I I , I I 1 I / 1 \, � �: .5.,- ?�n� : '
r, I I 1 1 1 I 1 , , 1 I I I I I , ---- -- --
, I r--_ f - --I— ---- LANE-— '
11 44- ll����r^ � T f �I`
.. _ - J1 :' I ,
1
I . -_ I „ :
VJ. I I I 1 , I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I. �I I I I ,z y
Q:_ I , I , , , 1 I L
1 1 I I I I 1 1 U-9 f -
I L_1__L__I L_- -_I- ' --1 1---I---I 1--1 ' ' -- I ,- - - --- _1
—Ks�Clv-c'fllevE-- m ET— --� I "I ,� I -J ,. ; ;f
— --��_�-1 ��. U
_ �__
_ —
T -� rT-T-1 ' (-1 ,
a
.-.. , 1...1_ -I _.1 ( ' I I 1 I I I 1 , ., 1 r /. I I e I I.
. .,, , 11 I I 1 1 I I 1 I , I I I 1 , ' 1 __4,; I f
[_t---L...-_I---I---}--t—1 f—}.-+- H I- I - /" � L _
17�
I I I I I I I I I I _1 1
1......•,..,.", 9 I I I I I I I I I- I 1 1 I � �: U-, -- �- ' --- --- -- —-—
'
.
I
L-1_ _� L_J__1—III-_I_�__�_1� Z. 1 _
-- -- �,�� ... � I
— — ———�sE�ME L—�,NE — - - — - I a
�-- — -
I I �. ' '
I
' ant T - r T ! r- r r—r �-, . �� 11
_ -
1 I I I I I I I I' I I I I �� J ' 11 I ' �,,
�71 to-
{--� --I-- I I —}— f--1 ' �— +--} �---� -- �. -
I , , I I I I I I I I I I I .
�., I i I - I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I. I ,� �. ,\ I:. ' `` I ^'`
l-1
I --- - j - -__ � __ ----
I - , _AUTI�MN-CRO�FE— —; GREET I .�'''1` •�.,'�► _�
A,• I __ _ _ I I '
I1 I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 r -J ,.; U-" \� y° ' I
J I - I ' -- - -- - I �—~ I � ;
o� ". _�1: '' 4- 1 � I.,.- I
I / _ ."�� "
:.�
I 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 ` I_—
V.. �" I. I '� I . I I I - U9:;"��'�� z:L�"':i ' I I �..i I 1 ,a I
% I" ' �__-��i�'' 1.',_��""' I., ,' ' I- " I �_ � .� A I I. �' ,
- - —1 I I ► i
I
mot: ` \ ' ' A J� � J
Q '�' ,," " -� J
_\1 `I I I
��-���E� ; 1 -
J
.7'W _ _
r �n
I� -
. ��
�`' ) I I __ ' I31�.� I
o ! I ►
• i� 1 � I I I
-TI% I ♦ r 1 U-9 i I -
V11 \ . , 1 I I'e. ]7
cS I il 1 - o
a7 EN�®R L®�®N /�EA -♦ 1\' - -—BREEz -LANE—- - _ I I `�I
zI I ■ 1 , / fJ I S
I 11 � % i - �:' I '��\Li�_."�_:' , �--- --� Se - F �,
J . gI ( I ,- :'1 1 I I — — I
2 _
Ir
''AA
s � ---- I---- ICI I 'V
v, a ,
: - I I j. a s,z,.,;.. w tA.-,•.+,G ,.,,x ,.,,�. �h S� 3 ., I ...,,.:,..,4 ,. J s s�•,�.,b,..�;f _ ,a.1 r .'b°.s '/ �it -- --
__Z
,' (— —
---eREC-ZEANE-------- - -—
- -- �'L_ 1 ►� I _ I ?, I N
�.: f 4 ( _ j I
-
o , I I I I
-, �� \ � I
I -
: � ,
�s
�a
I
- 11 I I
.+ I
A
Nil-_ , ,
I ��
s ,�,., „e
- I k I
6'-
•! ., <. _-
S 1:
o SK/LLED NURS/NC` - -- --—-- -- - __ , ,.
o ' I I ,
N I I /�,� I �— I -
FA .^ �I I I r ,I I I i
In --t �`. -1
n, 1, ,r
\ y- ,}�y
I_
iv
I
I
�0 r1
I
__ «{— 1
I ^A'c ^T
Bpi ���DfYC�T
I
�CCJI
i 1 _—�
1,
�.
f T''
i
.. .. .. .r
. ,:::.
3 - -- x ,d
I
I�
I t
I
I
I
fi k Y
y
I f-
1 t I
0
01 I
I
Il
)
i
.
/ - 1. R
N
I.
.{ „ ,._ I
W j r, ,x ,,,.�, A..-,-..z ,�.t .a,... _ — — -
- - - - _
-------------------------------------------------------- —— —— -------_ ------ ---- ------------------ —_— — ----- ----------=-------- E
- ----- - -- - T
d -- ------------------------- --- ------- ------ OA K S TREE T (PR/NC/PA L A R TER/A L) --------------- ------ ------------------------------------ —
�---
-7-------
_ _ I
"-.,. . -1; I "I 11-1 I
I i%_
--
----- --------------------------------------------------------
-.1 "I f", .
.1 I I I 11:111L: - 11�11;:If:A'
i' ' 1:14'�"�']
_- !��� - - --------
I . W x 1,
1 .,. ,�01
f _rl , �, , ;
' I I _ I ��, . . - ,
, I . , i I �,' — � I t-
N I I . ., _ . ..1. - . I I I I . CENTER OF S. 2
mI I'� 11
L — — —
IX_
LEGEND WEST WINDS -COMMUNI T Y
J
w ��
0-1 "-y .' .,_;-m1. PROPosED PARKs NW 114 SEC T/ON 2, T.2.S., R.5.E., P.M.M.
Q t EXISTING WETLANDS
��,; ,4�.,,n 4: : TOWNHOUSE
E CALLA TIN COUNTY, MONTANA
a ENGINEERING SINGLE FAMILY - -
N
slwi., "� ' DUPLEX-FOURPLEX MULTI-FAMILY
HKM Engineering Inc. , APARMENT L A SE A IV
;� McChesney Professional Bldg. wSP a.w ,f SENIOR ASSISTED AND MULTI-FAMILY REVISED JUIVE 25 2004
601 Nikles Dr., Suite 2
Bozeman, MT 59715
-i1oN (406) 586-8834 200 0 200 FIGURE 2.
1.
11 FAX (406) 586-1730.
i scale feet DATE: FEB. 27, 2004 PROJECT N0. 04S067.110
es
Copyright ® 2004 HKM Engineering Inc., All Rights Reserved.
I
0
NOTE 1 — MULTI FAMILY AND SENIOR AREAS: 1 I ,TE;ft I
THE INTERNAL ROAD AND BUILDING CONFIGURATIONS I ;�= I I ETApNE=
IN THE MULTI—FAMILY, AND SENIOR AREAS ARE PROVIDED
W ' FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY.. SITE SPECIFIC
W I DEVELOPMENT PLANS WILL BE PROVIDED THROUGH ' I `'=of
cry
r,1 1 •'i♦'�,, '•1'y/a ' t-�.1 r�' rv,l I I. r,n n `� '
�`�'� ' r,I:.,IIr- r,r-Tr-r\w.1•.I I THE SITE PLAN PROCESS. , ,,,�,; \ :/•/ I I ,-.' h•I/1/11 t1.//,
1✓ /II�1#mm h•h• I I.hr•./all f,fj'�,1 ,��r; , „ a_u of I�1I uw •� I I,, (�
✓ aw11 /Iola. I a. /a.I1♦w set l r r�. 1'V,,h �\ ,tlr.
t o n I I I I I r, rv-Tr-r,w•IU I ... �•r-n 1 p- I ► 1 •I/`1 11\ I t'J♦! y.v1 I �) ,!
l/1//I / , I/W 1/ r•h. I P.PI% 1111 - h•/ I-, 1 �•,1 / ,fI ,. .
T ., r,, I .r,j a./�u I I I. I a. I a.I,♦w\w I 1 - %I j i \~i ...)a_a ,I•I f �' 1 .. ,.li. /�j�J Ili�iii/ice♦i , t`�. � ?
�1' I i ii ii\:• i10110.i i 'i•ii Iw'r•,S f► I' ;}
tt tt ♦ 1 y I I•I III/fit,IT
I..\.,I♦I•I Il♦I♦I NI 1/ a_Il/ I a.al I 4 1 I •♦t/M I/
— 34 ' 35 - — — — — — — 3i� --- --- 3
_— — —_—___ __BAXTER LANE �M/NOR ARTERIAL)
-------
.:I I
•�� .�� 0
----- - -
—�DE�IVINB—I——�—— ————
l
�,,
-- - I ,1--- ---- T T I - -I I . 777
firt, w
---� 11 I I 1 I 1 I I I , I , , , ► __ 1
r
; I—+4
1-4 —1-1 k—] 11 r
,
h1-_I--JI L--1--1-� ' ----1 ---1--J L
'--- F- -7 l I" -7 T-1 6 F7 7 T_ _7 l�
/i-0#ioO to I
, L_J
_ 11- —I- F -�-- --I 1— -�-I//$Mot • I
/Wh".A., 1/1I•• � I
i.Ilnrv,Ilr./ruI I I I 1 1 1 ( I ( I I I 1 I
ili/i♦iii:ii l I 1 1 ( I ( 1 1 ( I 1 --
I i __L J_L -L
I I I
--- --------TSCHACHE---I—T-7F I 177-7
1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I
' E(TYOP�E 1
`;�
1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 Z" F
oil
QNJ
�� -- _ _ ■
_ � = -
---- _ -
�- -a I --��--F---�—f.-- -- -- �- �, __ _ , - ____._ r --- ,�
\1 \ V - `i.1 c'f� P - I I ;
LL_LLL_J__L_i__� 11
I
_ 1 -yy
_ rGfTT/'ifll�1�vST REe r - 6/. ----� ' I y
:? � �i-�i•�-ice !-�• ■��f �-if+l � I I
'
Is
Is
4
Q --
� 1 --- -----
Nr
I ..•�• * 1 1 '� i i _l
SEE NOTE 1
Is
I low a PAS, I o ��- - -,--� _ I I
G f l I /�.
L __;
r\
J oil
I r _J_ _
- -- - -- I -- -- -- -- I ,
♦. _j
r W W-rrN N Ir WW WWWO t t IIr77Z 1■t t7-1■-Ir�
------- yy�#--------- ----------- -------- - -------�----- _SS � ---- _ ----- ----- = -------- - -------=-------- -—-—
- _- _ - --- - -�S---=��----- _ --- -- ■
- - -----= ---------.------------- --------_----- OAK STREET (PR/NC/PAL ARTERIAL I ---_----------_-- ---- ----------- --------- -- -------------------------------------
--------------------
—
I
----------------------------------
I
y
I I • r, Ir-I•T I,I,r-r-Il_--�♦_.. —_ _.:— �.—f-fl-t/`,I—f-TYI'-r,�---- -_..._.-.._.W-. .__ _..._ ...._......._r»....... ... .. - _- .._ ._.. ...... .�:: �. ,..: _-.._..._ •�_._.�._-. �.. .-......- — - ""-.►I�f-tl 1.-h.a♦-F--I -r/h-MN--" --•-c. -- � _-_.-.---+=�••-v- _._-...._-_.._..___.__... -_
. i
1 11I 11 1 a_,I I ,I I•a_L_I\ 9
\I ,•,1 14off I II II II n III r,1$r T Ir,r-r-/I I I I ♦%\I aILw/ II,w1\I/I /-
/ Ih<I of It,
III•♦II II11 Y /•
'1�i 1• I 1/1/// I I 1/VI ♦. A o �1//1/h• / ;hI h•I•M •( I/�/
�i11 1. ✓ I I//a.a./It'll •A I 111 III I a_♦% I /I la_a_I\ I I I - I I I I \ •• - 1
t♦ \ ii it LI • h. � /,1 ,
\• •• I ,•I Ir,11 I,I/r-11\II - I I I I \ I I .I/I1♦%L_ f. I , ,,, 11♦
r-T T\I I a 1 I I P / I I 1//•.I I/l 1l
ai�� I�i�:'::�� I .:\.awawl
r,I/ • �•r w r, n wJ
�•Ir,r,I r- rr,1 lr•r h•hrp h• III w /I � t 1
f 1 s;;; ; I I I .I I l,;a_ /\. ,.� I I I I I C ENTER O F S.
2
II
LEGEND WEST WINDS COMMUNITY 0
I --- - PROPOSED ROAD RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSED TRAIL SYSTEM NW 1/4 SECT/ON 2, T.Z.S., R.5.E., P.M.M.
--------- -- - 5
- PROPOSED EASEMENT CALLA T/N COUNTY, MONTANA
PROPOSED LOT LINE
ENGINEERING —- -— PROPOSED ROAD CENTERLINE _ N _
PROPOSED OPEN SPACE
HKM Engineering Inc. —I PROPOSED PARKS
McChesney Professional Bldg. 777777777 777 EXISTING WETLANDS MA-.,S' TER PLAN
b 601 Nikles Dr., Suite 2
Bozeman, MT 59715
(406) 586-8834 200 0 200 FIGURE 1.2
' FAX (406) 586-1730
scale feet DATE.- FEB. 27, 2004 PROJECT NO 04SO67.110
0 Copyright O 2004 HKM Engineering Inc., All Rights Reserved.
r F
R I N E E "a' N G
McChesney Professional Building
601 Nikles Drive
Suite 2
June 18, 2004 Bozeman, MT 59715
Phone: 406.586.8834
Fa::--406-586-17-3- p (�
w vfl mmnc-d5n E U IS
Jam Morris r ;
City of Bozeman 'i
Planning Office U J U N 2 3 2004
DEPA.RRIENT OF PLANNING
AMA M_;li' ' IIr,(0cyn PP".'-NT
_.. - �. , ,
RE: West Winds Park
Dear Jani;
Thank you for meeting with Lynn Bacon, Shelly Engler and me at the West Winds site
yesterday. As you can tell from the concerns expressed by Lynn and Shelly, we face a challenge
in meeting the Zone 1 stream course setback planting requirements due to the lack of water.
Specifically, Lynn is concerned that the wetland vegetation will not survive outside a few feet
from the ditch.
What I propose is that we provide a couple of "concept"cross sections on how we propose to
plan the watercourse setback area. We then meet with city Advisor Boards to receive input prior
to a full design. I will strive to get these sections in the next few weeks so we can meet with
your advisor groups.
Your Attention is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Clint Litle
CC: Shelly Engler
Lynn Bacon
H:\04\S 067110\0406181a8.doc
6/22/2004
BILLINGS,MONTANA BUTTE,MT BOZEMAN LAB MILES CITY,MT SHERIDAN,wY HELENA,MT
406.656.6399 406.723.8213 406.585.5915 406.232.6666 307.672.9006 406.442.0370
CI1WF BOZEMAN •
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260
'•� 20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263
P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozeman.net
June 2, 2004
Quest West LLC
3825 Valley Commons Drive, Suite 4
Bozeman, MT 59718
Re: #Z-04050 West Winds PUD
#P-04009 West Winds MaSub
On Monday, May 24, 2004 the City Commission conditionally approved the Planned Unit Development
and Major Subdivision applications for the unified development plan of a 161.30 acre subdivision for the
development of 213 single-household, 92 townhouse, 5 multi-household and 8 senior assisted living lots
with the following requested relaxations from the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance: a)
Section 18.50.020 "Park Requirements" to allow the area requirement to be based on 11% net buildable area
instead of 0.03 acres per dwelling unit for the affordable housing lots; b) Section 18.16.020.B "Authorized
Uses" to allow assisted living/elderly care facilities and apartments within the "R-3" zoning district; c)
Section 18.42.030.0 "Double/Through and Reverse Frontage" to allow double frontage lots adjacent to the
arterial and collector streets; d) 18.42.040.B "Block Length" to allow the block lengths to exceed 400 feet; e)
Section 18.42.040.0 "Block Width" to allow the minimum block length to be less than 200 feet for the
blocks with Restricted Size Lots; f) Section 18.42.180.0 "Number of Restricted Size Lots Required" to allow
the townhouse Restricted Size Lots to be less than 3,000 square feet and more than 3,000 for corner
townhouse lots; and g) Section 18.44.090.D.3 "Spacing Standards for Drive Accesses" to allow residential
lots that front on Hunter's Way and Buckrake and back onto the linear park to access local streets within
150 feet of an intersection with an arterial street and to allow the proposed access separation distance
between the proposed local streets onto Oak Street, an arterial street, to be separated less than 660 feet.
In addition., the City Commission conditionally approved the subdivision of 31.05 acres, as Phase 1A and 1B
of the 161:30 acre parcel, into 46 single-household, 40 townhouse and 2 multi-household lots and a 129.25
acre remainder. The property is legally described as NW'/4, Section 2,T2S, R5E, Gallatin County, Montana,
and located between Baxter Lane, Oak Street, 27`h Avenue and Fowler Avenue.
The proposal was evaluated against the review criteria and requirements of the adopted Growth Policy and
the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. The City Commission's decision was based on the
fact that, with conditions, the proposal will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the
community, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Bozeman Unified Development
Ordinance and the adopted Growth Policy. The decision of the City Commission is final. The conditions
of approval are as follows:
planning • zoning . subdivision review . annexation historic preservation • housing • grant administration . neighborhood coordination
Planned Unit Development:
1. A trail shall be constructed connecting from 27`h Avenue to Davis Lane away from streets and in
addition to the sidewalk to provide a future connection between Rose Park and the Regional Park.
2. Mid-block trail crossing along Oak Street will not be permitted.
3. Hunters Way(from Baxter Lane to Oak Street) shall include a Signed Bike Route since this will be
an extension of an existing Signed Bike Route on Hunters Way.
4. The Home Owners Association shall be responsible for maintenance of Park, park fixtures, trails,
etc.,until such time that a Park Maintenance District, or similar form of funding,is established.
5. A park master plan shall be submitted for approval by the City Parks Division with the Phase I Final
Plat and/or Final Site Plan, whichever comes first.
The Final Site Plan, including a Final Park Plan, shall be subject to review by the Design Review
Board and final approval by the City Commission.
7. The Final Site Plan shall include elaborated architectural guidelines with streetscape and entry details.
8. A building configuration plan shall be submitted for townhouse lots with subsequent subdivision
phases.
9. The Covenants and Design Guidelines must state the means in which building orientation will be
mitigated along the arterial and collector streets. The lots shall provide a front porch or false fagade,
a sidewalk connection to each building, and the covenants shall prohibit the construction of fences
unless constructed less than 4 feet tall with a coordinated design for all of the lots backing up to Oak
Street,Baxter Lane,27`h Avenue and Davis Lane.
10. The declaration of covenants for the subdivision must be included and recorded with the Final Plat.
The City of Bozeman shall be party to any changes or modifications made to the restrictive
covenants and Architectural Guidelines as they relate to any zoning and/or planning bylaws. The
covenants shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Office prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
11. The storm water detention ponds shall be designed in a more organic form and landscaped as a
water feature with 6" river rock and wet root tolerant plant types.
12. A one foot "no access" easement shall be provided along Baxter Lane, Oak Street, 27`h Avenue and
Davis Lane.
13. No lots shall be platted within the watercourse and wetland setback.
14. The 0.07 acre isolated wetland in the southeast corner of the subdivision may be filled in exchange
for the existing vegetation being transplanted, as reasonably feasible, from the filled wetland to the
Cattail Creek wetlands,under the direct supervision of the wetland consultant.
15. At least 70% of the park perimeter shall be adjacent to a public street to allow for accessibility to the
park.
Page 2
16. The applicant shall provide and file with the County Clerk and Recorder's office an executed Waiver
of Right to Protest Creation of Special Improvement Districts (SID's) for the following:
a. Signalization of the intersection of W Oak Street and North 27`h Avenue.
b. Signalization of the intersection of W Oak Street and Fowler Avenue.
c. Signalization of the intersection of Baxter Lane and North 27`h Avenue.
d. Signalization of the intersection of Baxter Lane and Fowler Avenue.
e. Fowler Avenue trunk sewer main improvements.
The document filed shall specify that in the event an SID is not utilized for the completion of these
improvements, the developer agrees to participate in an alternate financing method for the
completion of said improvements on a fair share, proportionate basis as determined by square
footage of property, taxable valuation of the property, traffic contribution from the development, or
a combination thereof.
17. As a part of the infrastructure plans submittal, 100-year flood elevations shall be computed for the
Section-Line Ditch and the center irrigation lateral (stream defined as Cattail Creek by the
Conservation District and as Harmon Ditch from Harvest Creek), and the limits of flooding
identified. Lots shall not be platted within the 100 year flood plain, Hydraulic calculations and the
water surface profile of the ditches shall take into account the upstream and downstream culvert
capacities as well as the fact the ditch company may use the ditch as a blow-off at any time and
without notice.
18. Additional information is needed prior to approval of the Phase I improvements. The Traffic Study
Report shall include an analysis of possible warrants at all the proposed intersections with Oak
Street. The Traffic Study Report shall also address pedestrian crossing issues at the intersection of
Oak Street and N 27`h Avenue and make recommendations for approval.
19. The applicant is advised that Baxter Road, along the property boundary, shall be improved, as part
of this development,to one half of a minor arterial standard as shown in the Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan 2001 Update and shall match the section built by Baxter Meadows. West Oak
Street, along the property boundary, shall be improved, as part of this development, to one half of a
principal arterial standard and shall match the section built by Harvest Creek. North 27`h Avenue,
along the property boundary, shall be improved, as part of this development, to one half of a
collector standard and shall match the section built by Harvest Creek Fowler Avenue, along the
property boundary, shall be improved, as part of this development, to one half of a minor arterial
standard. Where one half of a standard collector or arterial is being built 12 feet of pavement for the
opposing lane of travel shall be provided. City standard curb and gutter, and 6 foot wide sidewalk
will be required in the standard location on the development's side of the street. Detailed review of
the street and intersection design, and approval by the City Engineer will be required as part of the
infrastructure plan and specification review process.
20. Tschache Lane shall align with the road in Baxter Meadows west of Fowler Avenue.
21. Parking will not be allowed on W. Oak Street, North 27`h Avenue,Baxter Lane, and Fowler Avenue.
22. The Section Line Ditch shall not be piped. The "riparian" corridor shall be maintained within the
median planned for Fowler Avenue.
Page 3
23. No existing mature vegetation within the watercourse setback, wetlands, park and along the Section
Line Ditch shall be removed from the site unless approved by the City of Bozeman Planning Office.
The Final Landscape Plan shall depict existing and proposed vegetation as well as proposed
vegetation to be removed.
24. Buildings proposed for construction with crawl spaces or basements shall include Engineer
Certification regarding depth of ground water and soil conditions and proposed mitigation methods
to be submitted with each Building Permit.
25. The 60 foot wide trail area, along Tschache Lane,shall be extended along the north side of Tschache
Lane to the Whisper Avenue intersection.
26. The 9 lots on the west side of Whisper Avenue that are directly adjacent to the park shall be
removed. CS1ti0 Q n,eA.l Snt.,e-,Un S;ae.e. O TSC A-A-a - )
27. The Section 42 Affordable Housing and the Assisted Living, as depicted in the plan, shall remain in
the PLO plan.
28. More detailed Development Guidelines shall be provided with the Final PUD Plan.
The subdivision shall provide for a better mix of housing types throughout the subdivision.
30. The mandatory 25 foot trail easement for the transportation pathways will not count towards the
dedicated parkland. Any additional width provided along the trail easement can be counted towards
the dedicated parkland requirement.
31. The City of Bozeman will accept the 11% calculation for parkland dedication for the affordable
Section 42 housing lots so long as it includes some very low income housing.
32. The parkland shall be configured to provide adequate space for soccer fields along Whisper Avenue
and Buckrake Avenue.
33. The applicant shall reconsider the arterial treatment on Baxter Lane. The Ctty Crn7m ssion does not
support the large areas of open space along the anerial struts.
34. A density cap shall be applied to the build out of the subdivision. The cap will be based on the total
number of acres of dedicated parkland provided.
35. The interconnectivity of streets on the eastern part of the neighborhood shall reflect the
interconnectivity shown on the western portion of the subdivision.
Identified Code Provisions
• The bollard lights that are required at the intersection of pathways with streets must meet the City's
specifications.
• A watercourse setback planting plan shall be prepared by a qualified landscape professional and shall
\ be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the commencement of development
or site preparation. The plan shall include a schedule for planting and landscaping as outlined for
Zone 1 and Zone 2 outlined in 18.42.100.
Page 4
• A proportionate amount of parkland, open space and restricted size lots, to meet the general
standards and the PUD regulations,shall be noted with each Final Plat and Final Plan.
• Plans and Specifications for the trail will need to be reviewed by the Parks Department prior to
construction.
• Banter Lane (from Fowler Avenue to N. 27`h Avenue) should include a Bike Lane in accordance
with the Bike Route Network (Figure 6-4) in the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, which
calls for a Bike Lane for the entire extent of Baxter Lane.
• Fowler Avenue (from Baxter Lane to Oak Street) should include a Bike Lane in accordance with the
Bike Route Network (Figure 6-4) in the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan,which calls for
a Bike Lane for the entire extent of Davis Lane.
• North 27`h Avenue (from Baxter Lane to Oak Street) should include a Bike Lane to provide
connectivity to other planned Bicycle Facilities in the area. The Board feels that this connection will
be a vital alternative to travel on 19`h once it is completed.
• The Board also recommends that the proposed park land include a ten foot Bike Path (shared-use
path). The Path will be an extension of an existing trail to the south and will provide a vital
connection to the trial system. The Board suggests the construction material be consistent with
what the development wants (i.e., paved OR dirt) in order to be consistent with the surrounding
parkland.
• The subdivider shall be responsible for installing sod, boulevard trees and an irrigation system in the
public right-of-way boulevard strips along all external subdivision streets and adjacent to subdivision
parks or other open space areas.
• A trail shall be constructed connecting both North and South ends of the subdivision via the
streambed and through the Park.
• All park and trail design and construction shall be approved by the City Parks Division and shall
meet City standards.
• All trail corridors are to be 25 feet in width, as stated in the Bozeman Unified Development
Ordinance, chapter 18.50, section 18.50.070. All Park and Trail plans and construction shall be
approved by the City Parks Division.
• Each lot shall meet the minimum lot area standards, including the multi-household lots, for an "R
3" zoned lot unless an alternative zoning designation is approved through a Zone Map Amendment.
• Construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Home Owners Association Architectural
Committee prior to submitting a site plan application or a building permit application, whichever
Page 5
comes first. The plans shall include a stamp of approval from the Architectural Committee prior to
City review. This language shall be incorporated into the Covenants for the subdivision.
• A Comprehensive Sign Plan for the entire subdivision shall be provided with the final site plan.
There should be a general theme to the style of signs permitted within the PUD and shall include
information regarding the materials,colors and illumination.
• Storm water ponds shall not exceed 1/3 of the area of the front yard setback adjacent to the external
streets.
• Storm water cannot be discharged into an active ditch. Storm water discharged into a stream
requires the necessary permitting.
• If Concurrent Construction is requested with other phases of the subdivision then it must be
explicitly requested in the narrative submitted with the Preliminary Plat application.
• The Improvements Agreement with a financial guarantee, the Hold Harmless and the Conditional
Use Permit shall be signed, notarized and recorded with the Clerk & Recorder's Office prior to
installation of required infrastructure.
• Proposed phasing shall be depicted on the final plan. The full extent of all proposed infrastructure
improvements required for each phase shall also be clearly indicated on the final plan submittal. No
building permits shall be issued prior to substantial completion and City acceptance of the required
infrastructure improvements unless otherwise allowed by specific approval of the City Commission
under the provisions of Chapters 18.36 and 18.74 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance.
Phases shall be numbered in the order in which they are to be built.
• A Stormwater Master Plan for the PUD for a system designed to remove solids, silt, oils, grease, and
other pollutants from the runoff from the private and public streets and all lots has been provided to
the City Engineer. The applicant is advised that although the general storm drainage and grading
concept has been reviewed, the submitted data will be subject to further review as part of the
infrastructure plan and specification review process.
The maximum water depth and basin depth shown in the Storm water report does not meet the City
of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy and will need to be modified. Detailed
review of the final grading and drainage plan and approval by the City Engineer will be required as
part of the infrastructure plan and specification review process for each phase.
• While the runoff from the individual lots will be dependent on the intensity of use on each lot, the
maximum sizing of the storm water retention facilities for each lot will be established based on
maximum site development. Final facility sizing may be reviewed and reduced during design review
of the final site plan for each lot and/or phase.
• The applicant shall obtain and provide evidence of permission from the appropriate ditch
companies to discharge storm runoff into the ditches, and for any relocation or abandonment of the
ditches.
Page 6
• In locations where Baxter Lane and Fowler Avenue are being improved, the various irrigation
ditches and/or streams shall be either relocated outside the right-of-way, accommodated in an
approved center median,or placed in a pipe.
• A comprehensive utilities design report for water and sewer main extensions, prepared and signed
by a Professional Engineer (PE) registered in the State of Montana has been provided to the City
Engineer. The applicant is advised that although the general utilities design concept has. been
reviewed, the submitted data will be subject to further review as part of the infrastructure plan and
specification review process for each phase.
• At a number of locations, the manhole spacing shown exceeds the maximum manhole spacing, per
the City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy. The manhole barrel size is 60" for
a 20" sanitary sewer pipe, per the City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy. Use
of the 10" main to allow a flatter slope does not meet DEQ requirements and the City of Bozeman
Design Standards and Specifications Policy.
• All water main extensions of more than 500 feet required for any phase of the development shall be
fully looped. Water and sewer mains shall be extended to the property lines to adequately
accommodate future extensions and/or looping.
• Plans and Specifications for water and sewer main extensions for each proposed phase, prepared and
signed by a Professional Engineer (PE) registered in the State of Montana shall be provided to and
approved by the City Engineer. Sewer and Water plans shall also be approved by the Montana
Department of Environmental Quality. The applicant shall also provide Professional Engineering
services for Construction Inspection, Post-Construction Certification, and preparation of mylar
Record Drawings. Construction shall not be initiated on the public infrastructure improvements until
the plans and specifications have been approved and a preconstruction conference has been
conducted. No building permits shall be issued prior to substantial completion and City acceptance
of the required infrastructure improvements unless otherwise allowed by specific approval of the City
Commission under the provisions of Chapters 18.36 and 18.74 of the Bozeman Unified
Development Ordinance.
• All typical street sections, including sidewalk location within the right-of-way and provisions for
bicyclists shall be in conformance with the street standards recommended in the Greater Bazermn
A yea Transportation Plan 2001 Update, unless otherwise approved by the City Commission, or by the
City Engineer through the plan and specification review and approval process. While the typical
sections and calming strategies included in this submittal provide an acceptable general framework
for the development, detailed review and approval of street, sidewalk and associated storm drainage
infrastructure will be part of the plan and specification review process for each phase.
• Plans and Specifications for streets and storm drainage facilities for each phase, prepared and signed
by a Professional Engineer (PE) registered in the State of Montana shall be provided to and
approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall also provide Professional Engineering services
for Construction Inspection, Post-Construction Certification, and preparation of mylar Record
Drawings. Construction shall not be initiated on the public infrastructure improvements until the
plans and specifications have been approved and a preconstruction conference has been conducted.
No building permits shall be issued prior to substantial completion and City acceptance of the
required infrastructure improvements unless otherwise allowed by specific approval of the City
Page 7
Commission under the provisions of Chapters 18.36 and 18.74 of the Bozeman Unified
Development Ordinance.
• All street names shall be reviewed and approved by the Gallatin County Road Office and City
Engineering Office.
• The following locations shall be modified to meet the access standards in Section 090.D.3 of
Chapter 18.44 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance: a. On Oak Street, the
separation between Windward Avenue and Hunter's Way meets the criteria for partial access but
does not provide the 660' minimum for full access; b. The following locations provide less than the
150' minimum for an access from an intersection with an arterial: (1) the location of Spring View
Court from Fowler Avenue; and (2) a proposed access on east side of Buckrake Avenue from Baxter
Lane; c. On Fowler Avenue, the separation between the streets meets the criteria for partial access
but does not provide the 660' minimum for full access. On Baxter Lane, the separation between
Windward Avenue and Hunter's Way meets the criteria for partial access but does not provide the
660' minimum for full access. The Traffic Impact Study shall address the left turn movement onto
the subdivision streets from Fowler Avenue and Baxter Lane.
• Detailed review and approval of the concurrent construction plans will be part of the infrastructure
plan and specification review process for each phase. Building permits may not be issued until each
plan is approved.
• The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, SCS,Montana Department of Environmental
Quality and Army Corps of Engineer's shall be contacted regarding the proposed project and any
required permits (i.e., 310,404, Turbidity exemption,etc.) shall be obtained.
• Building Permits will be issued incrementally dependent upon the status of installation of
infrastructure improvements.
• The right to a conditional use permit shall be contingent upon the fulfillment of all general and
special conditions imposed by the Conditional Use Permit procedure. All special conditions and
code provisions shall constitute restrictions running with the land, shall be binding upon the owner
of the land, his successors or assigns, shall be consented to in writing by the applicant prior to
commencement of the use and shall be recorded as such with the Gallatin County Clerk and
Recorder's Office by the property owner prior to the final site plan approval or commencement of
the use. All of the conditions and code provisions specifically stated under any conditional use listed
in this title shall apply and be adhered to by the owner of the land,successor or assigns.
• The applicant must submit seven (7) copies a Final Site Plan within one year of preliminary approval
containing all of the conditions, corrections and modifications to be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Office.
• A Building Permit must be obtained prior to the work, and must be obtained within one year of
Final Site Plan approval. Building Permits will not be issued until the Final Site Plan is approved.
Minor site surface preparation and normal maintenance shall be allowed prior to submittal and
approval. of the Final Site Plan, including excavation and footing preparation, but NO
CONCRETE MAY BE POURED UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT IS OBTAINED.
Page 8
The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as
conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful
requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law.
Major Subdivision Plat:
1. Phase 1A and 1B of the West Winds Subdivision shall comply with the approved Planned Unit
Development.
2. The final plat shall include a notation that due to high ground water conditions full or partial
basements are not recommended.
3. Cash-in-lieu of Water Rights, as calculated by the Director of Public Service, shall be paid at the time
the Final Plat is submitted.
4. The property owner has proposed that Lot 7 of Phase 1A will be developed with an affordable
housing project in order to meet the Performance Points for a Planned Unit Development. The.
final plat shall note that Lot 7 is reserved for affordable housing. The plat shall also note that in the
event the lot does not get developed with affordable housing that the property owner shall provide
an alternative means to meet the Planned Unit Performance standards.
5. The final plat shall contain a note prohibiting direct access from single family or duplex lots to Oak
Street and N. 27`h Avenue.
6. The west half of N 27`h Avenue, from Oak Street to Breeze Lane, and the north half of Oak Street,
from N 27`h Avenue to Hunters Way must be constructed and accepted by the City prior to filing
the Final Plat for Phase 1A. The west half of N 27`h Avenue, from Tschache Lane to Breeze Lane
must be constructed and accepted by the City prior to filing the Final Plat for Phase 1B. The overall
design of Oak Street shall include a detailed assessment of traffic needs and design solutions for the
phasing. The timing of the development of Harvest Creek shall be taken into account as well. The
Phase 1A infrastructure improvements shall include improvements to the intersection of Oak Street
and N 27`h Avenue to provide a transition between the existing and the future roadway. Design of
the intersection is also to accommodate the existing overhead power lines. The intersection design
will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Office as a part of the infrastructure
improvements review process.
7. There is a discrepancy between Traffic Impact Studies provided for the North 19`h Avenue and
Durston Road intersection regarding the Level of Service. If it is confirmed the intersection
operates below Level of Service D, then the Final Plat for Phase 1 may not be filed until the
improvements necessary to raise the Level of Service at the intersection of North 19`h Avenue and
Durston Road to Level of Service Care installed and accepted by the City of Bozeman.
Identified Code Provisions
• The Restricted Size Lots shall be noted on the Final Plat.
• ' As recommended by the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO), a professional cultural
resource inventory of the site shall be conducted by a qualified archeologist. The results of said
survey must be provided to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of any infrastructure
plans and specifications.
Page 9
• Prior to final plat approval, a Memorandum of Understanding shall be entered into by the Weed
Control District and the subdivider for the control of county declared noxious weeds and a copy
provided to the Planning Department.
If approved for Concurrent Construction the property owner shall comply with items 1-12 of
Section 18.74.030.D.
• Conditional approval of the preliminary plat shall be in force for not more than three calendar years,
as provided by state statute. Prior to that expiration date, the developer may submit a letter of
request for the extension of the period to the Planning Director for the City Commission's
consideration.
• If it is the developer's intent to file the plat prior to the completion of all required improvements, an
Improvements Agreement shall be entered into with the City of Bozeman guaranteeing the
completion of all improvements in accordance with the preliminary plat submittal information and
conditions of approval. If the final plat is filed prior to the installation of all improvements, the
developer shall supply the City of Bozeman with an acceptable method of security equal to 150% of
the cost of the remaining improvements.
• The final plat shall conform to all requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance and the
Uniform Standards for Final Subdivision Plats and shall be accompanied by all required documents,
including certification from the City Engineer that as-built drawings for public improvements were
received, a platting certificate, and all required certificates. The final plat application shall include
four (4) signed reproducible copies on a stable base polyester film (or equivalent); two (2) digital
copies on a double-sided, high density 3'/z-inch floppy disk or compact disk; and five (5) paper
prints.
• Storm Water Master Plan: A Stormwater Master Plan for the subdivision for a system designed to
remove solids, silt, oils, grease, and other pollutants from the runoff from the private and public
streets and all lots has been provided to the City Engineer. The applicant is advised that although
the general storm drainage and grading concept has been reviewed, the submitted data will be
subject to further review as part of the infrastructure plan and specification review process.
• Stormwater generated by the proposed subdivision which discharges to any privately owned ditch
must have the written permission of the ditch owner.
• The Developer's engineer has provided a comprehensive Design Report evaluating existing capacity
of water and sewer utilities for the entire West Winds P.U.D... Detailed review and approval of the
Design Report will be required as part of the infrastructure plan and specification review and
approval process.
• The location of and distinction between existing and proposed sewer and water mains and all
easements shall be clearly and accurately depicted on the plans and specs, as well as all nearby fire
hydrants and proposed fire hydrants.
• Any easements needed for the water and sewer main extensions shall be a minimum of 30 feet in
width. While the final location of the water and sewer mains will be determined once the final street
widths are approved, in no case shall the utility be less than 10 feet from the edge of the easement.
Page 10
All necessary easements shall be provided prior to final plat approval and shall be shown on the plat.
Wherever water and/or sewer mains are not located under or accessed from improved streets, a 12
foot wide all weather access drive shall be constructed above the utilities to provide necessary access.
• Plans and Specifications for water and sewer main extensions,prepared and signed 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 Montana Department of
Environmental Quality. The applicant shall also provide Professional Engineering services for
Construction Inspection, Post-Construction Certification, and preparation of mylar Record
Drawings. Construction shall not be initiated on the public infrastructure improvements until the
plans and specifications have been approved and a preconstruction conference has been conducted.
No building permits shall be issued prior to City acceptance of the required infrastructure
improvements unless approved for concurrent construction.
• Any street rights of way which are within the boundaries of this subdivision and for which
easements were provided with the XL Limited Partnership Annexation Agreement shall be
dedicated to the City on the Final Plat for this subdivision.
• A detailed Traffic Study Report for the entire West Winds Development has been provided to and
reviewed by the City Engineer's office. Additional information is needed prior to approval of the
Phase I improvements. The Traffic Study Report shall include an analysis of possible warrants at all
the proposed intersections with Oak Street. The Traffic Study Report shall also address pedestrian
crossing issues at the intersection of Oak Street and N 27 h Avenue and make recommendations for
approval. The need for any traffic impact analysis updates will be identified at the time of
da Plat.Pre-Application submittal for each subsequent phase.
• Street names must be approved by the City Engineer and county road office.
• City standard curb, gutter and sidewalk shall be provided along all streets in the subdivision. Per
Chapter 18.44.080 of the Unified Development Ordinance, sidewalks will be installed prior to
occupancy of any individual lots.
• The applicant is advised that the installation of any traffic calming devices will be considered in
detail and approved if appropriate during the infrastructure plan and specification review process.
• All typical street sections, including sidewalk location within the right-of-way and provisions for
bicyclists shall be in conformance with the street standards recommended in the GwterBozermn
A yea Transportation Plan 2001 Update, unless otherwise approved by the City Commission, or by the
City Engineer through the plan and specification review and approval process.
• Plans and Specifications for streets and storm drainage facilities, prepared and signed by a
Professional Engineer (PE) registered in the State of Montana shall be provided to and approved by
the City Engineer. The applicant shall also provide Professional Engineering services for
Construction Inspection, Post-Construction Certification, and preparation of mylar Record
Drawings. Construction shall not be initiated on the public infrastructure improvements until the
plans and specifications have been approved and a preconstruction conference has been conducted.
No building permits shall be issued prior to City acceptance of the required infrastructure
improvements unless approved for concurrent construction.
Page 11
• Project phasing shall be clearly defined on the infrastructure plans and specifications including
installation of infrastructure.
• The location of mailboxes shall be coordinated with the City Engineering Department prior to their
installation.
• The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, SCS,Montana Department of Environmental
Quality and Army Corps of Engineer's shall be contacted regarding the proposed project and any
required permits (i.e., 310, 404, Turbidity exemption, etc.) shall be obtained prior to plan and
specification approval.
• If construction activities related to the project result in the disturbance of more than 1 acre of
natural ground, an erosion/sediment control plan may be required. The Montana Department of
Environmental Quality may need to be contacted by the Applicant to determine if a Stormwater
Discharge Permit is necessary. If a permit is required by the State, the Developer shall demonstrate
to the City full permit compliance.
The final plat shall comply with the standards identified and referenced in the Unified Development
Ordinance unless granted a relaxation through the Planned Unit Development process. The applicant is
advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of
approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the
Bozeman Municipal Code or state law.
FYI: The City Commission indicated interest in having the covenants identify a better park boundary
delineation through the use of vegetation as a buffer and barrier for the lots that back up to the park. The
applicant should work with the Parks Department to determine the most suitable vegetation for this
purpose.
Please call me if you have any questions regarding the conditions, code provisions, or the final site plan
approval process.
Respectfully,
Jami Morris
Associate Planner
JM/jm
Enclosure
cc: HKM Engineering Inc., 601 Nil-des Drive,Suite 2,Bozeman,MT 59715
Page 12
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR WEST WINDS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
BOUND BY BAXTER LANE, OAK STREET,27TH AVENUE AND
FOWLER AVENUE,BOZEMAN,MONTANA
WHEREAS, the undersigned property owner acknowledges the receipt of a Conditional Use
Permit from the Cityof Bozeman to establish a unified development plan of a 161.30 acre subdivision for
the development of 213 single-household,92 townhouse,5 multi-household and 8 senior assisted living lots
with the following requested relaxations from the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance: a)
Section 18.50.020 "Park Requirements" to allow the area requirement to be based on 11% net buildable
area instead of 0.03 acres per dwelling unit for the affordable housing lots; b) Section 18.16.0203
"Authorized Uses" to allow assisted living/elderly care facilities and apartments within the "R 3" zoning
district; c) Section 18.42.030.0"Double/Through and Reverse Frontage" to allow double frontage lots
adjacent to the arterial and collector streets; d) 18.42.040.B `Block Length" to allow the block lengths to
exceed 400 feet;e) Section 18.42.040.0`Block Width" to allow the minimum block length to be less than
200 feet for the blocks with Restricted Size Lots;0 Section 18.42.180.0"Number of Restricted Size Lots
Required" to allow the townhouse Restricted Size Lots to be less than 3,000 square feet and more than
3,000 for corner townhouse lots;and g) Section 18.44.090.D.3 "Spacing Standards for Drive Accesses"to
allow residential lots that front on Hunter's Way and Buckrake and back onto the linear park to access local
streets within 150 feet of an intersection with an arterial street and to allow the proposed access separation
distance between the proposed local streets onto Oak Street,an arterial street,to be separated less than 660
feet.
WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as the NW'/a, Section 2, T2S,R5E,
Gallatin County,Montana; and
West Winds PUD #Z-04050 PAGE 1
•
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 71
WHEREAS, the right to a conditional use permit shall be contingent upon the fulfillment of all
general and special conditions imposed by the Conditional Use Permit procedure and shall constitute
restrictions running with the land.
WHEREAS, the Conditional Use Permit is subject to the following thirty-five (35) conditions:
1. A trail shall be constructed connecting from 27th Avenue to Davis Lane away from streets and in
addition to the sidewalk to provide a future connection between Rose Park and the Regional Park
2. Mid-block trail crossing along Oak Street will not be permitted.
3. Hunters Way(from Baxter Lane to Oak Street) shall include a Signed Bike Route since this will be
an extension of an existing Signed Bike Route on Hunters Way.
4. The Home Owners Association shall be responsible for maintenance of Park,park fixtures,trails,
etc., until such time that a Park Maintenance District, or similar form of funding, is established.
5. A park master plan shall be submitted for approval by the City Parks Division with the Phase I
Final Plat and/or Final Site Plan,whichever comes first.
6. The Final Site Plan, including a Final Park Plan, shall be subject to review by the Design Review
Board and final approval by the City Commission.
7. The Final Site Plan shall include elaborated architectural guidelines with streetscape and entry
details.
8. A building configuration plan shall be submitted for townhouse lots with subsequent subdivision
phases.
9. The Covenants and Design Guidelines must state the means in which building orientation will be
mitigated along the arterial and collector streets. The lots shall provide a front porch or false
facade,a sidewalk connection to each building,and the covenants shall prohibit the construction
of fences unless constructed less than 4 feet tall with a coordinated design for all of the lots backing
up to Oak Street,Baxter Lane, 271h Avenue and Davis Lane.
10. The declaration of covenants for the subdivision must be included and recorded with the Final Plat.
The City of Bozeman shall be party to any changes or modifications made to the restrictive
covenants and Architectural Guidelines as they relate to any zoning and/or planning bylaws. The
covenants shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Office prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
West Winds PUD #Z-04050 PAGE 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
11. The storm water detention ponds shall be designed in a more organic form and landscaped as a
water feature with 6" river rock and wet root tolerant plant types.
12. A one foot"no access"easement shall be provided along Baxter Lane,Oak Street,27rh Avenue and
Davis Lane.
13. No lots shall be platted within the watercourse and wetland setback.
14. The 0.07 acre isolated wetland in the southeast corner of the subdivision maybe filled in exchange
for the existing vegetation being transplanted,as reasonably feasible,from the filled wetland to the
Cattail Creek wetlands,under the direct supervision of the wetland consultant.
15. At least 70% of the park perimeter shall be adjacent to a public street to allow for accessibility to
the park
16. The applicant shall provide and file with the County Clerk and Recorder's office an executed
Waiver of Right to Protest Creation of Special Improvement Districts (SID's) for the following:
a. Signalization of the intersection of W Oak Street and North 27th Avenue.
b. Signalization of the intersection of W Oak Street and Fowler Avenue.
c. Signalization of the intersection of Baxter Lane and North 27th Avenue.
d. Signalization of the intersection of Baxter Lane and Fowler Avenue.
e. Fowler Avenue trunk sewer main improvements.
The document filed shall specify that in the event an SID is not utilized for the completion of these
improvements, the developer agrees to participate in an alternate financing method for the
completion of said improvements on a fair share, proportionate basis as determined by square
footage of property,taxable valuation of the property,traffic contribution from the development,
or a combination thereof.
17. As a part of the infrastructure plans submittal, 100-year flood elevations shall be computed for the
Section-Line Ditch and the center irrigation lateral (stream defined as Cattail Creek by the
Conservation District and as Harmon Ditch from Harvest Creek), and the limits of flooding
identified.Lots shall not be platted within the 100 year flood plain. Hydraulic calculations and the
water surface profile of the ditches shall take into account the upstream and downstream culvert
capacities as well as the fact the ditch company may use the ditch as a blow-off at any time and
without notice.
18. Additional information is needed prior to approval of the Phase I improvements.The Traffic Study
Report shall include an analysis of possible warrants at all the proposed intersections with Oak
Street. The Traffic Study Report shall also address pedestrian crossing issues at the intersection of
Oak Street and N 27th Avenue and make recommendations for approval.
West Winds PUD #Z-04050 PAGE 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
19. The applicant is advised that Baxter Road,along the property boundary,shall be improved,as part
of this development, to one half of a minor arterial standard as shown in the Greater Bozeman
Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update and shall match the section built by Baxter Meadows.West
Oak Street, along the property boundary, shall be improved, as part of this development,to one
half of a principal arterial standard and shall match the section built by Harvest Creek North 27th
Avenue,along the property boundary,shall be improved,as part of this development,to one half
of a collector standard and shall match the section built by Harvest Creek Fowler Avenue,along
the property boundary, shall be improved, as part of this development, to one half of a minor
arterial standard. Where one half of a standard collector or arterial is being built 12 feet of
pavement for the opposing lane of travel shall be provided. City standard curb and gutter, and 6
foot wide sidewalk will be required in the standard location on the development's side of the street.
Detailed review of the street and intersection design, and approval by the City Engineer will be
required as part of the infrastructure plan and specification review process.
20. Tschache Lane shall align with the road in Baxter Meadows west of Fowler Avenue.
21. Parking will not be allowed on W. Oak Street, North 27th Avenue, Baxter Lane, and Fowler
Avenue.
22. The Section Line Ditch shall not be piped. The"riparian" corridor shall be maintained within the
median planned for Fowler Avenue.
23. No existing mature vegetation within the watercourse setback,wetlands,park and along the Section
Line Ditch shall be removed from the site unless approved by the City of Bozeman Planning
Office. The Final Landscape Plan shall depict existing and proposed vegetation as well as proposed
vegetation to be removed.
24. Buildings proposed for construction with crawl spaces or basements shall include Engineer
Certification regarding depth of ground water and soil conditions and proposed mitigation methods
to be submitted with each Building Permit.
25. The 60 foot wide trail area, along Tschache Lane, shall be extended along the north side of
Tschache Lane to the Whisper Avenue intersection.
26. The 9 lots on the west side of Whisper Avenue that are directly adjacent to the park shall be
removed.
27. The Section 42 Affordable Housing and the Assisted Living,as depicted in the plan,shall remain in
the PUD plan.
28. More detailed Development Guidelines shall be provided with the Final PUD Plan.
29. The subdivision shall provide for a better mix of housing types throughout the subdivision and
shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board and a final approval by the City Commision.
West Winds PUD #Z-04050 PAGE 4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
30. The mandatory25 foot trail easement for the transportation pathways will not count towards the
dedicated parkland. Any additional width provided along the trail easement can be counted
towards the dedicated parkland requirement.
31. The City of Bozeman will accept the 11% calculation for parkland dedication for the affordable
Section 42 housing lots so long as it includes some very low income housing.
32. The parkland shall be configured to provide adequate space for soccer fields along Whisper Avenue
and Buckrake Avenue.
33. The applicant shall reconsider the arterial treatment on Baxter Lane. The Cry Conpr ssion does not
support the large areas of open space along the arterial soma.
34. A density cap shall be applied to the build out of the subdivision. The cap will be based on the
total number of acres of dedicated parkland provided.
35. The interconnectivity of streets on the eastern part of the neighborhood shall reflect the
interconnectivity shown on the western portion of the subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY KNOWN,that the above-noted thirty-five (35)
conditions of Conditional Use Permit approval shall be binding upon me,the undersigned owner of the
subject property, my successors or assigns, as long as the subject property is developed under the terms
and conditions established by the City Commission in their approval of the West Winds Planned Unit
Development.
DATED THIS DAY OF , 20
West Winds PUD #Z-04050 PAGE 5
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LANDOWNER
QUEST WEST,L.L.C. by
John Dunlap
Managing Member
STATE OF MONTANA )
:ss
County of Gallatin )
On this day of , 2004,before me,the undersigned,a Notary
Public for the State of Montana, personally appeared John Dunlap, known to me to be the Managing
Member of Quest West,L.L.C,the company that executed the within instrument,and acknowledged tome
that he executed the same for and on behalf of said company.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set myhand and affixed my Notarial Seal the day
and year first above written.
(SEAL)
Printed Name
Notary Public for State of Montana
Residing at: Bozeman,Montana
Commission Expires:
(Use 4 digits for expiration year)
West Winds PUD #Z-04050 PAGE 6
• SUNSET HILLS CEMETERY
TWENTY-YEAR PLAN
DRAFT—May 6,2004
Sunset Hills Cemetery was created in 1910. The Cemetery Advisory Board was created
in 1986 and currently has no by-laws. It has operated smoothly,thus a Statement of
Purpose is being inserted in lieu of by-laws at this time.
Cemetery Advisory Board Statement of Purpose
The purpose of the Cemetery Advisory Board is to advise the Bozeman City Commission
and the Director of Public Services regarding short-term policy considerations related to
the management, physical grounds and general environment of the Sunset Hills Cemetery
including the long term planning for and perpetual care of the future Sunset Hills
Cemetery.
Forward:
The current ambience of the Sunset Hills Cemetery is one of its greatest attributes. The
trees and vegetation throughout the cemetery create a sense of serenity and privacy
within its boundaries. The fact that two sides of the cemetery border on city park lands is
• a great asset,as it allows the cemetery separation from,yet convenience to,downtown
Bozeman. There is a strong sense of continuity between the older sections of the
cemetery and the newer ones. Therefore,the Board would like to see the cemetery
continue to develop and build on its present ambience,even as it expands. Our goal for
the existing cemetery is to maintain it as it is and to minimize any changes other than
those which help limit the long term natural deterioration of its gravestones and
structures,consistent with sound financial practices.
Proposals&Recommendations:
1. There has been extensive discussion for a proposed second gate into the cemetery.
The selected alternative is approximately 200 feet north on Golfway at Ellis
Street. Public comment to the Board suggests slowing the timing for this new
entrance. The Board, architects and city staff all feel this entrance is warranted
long term. We recognize that future changes in traffic patterns and continued
significant growth in the City may dictate the necessity of adding a second gate in
the southeast corner. At present the Buttonwood entrance should remain open
year round. We suggest the issue of construction and landscaping of a second
gate be revisited in 2008 when hospital construction on the east side of Highland
Blvd. and the possible widening of Highland Blvd. itself would be closer to
reality. In addition, Golfway through the cemetery property should not be plowed
• in winter until such time as is needed for funeral processions in this new quadrant.
A bike/pedestrian path should be allowed on this pavement spring, summer and
fall.
2. We should install more signage. Rather than street signs at each intersection, it is •
suggested that some "low key" signs along the roadways supplement a map at the
entrance. All signs and structures should be consistent with history, ambience and
landscaping of the cemetery.
3. Varietal tree planting should continue such that the newly opened portions of the
cemetery have trees that will soon provide the shade and atmosphere similar to
the older parts of the cemetery. New nursery stock should be added annually.
The cemetery should continue to thin the old nursery of about 30 large
evergreens.
There is some necessity for paving some of the roadways through the cemetery,but
there is little need to pave all of them. Our suggestion is to pave the"arterials"so
that necessary traffic will be on a paved surface most of the time. The goal is to
maintain appropriate access to places within the cemetery with a combination of
paved and gravel roadways.
Understanding that times and customs change,it is anticipated that columbaria and
sites for burial of ashes will need to be continued and,perhaps,increased. In
addition,we have, and when appropriate will expand and create sections,for religious
groups and other groupings, such as veterans,masons,etc.
At present a bigger office for the Cemetery Foreman is needed as an addition to the
north side of the existing building. There is also need for a better location for
lawnmowers.
As the cemetery is expanded for burials additional watering and underground
sprinkler systems will be installed. We also need to address drainage in the areas of
expansion. A new water main should be built as soon as possible. The old main at
Buttonwood has been patched and repatched. This new 6"main could be built and
installed in 2004 connecting to the cemetery's current distribution systems. This
would permanently address the water needs of the entire 140 acres of the cemetery for
at least the next 75 years. City staff is working to estimate costs including impact
fees. We ask for rapid approval of this project,fundamental to the long term
health and beauty of the overall cemetery property.
4. Farming is currently practiced on unused ground. By planting a crop,the farmer
essentially maintains the future cemetery land,which would otherwise be a
significant expense for the city(i.e weed control). During the snow season,other
short term use on future cemetery lands,such as skiing and sledding, should be
permitted on an annual renewal basis. This activity should be organized in
conjunction with the Rec&Parks Advisory Board (RPAB)and with the approval
of the Cemetery Board. We would like to suggest and annual meeting be held •
between the farmer,the ski club(BSF),the RPAB and the Cemetery Board to lay
out each coming year's plan. This is a change as currently only RPAB writes the
document with BSF each year. The Cemetery Board needs to be included in the
• process.
5. Trails on the perimeter of the cemetery for the "Main Street to the Mountains"
trails system should be constructed with a buffer zone. The zone includes
irrigated tree planting,three tier smooth wire fencing and lilacs. The feeling the
advisory board wants to ensure is a buffer of old growth trees and trails, such that
edge burial plots are as attractive as center plots(please see attached map of
proposed perimeter trails). The interest and needs that could be secured by a well-
planned perimeter include the"oasis"atmosphere as included in most cemeteries
throughout the USA. Well-watered evergreens and deciduous trees create
peaceful shady areas that separate the noise and turmoil of life outside the
cemetery. The trails should be constructed as soon as approved and following
irrigation line installation and tree planting. Such trails would have to comply
with the City's new Unified Development Ordinance(UDO). Trails should be
constructed in compliance with the current Parks Open Space and Trails Plant
(1996)standards. Trail width should be 30'. Removal of these trails would be
suggested for additional burial space but not anticipated for more than 75 years.
GVLT has offered to build and maintain these trails. There are four remaining
section of trails to completely finish the entire cemetery perimeter.
6. World War II Memorial-A proposed Memorial Wall would be dedicated to
veterans of WWII. The wall would include all Montanans killed in action from
• Gallatin County.
The first phase will be spent fund raising,designing the wall and collating the name
list. The bricks or selected material will be bought by individuals and constructed by
volunteers. There should be minimal cost to the City for this exciting veterans
project. This proposal is in the active development stage.
Conclusion:
In conclusion,we believe that maintaining the current ambience of the cemetery is
imperative and this can best be accomplished by maintaining proper long term
development of vegetation as the current cemetery expands inside its boundaries. Since
future expansion will border on public thoroughfares and private property,we suggest the
trail and vegetative buffer that will allow gravesites on the periphery the same sense of
privacy and separation from roadways and homes as gravesites on the interior.
Subject:West Winds Development
• At Monday's Commission meeting, a motion to deny the development, after Commissioner
Kirchhoff found that "this is not a superior project" failed. The West Winds Development then got
approved on a 5-0 vote. The applicant withdrew a couple variance requests, and "concurred"
with staff on all others, and proposed a slightly different park configuration, including a 60-foot
wide park strip along the north side of Tschache to Buckrake, then after the park, along the south
side of Winter Park Street , and the elimination of two lots at the corner of Hunters/Oak and the
elimination of some, if not all, of the lots on Buckrake north of Trade Wind Lane, next to the park
- and add those lots to the park.
They also added a 68' wide park access at the intersection of Aspen Grove and Hunters Way; and
widened the park access between Breeze Lane and Oak Street from 25' to 60'. They eliminated
the parking lot and community center building. They just put a map up on the board, so I'm
going by memory.
Sandy Dodge spoke and said a 68' wide park strip for the trail really didn't do much. The
Commission disagreed, finding it provided more room between back yards and the street from
the trail.
Jeff Krauss did some wheeling/dealing to get the park/trail strip along the north side of Tschache
to go all the way to Whisper Ave; to eliminate all 9 lots on the west side of Whisper and add that
area to the park; they could add in the other lots they proposed to eliminate along Buckrake and
Hunters, if they wanted (not the ones that made connections), that the park be a "configuration
that works for the soccer field". There was no condition to improve the park area for soccer play.
The plan needs to be revised to provide "interconnectivity of streetways on eastern part of the
neighborhood to reflect the interconnectivity shown on the western portion of the plan, per DRB
• recommendation." Jeff add they might need to add a road betwen Tschache and Trade Wind lane
to do this, and recognized they would be contrained by the park in other areas to make the
connectivity (the connectivity part was an amendment to the motion, approved by Steve, Marcia
and Lee. Jeff didn't like it, but the amendment passed, so he was just kind of adding his 2-cents
worth, I think). While there was no condition, the developer's engineer, Clint Litle, said he will
"ensure the stormwater area along Baxter Lane is a nice area", and not like the Ferguson
Meadows one.
The applicant requested the condition that the trail crossings be located at the nearest cross
street be modified to allow the mid-block crossing for the Harvest Creek trail to the park; the
commission denied this.
He asked that condition 16 "Half of the lots backing onto the park, especially those fronting
Hunters Way shall be moved to allow for accessibility to the park" be amended to say "70% of the
park shall have road frontage". The Commission approved this.
It looks like they'll be providing a little over 20 acres of park land. They also indicated there will
be a "hard cap" of building units that corresponds with the parkland dedication. They'll provide
0.03 ac/du, except for the Section 42 housing lots -that will be 11%, and the Skilled Nursing
Facility doesn't have to provide any parkland.
We'll have to make sure we review the park maintenance plan very, very carefully when it is
submitted with their final site plan, to ensure 18.50.070, 18.50.080, 18.50.110, 18.72.040,
18.78.060P and 18.78.120.0 are met.
The motion
Debra H. Arkell
Director of Public Service
City of Bozeman, Montana
(406) 582-2306
da rkel I(al bozema n.net
From: JOHN HARPER [mailto:jslsharper@msn.com]
Sent:Thursday, May 27, 2004 7:45 PM
To: Chris Saunders •
Cc: anne banks; Gary Vodehnal; Sue Harkin
Subject: CFT/VLC Major Subdivision Pre-App #P-04016
Chris,
Members of the subdivision review committee of the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
have read Gary Vodenhal's letter of May 24, 2004 concerning CFT/VLT. We endorse the
Gallatin Valley Land Trust's request for preserving/improving the social trail link between
the Gallagator Trail and Seventh Avenue and the establishment of a trail between the
Gallagator and South Eleventh Avenue.
Thanks,
John Harper
From:JOHN HARPER[mailto.jsisharper@msn.com]
Sent:Thursday, May 27, 2004 7:38 PM
To: Dave Skelton
Cc: anne banks; Gary Vodehnal; Sue Harlin
Subject: Advance Tech Park Phase 4 Preapplication #P-04020
Dave, •
Members of the subdivision review committee of the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
have read
Gary Vodenhal's letter of May 25, 2004 conceming Advanced Tech Park. We endorse the
Gallatin Valley Land Trust's request for inclusion of the trail Improvements in the
subdivision infrastructure.
Thanks,
John Harper
T
•
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
May 17, 2004
*****************************
The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in regular session in the Commission Room, Municipal
Building, on Monday, May 17, 2004, at 3:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Andrew Cetraro, Commissioner Jeff
Krauss, Commissioner Marcia Youngman, Commissioner Steve Kirchhoff, Commissioner Lee Hietala,
Acting City Manager Ron Brey, Director of Public Service Debbie Arkell, Planning Director Andy Epple, Staff
Attorney Tim Cooper and Clerk of the Commission Robin Sullivan.
Signing of Notice of Special Meeting
Each of the Commissioners, in turn, signed the Notice of Special Meeting.
Work session - Conditional Use Permit for`West Winds Planned Unit Development to establish a
unified development plan for a 161.30-acre`subdivision for development of 213 single-household,
92 townhouse,5 multi-household,and 8 senior assisted living lots with several relaxations from the
Unified Development Ordinance
Acting City Manager Brey reminded the Commissioners that, because of the number of outstanding
issues that arose during last week's public hearing,they chose to conduct a work session prior to continuing
the public hearing. He noted that distributed to the Commissioners late last week was a proposed agenda
for this work session as prepared by the applicant. Distributed just prior to the meeting was a memo from
Associate Planner Jami Morris, dated May 17, identifying five items where outstanding issues remain. He
then reminded the Commissioners this is an opportunity for them to discuss the issues among themselves
and provide direction to the applicant, with no requirement for allowing participation from the public.
Mayor Cetraro characterized the planned unit development process as a give and take situation and-
noted that, as a result of this work session, he hopes the Commission may reach some consensus.
Commissioner Kirchhoff noted that each of the Commissioners has different concerns about this
project. He stressed that this planned unit development process is really a series of decisions and choices
that result in the development of a new neighborhood. This process gives the applicant and the
Commission a unique opportunity to fudge on the typical zoning requirements, with the bottom line being
a product that is superior to a literal interpretation of the regulations. He acknowledged this neighborhood
plan has come a fair way since its inception, and he finds it has a way to go.
Commissioner Kirchhoff turned his attention to those issues about which he is most concerned. He
noted that under the old code, a planned unit development was required to provide 30 percent open space;
under the Unified Development Ordinance,a planned unit development may meet the required performance
points by either providing 30 percent open space or providing a certain amount of affordable housing. In
this instance the applicant has chosen to meet the performance points through providing affordable housing.
Under the subdivision process, however,the applicant is still required to provide parkland;and it is essential
that the issues of parkland and affordable housing be separated and that the applicant recognize one cannot
be used as a bargaining chip for the other.
Commissioner Kirchhoff turned his attention to the issues identified in staff's memo, stating that he
does not support narrowing the setback requirements along the watercourse; and if that narrowing is
allowed, it should be only for superior design and not for affordable housing. Further, it appears some of
the housing units are proposed within delineated wetlands and should be removed from the plan if they truly
are located within wetlands as delineated by the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
Commissioner Kirchhoff proposed that more openings be made into the parkway, at a width that
makes those entries easily identifiable and inviting. He suggested one of those openings could be provided
05-17-04
-2 - '
•
by eliminating the lot at the end of Winter Park Lane and shifting the remaining lots to provide a 35-foot-wide
access to the park. The Commissioner then turned his attention to the buffer strip proposed on all four sides
of the proposed development, adjacent to the surrounding major streets, noting that elimination of those
buffer strips and double loading the lots adjacent to those roadways with service alleys was identified as
preferable during the informal reviews of this project. He then contrasted the Ferguson Meadows, Durston
Meadows and Harvest Creek Subdivisions with the Valley West Subdivision. He noted that, in the first three
subdivisions, the lots are designed so that the rear yards abut the adjacent major street; and tall, solid,
forbidding fences have been constructed. In Valley West Subdivision, on the other hand, the lots are
designed so the front porches address the street, creating a much more friendly and inviting atmosphere.
Further, that subdivision reflects a good mix of condominiums, townhouses, duplexes and single-family
residences rather than the segregation of housing types proposed within this development.
Commissioner Kirchhoff then turned his attention to the responsibility for maintenance of the
boulevard and stream/ditch adjacent to Ferguson Meadows Subdivision,characterizing it as being"not very
sightly". He noted that this situation has resulted in consternation for the City's Engineering Division and
telephone calls from concerned residents to various Commissioners,a situation he hopes to avoid creating
with this development under consideration. He then stressed that the Commissioners are the custodians
of the public domain; and he feels it is critical to create an amenable,friendly and functional street network
that connects with the adjacent residential areas.
Commissioner Kirchhoff indicated his last major concern is the lack of interconnectivity, particularly
on the east side of the neighborhood. He noted that this applies to the street network as well as the trail
network. Further,the different dwelling types are proposed in quadrants, rather than intermingled. He cited
Valley West Subdivision and, to a lesser extent, Baxter Meadows as examples of subdivisions where
intermingling of housing types has been successfully accomplished.
Commissioner Hietala stated he feels it is necessary to avoid an impasse; and it is apparent the
developer, on one hand, is firm in his idea and that staff, on the other hand, is firm in its position. He noted
that he is open to utilizing some concessions for the provision of affordable housing and senior housing.
He agrees that elimination of a buffer around the development could free up some space and allow for
flexibility in designing this project. He then turned his attention to transportation connectivity, stating he is
sympathetic with the neighbors on Hunters Way who would like to see some type of disconnect so that
street doesn't become an arterial. He voiced concern that the small lots for density development are very
small and don't provide access to the back yards,stating he would prefer to see something more accessible.
He concluded by asking that staff provide a net buildable area comparison between this development and
other comparable developments.
Responding to Planning Director Epple, Mayor Cetraro indicated he would like to see a comparison
between this proposed development and the older part of town as well as other developments similar to this
proposal.
Commissioner Krauss noted the biggest error he sees in the layout is the lack of conformance with
the regional trail plan, stating he does not view the "little brown line along Tschache Lane" as what was
anticipated in the trail plan. He also questioned how the trail network within this development ties to the
adjacent trails, particularly on the west end. He voiced a willingness to allow for reduced setbacks on lots
immediately adjoining corridors into the park corridor along the watercourse if those corridors were widened
to 50 or 60 feet, making them an easily discernible way to access the park. He suggested that additional
accesses be provided at Winter Park Lane and one at mid-block between Breeze Lane and West Oak
Street.
Commissioner Krauss voiced concern about running a trail down either side of the park area, next
to residential lots, particularly in light of experiences encountered in a subdivision on the south side of town.
He observed that people using those trails feel like they are in private back yards; and residents feel like
the trail users are intruding into their space. He also expressed concern about the four lots proposed along
Buckrake Avenue in the corner of the park area, since they encroach into the park and residents must be
prepared for people, dogs, kids, balls and whatever else to enter their back yards.
Commissioner Krauss acknowledged there are some economic realities associated with providing
affordable housing; and he feels those issues need to be discussed. Also, he finds it important to discuss
the applicant's concern about providing the minimum amount of parkland versus providing more. He noted
05-17-04
' - 3 -
•
there are no houses jammed into Cooper Park; rather, the surrounding streets provide a nice buffer. He
suggested that, by eliminating the four lots adjacent to the park, that park area could become more valuable
as well as the lots across the street from the park. He concluded by encouraging the applicant to eliminate
the trails along the back yards and to make the park more compatible with surrounding homeowners.
Commissioner Youngman noted that the applicant's submittal identifies 19 acres of parkland in the
central corridor, a senior park area, and an additional 14.53 acres; however, she cannot determine where
that acreage is located.
Mr. Clint Litle responded the 14.53 acres is located within the large buffers adjacent to the arterial
streets.
Mr. John Dunlap recognized that when Ferguson Meadows Subdivision was developed, it was
quickly determined the homeowners' association was undercapitalized for completing and maintaining the
buffer along Ferguson Avenue. He indicated that steps will be taken to ensure that such a situation does
not occur with this subdivision.
Commissioner Youngman suggested that the development be redesigned to eliminate the buffers
around the exterior of the development and incorporate that acreage into the central parkland. She
recognized the desire to provide a buffer between the residences and adjacent streets; however, she noted
that arterial streets are built within wide rights-of-way, and are often not fully developed for an extended
period of time.
Mr. Clint Litle noted that West Oak Street is to be constructed within a 125-foot-wide right-of-way,
with an 18-foot center median strip under the power line. He then noted that North 27th Avenue will also
be divided because of the power line; Davis Lane will have a ditch in the center of the roadway; and Baxter
Lane can be constructed as a more compact road section.
Commissioner Youngman stated she cannot support allowing encroachments into the streambank
setbacks, even for a non-functional stream. Also, the 50-foot wetlands setback must be observed;
therefore, this development needs to be reconfigured to avoid any wetlands identified by the Army Corps
of Engineers. She suggested that, with more open space in the center of the project, soccer fields can be
provided without negatively impacting the wetlands or stream. She concluded by noting the.current proposal
has some real functional problems.
Commissioner Youngman then turned her attention to affordable housing. She noted that under the
tax credit program, the costs of the property can be incorporated into the application. Further, the City has
approved $100,000 in local financing to help make the units more affordable for the very low-income; and
the recently-implemented first time homebuyer's program can further assist those wishing to purchase
affordable homes within this development. The Commissioner noted that staff has already provided a major
concession by not counting the senior assisted living facility toward the parkland requirements,thus making
the economics work better for those using this facility. She stressed that, since affordable housing is
providing the performance points for the planned unit development, it is important to not double count it;
rather, the developer must be able to show that other aspects of the project are superior to the standards
and the minimums in the code. The plan as proposed, however, does not go beyond the standards.
Commissioner Youngman addressed the density cap option, suggesting that might be one option
for addressing the concerns about providing parkland. She noted that under the current plan, seven more
acres of parkland are required; and the staff report suggests that 638 units could be constructed with the
19.13 acres of parkland currently proposed. She indicated a willingness to consider a density cap in
exchange for less parkland than is required under the code.
Mr. John Dunlap responded that a density cap would result in.reconfiguration of the entire project
and would result in an inability to achieve his objectives.
Mr. Lowell Springer, architect, stated he sees some merit in this project and some amenities that
are worth retaining. He expressed concern that a developer starts out not knowing the density, but knows
he wants to do a nice development;however,the unified development ordinance requires that infrastructure
impacts be identified and mitigated, and that necessitates basing the information on an anticipated density.
05-17-04
0 -4 -
Commissioner Krauss stated density is not a big issue for him, and he doesn't care if it looks like
any other subdivision. He suggested many of his concerns can be addressed by providing a bigger park
and wider trails. He then noted that, for two or three,weeks in a row, the applicant has heard that parkland
is a sticking issue, and suggested that he address it.
Responding to questions from Mr. Springer, Commissioner Krauss stated an east/west trail is
important to him. He then noted that on the current plan, the parkland, the wetland relaxation and the
relaxation to the streambank setback are "particularly egregious."
Mr. Dunlap asked when the 11-percent parkland dedication is applicable and when the.03-acre per
unit dedication is used.
Commissioner Kirchhoff characterized this as "a badly designed neighborhood;" and this is his
problem with it. He noted it is inferior to the other subdivisions and neighborhoods that the Commission has
applauded. He further noted that the planned unit development process is designed to provide a well
integrated neighborhood with usable parkland that doesn't just meet the minimum code requirements. He
concluded by encouraging the applicant to look at Alder Creek Subdivision, Valley West Subdivision and
Cattail Creek Subdivision, noting each of those subdivisions reflects good urban design.
Mr. Dunlap stated he has tried to work around a number of design constraints, including wetlands,
connectivity, and the Commission's desire for no cul-de-sacs. He then noted that he has. proposed.to
provide a community center, at a cost of$350,000, restrooms, soccer fields and parking lots. Also, he has
proposed to not only dedicate the parkland but improve it so it was ready for the residents. He is
disappointed that the Commission does not share his view of this project.
Commissioner Krauss stated there is a huge bias among developers away from active recreation
and to generalized open space, so he appreciates the amenities just described.
Mr. Dunlap then noted he intends to do trail connections through the development; however, until
he knows the specific locations of buildings, he cannot identify the locations of the trails. He suggested that,
if the Commission wishes, he would agree to having the widths of trails identified,the types of trails and the
connectivity desired; and he would work within those parameters when developing the trail system. He
stressed that this is one of the first major subdivisions to be reviewed under the Unified Development
Ordinance, and it has revealed some problems in that document that need to be addressed, one of those
being the calculations for parkland dedication.
Responding to Mr. Dunlap's comments, Planning Director Epple stated the parkland dedication
requirements are not new in the Unified Development Ordinance; rather, they were in the previous
subdivision regulations as a result of changes in the State statutes. He then noted that, under the densities
allowed in the "R-3" and "R-4" zoning districts, parking and setback requirements will limit the number of
units faster than the parkland dedication will.
Commissioner Krauss noted that all of the Commissioners have voiced concern with the public open
space being provided, as well as the proposed parks.
Mr. Lowell Springer noted it is obvious there is not much room for adjustment in the parkland
dedication. He noted that the Development Review Committee and Design Review Board indicated they
don't have significant problems with the general design and, in fact, forwarded some positive comments.
He stated that, as a newcomer to the project, he thinks the plan is good conceptually, particularly when
considering the geographic issues and the Commission's requirement for interconnectivity. He cautioned
that if a grid street system is required, the feeling of a special place will go away. He concluded by stating
he feels this project is worth salvaging and has enough merit to proceed.
Mayor Cetraro stated it appears there is enough consensus to proceed with this project, with
innovation to achieve a superior design. He then indicated he feels the 50-foot watercourse setback is
excessive. He identified the community center and soccer fields as assets to the project,noted an east/west
trail corridor has been identified as a needed amenity, and noted that moving the parkland in the perimeter
buffer into the center and making the park more predominant has been identified as an essential component
of the revisions. He then noted the applicant has raised questions about the parkland dedication
calculations, and Commissioner Hietala has requested information on the net buildable area.
05-17-04
• - 5 -
Mr. Clint Litle stated there are 161 acres in this property,with the net buildable area being 93 acres.
He cautioned that the .03-acre-per-unit parkland dedication requirement would result in 31 acres, or 1/3 of
the net buildable area being designated parkland. As a result, he believes it is essential to reduce the
density in the project; and that translates to providing more single-family housing and less mix of housing
types.
Mr. Litle stated that the second page of an information sheet just distributed by Mr. Dunlap reflects
the information they garnered when they contacted the other major communities in Montana regarding
parkland dedication requirements. He noted that Bozeman is the only community using the .03-acre-per-
unit calculation; and many of the other communities allow watercourse setbacks to be counted and provide
recognition for affordable units. He stressed that, in actuality, 21 acres of open space is being provided but
only 14.5 acres of parkland can be counted because of the watercourse setbacks. He then noted that, in
addition to the existing geographic conditions and the Commission's desire for connectivity, the applicant
must design around an exiting 20-inch main.
Responding to Commissioner Krauss, Mr. Litle stated one of the requested relaxations is to allow
the construction of apartments within the planned unit development since they are not allowed in the
underlying zoning. He suggested.this approach is preferable to seeking a zone.map amendment for one
portion of the site.
Mr. Lowell Springer noted that no relaxation was sought for density because the applicant didn't
realize that would be necessary; and he recognizes it may need to be considered in a separate public
hearing at a future date.
Planning Director Epple noted the planned unit development chapter encourages a creative design
and recognizes that a give and take process will be involved. The beginning of that chapter, however, says
the underlying zoning requirements provide the basis for evaluating an application. He feels staff provided
a clear interpretation of the open space requirement to the applicant and advised him that the Commission
would consider any request for reduction based on its merits.
Mr. Russ Squires stated that if the Commission requires 26 acres of parkland, he cannot do his
affordable housing project in this development because it will become less competitive with other projects.
He expressed concern that affordable housing may become the .sacrificial Iamb. in this.review .process.
because the differential will be $5,000 per dwelling unit.
Commissioner Youngman responded that if affordable housing is the sacrificial Iamb, the applicant
will lose the performance points on which the planned unit development is based.
Mr. Dunlap stated they had initially planned to comply with the planned unit development
requirements through providing open space but found they were able to do it through the tax credit project
instead. He then indicated that if the affordable housing project is not included, it changes the entire
development.
Commissioner Youngman asked for information on the acreage needed to provide the desired
east/west trail corridor, noting it may be possible for the Commissioners to use that information in identifying
an acceptable compromise.
Parks Manager Ron Dingman stated that, as the City continues to grow and fill in, he and the
Recreation and Parks Advisory Board are interested in getting as much dedicated parkland as possible
under the State statutes. He noted that this helps to preserve open space and provide areas for public use.
He noted that a few years ago, the Commission didn't require the dedication of parkland and, as a result,
the City lost several acres of parkland that could have been used to meet the crying need for areas to hold
dog agility training and competitions, soccer fields for practice and play, football practice fields, and other
recreational needs. He stated those involved in soccer would like to attract more tournaments to Bozeman,
but there are not adequate soccer fields to do so. He concluded by noting that Lindley Park and Kirk Park
are the two largest parks in Bozeman and contain just over 12 acres each; the amount of parkland that is
needed to meet the dedication requirements for this development is 26 acres, which could meet some of
the community needs.
05-17-04
0 - 6 -
•
Ms. Anne Banks, Recreation and,Parks Advisory Board, concurred with Park Manager Dingman's
plea for requiring as much parkland dedication as possible, stating she's afraid that parkland will become
the sacrificial Iamb. She stressed the importance of getting a usable amount of parkland, and not soccer
fields located on fill in the streambank setback that are not regulation size. She noted the Board's
responsibility is to advocate for as much parkland as possible, to provide open space and recreational
opportunities for the community.
Ms. Mary Vant Hull, Recreation and Parks Advisory Board, noted that in the 1970s, the Commission
refused offered parkland because it determined the City had no means to develop or maintain it; and the
community is now paying dearly for those decisions. She stressed it is important for the Commission to
recognize the importance of getting as much parkland in every part of town as possible.
Mr. Dunlap thanked the Commission for the opportunity to discuss these issues in a work session
setting. He stated it is his intent to create a community of diverse housing types, with parks and open space
and will attempt to bring back a proposal that addresses the issues that have been identified.
Mayor Cetraro thanked the applicant for the opportunity to conduct this work session and provide
Commissioner feedback on the application prior to next week's continued public hearings.
Recess -4:40 p.m.
Mayor Cetraro recessed the meeting at 4:40 p.m., to reconvene at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of
conducting the regular Commission meeting.
Reconvene - 7:00 p.m.
Mayor Cetraro reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence
The meeting was-opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence.
Minutes -April 19, April 26, May 3, May 7 and May 10, 2004 .
It was moved by Commissioner Krauss, seconded by Commissioner Youngman, that the minutes
of the meeting of May 7, 2004, be approved as submitted. The motion carried by the following Aye and No
vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Krauss, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Kirchhoff,
Commissioner Hietala and Mayor Cetraro; those voting No, none.
Mayor Cetraro deferred action on the minutes of the meetings of April 19, April 26, May 3 and May
10, 2004, to a later date.
Consent Items
Acting City Manager Brey presented to the Commission the following Consent Items.
Approval of final plat for minor subdivision requested by Deborah Bear McKay -
subdivide parcel described as amended plat of a portion of Block 3, Babcock
and Davis Addition, into two lots (southeast corner of intersection of East
Davis Street and North Wallace Avenue)
Approval of final plat for minor subdivision requested by R&D Holding - subdivide
19.6 acres described as Tract 1, COS No. 1846, into 5 commercial lots - 360
Ranch Corporation and RED Holding (northeast corner of Huffine Lane and
Cottonwood Road)
05-17-04
• - 10 -
It was moved by Commissioner Krauss, seconded by Commissioner Youngman, to direct staff to
bring back a resolution creating special improvement district number 677 for improvements to the traffic
signal at the intersection of North 19th Avenue and Valley Center Road. The motion carried by the
following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Krauss, Commissioner Youngman,
Commissioner Kirchhoff, Commissioner Hietala, and Mayor Cetraro; those voting No, none.
Public hearing-Commission Resolution No.3678-intent to create SID No.678, installation of traffic
signal at intersection of North 19th Avenue and Cattail Street
This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the intent to create SID No. 678, as set
by Commission Resolution No. 3678, entitled:
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3678
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, RELATING
TO SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 678; DECLARING IT TO BE THE
INTENTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO CREATE THE EXTENDED DISTRICT FOR
THE PURPOSE OF UNDERTAKING CERTAIN LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS AND
FINANCING THE COSTS THEREOF AND INCIDENTAL THERETO THROUGH THE
ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BONDS SECURED BY THE CITY'S
SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT REVOLVING FUND AND ESTABLISHING
COMPLIANCE WITH REIMBURSEMENT BOND REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE.
Mayor Cetraro opened the public hearing.
Since there were no Commissioner objections, Mayor Cetraro closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Youngman, seconded by Commissioner Kirchhoff, to direct staff to
bring back a resolution creating special improvement district number 678 for the installation of a traffic signal
at the intersection of North 19th Avenue and Cattail Street. The motion carried by the following Aye and No
vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Kirchhoff, Commissioner Hietala,
Commissioner Krauss, and Mayor Cetraro; those voting No, none.
Break - 8:47 - 8:58 pm
Mayor Cetraro declared a break from 8:47 pm until 8:58 pm in accordance with Commission policy.
Public hearing - Conditional Use Permit for West Winds Planned Unit Development - establish a
unified development plan for a 161.30-acre subdivision for development of 213 single-household,
92 townhouse, 5 multi-household, and 8 senior assisted living lots with relaxations from various
sections of the Unified Development Ordinance - HKM Engineering for Quest West, LLC (lying
between Baxter Lane and West Oak Street, and between North 27th Avenue and Davis Lane)
Z-04050
This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit for West Winds
Planned Unit Development, as requested by HKM Engineering for Quest West, LLC, under Application No.
Z-04050, to establish a unified development plan for a 161.30-acre subdivision for development of 213
single-household, 92 townhouse, 5 multi-household, and 8 senior assisted living lots,with relaxations from
the Unified Development Ordinance as follows: (a) from Section 18.42.100, to allow the watercourse
setback to be reduced from 50 feet to 15 feet; (b)from Section 18.50.070.A.1., to allow the watercourse
setback to count toward the parkland dedication requirement; (c) from Section 18.50.020, to allow the
parkland dedication requirement to be based on 11 percent of net buildable area instead of 0.03 acres per
dwelling unit; (d)from Section 18.16.020.B., to allow assisted living/elderly care facilities and apartments
within the"R-3", Residential—Medium-density,zoning district;(e)from Section 18.42.030.C.,to allow double
frontage lots adjacent to arterial and collector streets; (f)from Section 18.42.040.B., to allow block lengths
to exceed 400 feet; (g)from Section 18.42.040.C., to allow the minimum block length to be less than 200
feet for blocks with restricted size lots;(h)from Section 18.42.180.C.,to allow townhouse restricted size lots
to be less than 3,000 square feet and more than 3,000 square feet for corner townhouse lots; and (i)from
05-10-04
t
Mayor Cetraro opened the public hearing. '
Commissioner Krauss asked if the Commission h as a ny d iscretion i n t he c alculations f or t he
assessments for these SIDs. Finance Director Gamradt stated there is a mandatory five percent revolving
fund contribution and a discretional one-half percent revolving fund contribution. In the past, the
Commission has declined to impose the discretional contribution.
Dave Stewart, property owner in Gardner Simmental Subdivision, pointed out the Commission has
already passed the first SID,which is tied to the other three SIDs, so it is a foregone conclusion that the rest
of the SIDs are going to be approved. Since it is either a "support all" or "dump all" proposition, the
Commission must go all the way now; and that is an injustice to all the property owners in Gardner
Simmental.
Since there were no Commissioner objections, Mayor Cetraro closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Krauss stated he would support not adding the discretionary one-half percent to these
SIDs as a concession to the costs of the SIDs. City Attorney Luwe stated that will be included in the
resolution of creation.
It was moved by Commissioner Hietala, seconded by Commissioner Krauss, to direct staff to bring
back a resolution creating special improvement district number 675 for improvements to North 19th Avenue
from Baxter Lane to Valley Center Road. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote:those voting
Aye being Commissioner Hietala, Commissioner Krauss, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner
Kirchhoff, and Mayor Cetraro; those voting No, none.
_Public hearing - Commission Resolution No. 3676 - intent to create SID No 677 improvements to
traffic signal at intersection of North 19th Avenue and Valley Center Road
This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the intent to create SID No. 677, as set
by Commission Resolution No. 3676, entitled:
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3676
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, RELATING
TO SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 677; DECLARING IT TO BE THE
INTENTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO CREATE THE EXTENDED DISTRICT FOR
THE PURPOSE OF UNDERTAKING CERTAIN LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS AND
FINANCING THE COSTS THEREOF AND INCIDENTAL THERETO THROUGH THE
ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BONDS SECURED BYTHE CITY'S
SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT REVOLVING FUND AND ESTABLISHING
COMPLIANCE WITH REIMBURSEMENT BOND REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE.
Mayor Cetraro opened the public hearing.
Susan Swimley, Nellen and Swimley, noted that all five of the Commissioners mentioned one
solution to the high costs of these SIDs would be to use impact fees if they were available; and she asked
what the impetus is to not tax all property owners.
Commissioner Youngman said this Commission could put something in the record, but there will
probably be a different Commission when that is resolved. In basic fairness, she supports using impact fees
for what they were intended to be used for; to improve the street infrastructure. She can't imagine that a
future Commission would vary from that reasoning, but this Commission cannot tie the hands of a future
Commission.
Commissioner Krauss added these SIDs were discussed at length a couple of weeks ago,and three
of them were forwarded unanimously. SID number 676 was forwarded on a majority vote.
Since there were no Commissioner objections, Mayor Cetraro closed the public hearing.
05-10-04
T:
Section 18.44.090.D.3., to allow residential lots that front on Hunters Way and Buckrake Avenue and back
onto the linear park to access local streets within 150 feet of an intersection with an arterial street and to
allow the access separation distance between the proposed local streets onto West Oak Street to be less
than 660 feet. The subject property is bounded by Baxter Lane, West Oak Street, North 27th Avenue, and
Davis Lane.
Included in the Commission packets were several letters of support and opposition for this project
and the requested relaxations from the code requirements.
Mayor Cetraro opened the public hearing.
Associate Planner Morris distributed copies of her memorandum dated May 10, outlining additional
conditions, and then presented the staff report. Staff has reviewed this application in light of the applicable
criteria,and their findings are included in the written staff report. She reviewed the application, saying Davis
Lane is in direct alignment with, and thus will be changed to, Fowler Avenue. Staff does not support the
requested relaxation of the watercourse setback because the required 50-foot setback is to insure pollutant
filtration, minimize flood hazards, minimize stream bank erosion, and maintain the existing wildlife habitat.
Staff also does not support the requested relaxation to allow the watercourse setback to be counted toward
the parkland dedication, the request that the parkland requirement be based on 11 percent net buildable
area instead of 0.03 acres per dwelling unit, or the request to allow residential lots to access local streets
within 150 feet of an intersection with an arterial. Planning staff has identified various code provisions which
are currently unmet, and staff has advised the applicant that he must comply with these provisions prior to
receiving final site plan approval. Four letters have been received by staff and were included in the staff
packet. One of the letters suggests offsetting Hunters Way from its current alignment. Staff suggests
requiring traffic calming on Hunters Way, rather than offsetting the alignment. Relevant code provisions
are listed in the staff report and will have to be addressed, but they are not conditions of approval.
Commissioner Kirchhoff asked for clarification of the terms "deviation" and "relaxation". Planning
Director Epple stated deviations are specificto historic districts,neighborhood conservation overlay districts,
or entryway corridor overlay districts. Relaxations are relevant to areas other than those within the above
listed districts. Relaxations must result in a superior product.
John Dunlap, Quest West, noted this is the largest undeveloped, annexed, and zoned property in
Bozeman. They have strived to embrace as many goals listed in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan as
possible in this one application. Housing types will include single family residences, townhouses,
apartments, senior cottages and apartments and assisted living facility, condominiums, affordable housing
on restricted size lots, and section 42 housing. Mr. Dunlap said he feels the current staff determination of
the parkland requirement is a far-reaching interpretation of the Unified Development Ordinance (LIDO).
They have followed the steps outlined in the LIDO verbatim, and they have met the goals listed in the growth
policy. The LIDO allows the park area requirement to be based on the 11 percent net buildable area if the
density of the development is unknown. Staff, however, insists that 0.03 acres per dwelling unit is required
for parkland dedication. Quest West wants to provide additional parkland amenities for the enjoyment of
the entire community, but they will have to reduce those amenities if they are required to comply with staff's
requirement for parkland dedication. Additionally, they will have to reduce the number of affordable
multi-family housing units and convert them to single-family lots, which will adversely impact affordable
housing, as well as the goal of the growth policy.
Mr. Dunlap stated maintaining the 50-foot watercourse setback will adversely impact the proposed
soccer fields. This is a minor watercourse that is typically dry, and there is no floodplain associated with
it. Mr. Dunlap said they believe that these setbacks should be used for active recreation areas. Since the
need for soccer fields in this valley is enormous, this area could be utilized for the betterment of the
community. It is not an uncommon practice to place soccer fields in flood-prone areas because it is a good
dual use.
Regarding the requested relaxation to allow apartments within the R-3 zoning district, Mr. Dunlap
stated it is their intent to provide apartments at a density consistent with apartments in the R-4 zoning
district.
Mr. Dunlap stated they would like to have the Commission discuss and motion each relaxation
individually. As stated in the UDO, the intent of the planned unit development process is to promote
flexibility and innovation in the development of land and the design of the development. It also states that
05-10-04
• - 12 - r
the Commission can grant deviations, providing they will produce environmental, landscape quality, and/or
a character that is superior to that which would have been created. Additionally,the Commission may grant
a complete exemption from a particular standard. Mr. Dunlap reiterated this application complies with the
goals, requirements, and intent of the UDO, the growth policy, and the parks master plan; but these
standards do not take a global approach. Both Planning staff and the review boards have failed to embrace
the goals and intent of the growth policy; and Quest West will be forced to develop a project that, in their
opinion, is not in the best interest of the community.
Commissioner Youngman noted there are some places on this site that experience high
groundwater, some of which is as high as any groundwater the city has ever dealt with. There is also a
swail running the length of the property, which will have higher levels of water. The Commission is now
hearing from property owners,who live in high groundwater areas that have been developed,that they have
standing water in basements or crawl spaces, mold, structural problems, bugs, etc. It is not good practice
to take action without being knowledgeable about such issues,and she would appreciate more information.
Mr. Dunlap responded that the groundwater issues will be mitigated by raising the foundations up to the
height that they need to be. They will have to identify soil samples and groundwater levels at the time they
apply for building permits. Grades will be provided as to their specific relation to groundwater; and that will
be mitigated as much as possible, but they are limited by road connections.
Commissioner Youngman asked Mr. Dunlap if they had any problems with the extra conditions
distributed this evening by Associate Planner Morris. Mr. Dunlap stated they are in full agreement with
those conditions outlined in the memo that was distributed this evening.
Mayor Cetraro pointed out that condition number 4 in Planner Morris's memo, prohibiting the platting
of lots within the 100-year flood plain, contradicts Mr. Dunlap's discussion items. Mr. Dunlap replied there
is no flood plain delineated on this property at all. Planning Director Epple added the 100-year flood plain
must be evaluated and no lots may be located in that flood plain.
Commissioner Youngman questioned the location of the proposed soccer fields. Mr. Dunlap stated
they will be distributed throughout the parkland and use of the setback areas for soccer fields will not
change the past or existing use of this property. No impervious surfaces will be placed within the 50-foot
watercourse setback. The proposed15-foot setback area will be planted with native wetland species.
Victor Hanson, 2735 Harris, stated he feels the development of this land is inevitable, but he does
not feel it is necessary to relax any setbacks or buffers. This project should be built using the rules and
regulations as required.
Doug Aita, 1226 Hunters Way, distributed copies of a traffic report concerning traffic on Hunters
Way. Hunters Way is becoming an arterial street, and residents are concerned with the volume and speed
of traffic on this street. Currently Hunters Way has a traffic volume of 1,500 vehicles per day. Extending
Hunters Way through this subdivision to Baxter Lane will make it one of the longest residential streets in
town. Already there is a lack of north/south roadways in that area, and the problem is exacerbated by
construction at the intersection of North 19th Avenue and Main Street. He would like to see an alternative
to aligning Hunters Way from Durston Road to Baxter Lane, perhaps by redesigning the subdivision,
offsetting the street, or some other means to alleviate creating a severe problem that will have to be dealt
with in the future. Residents are circulating a petition to try to limit the volume and speed of traffic on
Hunters Way, suggesting the use of 4-way stops. Mr. Aita encouraged the Commission to consider this
when reviewing this application.
Commissioner Kirchhoff asked if this is an up-to-date traffic count for Hunters Way. Mr. Aita replied
it came from Neighborhood Coordinator Oulman, and he assumes it is up to date.
Scott Bosse, 722 Hunters Way, stated he is not thrilled about this open field being developed, but
it is the price of progress in Bozeman; and this is an appropriate place to develop. He reminded the
Commission of the vision statement, saying this subdivision, as proposed, will not be as livable as it could
be. If the requested relaxation of the setback is granted, wildlife values will be destroyed, which is what
makes Bozeman so livable. There are lots of birds and wildlife in that area, which add to the quality of life
for everyone. The watercourse that runs through this property does filter out pollutants and counting the
riparian/wetland area as parkland is inappropriate. Mr. Bosse said neighbors worry that the current major
traffic problems on Hunters Way will be exacerbated, creating a dangerous situation. He asked the
05-10-04
- 13 -0
•
Commission to make sure Hunters Way and other neighborhood streets are returned to their original
functioning.
Andy McLaughlin, 1212 South Cedarview, representing Cascade Homes, voiced his support of
relaxing the watercourse setback and counting the setback as parkland dedication. He noted that both the
Bozeman 2020 Community Plan and the parks master plan recognize watercourses and wetlands as park
allocation, so this project is in compliance with the parkland dedication requirement.
Joanne Jennings, 608 South 7th and chair of the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board, stated the
board members have looked at this plan and made their recommendation; and they stand by their
recommendation to retain the 50-foot watercourse setback. Recognizing it is important that these soccer
fields be available for community use, they have made recommendations for alternate locations of the
soccer fields. The Recreation and Parks Advisory Board wants the setbacks to remain and more parkland
provided.
Heidi Olson, 91 Pebblebrook, said the usable parkland area that the developer has established is
a beautiful area. She and her family desire to live in the West Winds subdivision because it is going to be
a great subdivision; but if it is not affordable, they won't be able to do so. With the conditions being placed
on this developer, this project will be less affordable; and it will push affordable housing out of the reach of
those who need it.
Lowell Springer, Springer Architects, reminded the Commission that the Bozeman community was
a high land desert until artificial canals were brought in 100 years ago and changed the nature of the valley.
Subsequently the Department of Agriculture and other governmental agencies decided it would be nice if
the creeks were moved to make them more meandering. Now some streams have been returned to their
original path, and that has created some subsoil conditions that imitate wetland conditions. A lot of
agricultural land has been taken out of production, backfilled, and developed, so that now many of those
creeks are no longer carrying any water at all. Wetland species are no longer growing because some of
these areas are not true, natural waterways, and their source of water is being taken away. The
requirement for a 50-foot watercourse setback is no longer a valid process.
Russ Squire, 5195 Copeland Lane, stated he fell in love with this development; and it is the ideal
location for his affordable housing project because of its close proximity to services. He said he wishes to
address how Planning staff's interpretation of the UDO will affect affordable housing in Bozeman. As a
Section 42 developer, who is limited to fixed rents, he will have to forego his affordable housing project
altogether because his cash flow will be negative if the 0.03 acre standard is applied. The three variables
that affect affordable housing include the cost of the land, material costs, and labor costs. Cost of land in
Bozeman is the highest in the state; material costs rank number two in the state, and labor costs are the
highest of any city in Montana. Bozeman's wage and cost of living wedge is the highest in the nation.
Balance is important to Bozeman's goal of providing affordable housing, and if the West Winds
development sets a precedent that makes Section 42 housing unaffordable to develop, much of Bozeman's
workforce will be forced to live outside of city limits.
Gordon Gregory, 2807 Allison Court, said he agrees the wetland setback should be 50 feet because
15 feet is hardly enough setback for native vegetation and wildlife that lives there. The wetlands are
currently bone dry because of the drought and the fact that the irrigation ditch to the east hasn't been filled.
The lots along the linear park infringe on the look of the park and on the boundaries of the wetland. Lots
backing up to public parkland have often resulted in encroachment into the park and screen the park from
view, thus discouraging use by the general public. The increased traffic created when this area is fully
developed should not be underestimated because Oak Street is already busy and the speeds are high.
Gene Cook,developer,who has no involvement in this development,said Bozeman needs this kind
of good development. The water level of this area will be totally changed in the next five to seven years.
He has been developing land in Bozeman for years, and the water level has changed over time because
ditch irrigation for agricultural land to the south is a thing of the past. Rain water only gets down 6 inches
and doesn't replenish the aquifer. Water levels in the valley are dropping dramatically, and this piece of
property will be very dry except for possible high spring runoff. Water and sewer lines form a natural
channel for water to follow under the pipes. Parkland discussions are always an issue whenever he
proposes a development; and Mr. Cook suggested there needs to be black and white guidelines for
parkland requirements, so developers know up front what they are going to be required to provide.
05-10-04
• - 14 -
Diane Aita, 1226 Hunters Way, questioned when Oak Street was going to be completed.
Tami McLaughlin, 1212 South Cedarview, said she would like to address the affordable housing
issue. She is a loan officer,who processes 15 to 20 loan applications per month;and young couples cannot
afford to live in Bozeman because there are no homes available under$200,000. Prospective homeowners
are having to bid over the asking price to have a chance to buy a piece of property in Bozeman. The
median income in Bozeman is $39,300; and by requiring the extra parkland allocation, the payment on a
house in this subdivision will increase $100 per month, per unit, which forces median income households
to locate in Belgrade and Three Forks.
Mr. Dunlap again asked that the Commission discuss and make a motion on the requested
relaxations individually. They have truly tried to abide by the UDO, and they feel the parkland criteria has
been met or exceeded. They are requesting the 15-foot setback to increase the play area only; it isn't
needed to meet the parkland requirement.
Since there were no Commissioner objections, Mayor Cetraro closed the public hearing.
Associate Planner Morris stated this development,at full buildout,will contain 960 units, so the 0.03
acres per unit parkland dedication requirement was applied. The calculation based on 11 percent net
buildable area is permitted only when the density of the development is not known. Parkland dedication
requirements are based on the number of units, and units are defined as those spaces that contain kitchen
facilities. The senior assisted living/skilled care units are not considered dwelling units, so those are
excluded from the parkland calculation. Planning Director Epple added the Recreation and Parks Advisory
Board has shared that high-density developments should require more parkland than low-density
environments because the low-density areas contain some parkland in the yards, whereas very small lots
and apartment lots do not have adequate play areas.
The Bozeman 2020 Community Plan states medium density areas should have an average of 12
units per net acre, but this development proposes a density of 10 dwelling units per net acre. "Net acre"
excludes anything that is not able to be built upon. The developer is proposing to build apartments in an
R-3 zone,which cannot be done with a relaxation; it will require a zoning change. In October, Planning staff
was told by the developer there would be a 50-foot watercourse setback. Now they are requesting only a
15-foot setback. Wetlands consultants have said that the west ditch is, indeed, a stream; and water will be
added later that may not be there now because of the diversion of land from agricultural uses. Additionally,
it is hard to determine water levels in drought conditions. Planting requirements for natural stream
landscaping will still apply.
Commissioner Youngman noted there is the option to lower the density cap to allow for redefinition
of the parkland calculation. Associate Planner Morris responded that if the Commission feels less parkland
could be acceptable for this site, the density of this development should be capped to the number of acres
the developer is providing.
Commissioner Youngman asked when Davis Lane will be constructed. Associate Planner Morris
stated the timing of development of Fowler Avenue will occur with each phase of development. Oak Street
improvements will have to be improved in the next phase of development.
Associate Planner Morris referred to condition number one, as outlined in the staff report, saying
the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan and the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update both
indicate the east/west trail should be constructed to provide a future connection between Rose Park and
the regional park. The path should be constructed to an eight-or ten-foot width. Condition number two calls
for trail crossings to be located at the nearest cross street. Staff does not want to see a pedestrian crossing
mid-block in order to create a more controlled atmosphere. Appropriate signage must be provided to direct
users to the trail.
Associate Planner Morris went on to state that planned unit developments require Design Review
Board approval, but the Design Review Board feels this application does not provide enough detail in the
design guidelines. Therefore, the Design Review Board requests more information from the applicant.
Commissioner Kirchhoff stated the applicant has provided an impressive stack of papers, with lots
of requested relaxations, but he feels the Commission cannot act on this application tonight because of the
complexity of the issues. This subdivision is not yet ready for this level of Commission review. This is a
05-10-04
i t
160-acre square parcel with nine requested relaxations, and it seems remarkable that nine relaxations are
required to develop a subdivision on this square parcel of land. Commissioner Kirchhoff stated he believes
the Commission and staff are being asked to solve a lot of design problems.
Commissioner Krauss agreed with Commissioner Kirchhoff's remarks, adding that it is regrettable
that this project has gotten to this point and the parkland dedication is still being debated. One entire
Monday evening could be spent discussing this one development, and all the issues surrounding it; none
of the real important issues have been discussed as of yet.
Commissioner Kirchhoff asked if the Commission would prefer to send this application back to staff
with broad directions to the applicant. Commissioner Youngman said she doesn't believe the Commission
can provide broad direction at this point.
Commissioner Krauss stated his preference to provide broad direction to the applicant and refer
back to staff. The burden of providing parkland cannot be loaded on Section 42 affordable housing. If this
developer is going to provide affordable housing, it must count toward the amenities. Commissioner
Youngman pointed out staff did reduce the parkland requirement by using the affordable housing
calculation.
Commissioner Krauss then stated that the Commission is not capable of designing a 160-acre
subdivision, and he would prefer to allow staff to work with the applicant to reach an agreement.
Commissioner Youngman noted one possibility would be for the Commissioners to look over the submitted
materials for a few days, identify the questions the Commission wants to ask, and then provide the applicant
with direction following discussion.
Commissioner Krauss suggested it may require an afternoon work session to work things through.
The Commission is being asked to mediate between the requirements of the code and what is desired in
a 160-acre planned development within the city.
Planning Director Epple stated the conversation really needs to be focused on items a, b, and c
found on page two of the staff report. The rest of the requested relaxations are acceptable. Regarding the
debate over using 0.03 acres per dwelling unit versus 11 percent net buildable area calculation formula,
Planning Director Epple stated that if the number of units is known, the 0.03 acre per unit formula is to be
used. If the number of units is unknown, then the 11 percent calculation may be utilized. The 11 percent
formula is not supported by staff or the boards, so they have tried to reach a compromise by allowing the
50-foot watercourse setback to count toward the parkland requirement.
Commissioner Krauss said it appears that the15-foot setback is being considered in order to allow
the developer to put in soccer fields, and it doesn't look like it affects any single lot. Associate Planner
Morris responded the 50-foot watercourse setback will be taken from the edge of the wetland.
Responding to Commissioner Kirchhoff, Parks Manager Dingman stated he does not believe soccer
fields are appropriate in watercourse areas because of soil conditions. Soccer fields require a minimum of
ten inches of amended topsoil. Planning Director Epple added these are small soccer fields; and the edge
of the field line will be located right at the 15-foot watercourse setback line, which doesn't leave any room
for referees or fans. Another 15 yards is required, at the very least.
Commissioner Krauss stated this is a planned unit development, and the Commission needs to
decide if it is going to load$6,000 to the price of a dwelling unit to provide parkland. Planning Director Epple
replied that the planned unit development process gives the Commission the flexibility to decide to use
either the 11 percent net buildable area calculation formula or the 0.03 acres per dwelling unit calculation.
Acting City Manager Brey offered that a staff/applicant/Commission work session is the most
productive environment to work things out. If the Commission decides to hold a work session, it will need
to ask the applicant for an extension of the review period for the preliminary plat.
Responding to Mayor Cetraro, Mr. Dunlap verbally granted an extension to the review period to allow
for a work session and continued public hearing to be conducted. Mr. Dunlap stated he firmly believes 14.5
acres is the amount of parkland that is required; but if the Commission decides more is needed, he would
be agreeable to that. He will embrace further discussions with staff and the Commission in order to get this
development, on this unique piece of property, to maximize its potential.
05-10-04
• - 16 - •
Commissioner Kirchhoff stated he has design concerns with this application. The lots along the
center parkway should be removed, and he wants to see some serious urban design included in this
proposal. Integration of the elements is lacking, and there is no connectivity. Mr. Dunlap responded that
they cannot achieve a grid pattern because of the control elements of the wetlands and parkland. The
overall design is already tight because of the width of the streets and the required 20-inch sewer main.
Commissioner Kirchhoff stated he doesn't understand why these things are so cast in stone because
there are no hardships to overcome. There are no constraints to providing streets that harmonize, and he
believes the street layout can be greatly improved. Mr. Dunlap replied it is not possible to align the streets
with the 20-inch sewer main because of the wetlands. He feels they have maximized street connectivity.
Mr. Dunlap then stated that when the design team read the UDO requirements, it is very black and
white, in their minds, that the combination of the 11 percent calculation formula and the 0.03 acres formula
meet the parkland requirements. He paid for the land based on the price per acre; and the seller did not
sell the parkland, wetlands, and setbacks at a lesser price. That purchase price needs to be identified and
put back into the cost of this development.
Acting City Manager Brey suggested setting the work session meeting date for May 17th at 3:00 pm,
which will allow the reopened public hearing to be held on May 24th at 7:00 pm.
Commissioner Kirchhoff pointed out that in granting relaxations, it is essential to determine what
superior product is being gained in return for granting the relaxation.
It was moved by Commissioner Kirchhoff, seconded by Commissioner Hietala, that this item be
scheduled for a work session on May 17th at 3:00 pm; and that the reopened public hearing be placed on
the May 24th, 7:00 pm agenda. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye
being Commissioner Kirchhoff, Commissioner Hietala, Commissioner Krauss, Commissioner Youngman,
and Mayor Cetraro; those voting No, none.
Public hearing - preliminary plat for West Winds Subdivision, Phases IA and IB -allow subdivision
of 31.05 acres lying at northwest corner of intersection of West Oak Street and North 27th Avenue
into 46 single-household. 40 townhouse and 2 multi-household lots - HKM Engineering for Quest
West. LLC (P-04009)
This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the preliminary plat for West Winds
Subdivision, Phases IA and IB, as requested by HKM Engineering for Quest West, LLC, under Application
No. P-04009,to allow the subdivision of 31.05 acres lying at the northwest corner of the intersection of West
Oak Street and North 27th Avenue into 46 single-household, 40 townhouse and 2 multi-household lots.
Mayor Cetraro opened the public hearing.
John Dunlap,applicant,verbally granted an extension to the time limit for reviewing preliminary plats
to allow this public hearing to be continued to May 24.
It was moved by Commissioner Hietala, seconded by Commissioner Krauss,that the public hearing
on this item be continued until May 24th. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting
Aye being Commissioner Hietala, Commissioner Krauss, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner
Kirchhoff, and Mayor Cetraro; those voting No, none.
Appointment to Parking Commission
Included in the Commissioners' packets was a memo from Clerk of the Commission Sullivan, dated
May 6, 2004, forwarding the application for this board.
Itwas moved by Commissioner Krauss,seconded by Commissioner Youngman,that Larry Bowman
be appointed to replace Don McLaughlin on the Parking Commission, with an initial term to expire on June
30, 2005. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner
05-10-04
0
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
May 17, 2004
The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in regular session in the Commission Room, Municipal
Building, on Monday, May 17, 2004, at 3:00 p.m. Present were Mayor Andrew Cetraro, Commissioner Jeff
Krauss, Commissioner Marcia Youngman, Commissioner Steve Kirchhoff, Commissioner Lee Hietala,
Acting City Manager Ron Brey, Director of Public Service Debbie Arkell, Planning Director Andy Epple, Staff
Attorney Tim Cooper and Clerk of the Commission Robin Sullivan.
Signing of Notice of Special Meeting
Each of the Commissioners, in turn, signed the Notice of Special Meeting.
Work session - Conditional Use Permit for West Winds Planned Unit Developmenllto establish a
unified development plan for a 161.30-acre subdivision for development of 213 single-household,
92 townhouse.5 multi-household,and 8 senior assisted living lots with several relaxations from the
Unified Development Ordinance
Acting City Manager Brey reminded the Commissioners that, because of the number of outstanding
issues that arose during last week's public hearing,they chose to conduct a work session prior to continuing
the public hearing. He noted that distributed to the Commissioners late last week was a proposed agenda
for this work session as prepared by the applicant. Distributed just prior to the meeting was a memo from
Associate Planner Jami Morris, dated May 17, identifying five items where outstanding issues remain. He
then reminded the Commissioners this is an opportunity for them to discuss the issues among themselves
and provide direction to the applicant, with no requirement for allowing participation from the public.
Mayor Cetraro characterized the planned unit development process as a give and take situation and-
noted that, as a result of this work session, he hopes the Commission may reach some consensus.
Commissioner Kirchhoff noted that each of the Commissioners has different concerns about this
project. He stressed that this planned unit development process is really a series of decisions and choices
that result in the development of a new neighborhood. This process gives the applicant and the
Commission a unique opportunity to fudge on the typical zoning requirements, with the bottom line being
a product that is superior to a literal interpretation of the regulations. He acknowledged this neighborhood
plan has come a fair way since its inception, and he finds it has a way to go.
Commissioner Kirchhoff turned his attention to those issues about which he is most concerned. He
noted that under the old code, a planned unit development was required to provide 30 percent open space;
under the Unified Development Ordinance,a planned unit development may meet the required performance
points by either providing 30 percent open space or providing a certain amount of affordable housing. In
this instance the applicant has chosen to meet the performance points through providing affordable housing.
Under the subdivision process, however,the applicant is still required to provide parkland;and it is essential
that the issues of parkland and affordable housing be separated and that the applicant recognize one cannot
be used as a bargaining chip for the other.
Commissioner Kirchhoff turned his attention to the issues identified in staff's memo, stating that he
does not support narrowing the setback requirements along the watercourse; and if that narrowing is
allowed, it should be only for superior design and not for affordable housing. Further, it appears some of
the housing units are proposed within delineated wetlands and should be removed from the plan if they truly
are located within wetlands as delineated by the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
Commissioner Kirchhoff proposed that more openings be made into the parkway, at a width that
makes those entries easily identifiable and inviting. He suggested one of those openings could be provided
05-17-04
- 2 - J
•
by eliminating the lot at the end of Winter Park Lane and shifting the remaining lots to provide a 35-foot-wide
access to the park. The Commissioner then turned his attention to the buffer strip proposed on all four sides
of the proposed development, adjacent to the surrounding major streets, noting that elimination of those
buffer strips and double loading the lots adjacent to those roadways with service alleys was identified as
preferable during the informal reviews of this project. He then contrasted the Ferguson Meadows, Durston
Meadows and Harvest Creek Subdivisions with the Valley West Subdivision. He noted that, in the first three
subdivisions, the lots are designed so that the rear yards abut the adjacent major street; and tall, solid,
forbidding fences have been constructed. In Valley West Subdivision, on the other hand, the lots are
designed so the front porches address the street, creating a much more friendly and inviting atmosphere.
Further, that subdivision reflects a good mix of condominiums, townhouses, duplexes and single-family
residences rather than the segregation of housing types proposed within this development.
Commissioner Kirchhoff then turned his attention to the responsibility for maintenance of the
boulevard and stream/ditch adjacent to Ferguson Meadows Subdivision,characterizing it as being"not very
sightly". He noted that this situation has resulted in consternation for the City's Engineering Division and
telephone calls from concerned residents to various Commissioners,a situation he hopes to avoid creating
with this development under consideration. He then stressed that the Commissioners are the custodians
of the public domain; and he feels it is critical to create an amenable,friendly and functional street network
that connects with the adjacent residential areas.
Commissioner Kirchhoff indicated his last major concern is the lack of interconnectivity, particularly
on the east side of the neighborhood. He noted that this applies to the street network as well as the trail
network. Further,the different dwelling types are proposed in quadrants, rather than intermingled. He cited
Valley West Subdivision and, to a lesser extent, Baxter Meadows as examples of subdivisions where
intermingling of housing types has been successfully accomplished.
Commissioner Hietala stated he feels it is necessary to avoid an impasse; and it is apparent the
developer, on one hand, is firm in his idea and that staff, on the other hand, is firm in its position. He noted
that he is open to utilizing some concessions for the provision of affordable housing and senior housing.
He agrees that elimination of a buffer around the development could free up some space and allow for
flexibility in designing this project. He then turned his attention to transportation connectivity, stating he is
sympathetic with the neighbors on Hunters Way who would like to see some type of disconnect so that
street doesn't become an arterial. He voiced concern that the small lots for density development are very
small and don't provide access to the back yards,stating he would preferto see something more accessible.
He concluded by asking that staff provide a net buildable area comparison between this development and
other comparable developments.
Responding to Planning Director Epple, Mayor Cetraro indicated he would like to see a comparison
between this proposed development and the older part of town as well as other developments similar to this
proposal.
Commissioner Krauss noted the biggest error he sees in the layout is the lack of conformance with
the regional trail plan, stating he does not view the "little brown line along Tschache Lane" as what was
anticipated in the trail plan. He also questioned how the trail network within this development ties to the
adjacent trails, particularly on the west end. He voiced a willingness to allow for reduced setbacks on lots
immediately adjoining corridors into the park corridor along the watercourse if those corridors were widened
to 50 or 60 feet, making them an easily discernible way to access the park. He suggested that additional
accesses be provided at Winter Park Lane and one at mid-block between Breeze Lane and West Oak
Street.
Commissioner Krauss voiced concern about running a trail down either side of the park area, next
to residential lots, particularly in tight of experiences encountered in a subdivision on the south side of town.
He observed that people using those trails feel like they are in private back yards; and residents feel like
the trail users are intruding into their space. He also expressed concern about the four lots proposed along
Buckrake Avenue in the corner of the park area, since they encroach into the park and residents must be
prepared for people, dogs, kids, balls and whatever else to enter their back yards.
Commissioner Krauss acknowledged there are some economic realities associated with providing
affordable housing; and he feels those issues need to be discussed. Also, he finds it important to discuss
the applicant's concern about providing the minimum amount of parkland versus providing more. He noted
05-17-04
- 3 -
there are no houses jammed into Cooper Park; rather, the surrounding streets provide a nice buffer. He
suggested that, by eliminating the four lots adjacent to the park, that park area could become more valuable
as well as the lots across the street from the park. He concluded by encouraging the applicant to eliminate
the trails along the back yards and to make the park more compatible with surrounding homeowners.
Commissioner Youngman noted that the applicant's submittal identifies 19 acres of parkland in the
central corridor, a senior park area, and an additional 14.53 acres; however, she cannot determine where
that acreage is located.
Mr. Clint Litle responded the 14.53 acres is located within the large buffers adjacent to the arterial
streets.
Mr. John Dunlap recognized that when Ferguson Meadows Subdivision was developed, it was
quickly determined the homeowners' association was undercapitalized for completing and maintaining the
buffer along Ferguson Avenue. He indicated that steps will be taken to ensure that such a situation does
not occur with this subdivision.
Commissioner Youngman suggested that the development be redesigned to eliminate the buffers
around the exterior of the development and incorporate that acreage into the central parkland. She
recognized the desire to provide a buffer between the residences and adjacent streets; however, she noted
that arterial streets are built within wide rights-of-way, and are often not fully developed for.an extended
period of time.
Mr. Clint Litle noted that West Oak Street is to be constructed within a 125-foot-wide right-of-way,
with an 18-foot center median strip under the power line. He then noted that North 27th Avenue will also
be divided because of the power line; Davis Lane will have a ditch in the center of the roadway; and Baxter
Lane can be constructed as a more compact road section.
Commissioner Youngman stated she cannot support allowing encroachments into the streambank
setbacks, even for a non-functional stream. Also, the 50-foot wetlands setback must be observed;
therefore, this development needs to be reconfigured to avoid any wetlands identified by the Army Corps
of Engineers. She suggested that, with more open space in the center of the project, soccer fields can be
provided without negatively impacting the wetlands or stream. She concluded by noting the.current proposal
has some real functional problems.
Commissioner Youngman then turned her attention to affordable housing. She noted that under the
tax credit program, the costs of the property can be incorporated into the application. Further, the City has
approved $100,000 in local financing to help make the units more affordable for the very low-income; and
the recently-implemented first time homebuyer's program can further assist those wishing to purchase
affordable homes within this development. The Commissioner noted that staff has already provided a major
concession by not counting the senior assisted living facility toward the parkland requirements,thus making
the economics work better for those using this facility. She stressed that, since affordable housing is
providing the performance points for the planned unit development, it is important to not double count it;
rather, the developer must be able to show that other aspects of the project are superior to the standards
and the minimums in the code. The plan as proposed, however, does not go beyond the standards.
Commissioner Youngman addressed the density cap option, suggesting that might be one option
for addressing the concerns about providing parkland. She noted that under the current plan, seven more
acres of parkland are required; and the staff report suggests that 638 units could be constructed with the
19.13 acres of parkland currently proposed. She indicated a willingness to consider a density cap in
exchange for less parkland than is required under the code.
Mr. John Dunlap responded that a density cap would result in reconfiguration of the entire project
and would result in an inability to achieve his objectives.
Mr. Lowell Springer, architect, stated he sees some merit in this project and some amenities that
are worth retaining. He expressed concern that a developer starts out not knowing the density, but knows
he wants to do a nice development;however,the unified development ordinance requires that infrastructure
impacts be identified and mitigated, and that necessitates basing the information on an anticipated density.
05-17-04
Commissioner Krauss stated density is not a big issue for him, and he doesn't care if it looks like
any other subdivision. He suggested many of his concerns can be addressed by providing a bigger park
and wider trails. He then noted that, for two or three,weeks in a row, the applicant has heard that parkland
is a sticking issue, and suggested that he address it.
Responding to questions from Mr. Springer, Commissioner Krauss stated an east/west trail is
important to him. He then noted that on the current plan, the parkland, the wetland relaxation and the
relaxation to the streambank setback are "particularly egregious."
Mr. Dunlap asked when the 11-percent parkland dedication is applicable and when the.03-acre per
unit dedication is used.
Commissioner Kirchhoff characterized this as "a badly designed neighborhood;" and this is his
problem with it. He noted it is inferior to the other subdivisions and neighborhoods that the Commission has
applauded. He further noted that the planned unit development process is designed to provide a well
integrated neighborhood with usable parkland that doesn't just meet the minimum code requirements. He
concluded by encouraging the applicant to look at Alder Creek Subdivision, Valley West Subdivision and
Cattail Creek Subdivision, noting each of those subdivisions reflects good urban design.
Mr. Dunlap stated he has tried to work around a number of design constraints, including wetlands,
connectivity, and the Commission's desire for no cul-de-sacs. He then noted that he has. proposed to
provide a community center, at a cost of$350,000, restrooms, soccer fields and parking lots. Also, he has
proposed to not only dedicate the parkland but improve it so it was ready for the residents. He is
disappointed that the Commission does not share his view of this project.
Commissioner Krauss stated there is a huge bias among developers away from active recreation
and to generalized open space, so he appreciates the amenities just described.
Mr. Dunlap then noted he intends to do trail connections through the development; however, until
he knows the specific locations of buildings, he cannot identify the locations of the trails. He suggested that,
if the Commission wishes, he would agree to having the widths of trails identified, the types of trails and the
connectivity desired; and he would work within those parameters when developing the trail system. He
stressed that this is one of the first major subdivisions to be reviewed under the Unified Development
Ordinance, and it has revealed some problems in that document that need to be addressed, one of those
being the calculations for parkland dedication.
Responding to Mr. Dunlap's comments, Planning Director Epple stated the parkland dedication
requirements are not new in the Unified Development Ordinance; rather, they were in the previous
subdivision regulations as a result of changes in the State statutes. He then noted that, under the densities
allowed in the "R-Y and "R-4" zoning districts, parking and setback requirements will limit the number of
units faster than the parkland dedication will.
Commissioner Krauss noted that all of the Commissioners have voiced concern with the public open
space being provided, as well as the proposed parks.
Mr. Lowell Springer noted it is obvious there is not much room for adjustment in the parkland
dedication. He noted that the Development Review Committee and Design Review Board indicated they
don't have significant problems with the general design and, in fact, forwarded some positive comments.
He stated that, as a newcomer to the project, he thinks the plan is good conceptually, particularly when
considering the geographic issues and the Commission's requirement for interconnectivity. He cautioned
that if a grid street system is required, the feeling of a special place will go away. He concluded by stating
he feels this project is worth salvaging and has enough merit to proceed.
Mayor Cetraro stated it appears there is enough consensus to proceed with this project, with
innovation to achieve a superior design. He then indicated he feels the 50-foot watercourse setback is
excessive. He identified the community center and soccer fields as assets to the project, noted an east/west
trail corridor has been identified as a needed amenity, and noted that moving the parkland in the perimeter
buffer into the center and making the park more predominant has been identified as an essential component
of the revisions. He then noted the applicant has raised questions about the parkland dedication
calculations, and Commissioner Hietala has requested information on the net buildable area.
05-17-04
- 5 _
0
0
Mr. Clint Litle stated there are 161 acres in this property,with the net buildable area being 93 acres.
He cautioned that the .03-acre-per-unit parkland dedication requirement would result in 31 acres, or 1/3 of
the net buildable area being designated parkland. As a result, he believes it is essential to reduce the
density in the project; and that translates to providing more single-family housing and less mix of housing
types.
Mr. Litle stated that the second page of an information sheet just distributed by Mr. Dunlap reflects
the information they garnered when they contacted the other major communities in Montana regarding
parkland dedication requirements. He noted that Bozeman is the only community using the .03-acre-per-
unit calculation; and many of the other communities allow watercourse setbacks to be counted and provide
recognition for affordable units. He stressed that, in actuality, 21 acres of open space is being provided but
only 14.5 acres of parkland can be counted because of the watercourse setbacks. He then noted that, in
addition to the existing geographic conditions and the Commission's desire for connectivity, the applicant
must design around an exiting 20-inch main.
Responding to Commissioner Krauss, Mr. Little stated one of the requested relaxations is to allow
the construction of apartments within the planned unit development since they are not allowed in the
underlying zoning. He suggested this approach is preferable to seeking a zone.map amendment for one.
portion of the site.
Mr. Lowell Springer noted that no relaxation was sought for density because the applicant didn't
realize that would be necessary; and he recognizes it may need to be considered in a separate public
hearing at a future date.
Planning Director Epple noted the planned unit development chapter encourages a creative design
and recognizes that a give and take process will be involved. The beginning of that chapter, however, says
the underlying zoning requirements provide the basis for evaluating an application. He feels staff provided
a clear interpretation of the open space requirement to the applicant and advised him that the Commission
would consider any request for reduction based on its merits.
Mr. Russ Squires stated that if the Commission requires 26 acres of parkland, he cannot do his
affordable housing project in this development because it will become less competitive with other projects.
He expressed concern that affordable housing may become the .sacrificial.Iamb. in.this.review-process.
because the differential will be $5,000 per dwelling unit.'
Commissioner Youngman responded that if affordable housing is the sacrificial Iamb, the applicant
will lose the performance points on which the planned unit development is based.
Mr. Dunlap stated they had initially planned to comply with the planned. unit development
requirements through providing open space but found they were able to do it through the tax credit project
instead. He then indicated that if the affordable housing project is not included, it changes the entire
development.
Commissioner Youngman asked for information on the acreage needed to provide the desired
east/west trail corridor, noting it may be possible for the Commissioners to use that information in identifying
an acceptable compromise.
Parks Manager Ron Dingman stated that, as the City continues to grow and fill in, he and the
Recreation and Parks Advisory Board are interested in getting as much dedicated parkland as possible
under the State statutes. He noted that this helps to preserve open space and provide areas for public use.
He noted that a few years ago, the Commission didn't require the dedication of parkland and, as a result,
the City lost several acres of parkland that could have been used to meet the crying need for areas to hold
dog agility training and competitions, soccer fields for practice and play, football practice fields, and other
recreational needs. He stated those involved in soccer would like to attract more tournaments to Bozeman,
but there are not adequate soccer fields to do so. He concluded by noting that Lindley Park and Kirk Park
are the two largest parks in Bozeman and contain just over 12 acres each; the amount of parkland that is
needed to meet the dedication requirements for this development is 26 acres, which could meet some of
the community needs.
05-17-04
r -6-
Ms. Anne Banks, Recreation and,Parks Advisory Board, concurred with Park Manager Dingman's
plea for requiring as much parkland dedication as possible, stating she's afraid that parkland will become
the sacrificial Iamb. She stressed the importance of getting a usable amount of parkland, and not soccer
fields located on fill in the streambank setback that are not regulation size. She noted the Board's
responsibility is to advocate for as much parkland as possible, to provide open space and recreational
opportunities for the community.
Ms. Mary Vant Hull, Recreation and Parks Advisory Board, noted that in the 1970s,the Commission
refused offered parkland because it determined the City had no means to develop or maintain it; and the
community is now paying dearly for those decisions. She stressed it is important for the Commission to
recognize the importance of getting as much parkland in every part of town as possible.
Mr. Dunlap thanked the Commission for the opportunity to discuss these issues in a work session
setting. He stated it is his intent to create a community of diverse housing types, with parks and open space
and will attempt to bring back a proposal that addresses the issues that have been identified.
Mayor Cetraro thanked the applicant for the opportunity to conduct this work session and provide
Commissioner feedback on the application prior to.nextweek's continued public hearings.
Recess-4:40 a.m.
Mayor Cetraro recessed the meeting at 4:40 p.m., to reconvene at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of
conducting the regular Commission meeting.
Reconvene - 7:00 p.m.
Mayor Cetraro reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence
The meeting was opened with the-Pledge-of Allegiance and a moment of silence.
Minutes -April 19, April 26, May 3. May 7 and May 10, 2004
It was moved by Commissioner Krauss, seconded by Commissioner Youngman, that the minutes
of the meeting of May 7, 2004, be approved as submitted. The motion carried by the following Aye and No
vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Krauss, Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Kirchhoff,
Commissioner Hietala and Mayor Cetraro; those voting No, none.
Mayor Cetraro deferred action on the minutes of the meetings of April 19, April 26, May 3 and May
10, 2004, to a later date.
Consent Items
Acting City Manager Brey presented to the Commission the following Consent Items.
Approval of final plat for minor subdivision requested by Deborah Bear McKay -
subdivide parcel described as amended plat of a portion of Block 3, Babcock
and Davis Addition, into two lots (southeast corner of intersection of East
Davis Street and North Wallace Avenue)
Approval of final plat for minor subdivision requested by R&D Holding - subdivide
19.6 acres described as Tract 1, COS No. 1846, into 5 commercial lots - 360
Ranch Corporation and R&D Holding (northeast corner of Huffine Lane and
Cottonwood Road)
05-17-04
23. No existing mature vegetation within the watercourse setback, wetlands, park, and
along the section line ditch shall be removed from the site unless approved by the
\� City of Bozeman Planning Office. The final landscape plan shall depict existing and
proposed vegetation, as well as proposed vegetation to be removed.
24.', Buildings proposed for construction with crawl spaces or basements shall include
Engineer Certification regarding depth of ground water and soil conditions and
\proposed mitigation methods to be submitted with each building permit.
25. The 60-foot-wide trail area along Tschache Lane shall be extended along the north
side'of Tschache Lane to the Whisper Avenue intersection.
26. The nine lots on the west side of Whisper Avenue that are directly adjacent to the
park shall'be removed.
27. The Section 4i affordable housing and the senior assisted living, as depicted in the
plan, shall remain in the planned unit development plan.
28. More detailed development guidelines shall be provided with the final planned unit
development plan.
29. The subdivision shall provide for a better mix of housing types throughout the
subdivision.
30. The mandatory 25-foot-wide trail easement for the transportation pathways will not
count toward the dedicated parkland. Any additional width provided along the trail
easement can be counted toward the dedicated parkland requirement.
31. The City of Bozeman will accept the 11 percent calculation for parkland dedication
for the affordable Section 42 housing lots so long as it includes some very low
income housing.
32. The parkland shall be configured to provide adequate space for soccer fields along
Whisper Avenue and Buckrake Avenue.
33. The applicant shall reconsider the arterial treatment on Baxter Lane.
34. A density cap shall be applied to the build out of the subdivision. The cap will be
based on the total number of acres of dedicated parkland provided.
The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being, Commissioner Krauss,
Commissioner Youngman, Commissioner Kirchhoff, Commissioner Hietala,and Mayor Cetraro;those voting
No, none.
It was moved by Commissioner Kirchhoff, seconded by Commissioner Youngman, that the
conditions of approval be amended to include the following condition:
35. The interconnectivity of streets on the eastern part of the neighborhood shall reflect
the interconnectivity shown on the western portion of the subdivision.
The,motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Kirchhoff,
Commissioner Youngman, and Commissioner Hietala; those voting No being Commissioner Krauss and
Mayor Cetraro.
Continued public hearing - preliminary plat for West Winds Subdivision, Phases IA and IB - allow
subdivision of 31.05 acres lying at northwest corner of intersection of West Oak Street and North
27th Avenue into 46 single-household,40 townhouse and 2 multi-household lots-HKM Engineering
for Quest West, LLC (P-04009)
05-24-04
- 15 - �
16. The applicant shall provide and file with the County Clerk and Recorder's office an
executed Waiver of Right to Protest Creation of Special Improvement Districts(SIDs)
for the following:
a. Signalization of the intersection of West Oak Street and North 27th
Avenue.
b. Signalization of the intersection of West Oak Street and Fowler
Avenue (aka Davis Lane).
C. Signalization of the intersection of Baxter Lane and North 27th
Avenue.
d. Signalization of the intersection of Baxter Lane and Fowler Avenue
(aka Davis Lane).
e. Fowler Avenue (aka Davis Lane)trunk sewer main improvements.
The document filed shall specify that in the event an SID is not utilized for the
completion of these improvements,the developer agrees to participate in an alternate
financing method for the completion of said improvements on a fair share,
proportionate basis as determined by square footage of property, taxable valuation
of the property, traffic contribution from the development, or a combination thereof.
17. As a part of the infrastructure plans submittal, 100-year flood elevations shall be
computed for the section line ditch and the center irrigation lateral(stream defined as
Cattail Creek by the Conservation District and as Harmon Ditch from Harvest Creek),
and the limits of flooding identified. Lots shall not be platted within the 100 year flood
plain. Hydraulic calculations and the water surface profile of the ditches shall take into
account the upstream and downstream culvert capacities as well as the fact the ditch
company may use the ditch as a blow-off at any time and without notice.
18. Additional information is needed prior to approval of the Phase I improvements. The
Traffic Study Report shall include an analysis of possible warrants at all the proposed
intersections with West Oak Street. The Traffic Study Report shall also address
pedestrian crossing issues at the intersection of West Oak Street and North 27th
Avenue and make recommendations for approval.
19. The applicant is advised that Baxter Lane, along the property boundary, shall be
improved, as part of this development, to one half of a minor arterial standard as
shown in the and shall match the section built by Baxter Meadows. West Oak Street,
along the property boundary, shall be improved, as part of this development, to one
half of a principal arterial standard and shall match the section built by Harvest Creek.
North 27th Avenue, along the property boundary, shall be improved, as part of this
development, to one half of a collector standard and shall match the section built by
Harvest Creek. Fowler Avenue(aka Davis Lane), along the property boundary, shall
be improved, as part of this development, to one half of a minor arterial standard.
Where one half of a standard collector or arterial is being built, 12 feet of pavement
for the opposing lane of travel shall be provided. City standard curb and gutter, and
6-foot-wide sidewalk will be required in the standard location on the development's
side of the street. Detailed review of the street and intersection design and approval
by the City Engineer will be required as part of the infrastructure plan and
specification review process.
20. Tschache Lane shall align with the road in Baxter Meadows west of Fowler Avenue
(aka Davis Lane).
21. Parking will not be allowed on West Oak Street, North 27th Avenue, Baxter Lane,and
Fowler Avenue(aka Davis Lane).
22. The section line ditch shall not be piped. The "riparian" corridor shall be maintained
within the median planned for Fowler Avenue.
05-24-04
a .
- -
-ter 1" �\�i•,!J •l .. I.tl [_�
This was the time and place set for the continued public hearing on the preliminary plat for West
Winds Subdivision, Phases IA and IB, as requested by HKM Engineering for Quest West, LLC, under
Application No. P-04009, to allow the subdivision of 31.05 acres lying at the northwest corner of the
intersection of West Oak Street and North 27th Avenue into 46 single-household, 40 townhouse, and two
multi-household lots.
Mayor Cetraro reopened the continued public hearing.
Associate Planner Morris presented the staff report, noting an additional condition has been added.
Staff has reviewed this application in light of the applicable criteria and recommends conditional approval.
City Attorney Luwe recommended the public testimony on the previous agenda item be taken into
consideration on this item, as well.
No new public testimony was received.
Mr. Dunlap indicated he agrees with the conditions as presented by staff.
Since there were no Commissioner objections, Mayor Cetraro closed the public hearing.
Responding to Commissioner Krauss, Planning Director Epple stated the design of West Oak Street
will need to be coordinated between this project and the Harvest Creek project.
Commissioner Krauss noted that with lots that back up to parkland, people have a tendency to
extend their property into the park and asked if there is some language that could be included to address
that. Commissioner Youngman added that some people have delineated their property border with bushes
to protect the sanctity of the parkland and their private property. Associate Planner Morris indicated it would
be appropriate to require natural screening with the covenants and recommended the City Parks
Department weigh in on that.
It was moved by Commissioner Hietala, seconded by Commissioner Krauss,that the preliminary plat
for West Winds Subdivision, Phases IA and IB, as requested by HKM Engineering for Quest West, LLC,
under Application No. P-04009, to allow the subdivision of 31.05 acres lying at the northwest corner of the
intersection of West Oak Street and North 27th Avenue into 46 single-household, 40 townhouse, and two
multi-household lots, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Phase 1A and 1B of the West Winds Subdivision shall comply with the approved
Planned Unit Development.
2. The final plat shall include a notation that, due to high ground water conditions, full
or partial basements are not recommended.
3. Cash-in-lieu of water rights, as calculated by the Director of Public Service, shall be
paid at the time the final plat is submitted.
4. The property owner has proposed that Lot 7 of Phase 1A will be developed with an
affordable housing project in order to meet the performance points for a Planned Unit
Development. The final plat shall note that Lot 7 is reserved for affordable housing.
The plat shall also note that, in the event the lot does not get developed with
affordable housing,the property owner shall provide an alternative means to meet the
planned unit performance standards.
5. The final plat shall contain a note prohibiting direct access from single family or
duplex lots to West Oak Street and North 27th Avenue.
6. The west half of North 27th Avenue, from West Oak Street to Breeze Lane, and the
north half of West Oak Street, from North 27th Avenue to Hunters Way, must be
constructed and accepted by the City prior to filing the final plat for Phase 1A. The
west half of. North 27th Avenue, from Tschache Lane to Breeze Lane, must be
constructed and accepted by the City prior to filing the final plat for Phase 1 B. The
overall design of West Oak Street shall include a detailed assessment of traffic
05-24-04
needs and design solutions for the phasing.The timing of the development of Harvest
Creek shall be taken into account as well.The Phase 1 A infrastructure improvements
shall include improvements to the intersection of West Oak Street and North 27th
Avenue to provide a transition between the existing and the future roadway. Design
of the intersection is also to accommodate the existing overhead power'lines. The
intersection design will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Office as
a part of the infrastructure improvements review process.
7. There is a discrepancy between traffic impact studies provided for the North 19th
Avenue and Durston Road intersection regarding the level of service. If it is confirmed
the intersection operates below Level of Service D, then the final plat for Phase 1
may not be filed until the improvements necessary to raise the level of service at the
intersection of North 19th Avenue and Durston Road to Level of Service Care
installed and accepted by the City of Bozeman.
The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner Hietala,
Commissioner Krauss,Commissioner Youngman,Commissioner Kirchhoff,and Mayor Cetraro;those voting
No, none.
Break 10:02 - 10:13 pm
Mayor Cetraro declared a break from 10:02 pm until 10:13 pm in accordance with Commission
policy"\
Work session - City Manager selection process
Acting City Manager Brey encouraged the Commission to use the handout prepared by the Clerk
of the Commission as a basis to work from and to get as much finalized as possible this evening so the
process can be started.
Commissioner Youngman noted Mayor Kennedy,of Kalispell,suggested one social mixer for all the
candidates, so the public can see how they interact, which also saves time and money. Commissioner
Youngman said she would prefer to have one mixer with all four candidates in attendance. She then
suggested the social mixer be held on June 10th, with interviews being held the 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11 th of
June.
Mayor Cetraro suggested that, during the social mixer, he could introduce the candidates and have
them tell a little bit about themselves and why they'd be a good fit for Bozeman. Public feedback forms will
be available at the mixer and during the interviews for,the public to complete.
Commissioner Kirchhoff indicated he wants a question included in the interview questions that will
clearly identify if the candidate is a leader. He then questioned if it is legal for a Commissioner to bring up,
in an indirect way, comments that were made by references. Acting City Manager Brey answered that it is
not always necessary to directly follow up a reference check; the reference check has identified something
that the Commission needs to probe further.
v
Commissioner Krauss stated he believes the questions should test their knowledge of Bozeman in
some way.
Acting City Manager.Brey asked if the Commission prefers to have the candidates tour City facilities
before their interview, or leave the candidates to do that on their own accord. Commissioner Youngman
expressed her preference for conducting tours before the interviews.
Commissioner Youngman stated her approval of the questionnaire prepared by Human Resources
Director Berg. Mayor Cetraro suggested reducing the list to 15 questions. Acting City Manager Brey
proposed giving'the candidates the questions in advance, otherwise those interviewing later will have an
advantage. The Commissioners agreed to give the candidates the questions in advance, except for the
scenario question.
05-24-04
Page 1 of 8
Jami Morris
From: Karen Delathower
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 8:18 AM
To: Jami Morris
Subject: West Winds
Here you go. Hope you can make sense of the notes (I didn't even look at them).
Public hearing - Conditional Use Permit for West Winds Planned Unit Development - establish a
unified development plan for a 161.30-acre subdivision for development of 213 single-
household, 92 townhouse, 5 multi-household, and 8 senior assisted living lots with relaxations
from various sections of the Unified Development Ordinance - HKM Engineering for Quest West,.
LLC (lying between Baxter Lane and West Oak Street, and between North 27th Avenue and
Davis Lane)(Z-04050)
This was the time and place set for the public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit for West
Winds Planned Unit Development, as requested by HKM Engineering for Quest West, LLC, under
Application No. Z-04050, to establish a unified development plan for a 161.30-acre subdivision for
development of 213 single-household, 92 townhouse, 5 multi-household, and 8 senior assisted living
lots, with relaxations from the Unified Development Ordinance as follows: (a) from Section 18.42.100,
to allow the watercourse setback to be reduced from 50 feet to 15 feet; (b) from Section 18.50.070.A.1.,
to allow the watercourse setback to count toward the parkland dedication requirement; (c) from Section
18.50.020, to allow the parkland dedication requirement to be based on 11 percent of net buildable
area instead of 0.03 acres per dwelling unit; (d)from Section 18.16.020.B., to allow assisted
living/elderly care facilities and apartments within the "R-3", Residential—Medium-density, zoning
district; (e) from Section 18.42.030.C., to allow double frontage lots adjacent to arterial and collector
streets; (f) from Section 18.42.040.B., to allow block lengths to exceed 400 feet; (g) from Section
18.42.040.C., to allow the minimum block length to be less than 200 feet for blocks with restricted size
lots; (h) from Section 18.42.180.C., to allow townhouse restricted size lots to be less than 3,000 square
feet and more than 3,000 square feet for corner townhouse lots; and (i) from Section 18.44.090.D.3., to
allow residential lots that front on Hunter's Way and Buckrake Avenue and back onto the linear park to
access local streets within 150 feet of an intersection with an arterial street and to allow the access
separation distance between the proposed local streets onto West Oak Street to be less than 660 feet.
The subject property is bounded by Baxter Lane, West Oak Street, North 27th Avenue and Davis Lane.
Acting City Manager Ron Brey reminded the Commissioners that they had conducted the public
hearing on this application at the May 10 meeting. Following that hearing and discussion, they voted to
continue the discussion to this time and to reopen the public hearing. He then noted that, included in
the Commissioners' packets were a memo from Associate Planner Jami Morris, forwarding requested
information and the recommended conditions of approval; draft minutes from the work session held on
May 17; letter from Sandy Dodge, Chair of the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board, dated May 17;
information packet from HKM Engineering, dated May 19, 2004; and a letter from Bonnie Hash, 1204
North 9th Avenue, dated May 18, encouraging the Commissioners to not approve relaxations.
It was moved by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , that the public hearing be
reopened. The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being
Commissioner
Mayor Cetraro opened the public hearing.
6/3/2004
Page 2 of 8
Associate Planner Morris-in memo are all conditions of approval in one place. Applicant will go
thru their modifications.
Clint Litle, HKM Engineering, appreciate time you and staff has spent on this project. Have
made changes to plan & changed our position on staffs conditions. Changes made to plan - moved 4
lots that front on park, removed 2 lots by Baxter Lane, widen entrance at Aspen Grove, linear trail park
through project to establish east/west connection, widened access, removed another 2 lots, removed
building, soccer fields could be placed, if desired, on map. Staff report - conditions on page 2,a -
watercourse setback; want to withdraw that relaxation. b- lineal parks -would like to withdraw
relaxation. c - park requirements - request only on affordable housing parcels S-4, EMF1 we would
request that 11% park allocation be applied because those are Section 42 housing parcels. On
remainder will go with 0.03 acre per dwelling unit, yielding 20.62 acres of net park. .81 acres of park for
2 affordable parcels. 660 dwelling units that would use .03 acres per dwelling unit. Would like
consideration for skilled nursing facility would not have kitchen facilities, no park allocation required.
Jeff- is that in UDO; no kitchens, no park requirement?
Clint - on lineal trail park, east/west through property, we get parkland credit for that trail park
and in included in 20.62 acre calculation; believe that park is 1 acre, not including middle of park. d-
agree w/staff as in recommendation. e - agree w/staff F - agree w/staff& have removed several lots
that fronted on park to improve access to park G - agree H - agree I - agree with staff.
20 staff conditions on back of staff report, page 27 - 1. Essentially agree, provided trail corridor.
Jeff-future connection between Rose Park & Regional Park? Clint - yes
Clint - 2. Agree w/staff w/l exception; on trail that connects from south with Harvest Creek,
want mid-block crossing for pedestrian safety. 3 - 6. Agree 7 - request it read "the final site
plan, including final park plan, shall be reviewed by DRB", not approved. 8 - 15. Agree 16.
Would like change to read " 70% of park have road frontage". UDO requires 50%, going 20% beyond
UDO standard. 17 - 22 agree w/staff. Memo of May loth with additional conditions from staff-we
agree.
John Harper, Parks & Rec Board, developer wanted to earn PUD points w/affordable housing,
not the problem w/Commission & the public; should be negotiated between Dunlap & Squires. Analysis
of parkland w/other developments - calculations show Baxter &Valley West are most relevant. West
Winds would only provide 1/3 of parkland compared to those developments. UDO standard requires
superior development; relaxations granted then need to be clearly & specifically documented how these
relaxations will result in superior design.
Sandy Dodge, Parks & Rec Board, want to say Planning Department says requirement is 26
acres; West Winds plan does not contain contiguous parkland that could contain regulation size soccer
field. This does not meet community needs in any way.
Marcia -when Park/Rec Board was putting together recommendations, the community center,
which has disappeared, did you discuss it. Have a park community center on far east; nothing on west
equivalent to that; did you talk about that? Did you talk about corridor connecting Rose Park &
Regional Park is wider than required, count toward parkland?
Sandy -wider is not any particular benefit; community center was nice feature, but not sorry to
see it go if it were replaced by usable recreation area. It is gone, but still no usable recreation area in
its place.
Jeff- Your testimony large section of land in middle of parkland cannot contain regulation-sized
soccer field?
Sandy -first I've seen revised plan; couldn't comment
6/3/2004
Page 3 of 8
0
Mary VantHull, 416 East Story Street, a lot of people need low & moderate income housing
because of struggle to raise young children to adulthood. They need parkland more than anybody.
People by low and moderate income need park space more because of small yard space. Some
developers just pay too much for their land and it is not the Commission's responsibility to bail them out
of financial embarrassment. Commission is responsible for good of public.
Tammy McLaughlin, 1212 Cedarview, affordable housing is great; single mother raising her
children is worried about more parkspace, you are mistaken. I am mortgage broker & lower income
people cannot afford housing in Bozeman. 21 acres parkland w/affordable housing. Commission is
forgetting you are pushing out young families, rather than focusing on parkland. You need to
compromise; the developer has compromised. Need more people to get involved to come together;
have ample parkspace in Bozeman. Can't forget young people trying to raise a family in Bozeman.
Clint - as proposed, have 23% park. When placed soccer fields in park, I believe I could get u-
13 by going north/south.
Marcia - already dropped assisted living out of park calculations, so doesn't need to be
recalculated. What's afford to west of park?
John Dunlap - senior living area. Clint - when went for PUD points, those are 2 parcels we
identified as Section 42 affordable housing.
Lowell - Had 8 conditions a week ago, applicant was having problem with. Through
conversations, applicant has conceded to every condition; now asking that 50% of area of park
exposed to curb be public not covered with lots, he's now willing to give 20% more than minimum.
They've come long ways.
Jami - Dwelling unit - must meet IBC, which specifies kitchen defines dwelling unit.
By my estimates, with park allowances, if allow them to count all 60' of trail corridor, they still need 17.
acres of parkland on the site. Clint - have provided 20.62 acres. Jami - need to sit down w/Clint
to see how they're calculating parkland. North/south trail doesn't count; they must request that it
count.
Jeff- if didn't ask for stream setback, is that where trail is? Jami - some of the trail is in the
stream setback. Typically 25' easement for stream setback would not be calculated as part of parkland
because it is part of transportation plan.
Jami - Condition 2 - on trail crossing, came from Engineering Dept. Want to see pedestrian
crossings at nearest intersecting streets, which are controlled intersections for pedestrian safety. Mid-
block crossing is not typically signed. If you want to modify, Engineering must be able to support mid-
block crossing.
Jeff- Could establish crossing where 2 lots were removed to west. Jami -that's what we
were envisioning. Harvest Creek trail comes out at different location; suggest pillar to note location
where trail is modified.
Marcia - did we not count land community center was on toward parkland because it was
private?
Jami - correct, but did count parking area toward parkland because it could be used for park visitor
parking.
Jami - #7 - condition came from DRB; felt there was lot of work to be done to address lot design
rthym and harmony; entrance to subdivision; development guidelines not detailed enough. DRB would
typically approve/denial PUD. Jeff- will come back in phases? Jami - DRB wants to see
whole plan put together so they can provide better input and have better idea of total project. Final
6/3/2004
• 0 Page 4of8
site plan will come forward before the Commission sees the next phase come forward.
Jami - #16; 70% Andy - could say approval by Commission subject to DRB approval.
Marcia - does staff still oppose 11% parkland requirement for affordable housing?
Jami - staff typically tries to enforce the code to the letter of the law, but if given that direction by the
Commission, we will approve it.
Since there were no Commissioner objections, Mayor Cetraro closed the public hearing.
Steve - my motion will be for denial of the project; can't find it satisfies the spirit or letter of
PUD. Calculating #of units by how much parkland you must provide to get approval is on minimalist
level, which is a calculation that doesn't taken into account design. Tone of all conversations have
been what applicant HAS to give. Community center would have given us a point to consider as
superior product, because we have to find this is superior product. I cannot find this neighborhood as
defined is definitely not a superior product; have exhausted all points I can make in reference to this
development. Applicant has failed to show he is providing a superior product; so Commission is
compelled to deny. Providing PUD points by providing affordable housing; no design for any of this
neighborhood; very little for us to look at.
Steve - move to deny Marcia - second
Marcia - if a majority of Commission is interested in approval, I want to work hard on conditions
because there is so much more to do. Not quite as far along as Steve, but do feel we haven't been met
part way; revised plan is net loss. There is potential; don't want to hurt affordable housing component
because am excited about one component of affordable housing because it is going to provide for very
low income families. There's so much work that still needs to happen that I believe we would end up
with a better product of all parties involve work things out before it comes before us. Parkland
calculation - received several calculations; not sure how to accurately calculate. Don't want to give
credit for entire corridor, even if enhanced beyond 25' because that is east/west transportation
calculation. On affordable housing would like the park board &staff& housing board to sit down & talk
that through, would like to grant some relaxation on park acres, perhaps 5%, rather than switching to
11% and set that precedent. Don't have any information on senior affordable housing proposal.
Steve - it has been av ery long time since we've had a proposal this raw; level of finesse didn't
have to haggle with so much; not our job to redress insufficiencies in application as submitted. Not up
to standard we've come to expect; believe it should be rejected as a matter of course.
Marcia - isn't single project that hasn't far exceeded what is required in parkland, without us
even talking about it with them. This project is still less than what staff has recommended and we don't
know if it's reasonable or not. Since jwe've gotten more from everyone else, don't want to set
precedent for settling for less.
Lee - hate to see loss of community center & didn't hear any points for offsetting parkland &
wetland setbacks for that value.
Marcia - Wetlands are entirely counted as parkland dedication by staff as concession to
applicant.
Lee - community center is great amenity for affordable housing. Marcia - if available to
public.
Lee - think plan has real potential for being a great plan for a great residential community & think it's
pretty close to getting where staff wants it to be. Agree w/Steve there should be more grid
transportation plan.
Lot of open space.
Jeff- heard a lot of different things in weeks we've talked about this project; one being east/west
6/3/2004
• • Page 5 of 8
trail required, which has been now put in. Have to disagree w/parks & rec, having listened to people at
Tuckerman Park talk about how narrow spot between creek& their backyards, 60' corridor is benefit.
One of thing that bothers me is this trail crosses at this point & should be moved to here, which will take
lots out. Can say this is place where soccer fields have some merit. Don't care you've widened
entryway.
Could have 8 soccer fields. You need to complement what is going on with whole city by providing
soccer fields. You're getting closer, but not there yet. Bring trail up and crosses at intersection & avoid
bit thing there. Recognize Section 42 affordable housing is superior product for design. Need to
commit to soccer complex to replace community center. Think senior assisted living is also benefit to
community.
We're asking instead of going to public and passing bond issue, in this location given this substantial
parkland & what else you're doing, we're subsidizing housing with parkland. Steve's comments; this
has been entirely too long and contentious a process; not ground as finely as you should.
Architectural design elements need to go to DRB for approval and the Commission will need to look at
it again. Think we can go forward if you want to do some horsetrading. Will vote no on motion to deny
if we can horsetrade.
Am interested in preserving affordable housing/senior assisted living, and east/west corridor.
Jeff - defining as (at map) trail along Tschane be extended to Whisper Avenue on North side of
Tschache; lots "I - 9 be eliminated and replaced with soccer fields on west side of Whisper Lane. Can
add 4 lots on extreme extension of Buckrake and Hunter's Way if they desire.
Andrew - add condition regarding parkland calculation
Jeff- agree w/Steve parkland dedication is wrong place to start w/design. Have recovered
another .75 of acre and added space for several additional soccer fields & replaced community center.
Didn't hear testimony on community center, but did hear testimony on getting more active recreation
area.
Marcia - only if we're getting accurate parkland dedication. If getting more soccer fields w/out
restrooms, which community center would have provided, is a definite problem.
Steve - if moving toward conditioned approval, I want to add some conditions:
1. Concerned about arterial treatment on Baxter Lane; huge swath along length of Baxter Lane,
which has given us problems on other streets.
2. Connectivity and harmony east/west street pattern needs to be more of grid pattern on
eastern half of subdivision. Elimination of mid-block crossings & better mixing of housing types.
John - will agree to horsetrading; 11% only to be counted for affordable housing units. Will
agree to .03 acres, housing will be capped at that parkland dedication.
Marcia - PUD becomes meaningless because we don't know how much affordable
housing/senior living/parkland is being provided. If shifts to single-family, that is a very different
development.
Jeff- talked about cap last week, didn't we? Marcia - wasn't suggestion.
John - housing capped; park size will stay the same, even if density decreases.
Marcia -we're not supposed to be interacting w/the applicant unless we're talking about
conditions, so can we reframe discussion about conditions.
Marcia - are we accepting set amount of parkland or allowing them to go below standard?
Count full 60' of east/west trail counter to our transportation policy or only the 35'?
Jeff- understand ?; more important to extend trail and get rid of lots on Whisper Avenue, rather
6/3/2004
• 0 Page 6 of 8
than get exact calculation; overall idea is more important to me.
Marcia - isn't calculation; we have to provide clear guidance.
Andrew - willing to give that guidance. Willing to go forward in positive manner.
Steve - spirit of horsetrading is admirable; can't quibble with approach to shore up park space &
clear corridors for enjoyment of people in this neighborhood. Design concerns of this neighborhood is
more than what we've suggested, while suggestions made by Jeff are admirable. Do believe we have
some other significant issues here. Hope DRB will be encouraged to look at some other things as well.
Andy - Commission is looking at granting conditional preliminary approval; still must come back
w/final PUD plan that reflects all concerns this evening. Can require final plan approval come back to
the Commission to make sure this meets intent Commission desires. Would think that by time we
come back w/final plat approval, we can address Commission concerns.
Jeff- run trail away from backyards, will be back from setback. Only count minimal setback &
figure where you're at with parkland dedication.
10a motion - failed
10b motion - Jeff- move to grant preliminary approval to CUP for West Winds PUD Z04050, not
as submitted, but w/conditions as Jeff outlined, including extension of 60 trail corridor past Buckrake to
Whisper; elimination of 9 lots immediately west of Whisper Avenue, Section 42 portions as identified
stay in plan, as well as assisted living as in plan stay, needs to be presented a much more detailed
design plan and that a better mix of housing types is encouraged and be subject to review by DRB &
final approval by City Commission, agree to 70% change to condition 16, mid-block crossing on Oak
Street eliminated, parkland credit for excess trail corridor, accepting 11% calculation as subsidy for
Section 42 housing only, so long as Section 42 housing includes some very low income housing, and
configuration that allows soccer fields along Whisper Avenue & Buckrake Avenue, applicant to
reconsider arterial treatment on Baxter Lane.
Must recognize hard cap of building units corresponding with parkland dedication, as agreed to.
Marcia - second.
Marcia - don't know exact amount of parkland, if not saying park standards must be met, need
to provide superior qualities because we're setting precedent for future developments.
Jeff- do find that the subsidy of section 42 housing, including very low income housing w/11%
parkland dedication for that portion, and developer agreeing to hard cap of dwelling units based on
parkland dedication provide superiority.
Lee -want to see connectivity added.
10c motion Steve - amend condition that interconnectivity of streetways on eastern part of the
neighborhood reflect the interconnectivity shown on western portion, per DRB. Lee second.
Steve - when have good connected grid, having streets connected at as many points as
possible, disburses traffic w/out congesting neighborhoods. There was no regard for connectivity when
planning 15th, which has created situation on 19th
Jeff- directing traffic on Tsache Lane to Buckrake, Chinook, and Garden Court
Steve - look at this area as same as Morning Star, Sacajawea School area; cannot get in and
out because not surrounded by grid. (Eastern portion of development, which is going to be multi-
family)
6/3/2004
0 0 Page 7 of 8
Jeff- might need road between Tschache Lane and TradeWind Lane; constrained by park in
other areas.
Steve - needs to be addressed and presented by DRB
It was moved by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , that the Conditional Use Permit
for West Winds Planned Unit Development, as requested by HKM Engineering for Quest West, LLC,
under Application No. Z-04050, to establish a unified development plan for a 161.30-acre subdivision
for development of 213 single-household, 92 townhouse, 5 multi-household, and 8 senior assisted
living lots, with relaxations from the Unified Development Ordinance as follows: (a) from Section
18.42.100, to allow the watercourse setback to be reduced from 50 feet to 15 feet; (b) from Section
18.50.070.A.1., to allow the watercourse setback to count toward the parkland dedication requirement;
(c) from Section 18.50.020, to allow the parkland dedication requirement to be based on 11 percent of
net buildable area instead of 0.03 acres per dwelling unit; (d) from Section 18.16.020.B., to allow
assisted living/elderly care facilities and apartments within the "R-Y, Residential—Medium-density,
zoning district; (e) from Section 18.42.030.C., to allow double frontage lots adjacent to arterial and
collector streets; (f) from Section 18.42.040.B., to allow block lengths to exceed 400 feet; (g) from
Section 18.42.040.C., to allow the minimum block length to be less than 200 feet for blocks with
restricted size lots; (h) from Section 18.42.180.C., to allow townhouse restricted size lots to be less than
3,000 square feet and more than 3,000 square feet for corner townhouse lots; and (i) from Section
18.44.090.D.3., to allow residential lots that front on Hunter's Way and Buckrake Avenue and back onto
the linear park to access local streets within 150 feet of an intersection with an arterial street and to
allow the access separation distance between the proposed local streets onto West Oak Street to be
less than 660 feet, be approved subject to the following conditions:
The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner
Continued public hearing - preliminary_plat for West Winds Subdivision, Phases IA and IB -
allow subdivision of 31.05 acres lying_at northwest corner of intersection of West Oak Street
and North 27th Avenue into 46 single-household, 40.to and.2_multi-household lots -
HKM Engineering for Quest West, LLC_ _(P-04009)
This was the time and place set for the continued public hearing on the preliminary plat for West
Winds Subdivision, Phases IA and IB, as requested by HKM Engineering for Quest West, LLC, under
Application No. P-04009, to allow the subdivision of 31.05 acres lying at the northwest corner of the
intersection of West Oak Street and North 27th Avenue into 46 single-household, 40 townhouse and 2
multi-household lots.
Mayor Cetraro reopened the continued public hearing.
Associate Planner Morris presented the staff report. She noted this is phase 1 a and 1 b.
Additional condition is #7. Reviewed all conditions as listed in staff report.
Steve - please review condition #1.
Jami - Condition 1 - 1 a and 1 b shall comply w/approved PUD.
Condition 7 - There is discrepancy regarding level of service.....
Paul - recommend public testimony on previous item be taken into consideration on this item, as
well.
6/3/2004
• Page 8 of 8
•
No new public testimony.
John - agree w/conditions as stated by staff
Since there were no Commissioner objections, Mayor Cetraro closed the public hearing.
Jeff- approved Harvest Creek contingent on extending Oak Street; do they need to be built at the
same time? Andy - design will need to be coordinated.
Jeff- regarding covenants, concerned w/lots that back up to park, people have tendency to
extend their property; can we add some kind of language to address that? Appropriate now or later?
Marcia - since we've had problems w/people encroaching into parkland area, some people have
delineated the border w/bushes to protect sanctity of parkland and private property.
Jeff- don't want 8' cedar fence along the park.
Jami - would be appropriate to require natural screening with covenants; LIDO requires flexible
yellow stakes in yards that delineate parkland; recommend Parks Dept. weigh in on that.
Andy -fences along linear parks cannot exceed 4% requirement is already stated; will address
through covenants w/final plat.
Jeff- in places where you've widened accesses, isn't there a condition that requires a setback
from that? Jami - 15' setback is requirement. Jeff- would be amenable to relaxing that. Andy
- wasn't advertised; must be brought back to discuss that
Marcia - connectivity connection on the east side; does that pertain to phase 1 a and 1 b
Paul - condition #1, must comply w/PUD
Lee - move for full approval, as conditioned by staff
It was moved by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , that the preliminary plat for West
Winds Subdivision, Phases IA and IB, as requested by HKM Engineering for Quest West, LLC, under
Application No. P-04009, to allow the subdivision of 31.05 acres lying at the northwest corner of the
intersection of West Oak Street and North 27th Avenue into 46 single-household, 40 townhouse and 2
multi-household lots, be approved subject to the following conditions:
The motion carried by the following Aye and No vote: those voting Aye being Commissioner
6/3/2004
Ca :, J,4A-n Arel t Jam.
. .y
- _
- - s - --
^�
3 1 � .. r _
., �
i
\'
� � r ` f, r
•_ .Y
.� .
t
r , J
l'
i
I +
+ _ R
,� r
Y f r
1
� � ' �
_�>
� � �)� '
i
} �
.�
f r
J
cao
---- - o�L - - —
' A ..I SZ�
LACW
Zo
ol
UAt
1 I
. moo p�z •,�
LTA
coe
Lt�AA-A,_
-- - - - i pti°' - j.
, + 4c
to ym,o o _ _
LI
LI.
C
C�
1 • •
, es , , l / • • �r
C ► 1 /
' ♦ • / .� • •
I • I I
1
v
._� l•I ��i./i '�', i ••,}4 � �. .i r:-.i i, v. L i.J. �� ^_a - (•r `I
+_.t �• .vv �..�- r. —.: ,_ It
' t f
.. ♦ Ct/'
wp-
3 •,,,•'•.f_ .;:• t...�' 1 s.r�1`�.S ' r, r, a- +, s. 'ti �.ls, +4.s .v 1 � ><�. t...i.;
'f
}
r.T•.. w i R.•� ♦ - •7 1-..�7. L/ >._ `C•t r\ti-t' I 1/,1 + ._
.� ._i:►:.:.�♦..*�,•r .fit. `- `�•�`_• Y i' _�u .� c1 It _I.,,.f+•A� 1 •} '� �`i •C.
li
4 1 1.' •1 .
. CS
�. t..]. ..r. t..may._�-.Sa x�. •' .F♦:.!J 3`^ .�. + � +.
( ! i 1 y V}
Lf
- +.J
„i-;.• ,,�..�/ �. _ Yea. } ,, '�� t; ,i e
j i Pf
�. s �.. • , ..
I
i
..! ,
I�
I[
I[
I[
I[
(I
I[
II
If
11
I
I[
1[
' �.>....5`?��•P..^`tsy� � _.ice '' '.[,..,..... ...,rt'_r...._ .
y.. �[ , •
i
^tom ` t'r`i• 't�- It
r. t
r
` ,, o , i, r, i. � 4 t•� �.,. i
`� yr ,� t"•r ,r � � .1 1, •� s � � [.t' .i• f � t 4r[
-71
� < _ a .�tS � !� a 1q-�,� `� ;J�["'.l' er,L- may.^'^.s•� �a
[ 3 t
{ �t
!
IAS O it 9'
t,5; crut,o CE39 0.0 �
• 4"Ar1c<<-i- a'b a-"o
CITY OF BOZEMANt
' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNh DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260
20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263
P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozemon.net
MEMORANDUM
To: City Commission
From: Jaini Morris,Associate Planner
Date: May 24, 2004 Public Hearing
Subject: West Winds PUD
Staff has attached the requested calculations of net buildable areas for similar subdivisions and for approved
affordable housing projects. Planiung Staff and the DRC members have also reviewed the requested
modifications to the conditions of approval and have determined that none of the requested changes are
supportable. The conditions were written in order to provide additional direction from the UDO upon
resubmittal and are consistant with the City of Bozeman policies and standards for mitigation of relaxations
associated with a Planned Unit Development. The recommended conditions of approval for the PUD are
as follows:
1. A trail shall be constructed connecting from 27"' Avenue to Davis Lane away from streets and in
addition to the sidewalk to provide a future connection between Rose Park and the Regional Park.
2. Trail crossings shall be located at the n-carest cross street.
V�o �Q�t c�c QiL L"S
3. Oak Stfeet (&affi FE)wlef Aientte Avenue) shall iftelude bath a Bi,!Ee Lane and a BilEe Path
(shared use path) 65t! both sides of the read. The Bike Path (shared use path) wilJ be ift aeeefdaftee
the Beafd feels it is tompoftant to provide safe and adequate kei4ities fat both uset levels in thris Rfeft-.
4. Hunters Way (from Baxter Lane to Oak Street) shall include a Signed Bike Route since this will be
an extension of an existing Signed Bike Route on Hunters Way.
5. The Home Owners Association shall be responsible for maintenance of Park, park fixtures, trails,
etc., until such time that a Park Maintenance District, or similar form of funding, is established.
planning • zoning . subdivision review . annexation • historic preservation • housing . grant administration . neighborhood coordination
6. A park master plan shape submitted for approval by the City Par Division with the Phase I Final
Plat and/or Final Site Plan, whichever comes first.
The Final Site Plan, including a Final Park Plan, y the Design
Review Board. (�P1 CC-,
8. The Final Site Plan shall include elaborated architectural guidelines with streetscape and entry details.
9. A building configuration plan shall be submitted for townhouse lots with subsequent subdivision
phases.
10. The Covenants and Design Guidelines must state the means in which building orientation will be
mitigated along the arterial and collector streets. The lots shall provide a front porch or false fagade,
a sidewalk connection to each building, and the covenants shall prohibit the construction of fences
unless constructed less than 4 feet tall with a coordinated design for all of the lots backing up to Oak
Street,Baxter Lane, 27`h Avenue and Davis Lane.
11. The declaration of covenants for the subdivision must be included and recorded with the Final Plat.
The City of Bozeman shall be parry to any changes or modifications made to the restrictive
covenants and Architectural Guidelines as they relate to any zoning and/or planning bylaws. The
covenants shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Office prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
12. The storm water detention ponds shall be designed in a more organic form and landscaped as a
water feature with 6" river rock and wet root tolerant plant types.
13. A one foot "no access" easement shall be provided along Baxter Lane, Oak Street, 27`h Avenue and
Davis Lane.
14. No lots shall be platted within the watercourse and wetland setback
15. The 0.07 acre isolated wetland in the southeast corner of the subdivision may be filled in exchange
for the existing vegetation being transplanted, as reasonably feasible, from the filled wetland to the
Cattail Creek wetlands, under the direct supervision of the wetland consultant.
16 on in
s g
allow for accessibility to the park
17. The applicant shall provide and file with the County Clerk and Recorder's office an executed Waiver
of Right to Protest Creation of Special Improvement Districts (SID's) for the following:
a. Signalization of the intersection of W Oak Street and North 27`h Avenue.
b. Signalization of the intersection of W Oak Street and Fowler Avenue (aka Davis Lane).
c. Signalization of the intersection of Baxter Lane and North 27`h Avenue.
d. Signalization of the intersection of Baxter Lane and Fowler Avenue (aka Davis Lane).
e. Fowler Avenue (aka Davis Lane) trunk sewer main improvements.
The document filed shall specify that in the event an SID is not utilized for the completion of these
improvements, the developer agrees to participate in an alternate financing method for the
completion of said improvements on a fair share, proportionate basis as determined by square
footage of property, taxable valuation of the property, traffic contribution from the development, or
a combination thereof.
Page 2
18. As a part of the infrastructure plans submittal, 100-year flood elevations shall be computed for the
Section-Line Ditch and the center irrigation lateral (stream defined as Cattail Creek by the
Conservation District and as Harmon Ditch from Harvest Creek), and the limits of flooding
identified. If ,
Lots shall not be
platted within the 100 year flood plain. Hydraulic calculations and the water surface profile of the
Itches shall take into account the upstream and downstream culvert capacities as well as the fact the
ditch company may use the ditch as a blow off at anytime and without notice.
19. Additional information is needed prior to approval of the Phase I improvements. The Traffic Study
Report shall include an analysis of possible warrants at all the proposed intersections with Oak
Street. The Traffic Study Report shall also address pedestrian crossing issues at the intersection of
Oak Street and N 27`h Avenue and make recommendations for approval.
20. The applicant is advised that Baxter Road, along the property boundary, shall be improved, as part
of this development, to one half of a minor arterial standard as shown in the Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan 2001 Update and shall match the section built by Baxter Meadows. West Oak
Street, along the property boundary, shall be improved, as part of this development, to one half of a
principal arterial standard and shall match the section built by Harvest Creek. North 27`h Avenue,
along the property boundary, shall be improved, as part of this development, to one half of a
collector standard and shall match the section built by Harvest Creek. Fowler Avenue (aka Davis
Lane), along the property boundary, shall be improved, as part of this development, to one half of a
minor arterial standard. Where one half of a standard collector or arterial is being built 12 feet of
pavement for the opposing lane of travel shall be provided. City standard curb and gutter, and 6 foot
wide sidewalk will be required in the standard location on the development's side of the street.
Detailed review of the street and intersection design, and approval by the City Engineer will be
required as part of the infrastructure plan and specification review process.
21. Tschache Lane shall align with the road in Baxter Meadows west of Fowler Avenue (aka Davis
Lane).
22. Parking will not be allowed on W. Oak Street, North 27`h Avenue, Baxter Lane, and Fowler Avenue
(aka Davis Lane).
23. The Section Line Ditch shall not be piped. The "riparian" corridor shall be maintained within the
median planned for Fowler Avenue.
24. No existing mature vegetation within the watercourse setback, wetlands, park and along the Section
Line Ditch shall be removed from the site unless approved by the City of Bozeman Planning Office.
The Final Landscape Plan shall depict existing and proposed vegetation as well as proposed
vegetation to be removed.
25. Buildings proposed for construction with crawl spaces or basements shall include Engineer
Certification regarding depth of ground water and soil conditions and proposed mitigation methods
to be submitted with each Building Permit.
Conditions of Approval for the Phase 1 Major Subdivision Play
1. Phase 1A and 1B of the West Winds Subdivision shall comply with the approved Planned Unit
Development.
Page 3
2. The final plat shall infe a notation that due to high rounPwater conditions full or partial
P g g
basements are not recommended.
3. Cash-in-lieu of Water Rights, as calculated by the Director of Public Service, shall be paid at the time
the Final Plat is submitted.
4. The property owner has proposed that Lot 7 of Phase 1A will be developed with an affordable
housing project in order to meet the Performance Points for a Planned Unit Development. The
final plat shall note that Lot 7 is reserved for affordable housing. The plat shall also note that in the
event the lot does not get developed with affordable housing that the property owner shall provide
an alternative means to meet the Planned Unit Performance standards.
5. The final plat shall contain a note prohibiting direct access from single family or duplex lots to Oak
Street and N. 27`h Avenue.
6. The west half of N 27`h Avenue, from Oak Street to Breeze Lane, and the north half of Oak Street,
from N 27`h Avenue to Hunters Way must be constructed and accepted by the City prior to filing
the Final Plat for Phase 1A. The west half of N 27`h Avenue, from Tschache Lane to Breeze Lane
must be constructed and accepted by the City prior to filing the Final Plat for Phase 1B. The overall
design of Oak Street shall include a detailed assessment of traffic needs and design solutions for the .
phasing. The timing of the development of Harvest Creek shall be taken into account as well. The
Phase 1A infrastructure improvements shall include improvements to the intersection of Oak Street
and N 27`h Avenue to provide a transition between the existing and the future roadway. Design of
the intersection is also to accommodate the existing overhead power lines. The intersection design
will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Office as a part of the infrastructure
improvements review process.
7. There is a discrepancy between Traffic Impact Studies provided for the North 19`h Avenue and
Durston Road intersection regarding the Level of Service. If it is confirmed the intersection
operates below Level of Service D, then the Final Plat for Phase 1 may not be filed until the
improvements necessary to raise the Level of Service at the intersection of North 19`h Avenue and
Durston Road to Level of Service C are installed and accepted by the City of Bozeman.
if
CLQS
N^tot� PaJe '�o
Page 4
d
�5 Lo�
✓CAR , 441,U C,� alA-d N E
c6coo bQ-QV
Out- �
1_
/c, �JiC i.o c c �a �P�.1-�► /L"VL z-L" AAA, taA,;, _ Cam'
Av ILI Y � +0 5cocc�Q�
V 'C' I '
E yL 06
s 0
ENGINEERING
May 19, 2004 McChesney Professional Building
Project No. 04S067.110 ` .. ! 601 Nikles Drive
.... Suite 2
L Ji
Bozeman, MT 59715
Phone: 406.586.8834
Bozeman City Commissio (�; � Fax: 406.586.1730
P.O. Box 1230 J l� MAY 1 9 2004 WWWhkminc.com
Bozeman, MT 59771
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
Attention: Robin Sullivan -- AND coti� uNlTv DEvI_t.OPN;FNT —
RE: West Winds Planned Community
Dear Commissioners:
Based on last Mondays work session as well as previous discussion we have revised the
master plan to address specific commissioner comments. We have also developed two
parkland allocation options that in our judgment represent an appropriate compromise to
provide substantial parkland and still promote affordable housing.
We are officially withdrawin;our requested relaxations for:
Chapter 18.42.100(3.)(c.) --Watercourse setback be reduced to 15'. We are
agreeable to the 50' watercourse setback. With the implementation of this
requirement, soccer fields are no longer feasible within the park and have been
removed from the master plan.
Chapter 18.42.100—Watercourse Setback be counted to park area.
We are agreeable that the watercourse setback not be counted toward the parkland
area. This assumes that the wetlands waiver will be applied so wetlands are
counted to park area, and the watercourse setback is measured as shown on the
master plan. I have attached a letter from Lynn Bacon, our wetland specialist
from Land &Water Consultants, stating that wetlands 1 and 2 are isolated
wetlands and should not be included in the watercourse setbacks. Lynn is a
member of the WRB and is well versed in this criteria.
Master Plan Revisions
The following is a summary of the revisions we made to the master plan per commission
comments. Through these master plan revisions,we have added 4-acres of additional
parkland to the proposal.
1. East West Trail Connection—A 60' wide trail/park corridor was provided along
Tschache Lane and Winter Park Street.
2. West Side Park Accesses—The following changes were made:
BILLINGS,MONTANA BUTTE,MT BOZEMAN LAB MILES CITY,MT SHERIDAN,WY HELENA,MT
406.656.6399 406.723.8213 406.585.5915 406.232.6666 307.672.9006 406.442.0370
• An additional 68' wide park access was provided at the intersection of Aspen
Grove and Hunters Way.
• The park access at the intersection of Winter Park and Hunters Way was widened
from 25' to 95'.
• The park access between Breeze Lane and Oak Street was widened from 25' to
60'.
3. Lot Removal—The following single family and townhouse lots were removed to
increase park frontage:
• The four lots on the west side of Buckrake Ave. between Breeze Lane and Oak
Street were removed.
• Two lots were removed on the east side of Hunters Way adjacent to Oak Street.
• Two lots were removed on the west side of Buckrake adjacent to Baxter Lane.
• Two lots were removed on the east side of Hunters Way between Breeze Lane
and Trade Wind Lane.
Parkland Allocation Options
In an effort to find a middle ground that will allow both significant parkland and
affordable housing we have developed two parkland allocation options.
Option"A" is summarized as follows: .03-acre/DU will be provided for all dwelling
units with the exception of the affordable housing, apartment parcels and the Skilled
Nursing Facility(SNF). The affordable housing and apartments will provide 11% of net
buildable area, the SNF will not provide park area(see attached Exhibit A). The logic for
this option is that the affordable style housing is not subsidizing the park allocation and
will remain affordable. The SNF is primarily convalescent style care without kitchens
and according to Planning Staff does not require park area.
Option`B"is a density cap. In option B, West Winds would agree to a density cap of
825 DU excluding the 150 SNF that again under this option would not require park. The
park allocation would be based on .025-acres/DU.
For both of these options we closely evaluated the overall economics of the project and
found the options feasible granted that the levels of physical improvements within the
park were reduced. Specifically, the community building, parking lots and soccer fields
have been removed.
We also find it necessary to request an additional condition be added to the PUD
approval. The requested condition would read, "Parcels S-4, S-5, S-6, S-7, S-8, E-MF-6,
E-APT-1, and E-MF-7 (see attached Exhibit B) can be developed as multi-family or
single-family parcels. Should the developer choose to develop said parcels as single-
family units, 0.03-acres/DU of parkland shall be provided." The purpose of this
requested condition is not to evade parkland requirement as evident by the 0.03-acre
requirement. Rather it is to provide flexibility to economically develop the project under
variable market conditions.
• 0
tion A— .03-acre/DU except affordable housing, apartment parcels and Skilled
Nursing Facility(SNF)
Parkland to be Provided:
Gross Parkland Provided= 25.13 Acres
Less Stormwater Ponds= 0.65 Acres
Less 50' W.C. Setback (includes Wetland Waiver) = 3.86 Acres
Net Park Provided= 20.62 Acres
Parkland Required:
Basis: 0.03-acres/DU of parkland for all dwelling units except affordable
housing and apartments to provide 11%, SNF no park required.
Affordable and Apartment Parcels
Parcel I Area SF Area Ac.
E-MF-1 159,346.00 3.66
S-4 162,264.00 3.73
E-MF-2 81,144.00 1.86
E-APT-I 206,877.00 4.75
609,631.00 14.00
Affordable/Apt Park Required(11%) = 1.54 Acres
SNF Parcel (S-1)Park Required= 0.00 Acres
Remaining Allowable DU 636 DU x .03 = 19.08 Acres
Total Parkland Required= 20.62 Acres
tion B -- is a density cap. In option B West Winds would agree to a density cap 825
DU excluding the 150 SNF that again under this option would not require park.
Parkland to be Provided
Gross Parkland Provided= 25.13 Acres
Less Stormwater Ponds= 0.65 Acres
Less 50' W.C. Setback (includes Wetland Waiver) = 3.86 Acres
Net Park Provided= 20.62 Acres
•
Parkland Required
Basis: 0.025-acres/DU of parkland for all dwelling units except SNF no park
required.
SNF Parcel (S-1)Park Required= 0.00 Acres
Remaining Allowable DU 825 DU x .025 = 20.62 Acres
Total Parkland Required= 20.62 Acres
HICM Engineering and Quest West LLC believe the above parkland allocation options
represent an appropriate compromise to achieve both significant parkland and still
provide affordable housing. It is our recommendation to use Option"A", inasmuch, it
will establish a tangible precedence that the City can apply to future affordable housing
projects.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact our office.
Sincerely,
HKM Engineering Inc.
Clint Litle, P.E.
Cc: Andy Epple
John Dunlap
Exhibit A
'Dal I
n0'
DIANNE PETERSON g�pE Q EDWARD 6 IIt p
40S I ! I WILL/AN R.PETERSON I LOT B SEC 35 I UA I 'I '� .0 0 ,ypp ACNES ' ! I o
-�34 3639 ACS UNPLATED SU
! - T - - eA�SE I I Saw 3
35 — — — — — —L�— —BAXTER LANE fM/NOR ARTER/AL1 — —
I 1
� NR�
;'r-T-1 r T4-,r TT PAW E-F-7� LJ Cf rr
I I
—. r -9 ,sN.ee2 sa Fr. I I I
P64
l
jj l I I I I
L_L_�-i_J
1 I I I
Fr�'�-"' eee7
�� . �e.:,. �+"wt, 1 r ' �o sa FT.
FUTURE POW AM
I I 1 1BAXTER 1 1 1 '11 � r. .a✓; -
NEADOWS
UBD/VISION
_ I LiJ-__L_i # "' II-�_-1
i�
' j _--1 r-T-T-1-r !I l r--r7--r—r
ys�1 1 •�-# eta
Li_-J rq-� �� �z�FT,
�{5�.�l �17—r—r-T-r--- --n--7-T b''•'\
I I V• I • I I I I I I 7 I
I
I I I I I I
--�;a-�—silk--
o __J I L_i_1__Li_L_l�_ V
� �- --1---------
ti 1 1 1
t --'y' ----- ,� r tIp As I '----1 i-- - I
� --y------I I ��-�-� I �Y III•
\V'W
IK343 sa FT. ! 162320 sa FL ,eaoeo sQ Fr. � _ _ �-- - I'
I I I I '��•' 1 ' —i-- --Z--'
—_------1---------J i \ , F.i.
1
cI I i ��—a ~' )
a1,70e SQ Fr. ; I 1ee,722 Sa FT.
I I
2a4,3ee SCL R. i, I yo�'
�P
S-3 I S-4
0o I an sm FT. I ' 1e$254 Sn Fr. I I
oNow V �' I
— --ems_--------- '---_——'L—-— —_— _—_—
_ --�-------OAK STREET (PRINCIPAL ARTER_/ALI MH _
P
P�1�GOy I I'I IS/PPL RVEST CRE
WLAM SBD/V/SION
. N `H HARVEST CREEK
Err►'ANNE SUBDIVISION ENTER O 8E TRUST �PHASE104 C � 2 'IIF6,4,o�
y LEGEND WEST WINDS COMMUNITY
------- PFXPOM H Now MIT v WAY NW 1/I SEC 2,�7M SYS= T.2.S., R.&E., P.M.M.
1110Fos Uff Malm um GALLATIN COUNT MONTANA
------- raaPam um Y,
■NOIN��lIMO �_—_— PERM CZNtlIlllK -N_
HKMEnglnearingInc. O0"1 WILAW' PARCEL/ZA T/ON MAP
McChesney Professbnal Bldg. 11"PAW AUAOA11o11
601 Nodes Dr.,SuBe 2 OMLED NAM No FA10`A WCAYM OPT/ON A PARK LAND ALLOCATION
Bozeman,MT 59715
(406)9 1730 200 0 20o FIGURE 3.1
FAX IMM MAY 10.2w poloi r Na 04SM.110
0aFpwA 0 20W MI01 Enowlq Sw,N Rghb Rwarwd
Exhibit. B •
i�=� I j I 9•�N� I j I
P 6
L �
^!• III LL
0/ANNE PETERSON I I I E P'i SOB Q� Q`EDWARD 6 I I I u p
p5• o l j l W/LL/AN R. PETERSON LOT B SEC 35 p��}y'�P I I I,p� AC•NES I I I
` 34 I _ - - =3639ACS_ - UNPLATTEO - so:,' 1 I �ti 1 SUA7/T 3
35 — --- — — — — —BAXTER LANE !M/NOR ARTER/ALJ � _—_—_—_—_—STOM WA
—
��T-�—r--I I f—r-T- r T-r a„I� �
1 1�. SF 12 1 1 1 , I , ,Y 4, .Art ww�Orr ti r �� E-1F-7
�'s oS I ��'-L_L_ LJ_J I L1_1s��6 �_l� r - � 1a,.e62 Sa FT.
PG �P IEW6B�-iAlE---------
aye �rT-T-I�-T-r� I r-TT-iT"T-�"�
'bo' 1 �; --
I
r �+ ' ; ;
1 _ I
1 L_1.1_LL_L_1J ' 1
' AaU+enew= ------� >a .'.,.' ago I E-ITT-1 I
�r-i"T"l—f-T"T� ' I—I""T�-T"1�, # . ra.:>. f, 1 --J ' 2oea6T sa FT.
FUTURE 1 1 1 1 1 ; Ns� �' � - 1 I I I
BAXrER , ' I t� I ' 7 11 I ( JI ' I I 1
MEADOWS I ��- -TA
j `
UBO/Y/S/ON
I I --, f T-T"1—I--T-ice j r-f 777-
'- aft*_I� I I- ' ` 1 r-"�-+I \-,�� M,
' 1 I Ap
o j L_l_1_J—l_L_1J L_l I Ll_J �2 SCL FT jI I
rr--rr"T-r�""n I r-7TTl I' I,
ne6 sit"
. , 1 ,-1 —_
MOM POM
1 1 1 I f
A�WA 0" I __—�
•°,,:� � 1 ��. I j.t.p
O I BOAC A�ROAM
I ' 1 ' 1 1 I♦ , I V
it
I S_7 �° 1
<� _ -L_ L_�— -_-- I
ZI IS-8 16�,313 Sa 162.=SIX Fr. 166.oeo sa Fr. rr
I , I
1 1 I j S-2 I S-S
M.700 S0.Fr. ; 169.722 Sa FT.
jILM Sa Fr. I j 102.264 50
�A 1
_ — -- - _---—------
—_---$--- — _ -_ — —
-- T-6 -—-—- -- - - ----
_--------OAK STREET (PRINCIPAL ARTER_/ALJ "_
1�9 IS
HARVFST CREEK
SUBDIVISION
III II I II I HARVEST CREEK
ION
PHASE.?
SETT) ANNE
S/PPLE RUST PHASE 10 6 11 - ♦ ENTER OF S.. 2 CUNPLATEO ------
'AM SI �L PAS
L EGA WEST WINDS COMMUNITY
------- PRaroseo
N nw man'a 1nr
�1RA<,1„„ NW 1/I SECTION Z, T.2.8., R.SE., P.MM,�„W GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA
PROPOM Row On111131R1 -N_
HKM EngIneerInq Inc. omrno ADS
McChesney Professional Bldg. „■PAw Auaw= PARCEL IZA T/ON MA P
601 Nodes Dr.,SuRe 2 MUL T/--FAM/L Y/8/NGLE FAMILY PARCELS
Bozeman,MT 59715
(406)586-M 2W o 70 FIGURE 3.1
FAX(406(586-1730
emb DAM MY 1S.20H POD=MIX 015o6>•.110
0=00 1611 Glanalq kw.N M"RweM6
•
West Winds
Planned Community
Proposed Conditions
5-24-04
It is requested that the following conditions be individually discussed and motioned by the
commission.
1. DISCUSSION: WE PROPOSE THAT THE TRAIL BE PLACED IN A 60' TRAIL/PARK
COORIDOR ALONG TSCHACHE LANE AND WINTER PARK STREET.
Requested Condition: A trail shall be constructed connecting 27`h to Davis Lane within a 60'
trail/park corridor adjacent to Tschache Lane and Winter Park Street.
2. DISCUSSION: TO PLACE ALL TRAIL CROSSING AT INTERSECTIONS MAY NOT
BE THE SAFEST SITUATION, SPECIFICALLY AT OAK STREET WHERE HARVEST
CREEK TRAIL INTERSECTS OAKS STREET. PEOPLE WILL CROSS AT MID
BLOCK AND WE NEED TO ACCOMIDATE. WE PROPOSE THE CONDITION READ
AS FOLLOWS:
Requested Condition: Request that the individual crossing be evaluated by Engineering to
specific location.
3. OK, see amended condition 5 per May 10, 2004 memorandum.
4. OK
5. OK
6. OK
7. DISCUSSION: WE FIND THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY BEING SUPPLIED TO DRB
IS INAPPROPRIATE AS AN ADVISORY BOARD. HOWEVER, WE DO NOT OBJECT
TO THEIR REVIEW THROUGH THE FINAL SITE PLAN PROCESS. WE REQUEST
THE CONDITION BE REVISED TO READ:
Requested Condition: The Final Site Plan, including a Final Park Plan, shall be reviewed by
the DRB.
8. OK
9. OK
1
10. DISCUSSION: WE REQUEST THE SECOND SENTENCE BE REPLACED WITH THE
FOLLOWING TO ALLOW ARCHITECTURAL CREATIVELY IN ADDRESSING
CONNECTIVETY.
HA04\S067110\Preliminary PUMProposed conditions 5-10-04.doc
Requested Condition: The guidelines will provide a variety of options to enhance
connectivity to the adjoining arterials.or collectors while providing latitude to architecture
design features.
11. OK
12. DISCUSSION: WE REQUEST THIS CONDITION BE DELETED, THESE ARE
DETENTION PONDS THAT METER FLOW AND WILL BE DRY UNLESS STORM
EVENT. THE PROPOSED CONDITION WILL MAKE MAINTENANCE NEARLY
IMPOSSIBLE. AS PROPOSED THE DETENTION PONDS WOULD BE MOWED.
13. OK
14. OK
15. OK
16. DISCUSSION: REQUEST CONDITION DELETED, AS SUBMITTED PROJECT
EXCEEDS THE UDO REQUIREMENT OF 50%, PROJECT PROVIDES OVER 60%
PARK FRONTAGE. (UDO SECTION 18.50.060)
17. e. DISCUSSION: REQUEST CONDITION BE AMENDED ;
Requested Condition: The XL annexation agreement guaranteed sanitary sewer service to
the property. Furthermore, the northwest corner of the property cannot be served by the 20"
sewermain referred in the XL annexation agreement. The City of Bozeman received
approximately $80,000 for this guaranteed of sewer service. If West Winds is required to
install sewer mains in Davis Lane, full impact fee credit will be applied.
18. OK
19. OK
20. OK
21. OK
22. OK
May 10, 2004 Memorandum with additional conditions—All conditions OK
HA04\S067110\Preliminary PUMProposed conditions 5-10-04.doc
• IIECEIVEr
,i lAi'
LAND &. WATER CONSULTING, INC.
214 S. Wilson, Suite B P.O. Box 1122 Bozeman, Montana 59771 • Tel (406) 586-1411
E-mail info®landandwater.net Fax (406) 586-4035
May 17, 2004
Clint Litle
HKM Engineering
601 Nickles Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
RE: UDO Watercourse Setback Issues and Planting Regime .
Dear Clint,
This morning you contacted me to ask my professional opinion regarding the City of Bozeman
UDO regarding watercourse setbacks(18.42.100) and planting regime. Prior to attempting to
answer your question I will characterize the wetland and watercourse area your specific questions
regard.
• Wetlands 1 and 2 have no surface connection to BB/W-I and are thus classified as
"isolated". The eastern edge of W-2 ranges from 50 to 89 feet from the watercourse
within the BB/W-] complex. The eastern edge of W-1 ranges from 38 to 132 feet from
the eastern edge of BB/W-I and approximately 25 feet from the drain ditch(BB-1).
• The western edge of W-2 is 50 to 85 feet from the currently planned western boundary of
the open space. For your information,the western edge of the BB/W-I wetland ranges
from 50 to 300 feet from the western boundary of the open space or perhaps an average
of 100 feet from the edge of the wetland. The eastern edge of W-1 ranges from 24 to 182
feet from the eastern edge of the open space.
➢ The UDO document specifies that the setback shall include"adjacent"wetlands
but does not define the.term"adjacency". However,the word"adjacent" literally means:
"Next to; Adjoining" according to the dictionary;therefore interpretation does"appear
open to negotiations as stated in 18.42.1000.2.a. and b.
The Helena Regulatory Office of the Army Corps of Engineers(COE)considers wetlands
without a surface connection to a water of the U.S. as non jurisdictional (per Allan Steinle, Office
Manager, COE Helena Regional District personal communication 5/17/04), although they do
reserve the right to review wetlands within close proximity(roughly 100 feet) of water of the U.S.
If the isolated'wetland is annually flooded by a water of the U.S. the COE would likely consider
the wetland jurisdictional. W-1 and 2 do not flood annually and have no surface.connection to a
water of the U.S. and therefore their jurisdictional status is highly questionable. Coincidentally I
will be meeting with the COE on site tomorrow to review the 404 application and I will revisit the
status of W-2 (although there will be no bearing on disturbance issues because these two wetlands
will be preserved within the park).
Regarding your assignment to establish a planting regime for the watercourse setback: I have.
proposed that we plant hydrophytic species within the immediate flood zone of the watercourse
Hydrogeology Hydrology Water Rights Soil Science Wetlands Biological Sciences Environmental Engineering
(approximately 1-2 feet on each side of the bed)as originally outlined in our 404 mitigation
proposal. The remaining setback, as a result of topographic constraints and lack of hydrology,
will be planted with trees and shrubs that do-not require a constant source of water after
establishment. I recommend that we discuss the species that the City of Bozeman recommends
through their tree planting service for boulevards and to include a mixture of drought-hardy
shrubs and conifers to.diversify the habitat.
This "watercourse"within the BB/W-I complex we have been discussing.is extremely marginal;
there has been no water in the drainage for many years and I do not believe it is a result of the
drought. After we re-establish the connection to the central drainage through Harvest Creek and
remove the drain ditch upslope of this wetland complex, I am hoping that the.complex will be
wetter, but whether it will ever convey water only time will tell.
Placinb the corner of a soccer field within the setback of this watercourse will likely have no
negative affects on this system given its history and conveyance capabilities. Given the setback
from wetland edges usually exceeds the 50 foot setback, and well beyond for the entire length of
the wetland complex- including isolated wetlands-there may be some compromise in this
situation given the City Parks and Recreation Board would like to include soccer fields within the
open space that is currently planned.
incere ,
Ly Ba on
W tland Scientist/Biologist
CITY OF BOZEMAN
' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260
20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263
P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozemon.net
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozemon.net
MEMORANDUM
To: City Commission
From: Jami Morris,Associate Planner
Date: May 17, 2004 Work Session
Subject: West Winds PUD
At the May 10, 2004 public hearing there were a few comments made that Planning Staff feels compelled to
expand upon. Although the items are discussed in the Zoning PUD staff report we have provided
additional points of clarification.
1. Section 18.42.100 "Watercourse Setback" to allow the watercourse setback to be reduced from 50
feet to 15 feet.
• The purpose of the stream setback is to protect water quality by filtering pollutants, provide flood
control, minimize stream bank erosion, mitigate stream warming, provide room for lateral
movement of the stream channel and protect aquatic habitat.
• The setback is measured from the edge of the stream or any associated wetlands.
iJy �l too
`d•v
ChQNv�L�
�,
A.
• ice/ Hi9MWalerMa►K �\;•i \ '
p�qu iced Sea ck� ��
• If the Army Corps of Engineers takes jurisdiction then it is an associated system which is the case
here. Otherwise it would be an isolated wetland and the City takes jurisdiction and the )M needs
to take action.
• According to the applicant's Wetlands Specialist, page 9 of the Wetlands Study, the Army Corps of
Engineers has taken jurisdiction of W-1 and W-2 because they are 20 and 40 feet from Cattail Creek
(waters of the U.S.) and are considered "adjacent to a water of the U.S. and jurisdictional."
i
planning • zoning • subdivision review . annexation • historic preservation . housing • grant administration • neighborhood coordination
Therefore, a 50 foot0atercourse/wetland setback is re uired from the delineated edge of all
q g
adjacent and associated wetlands.
• Section 18.42.1003.5 states, "No newly constructed residential or commercial structure, addition to
an existing structure, fence, deck, fill material or other similar improvements shall be located within
required watercourse setbacks."
• The setback must be planted with native riparian vegetation to re-establish the watercourse setback
to its previous state prior to the impacts of the agricultural uses. The setback cannot be maintained
in its current state with alfalfa up to the high water mark.
• The text does not allow the watercourse setback to be counted towards parkland because it serves a
different purpose but also because it is supposed to be undisturbed and it is not intended to be
sprayed with herbicides or fertilizers which are typically used in parks providing soccer fields.
2. Section 18.50.070.A.1 "Linear Parks" to allow the watercourse setback to count towards the parkland
dedication requirement.
• Stream setbacks are not supposed to be areas of active recreation. This relaxation would allow the
proposed soccer fields to be developed within a setback that has the potential for flooding and the
watercourse plantings that are required, despite the setback relaxation, will narrow the playing fields
considerably.
• Mowed turf lawn is not considered a stream buffer because it provides no aquatic habitat function,
is ineffective for flood control and does not protect the natural resource from foot traffic.
• The north to south and east to west Transportation Corridors noted as trails within the park and
watercourse setback do not count towards parkland since they are called out in the 2020 Plan and
Transportation Plan as part of City's transportation network
• Section 18.44.110.B.1.d states, "Transportation trail corridors can not be used to satisfy parkland
dedication requirements." The logic here is that if you do not get parkland credit for the installation
of a required street and sidewalk as part of the right of way system then why should you get credit
for a Transportation Pathway.
3. Section 18.50.020 "Park Requirements" to allow the park area requirement to be based on 11% net
buildable area instead of 0.03 acres per dwelling unit.
• The Unified Development Ordinance states that 0.03 acres per dwelling unit of land dedication or
cash donation in-lieu of land dedication shall be provided. A land dedication of 2.5% to 11% is
permitted,dependent on lot size, if the density of the development is unknown. The 0.03 acres per
dwelling unit is the correct method of calculating the parkland. It is not up to the property
owner or the applicant to tell the City of Bozeman how to interpret its text.
• The Concept Plan originally provided a table suggesting the construction of 1,011 dwelling units.
• The newly proposed density is set forth throughout the submittal as a minimum of 960 dwelling
units (pg. 6-1, pg.6-5, App. E pg.3, App. J pg. 1 and App. K pg. 1). The applicant provided an
updated table of parkland calculations on April 7, 2004.
• The tables indicate that 24.3 acres would be required if based on 810 dwelling units (960 units - 150
skilled nursing facility units). The current proposal is for 19.13 acres of parkland including 35 feet of
the 50 foot stream and wetland setback.
• Based on the "R 3" Zoning designation the multi-household lots could provide as many as 143
additional dwelling units for a total of 953 dwelling units rather than 810 as depicted on the
following table:
Page 2
Lots/Units
Single Household 213
Townhouse 92
Multi-household 12
Lot Size: "R-3" Zoning Regulates Minimum Lot Size at 3,000 s.f./unit
E-MF-1 159,346 53
E-NE-2 81,144 27
E-MF 6 274,112 91
E-NE-7 191,882 64
E-APT-1 206,887 69
S-2 81,709 27
S-3 88,856 30
SA 162,264 54
S-5 169,772 57
S-6 166,050 55
S-7 162,236 54
S-8 164,343 55
953 Total Units Possible
28.20 Total Acres Required
26.26 Acres with Park Waiver for Wetlands
• If anything other that 26.26 acres is suggested and supported by the City Commission then a density
cap should be considered so that the developer can only construct as many dwelling units as there is
dedicated parkland. For example, if the City Commission decides to allow the 19.13 acres of
parkland then a condition of approval must be applied to the PUD requiring the covenants and the
development guidelines to indicate that only 638 total dwelling units are permitted within the West
Winds Subdivision.
• If the applicant disagrees with Planning Staff's interpretation of the Unified Development
Ordinance then he should formally appeal our interpretation and then the subdivision must be
denied until a decision is made on the appeal. This is not the appropriate forum to debate the
Planning Director's interpretations. If they choose to appeal our interpretation then they need to
make a case for why the 0.03 acres per dwelling unit should not be utilized.
4. Provisions for affordable housing for Planned Unit Development relaxations.
• The affordable housing proposed is not in excess of requirements of Unified Development
Ordinance.
• A variety of relaxations (deviations) have been requested through the PUD process. To be entitled
to the relaxations the project must meet performance standards (points) with additional open
space, additional parkland, or additional affordable housing or a mix of the three.
• The applicant has chosen to use the affordable housing as the only method to meet the Planned
Unit Development performance standards to entitle them to the requested regulatory relaxations.
• The affordable housing proposal is unrelated to the open space and parkland requirements. If it
were in excess of the minimums set forth then it might be used to relax the parkland requirements,
at he discretion of the City Commission. However, you can not double count the affordable
housing to meet the minimum PUD points and towards relaxing the parkland/open space
requirements.
5. Apartments
• The applicant requested a relaxation from Section 18.16.0203 to "allow apartments within the R 3
zoning district... West Winds proposes housing from single-family to apartment-style housing."
The wording does not request nor was it noticed for a density bonus.
Page 3
• A long standing prow of the PUD process was that allowable densities are based on the
underlying zoning. Ex: R 3 zoning requires a minimum of 3,000 s.f. per unit divided by 1.3 units
(30% maximum density bonus) = 2,308 s.f. per unit. This still would not allow them"R 4" densities
which would require a Zone Map Amendment.
• They have requested to do apartments which Planning Staff supports. With the underlying zoning
we have correctly limited the density to what is permitted in the "R 3" zoning district.
Page 4
and signed by a Professional Engineer (PE) registered in the State of Montana shall be
provided to and approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall also provide.
Professional Engineering services for Construction Inspection, Post-Construction
Certification, and preparation of mylar Record Drawings. Construction shall not be
initiated on the public infrastructure improvements until the plans and specifications
have been approved and a preconstruction conference has been conducted. No building
permits shall be issued prior to substantial completion and City acceptance of the
required infrastructure improvements unless otherwise allowed by specific approval of
the City Commission under the provisions of Chapters 18.36 and 18.74 of the Bozeman
Unified Development Ordinance.
• All street names shall be reviewed and approved by the Gallatin County Road Office and
City Engineering Office.
• The following locations shall be modified to meet the access standards in Section
090.D.3 of Chapter 18.44 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance: a. On
Oak Street, the separation between Windward Avenue and Hunter's Way meets the
criteria for partial access but does not provide the 660' minimum for full access; b. The
following locations provide less than the 150' minimum for an access from an s� z
intersection with an arterial: (1) at rorit'on- uc e- wenue�n- p . I ,
--Hunter's Wav_nears:3axu-.r.�ar+---aiad-O&al-Street;(2 e-eea>iefl-e Eobbl�s a Ca rt o f-
I fr-aR, Qa c e--=;_(3) the location of Spring View Court from Fowler Avenue (aka Davis. �c,,-
'1i o� Lane); and (4) a proposed access on east side of Buckrake Avenue from Baxter Lane; c.
On Fowler Avenue (aka Davis Lane), the separation between the streets meets the
criteria for partial access but does not provide the 660' minimum for full access. On
�- Baxter Lane, the separation between Windward Avenue and Hunter's Way meets the
criteria for partial access but does not provide the 660' minimum for full access. The
Traffic Impact Study shall address the left turn movement onto the subdivision streets
from Fowler Avenue (aka Davis Lane) and Baxter Lane.
• Detailed review and approval of the concurrent construction plans will be part of the
infrastructure plan and specification review process for each phase. Building permits may
not be issued until each plan is approved.
• The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, SCS, Montana Department of
Environmental Quality and Army Corps of Engineer's shall be contacted regarding the
proposed project and any required permits (i.e., 310, 404, Turbidity exemption, etc.) shall
be obtained.
• Building Permits will be issued incrementally dependent upon the status of installation of
infrastructure improvements.
• The right to a conditional use permit shall be contingent upon the fulfillment of all
general and special conditions imposed by the Conditional Use Permit procedure. All
special conditions and code provisions shall constitute restrictions running with the land,
shall be binding upon the owner of the land,his successors or assigns, shall be consented
to in writing by the applicant prior to commencement of the use and shall be recorded as
such with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder's Office by the property owner prior
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 13
• Setback
^ram�_ •'� �?•� .�. � �� _ %�. , ' \` { � iT,v � X` ..
Waterc
• Watercourse
'a.f.+wT"~..:� •"flues
SOD Detention Pond
0 •
West Winds
Planned Community
Proposed Conditions
5-10-04
It is requested that the following conditions be individually discussed and motioned by the
commission.
1. DISCUSSION: WE PROPOSE THAT THE TRAIL BE PLACED IN THE TSCHACHE
ROAD R/W, WHICH HAS BEEN WIDENED TO FACILITATE A TRAIL.
Requested Condition: A trail shall be constructed connecting 27`h to Davis Lane within an
1 V corridor that has been within the Tschache Lane`Right-of-Way.
2. DISCUSSION: TO PLACE ALL TRAIL CROSSING AT INTERSECTIONS MAY NOT
BE THE SAFEST SITUATION, SPECIFICALLY AT OAK STREET WHERE HARVEST
CREEK TRAIL INTERSECTS OAKS STREET. PEOPLE WILL CROSS AT MID
BLOCK AND WE NEED TO ACCOMIDATE. WE PROPOSE THE CONDITION READ
AS FOLLOWS:
Requested Condition: Request that the individual crossing be evaluated by Engineering to
specific location.
3. DISCUSSION: REQUEST CONDITION BE AMENDED; AS A BIKE PATH MEETS
THE NEEDS OF BOTH RECREATIONAL AND COMMUNTER BYCLCE TRAFFIC. IT
IS NOT ADVISED TO MIX BIKE TRAFFIC WITH HIGH VOLUME VEHICLE
TRAFFFIC WHEN AN ALTERNATIVE IS AVAILIBLE.
Requested Condition: Oak Street from Fowler Avenue to N. 271h Avenue shall include a
Bike Path(Shared-use path) on the north side of Oak Street.
4. OK
5. OK
6. OK
7. DISCUSSION: WE FIND THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY BEING SUPPLIED TO DRB
IS INAPPROPRIATE AS AN ADVISORY BOARD. HOWEVER, WE DO NOT OBJECT
TO THEIR REVIEW THROWGH THE FINAL SITE PLAN PROCESS. WE REQUEST
THE CONDITION BE REVISED TO READ:
Requested Condition: The Final Site Plan, including a Final Park Plan, shall be reviewed by
the DRB. << � � 7J 4
8. OK
HAMS067110\Preliminary PUMProposed conditions 5-10-04.doc
9. OK
10. DISCUSSION: WE REQUEST THE SECOND SENTENCE BE REPLACED WITH THE
FOLLOWING TO ALLOW ARCHITECTURAL CREATIVELY IN ADDRESSING
CONNECTIVETY.
Requested Condition: The guidelines will provide a variety of options to enhance
connectivity to the adjoining arterials or collectors while providing latitude to architecture
design features.
11. OK
12. DISCUSSION: WE REQUEST THIS CONDITION BE DELETED, THESE ARE
DETENTION PONDS THAT METER FLOW AND WILL BE DRY UNLESS STORM
EVENT. THE PROPOSED CONDITION WILL MAKE MAINTENANCE NEARLY
IMPOSSIBLE. AS PROPOSED THE DETENTION PONDS WOULD BE MOWED.
(GET PHOTOS: FERGUSON, MSU)
13. OK
14. DISCUSSION: REQUEST CONDITION DELETED,UDO STATES NO STRUCTURES.
18.42.100(B.)(5.) rAsb�
15. OK J
16. DISCUSSION: REQUEST CONDITION DELETED,AS SUBMITTED PROJECT
EXCEEDS THE UDO REQUIREMENT OF 50%, PROJECT PROVIDES 60%PARK
FRONTAGE. 18.50.060 ,tea -
17. e. DISCUSSION: REQUEST CONDITION BE AMENDED ;
Requested Condition: The XL annexation agreement guaranteed sanitary sewer service to
the property. Furthermore, the northwest corner of the property cannot be served by the 20"
sewermain referred in the xl annexation agreement. The city of bozeman received
approximately $80,0.00.for this aranteed of sewer service. If west winds is required to
install sewer mains in davis lane, full impact fee credit will be applie�
18. OK
19. OK
20. OK
21. OK
22. OK
HA04\S0671IWreliminaryPUMProposed conditions 5-10-04.doc
West Winds Planned Community
Park Economic Evaluation
May 10,2004
Ca a] Multj;,Fartuly,Units'cat Og03`acr / IlxPark"='+� . ''Ca"`se 2"=Sin 1"e- atnil! +nits at 0�03=acr"e�cy/ Ua ask
Given: Given:
Parcel Size= 60000 Sq-Ft Parcel Size= 60000 Sq-Ft
Assume Density= 3000 Sq-Ft/DU Assume Density= 6000 Sq-Ft/DU
Park Allocation= 0.03 Ac/DU Park Allocation= 0.03 Ac/DU
Sales Price/DU= $24,000 $/DU Sales Price/DU= $52,000 $/DU
Parkland Cost/Ac= $70,000 $/Ac.(see note 1) Parkland Cost/Ac= $70,000 $/Ac.(see note 1)
Determine Cash Flow Determine Cash Flow
Number of DU= 20 Units Number of DU= 10 Units
Park Required= 0.60 Ac. Park Required= 0.30 Ac.
Sales Income= $480,000 Sales Income= $520,000
Less Parkland Cost= $42,000 Less Parkland Cost= $21,000
Total Income= $438,000 (See note 2.) Subtotal= $499,000
Income/DU= $21,900 Determine Additional Income from Unused Park Area
Area Availible(Note 3.)= 0.30 Ac.
Notes: Additional Lots= 2 DU
1.Parkland Cost represents raw land cost in a developed area with utilities
and roads in place. Additional Income= $104,000
2.Total income does not represent profit,rather funds availible for land
and improvement costs. Additional Park Required= 0.06 Ac.
Additional Parkland Cost= $4,200
Determine Adjusted Sale Income
Subtotal from above= $499,000
Additional Income(Unused Park; $104,000
Less Additional Park= $4,200
Total Income= $598,800
Income/DU= $49,900
Notes:
3.Single-family has lower density requiring less Parkland,so the
remaining parkland can be platted into SF lots.
HKM Engineering Inc.
West Winds Planned Community
Park Economic Evaluation
May 10,2004.
Case 1 Ka�lE° amrly Units ati l l�lorof?1Yet for mark a�'f; + '� ,Case 2A�S ngle,,fiamil i&a�0 03-acces I DU�rk ;
Given: Given:
Parcel Size= 60000 Sq-Ft Parcel Size= 60000 Sq-Ft
Assume Density= 3000 Sq-Ft/DU Assume Density= 6000 Sq-Ft/DU
Park Allocation= 0.11 Net-Ac. Park Allocation= 0.03 Ac/DU
Sales Price/DU= $24,000 $/DU Sales Price/DU= $52,000 $/DU
Parkland Cost/Ac= $70,000 $/Ac.(see note 1) Parkland Cost/Ac= $70,000 $/Ac.(see note 1)
Determine Cash Flow Determine Cash Flow
Number of DU= 20 Units Number of DU= 10 Units
Park Required= 0.15 Ac. Park Required= 0.30 Ac.
Sales Income= $480,000 Sales Income= $520,000
Less Parkland Cost= $10,606 Less Parkland Cost= $21,000
Subtotal $469,394 Subtotal= $499,000
Determine Additional Income from Unused Park Area
Area Availible(Note 3.)= 0.15 Ac. Income/DU= $49,900
Additional Lots= 1 DU
Additional Income= $24,000
Additional Park Required= 0.01 Ac.
Additional Parkland Cost= $530
Determine Adjusted Sale Income
Subtotal from above= $469,394
Additional Income(Unused Park)_ $24,000
Less Additional Park= $530
Total Income= $492,864
Income/DU= $23,470
HKM Engineering Inc.
$3.50
Montana's Subdivision
and Surveying Laws
and Regulations
18' Edition
:b
E Y
! Y
ti ks 3i` r
ss•
`;�. _ •,ram
':S[a
y.
Ai.` �`" T3� r .1• S"
a
s MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
COMMUNITY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
MARCH 2O00
' � ., a .., �•,4.�v; A, .l'• -
History: En.Sec. 15,Ch.500,L. 1973;RC.M. 1947, 11-3873.
76-3-614. Correction of recorded plat.When a recorded plat does tot '
definitely show the location or size of lots or blocks or the location or width of
any street or alley,the governing body may at its own expense cause a new and - -
correct survey and plat to be made and recorded in the office of the county clerk
and recorder. The corrected plat must, to the extent possible, follow the plan
of the original survey and plat.The surveyor making the resurvey shall endorse ;
the corrected plat referring to the original plat and noting the defect existing
therein and the corrections made.
History: En.Sec.16,Ch.500,L.1973;R.C.M.1947,11-3874. `
76-3-615 through 76-3-619 reserved.
76-3-620. Review requirements—written statement.In addition to
the requirements of 76-3-604 and 76-3-609, a governing body may not deny or
condition a subdivision approval under this part unless it provides a written
statement to the applicant detailing the circumstances of the subdivision denial ,
or condition imposition. The statement must include:
(1) the reason for the denial or condition imposition;
(2) the evidence that justifies the denial or condition imposition; and
(3) - information regarding the appeal process for the denial or condition
imposition.
History: En.Sec.2,Ch.224,L. 1995.
76-3-621. Park dedication requirement. (1) Except as provided in = #
subsections (2), (3), and (6), a subdivider shall dedicate to the governing body ;a
a cash or land donation equal to:
(a) 11% of the area of the land proposed to be subdivided into parcels of i•
one-half acre or smaller; E
(b) 7.5% of the area of the land proposed to be subdivided into parcels
larger than one-half acre and not larger than 1 acre;
(c) 5%of the area of the land proposed to be subdivided into parcels larger
than 1 acre and not larger than 3 acres; and
(d) 2.5% of the area of the land proposed to be subdivided into parcels
larger than 3 acres and not larger than 5 acres.
(2) When a subdivision is located totally within an area for which density `
requirements have been adopted pursuant to a growth policy under chapter 1
or pursuant to zoning regulations under chapter 2, the governing body may f
establish park dedication requirements based on the community need for parks
and the development densities identified in the growth policy or regulations.
Park dedication requirements established under this subsection are in lieu of
those provided in subsection (1) and may not exceed 0.03 acres per dwelling
unit.
(3) A park dedication may not be required for:
(a) a minor subdivision;
(b) land proposed for subdivision into parcels larger than 5 acres;
(c) subdivision into parcels that are all nonresidential;
(d) a subdivision in which parcels are not created, except when that
subdivision provides permanent multiple spaces for recreational camping
vehicles, mobile homes, or condominiums; or
(e) a subdivision in which only one additional parcel is created.•
25
�,�.�vh•, ttt , � �v � r r c�,b�� It � z ftS F ,rr ,'� �&i cr�ya,P_> * .
V:2.
R�+t 'TL� "e-`t{�•�G 4p� �'ic�� �'F�.. SQ. r�� `i�v_. 1
�r� � �1 x.: 1--++rrq, t�-,}S'y�.:�Z"� , y �•s' ria ri,..�[ T �.
r.
i
.�'f_ -
F: I
(4) The governing body, in consultation with the subdivider and the
planning board or park board that has jurisdiction, may determine suitable
locations for parks and playgrounds and, giving due weight and consideration
i to the expressed preference of the subdivider,may determine whether the park
! dedication must be a land donation, cash donation, or a combination of both.
When a combination of land donation and cash donation is required, the cash
donation may not exceed the proportional amount not covered by the land
donation.
a -(5) (a) In accordance with the provisions of subsections (5)(b) and(5)(c),
the governing body shall use the dedicated money or land for development,
acquisition, or maintenance of parks to serve the subdivision.
(b) The governing body may use the dedicated money to acquire, develop,
or maintain, within its jurisdiction, parks or recreational areas or for the
purchase of public open space or conservation easements only if:
(i) the park, recreational area, open space, or conservation easement is
r' within a reasonably close proximity to the proposed subdivision; and
r' (ii) the governing body has formally adopted a park plan that establishes
the needs and procedures for use of the money.
(c) The governing body may not use more than 50%of the dedicated money
for park maintenance.
(6) The local governing body shall waive the park dedication requirement
if:
(a) (i) the preliminary plat provides for a planned unit development or
other development with land permanently set aside for park and recreational
,} uses sufficient to meet the needs of the persons who will ultimately reside in
the development; and
(ii) the area of the land and any improvements set aside for park and
=' Fecreational purposes equals or exceeds the area of the dedication required
under subsection (1);
!; (b) (i) the preliminary plat provides long-term protection of critical
:s} wildlife habitat; cultural, historical, or natural resources; agricultural
3 interests; or aesthetic values; and
(ii) the area of the land proposed to be subdivided, by virtue of providing
long-term protection provided for in subsection (6)(b)(i), is reduced by an
amount equal to or exceeding the area of the dedication required under
subsection (1); or
(c) the area of the land proposed to be subdivided, by virtue of a
combination of the provisions of subsections (6)(a) and(6)(b),is reduced by an
amount equal to or exceeding the area of the dedication required under
subsection (1).
(7) For the purposes of this section:
(a) "cash donation" is the fair market value of the unsubdivided
unimproved land; and
(b) "dwelling unit" means a residential structure in which.a person of
'1 persons reside.
J History: En.Sec.9,Ch.468,L. 1995;amd.Sec.27,Ch.582,L. 1999.
Compiler's Comments "master plan" or "plans"; and made mino
P P
1999 Amendment- Chapter 582 in two changes in style.Amendment effective Octobe
places in (2) substituted "growth policy" for 1,1999.
26
Park contribution by dwelling type
according to staff calculations.
( 70.14% of the park space is contributed by seniors and low income/multi-family )
Townhouses 9.01%
51
r�.Tyi7lt
µ
Single-Family homes .
20.85% ' , Senior Residential 40.34%
l .
Low Income & Multi-Family
29.80%
. 1
low
SIDEWALK ■ ■
o 0
0 0
a a ■ ■
oQ o
arx+ o�$j o
wle
c C ' - BIKE LANE
o 0
W11-2
a a
�t p UTILITY
BIKE LANE I a c I (ABOVE GROUND)
j CORRIDOR(IF APPLICABLE)
i
co
° ° ° SIDEWALK
(ABOVE GROUND)
Z CORRIDOR(IF APPLICABLE) �\ �N
W
W
W16-7P
Wtl-2
T I c a Lo, 100,
e o
RAFFIC SIGNAL
(OPTIONAU
DETECTION
QEl Jl
o: t I
e e PEDESTR N
6' Y X I PUSH SU ON
UR
• •
� VARIES I 1
• 1• J
7 O • • 1■ ' —� $21
v
PEDESTRI N
SIDEWALK RAMP USH B N VARIES
(SEE NOTE 4) c
DETECTION I� • • b?a
IS D ISLANDS 9
o � " V� CENTERLINE
STREETLIGHT ( E NOTE 2) < (SEE NOTE 3)
—(SET NOT
I
G I W1f-2
f f f a WIG-7P
NOTES: TRAVEL LANES
t USE ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT TO APPLY THIS DETAIL TO SIMILAR SCENARIOS. 'L=SPEED LIMIT
2. SEE DRAWING NO.218,248,AND 256.2 FOR MEDIAN ISLAND.
3. SEE DRAWING NO.255.4 FOR BOLLARDS AND CENTERLINE STRIPING.
4. SEE DRAWING NO.235,CASE III,FOR SIDEWALK RAMPS (USE 12 FEET INSTEAD 5 FEET).
5. SEE DRAWING NO.254 AND 254A FOR CROSSWALKS.
6. SEE DRAWING NO.255.3 FOR SIGN SIZES FOR SHARED USE PATHS.
7. SEE DRAWING NO.345(2 OF 3) FOR DELINEATION IN TRANSITION SECTIONS.
8. SEE TABLE 2C-4 IN MUTCD 2000 FOR ADVANCE PLACEMENT OF WARNING SIGNS.
9. SEE PAGE 654 TO 680 IN AASHTO HIGHWAYS AND STREETS 2001 FOR SIGHT VISABILITY ZONES (SIGHT TRIANGLES).
10. SEE STREET LIGHTING SECTIO14.
11. CONTACT AGENCY'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER TO VERIFY IF AGENCY PREFERS TO USE A W11-1(BICYCLE)
SIGN IN PLACE OF THE W11-1 SIGN.
SPECIFICATION REFERENCE UNIFORM STANDARD DRAWINGS
CLARK COUNTY AREA
628 PAINTING TRAFFIC STRIPING
633 PAVEMENT MARKERS
SHARED USE PATH CROSSING
6 LANE ROADWAY
DATE 7-10-04 1 DWG. NO. 256.4 PAGE NO. 59.25
CITY* BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260
-� 20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263
P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozemon.net
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozeman.net
MEMORANDUM
To: City Commission
From: Jami Morris,Associate Planner
Date: May 10,2004 Public Hearing
Subject West Winds PUD #Z-04050
1. The Section Line Ditch shall not be piped. The "riparian" corridor shall be maintained within the
median planned for Fowler Avenue.
2. No existing mature vegetation within the watercourse setback, wetlands, park and along the Section
Line Ditch shall be removed from the site unless approved by the City of Bozeman Planning Office.
The Final Landscape Plan shall depict existing and proposed vegetation as well as proposed
vegetation to be removed.
3. Buildings proposed for construction with crawl spaces or basements shall include Engineer
Certification regarding depth of ground water and soil conditions and proposed mitigation methods
to be submitted with each Building Permit.
4. Planning Staff recommends the modification of condition# 18 to read as follows:
As a part of the infrastructure plans submittal, 100-year flood elevations shall be computed for the
Section-Line .Ditch and the center irrigation lateral (stream defined as Cattail Creek by the
Conservation District and as Harmon Ditch from Harvest Creek), and the limits of flooding
identified. , this shag be nAs:pll A;q ;:he fina4 plat ftleftg
lets. Lots shall not be
platted within the 100 year flood plain. Hydraulic calculations and the water surface profile of the
ditches shall take into account the upstream and downstream culvert capacities as well as the fact the
ditch company may use the ditch as a blow off at anytime and without notice.
5. The Engineering Department does not agree with recommended condition #3 from the Bicycle
Advisory Board. The Board would like to have both a bike lane and a bike path on Oak Street.
p / Unfortunately, the south side of Oak Street, adjacent to Stoneridge, Brentwood and Harvest Creek)
`
A is already developed with a five foot wide sidewalk
The south side of Oak Street was already developed with the five foot wide sidewalk before the
\` update to the Transportation Plan which calls for a bike path on Oak Street. In addition, Highgate
House, located on the north side of Oak Street was approved with a five foot wide meandering
sidewalk The Engineering Department is concerned that the construction of a path on the north
side of Oak Street without a path on the south side would be a safety risk
planning • zoning • subdivision review . annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration . neighborhood coordination
Studies indicate that shared use paths onlyif provided on Aides of the street. Motorists
generally do not look both directions .when crossing through an intersection with two lanes of
bicycle traffic. In addition, the 2001 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan states, "Separated
two-way bicycle facilities can create a safety problem at intersections. Separated two-way bicycle
paths located outside of the roadway, and only on one side of the road, are only considered desirable
where there are few intersection streets along the corridor."
Page 2
Bozeman City Commission May 17, 2004
Dear Commissioners,
Having observed the May 17, 2004 work session on the subject of West Winds
Subdivision, I feel obligated to make the following comments:
• Please remember that when you give up parkland, it is gone forever. There is no
possibility of recovering it.
• The parkland requirement creates land for the use of the Bozeman citizens. If you
give this land away to benefit developers, you are doing so at the expense of your
constituents.
• If the parkland dedication rules and stream setback regulations need to be
adjusted, that is a separate issue that needs to be addressed, studied, and
discussed. It would be wrong to waive them in advance of this process or ignore
them because you feel they are too stringent.
• When a developer offers middle ground between what the requirements are and
what he would like them to be, that is not compromise. Imagine going into your
bank and offering a settlement amount for your bank balance that rests between
your actual balance and what you would like it to be.
• It is not the responsibility of the Commission to relax the rules in order to insure
the profitability of speculative real estate ventures.
• If a developer threatens to abandon a project should the Commission decline to
bend the rules, it is an empty threat. It is not the developers who are creating
growth in Bozeman; it is the quality of life.
• If the Commission chooses to grant concessions without reimbursement, they are
setting the stage for endless, acrimonious work sessions with developers who
want to get something for nothing.
• The Commission should help developers come to the realization that large, useful,
well-designed parks enhance the value of their project.
Respectfully offered,
Sandy Dodge
Chair, Bozeman Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
k`?+ ` ,- �,:�mv r+:!
•'��� a �v 9 ��� �". � � �4. c'��'� �`+,k,::�st � ` �� �r .Y.�re4+:� '.�k � t3;�:tip, �'x'- a
�'.
�.^� Ka€�.ir '� i h r,�V + a�� .s' ���•e"'�"t �4„*�'`��,:�'� � ��,fir^�� +'�'`"�'`� � '� �
��c�
CITY COMMISSION STAFFREPORT �+�r �
;
WESTWINiD:S�CUP/P,UD �•�� :� �. � - �, �� �. �,. � � �, �..
....s,nx �: a^�'..`*' 9`a-'ry.T.�3t s `��.+•.,.z' ux, "�`�y�'` i-��-�� .'s`'°�'�` _': � 3�'�+^,� a^-:F��,,�, i' `�"^-a�,� ':rr�5• -.i'�'"s ss��r." .&`5 vim* �.
,....�.€,.a av'r..ar,.. .sd .�. ._�e_,n :.fin-�s,�__ 3.`t�.'s�� c- 39c.•. ..,..� .�: c'�`� _�::. �.t:
Item: Zoning Application #Z-04050, a Conditional Use Permit Application
for a Zoning Planned Unit Development to - establish a unified
development plan for 213 single-household residential lots, 92
townhouse lots, 5 multi-household residential lots for apartment
buildings and 8.residential lots for Senior Assisted Living facilities with
requested relaxations from the City of Bozeman Unified Development
Ordinance on property bound by Baxter Lane, Oak Street, 27`h Avenue
and Davis Lane and zoned "R 3" Residential, Medium Density
District.
Property Owner. Quest West LLC
3825 Valley.Commons Drive,Suite 4
Bozeman,MT 59718 F
Applicant: HEM Engineering Inc.
601 Nikles Drive, Suite 2
- . Bozeman,MT 59715
Date: Before the Bozeman City Commission on Monday, May .10, 2004 at
7:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 411 East Main
Street,Bozeman,Montana.
Report By: Jami Morris,Associate Planner
Recommendation: Conditional Approval of the PUD 1
Denial of requested relaxations,a,b, c and i, listed in the staff report .
PROJECT LOCATION '
The subject property is described as NW'/a, Section 2,T2S,R5E Gallatin County,:Montana located between
Baxter Lane, Oak Street, 27`h Avenue and Davis-Lane. The site is approximately 161.30 gross acres and is
zoned "R 3," Residential Medium Density District. Please refer to the following vicinity map.
��)q /nq an l� �dr0iv�.c Q
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 1'
BPO -3 R-1 BP B
BNiTER
� 1�3
PLI
m
PROPOSAL
The Conditional Use Permit application for a Zoning Planned Unit Development to establish a unified
development plan for a 161.30 acre subdivision for the development of 213 single-household, 92
townhouse, 5 multi-household and 8 senior assisted living lots with the following requested relaxations from
the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance:
a Section 18.42.100 "Watercourse Setback" to allow the watercourse setback to be reduced from 50
feet to 15 feet. PlanrringStaff, Dezdopnz7rReue* wCarrnisee, DesignReuewBaan�Recmdon& Parks A dzisory
Board and the Wetlands ReuewBc and do not support the mquested reaxation of the vaoroune setlxidk. The purpose of
dx stream setback is to protect water quality by filtering pollutants,prrrude flood mrnro4 r=nzze strram bank emsi074
nztWzte sham v aming pz &room four lateral rruwnz7r of the stream channel and prat aquatic habitat
b) Section 18.50.070.A.1 "Linear Parks" to allow the watercourse setback to count towards the parkland
dedication requirement. Planning Staff, Dezel pn mt Renew Convvittee, Design Reziew Board and the Recreation
& Parks Advi ory Board do notsupport thzs r taxation because it renders the park land as zirtually urnrsable for aazze
p recreation Stream setbacks are not supposed to be areas of aazw recreation This relaxation would allow the proposed
soccer fields to be deteloped within a setback that has the potential for flooding and the v atermurse plantings that are
0��o nzluim� despite the setback niaxatzar� will narrow the playing fields considerably(please note the attaAd landscape plan
S\� where mi s and shrubs would be installed in areas defined for soccer fields. Mowed turf lawn is not considered a stream
buffer because it pnx des no aquatic habitat function and is ineffee w for flowed mrnrol and does not prow the natural
mourte from foot traffic Section 9.1.6 "Parkland A quisitim" in the 2020 Plan states that parkland dedication in
sub d wions should only be aaepted when the land is well brat is needed for the ozerall park and recreation program
and is phywally suited for park and mcmation use A llouing the stream setback to mar as park land would allow the
dezeloper to dedicate land"t is not suitable for active=wtional use
c) Section 18.50.020 "Park Requirements" to allow the park area requirement to be based on 11% net
buildable area instead of 0.03 acres per dwelling unit. Planning Staff, Dezdopmmt Redew Con crime; Design
aU'" Redew Baarz Recreation & Parks A dvsory Baand do not support the relaxation to the parkland calculations. The
it Unified Dewiprent Ordinance states that 0.03 acres per dwelling unit land dedication or cash donation irtlieu z f land
k� da Acation shall he prozided A land dedication of 2.5% to 11% is pwnitar dpmdent on lot size, if the de ns ity of
'50 �#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report
i�
f) Section 18.42.040.B "Block Length" to allow the block lengths to exceed 400 feet. Planning Staff and
the Dewlopmr Reuew Connmuee mnditwnally support this requested rdaxation except for the blocks badzirzg onto the
dedicated parkland Although 60% of the entire park perimier is bound by public right of wuy this park has been
designed as a narrowlinear park that is not well located for accessibility The park design does not facilitate across to large
areas of the park since a majority of the park is located hw.hind priwe lots. Staff mold support the longer blocks within
the interior of the subdiui ion rather than adjacent to the park.
g) Section 18.42.040.0"Block Width" to allow the minimum block length to be less than 200 feet for the
blocks with Restricted Size Lots. Planning Staff supports the increase in blak width as long as adequate strut
conrrectizzty is maintained within the sub usion
h) Section 18.42.180.0"Number of Restricted Size Lots Required" to allow the townhouse Restricted
Size Lots to be less than 3,000 square feet and more than 3,000 for corner townhouse lots. Planning Staff
supports the smaller lots sirup prezious pnoj z haze den mstrated that dewioprwr with less than an azerage of 3,000
square feet for townhouse lots can be acmnnplubed and gizen the additional corner side)card setbade the increase in lot size
for consideration Gf comer lass is also acxptable
i) Section 18.44.090.D.3 "Spacing Standards for Drive Accesses" to allow residential lots that front on
Hunter's Way and Buckrake and back onto the linear park to access local streets within 150 feet of an
intersection with an arterial street and to allow the proposed access separation distance between the
proposed local streets onto Oak Street, an arterial street, to be separated less than 660 feet. Section
18.44.090.H "Deviations for Property Access Standards" states that the City Engineer cozy relax the sp&#W aaess
standards if shozen that a rune of iaenr design can be aarnrplisbed without jeopardizing the public's health, safety and
welfare Planning and E ngineering Staff do not support the relaxation of the 150 foot reau vwnt because it has been
detemaned that it is not an applicable m(axatwn for single household lots. The Engineering Depannznt and the
Deuloprrrnt Review Conmittee were not in support of relaxing all Gf the access dutana s on Qxk Strut b zuse adequate
spacing could be maintained with a slight adjuswient to the plans. Relaxation of ad&tionad street standards uas nquested
in the applicant's subnwal The mmining item, not listae were approzed by the City E ngineer:
ZONING DESIGNATION &LAND USES
The subject property is zoned "R 3," Residential Medium Density District. The intent of the "R 3" district
is to provide for the development of one- to five-household residential structures near service facilities
within the City. It should provide for a variety of housing types to serve the varied needs of households of
different size, age and character, while reducing the adverse effect of nonresidential uses. The following
land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property:
North: Currently vacant but will be developed with duplex to five-plex building configurations on
townhouse lots in Baxter Square Subdivision PUD, zoned "R 3" (Residential Medium
Density District)and single-household residences in the County, zoned "A-S" (Agricultural
Suburban District).
South: Single-household residences in Harvest Creek, zoned "R 1" (Residential Low Density
District)
East: Single Household Residences and agricultural uses, zoned "R 3" (Residential Medium
Density District) and agricultural uses in the County zoned "A S" (Agricultural Suburban
District).
West: Currently vacant but will be developed with single-household residences in Baxter Meadows
Subdivision PUD, zoned"R 3" (Residential Medium Density District) and the Regional Park
on property zoned "PLI" (Public Lands and Institutions).
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 4
the dezxlopment is unknown. The applicant argues that the density of the larger lots resented for apantrent s*
buildings is unknown Staff feels that the density is set forth throughout the subrrattal as a ninlmum of 960 duelling urats
(pg 6-1,pg 6-5,App. E pg3,App.j pg 1 and App. K pg 1). The applicanrt prodded an updated table of parkland
r dadations on A pril 7, 2004. The tables indicate that 24.3 would be wired if based on 810 dwelling units(960 units
- 150 skilled nursing facrlity units). They affrentpropasal is for 19.13 acmes ofparkland inducting 35 feet of the 50 foot
smamand wetland sed-ade. Planning Staff estimates the parkland as fdlowa.•
Lots/Units
Single Household 213
Townhouse 92
Multi-household 12
Lot Size: "R 3" Zoning Regulates Minimum Lot Size at 3,000 s.f./unit
E-MF-1 159,346 53
E-MF-2 81,144 27
E-MF 6 274,112 91
E-MF-7 191,882 64
E-APT-1 206,887 69
S-2 81,709 27
S-3 88,856 30
S-4 162,264 54
S-5 169,772 57
S-6 166,050 55
S-7 162,236 54
S-8 164,343 55
953 Total Units Possible
28.20 Total Acres Required
26.26 Acres with Park Waiver for Wetlands
The Recreation & Parks A dzisory Baird has agreed that 24.3 acres of dedicated parkland would be acxptabk but a
density rap Gf 810 dwelling units would haze to be in place and the dedicated parkland should be exdusiw of the
ze owurrse/zeedand seduck (50 feet from the high water rmrk of the stream or 50 feet from the delimih l edge gr the
uedang vhidxwr is greater).
d) Section 18.16.020.B "Authorized Uses" to allow assisted living/elderly care facilities and apartments
within the "R 3" Residential Medium Density zoning district. Planning Staff and the Derelopnvrt Reu'ew
Crnrmrihm support this relaxation since it is irnplenzn6ng a Growth Policy goal(5.7.1) to p vm-, e an adequate supply of
safe housing that is diverse in type density and 16rati64 with spedal errphasis on maintaining neighborhood character and
stability
e) Section 18.42.030.0 "Double/Through and Reverse Frontage" to allow double frontage lots
adjacent to the arterial and collector streets. Plarrr' Staff and the Deceloprrent Reziew Conwittee conditionally
supports this relaxation if cozenarm indude language requiring the amstrurtion of the homes to indude a false f vet
presented to the exterior streets, no rear yard ferxes perrratte� a sidewizlk onnoction is prodded from each building to the
exterior streets and as lang as the Horne Owv,'s Association is responsible for the maintenance of the exterior street
sidewalks, bakwrds and,trails. Otherwise, the relaxation cannot be supported because it would not comply with 4ectize
8 of goal 4.9.1 Co�rv=74 Design (Yqertiw 8 requires new neighborhoods to be anrtegral parts of the bra%der corrmmty
structure It is extrvrely diff=dt to bean integral part of the,neighborhood when designed to isolate the dews per ent from
the rest of the City
#Z-04050 West Winds CUPRUD Staff Report 3
ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION
The property is designated Residential. The Residential land use designation denotes areas where the
primary activity is urban density living quarters. Medium density areas should have an average minimum
density of twelve units per net acre.
REVIEW CRITERIA&FINDINGS
The City of Bozeman Planning Office has reviewed the application for a Site Plan against relevant chapters
of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and as a result offers the following summary review
comments below. The findings outlined in this report include comments and recommended conditions
provided by the Development Review Committee (DRQ, Design Review Board (DRB), Wetlands Review
Board (WRB),Bicycle Advisory Board (BABAB) and Recreation &Parks Advisory Board (RPAB).
Section 18.34.090 "Site Plan and Master Site Plan Review Criteria"
In considering applications for site plan approval under this title,the City Commission shall consider
the following:
1. Conformance to and consistency with the City's adopted growth policy
The development proposal is in conformance with the "Residential" land use classification
in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. Specific goals related to the Bozeman 2020
Community Plan include the following:
• Goal 4.9.1 Community Design- Create a community composed of neighborhoods
designed for human scale and compatibility in which services and amenities are
convenient, visually pleasing, and properly integrated and designed to encourage
walking, cycling and mass transit use.
Overall the subdivision design is compatible and properly integrated with the existing
neighborhood. The path noted in the watercourse setback/parkland is a
transportation corridor required in the Transportation Plan. The multi-use path
starts at the Bozeman pond, next to the mall, and eventually connects to Valley
Center Road via trail connections through Babcock Meadows, Harvest Creek and
Cattail Creek Subdivisions.
One of the objectives of this goal is to provide for a "mix of housing types, sizes and
styles to encourage a wide variety of housing within each neighborhood." The
proposal is for 213 single-household residential lots, 92 townhouse lots, 5 multi-
household residential lots for apartment buildings and 8 residential lots for Senior
Assisted Living facilities. Although the plan implements a need for a variety of
housing types it does not generally fulfill the need for the mix of types and styles.
The areas for each housing type are well defined by street and block Even the 10%
net acres of Restricted Size Lots are restricted to one corner of the development.
The property owner has suggested in his submittal that the buildings on the external
streets will provide additional character and detail to avoid presenting the backside of
a building. Staff has recommended a condition of approval that would further
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 5
require the covenants and design guidelines to outline the requirements for not only
the building design but also language regarding "rear" fence design and the
placement of sidewalk connections to the arterial streets.
• Goal 4.9.2 Neighborhood Design- New neighborhoods shall be pedestrian
oriented, contain a variety of housing types and densities, contain parks and
other public spaces, and have a commercial center and defined boundaries.
The original light plan submitted for the subdivision lighting did not meet the
minimum standards outlined in the U.D.O. On April 7, 2004 a new light plan was
submitted and appears to meet the lighting criteria for placement distances. The plan
will allow for adequate lighting of the streets and street intersections.
The private community center situated in the middle of the subdivision is proposed
to offer a neighborhood focal point in the subdivision and provide for local identity
and social interaction. The West Winds Neighborhood Center would provide a
place for resident functions and will serve as a proposed site for a future transit stop.
The 2020 Plan states "medium density areas should have an average minimum
density of twelve units per net acre." Using the numbers provided by the applicant
of 103.20 net acres with 960 units (810 dwelling units + 150 units within the skilled
nursing facility) equals 9 units per acre. Staff estimates that an "R 3" Medium
Density District property has a minimum lot size requirement of 3,000 square feet
per dwelling unit. Therefore, the property has a maximum density allowance of 953
dwelling units plus the 150 skilled nursing units equals 1,103 total units. This would
equate to 10 units per acre. However, if the subdivider provided the additional 11.68
acres of parkland, as estimated by the potential density of the subdivision (1,103
units),then the net density would be 12 units per acre.
The PUD proposal has the potential for providing "a wide variety of open lands"
with a park, potential playing fields and natural areas. The landscape plan submitted
depicts landscaping for the boulevards, the park and the open space. The required
watercourse setback plantings are currently noted within proposed soccer fields. The
final landscape plan will need to provide the appropriate locations for the
landscaping dependent on the City Commission's findings in regards to the
requested relaxations.
• Goal 5.7.1 Housing- Promote an adequate supply of safe housing that is diverse
in type, density, and location, with a special emphasis on maintaining
neighborhood character and stability.
A diversity of housing is proposed within 1 to 2 miles of the commercial area on 19`h
Avenue and the future commercial center to the northwest of the property, in Baxter
Meadows. A neighborhood service center is also noted in the 2020 Plan as being
located southwest of the subject property, across Oak Street in Harvest Creek. One
of the principles of a Planned Unit Development is to improve the design, quality
and character of new developments while protecting existing neighborhoods from
incompatible developments.
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 6
• Goal 6.6.4 Natural Environment and Aesthetics- Ensure adequate review of
individual and cumulative environmental and aesthetic effects of development to
preserve the viewsheds, natural fuctions and beauty which are a fundamental
element of Bozeman's character.
Objective 1 requires protection of "important wildlife habitats, and natural areas
which provide for beneficial functions, such as floodplains." The intent of the 50
foot watercourse setback is to protect the natural environment.including the existing
wildlife. The Wetlands Review Board was of the opinion that a lesser setback would
not be adequate to buffer the stream and would not support the existing wildlife.
• Goal 8.14.1 Protect the public health, safety and welfare of Bozeman area
residents, and protect private and public property.
There are approximately 1.94 acres of jurisdiction wetland associated with Cattail
Creek. The property owner's wetland consultant is working on the necessary
permitting for filling the east lateral ditch where all the water from the creek has
historically been diverted to service the agricultural uses. Although the creek is
currently dry, we have been plagued by several tough drought years. The Wetland
Consultant's plan is to redirect the water from the ditch back to the creek and to
direct storm water to the creek in order to reestablish the watercourse and the
wetlands. The stream setback is supposed to be taken from the high water mark of
the stream or 50 feet from any associated wetland. The plans for Phase 1A currently
depicts 4 lots within this setback
The depth of the ground water is also an issue with this property. Boreholes and
monitoring wells were drilled throughout the property as indicated in Figure 1,
Appendix G of the applicant's submittal. Depth to groundwater was measured in
different locations on the property on April 9, 2003, July 1, 2003 and February 4,
2004. The depth to groundwater was between 1.7 feet and 10.4 feet from the
surface. As discussed in the report the fluctuations of groundwater depth are also
due to the season, irrigation and land use. Staff has recommended a condition of
approval with the subdivision plat requiring a plat note identifying the possible
restrictions for basements. The Building Department has indicated that a soils
report for each lot will be required to identify the soil restrictions and basement
allowance for each building permit. It is also possible for the applicant to provide a
geotechnical report for each phase utilizing the worst case scenario lot as the general
guideline.
• Goal 8.14.2 Identify, protect and enhance natural resources within the planning
area and important ecological functions these resources provide.
Objective 1 states "retain and enhance the benefits wetlands provide such as
groundwater and stream recharge, fish and wildlife habitat, flood control, sediment
control, erosion control and water quality." There is a 0.07 acre isolated wetland
located in the middle of the proposed senior living area. The Corps did take
jurisdiction over the isolated wetland but did take jurisdiction over the creek and its
associated wetlands. The Wetlands Review Board was created to review the isolated
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 7
• • 1
wetlands that generally fall through the cracks. Based on this the Board reviewed the
wetland mitigation plan and subsequently recommended the vegetation in the
isolated wetland be moved to the jurisdictional wetland.
Objective 3 states "protect riparian corridors to provide wildlife habitat and
movement areas, and to buffer water bodies." The Wetland Review Board did not
support the watercourse setback relaxation for the creek and jurisdictional wetlands
because of the resulting loss of habitat.
• Goal 8.14.3 Ensure good environmental quality of water resources, air, and soils
within the planning area.
Objective 2 states "protect, restore and enhance riparian corridors to protect the
chemical, biological and physical quality of water resources." The purpose of the
stream setback is to protect water quality by filtering pollutants from storm water,
provide flood control, minimize stream bank erosion, mitigate stream warming,
provide room for lateral movement of the stream channel and protect wildlife
habitat. The City's responsibilities for storm water quality control have been
substantially increased by recent federal and state actions. We must now obtain
permits for storm water discharges and the City can be fined if we do not meet the
terms of our permit. The TMDL's currently being developed for our discharging
waters may conceivably(but not known for certain at this time) cap total discharges
of pollutants which could negatively affect our ability to expand the wastewater plant
if all the pollutant loads are being contributed by storm water discharges. The City is
currently expending over $200,000 in the development of a storm water master plan
to help us address the new responsibilities. These obligations and expenses will be
on-going. The City's efforts in developing the watercourse setbacks were directly
influenced by those new storm water responsibilities.
• Goal 9.9 Parks & Recreation- Provide for accessible, desirable and maintained
public parks, active and passive open spaces, trails systems and recreational
facilities for residents of the community.
Section 9.1.6 "Parkland Acquisition" in the 2020 Plan states that "parkland
dedication in subdivisions should only be accepted when the land is well located, is
needed for the overall park and recreation program and is physically suited for park
and recreation use." The text further states "an important factor to consider when
approving parkland dedication is the lack of usable active recreation park areas."
The Recreation & Parks Advisory Board and the Parks Department do not agree
that the parkland as depicted is an active recreational space. There is landscaping
noted in what is supposed to be soccer fields. Instead, watercourse setbacks are
supposed to be planted with native species not turf grass.
The park is also designed with the existing sewer main running through the middle
of the park from north to south with a manhole located on the edge of one of the
soccer fields. This could potentially impact the usability of the area.
The 2020 Plan sets the minimum requirements for parkland as provided by the
National Recreation and Park Association. The state of Montana defines the
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 8
maximum parkland dedication allowable at 0.03 acres per unit. City regulations are
more specific than the state's regulations. The Unified Development Ordinance
requires 0.03 acres of parkland per dwelling unit unless the density of the lots is
unknown. Planning Staff, Parks Department, Recreation &Parks Advisory Board,
Development Review Committee and the Design Review Board all agreed that the
density of the project has been established in the submittal. This is consistent with
the City's review of all other subdivisions. It would not be fair and equitable for the
City to allow the reduction of parkland to one developer when it has been
consistently required of other property owners under similar circumstances.
• Goal 10.8.3 Encourage transportation options that reduce resource consumption,
increase social interactions, support safe neighborhoods and increase the ability
of the existing transportation facilities to accommodate a growing city.
The incorporation of the multi-use path running north to south through the
property, a bike lane along Tschache Lane and the installation of Transit stops meets
this requirement.
• Goal 10.8.4 Pathways- Establish and maintain an integrated system of
transportation and recreational pathways, including bicycle and pedestrian trails,
neighborhood parks, green belts and open space.
The north to south trail in the park is part of a transportation network from Main
Street to Valley Center Road. The 2020 Plan also notes an east to west trail that
would run through the middle of the subject property. The trail connection is
currently noted on the plans as a bike lane along Tschache Lane. The Parks
Department has requested that the trail connection be installed to connect Rose Park
with the Regional Park. In order to meet this condition the bike lane on Tschache
Lane could be directed through the West Winds park and connect to Winter Park
Street that would align with the location of the Regional Park. Adequate signage
would be needed to guide people through the West Winds park
Additionally the BABAB recommends that both a bike lane and bike path be
constructed on Oak Street. Oak Street is being constructed to cant'between 10,000
and 35,000 vehicles per day. The Board feels it is safer to provide a buffered path on
arterial streets. Given the option the Board would rather have the path than the bike
lane but the preference in this instance is for both.
2. Conformance to this title, including the cessation of any current violations
• The bollard lights that are required at the intersection of pathways with streets must
meet the City's specifications.
• A watercourse setback planting plan shall be prepared by a qualified landscape
professional and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to
the commencement of development or site preparation. The plan shall include a
schedule for planting and landscaping as outlined for Zone 1 and Zone 2 outlined in
18.42.100.
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 9
• A proportionate amount of parkland, open space and restricted size lots, to meet the
general standards and the PUD regulations, shall be noted with each Final Plat and Final
Plan.
• Plans and Specifications for the trail will need to be reviewed by the Parks Department
prior to construction.
• Baxter Lane (from Fowler Avenue to N. 27`h Avenue) should include a Bike Lane in
accordance with the Bike Route Network (Figure 6-4) in the Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan,which calls for a Bike Lane for the entire extent of Baxter Lane.
• Davis/Fowler Lane (from Baxter Lane to Oak Street) should include a Bike Lane in
accordance with the Bike Route Network (Figure 6-4) in the Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan,which calls for a Bike Lane for the entire extent of Davis Lane.
• North 27`h Avenue (from Baxter Lane to Oak Street) should include a Bike Lane to
provide connectivity to other planned Bicycle Facilities in the area. The Board feels that
this connection will be a vital alternative to travel on 19`j' once it is completed.
• The Board also recommends that the proposed park land include a ten foot Bike Path
(shared-use path). The Path will be an extension of an existing trail to the south and will
provide a vital connection to the trial system. The Board suggests the construction
material be consistent with what the development wants (i.e., paved OR dirt) in order to
be consistent with the surrounding park land.
• The subdivider shall be responsible for installing sod, boulevard trees and an irrigation
system in the public right-of-way boulevard strips along all external subdivision streets
and adjacent to subdivision parks or other open space areas.
• A trail shall be constructed connecting both North and South ends of the subdivision via
the streambed and through the Park.
• All park and trail design and construction shall be approved by the City Parks Division
and shall meet City standards.
• All trail corridors are to be 25 feet in width, as stated in the Bozeman Unified
Development Ordinance, chapter 18.50, section 18.50.070. All Park and Trail plans and
construction shall be approved by the City Parks Division.
• Each lot shall meet the minimum lot area standards, including the multi-household lots,
for an "R 3" zoned lot unless an alternative zoning designation is approved through a
Zone Map Amendment.
• Construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Home Owners Association
Architectural Committee prior to submitting a site plan application or a building permit
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 10
application,whichever comes first. The plans shall include a stamp of approval from the
Architectural Committee prior to City review. This language shall be incorporated into
the Covenants for the subdivision.
• A Comprehensive Sign Plan for the entire subdivision shall be provided with the final
site plan. There should be a general theme to the style of signs pemritted within the
PUD and shall include information regarding the materials, colors and illumination.
• Storm water ponds shall not exceed 1/3 of the area of the front yard setback adjacent to
the external streets.
• Storm water cannot be discharged into an active ditch. Storm water discharged into a
stream requires the necessary permitting.
• If Concurrent Construction is requested with other phases of the subdivision then it
must be explicitly requested in the narrative submitted with the Preliminary Plat
application.
• The Improvements Agreement with a financial guarantee, the Hold Harmless and the
Conditional Use Permit shall be signed, notarized and recorded with the Clerk &
Recorder's Office prior to installation of required infrastructure.
• Proposed phasing shall be depicted on the final plan. The full extent of all proposed
infrastructure improvements required for each phase shall also be clearly indicated on
the final plan submittal. No building permits shall be issued prior to substantial
completion and City acceptance of the required infrastructure improvements unless
otherwise allowed by specific approval of the City Commission under the provisions of
Chapters 18.36 and 18.74 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance.Phases shall
be numbered in the order in which they are to be built.
• A Stormwater Master Plan for the PUD for a system designed to remove solids, silt, oils,
grease, and other pollutants from the runoff from the private and public streets and all
lots has been provided to the City Engineer. The applicant is advised that although the
general storm drainage and grading concept has been reviewed, the submitted data will
be subject to further review as part of the infrastructure plan and specification review
process.
• The maximum water depth and basin depth shown in the Storm water report does not
meet the City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy and will need to .
be modified. Detailed review of the final grading and drainage plan and approval by the
City Engineer will be required as part of the infrastructure plan and specification review
process for each phase.
• While the runoff from the individual lots will be dependent on the intensity of use on
each lot, the maximum sizing of the storm water retention facilities for each lot will be
established based on maximum site development. Final facility sizing may be reviewed
and reduced during design review of the final site plan for each lot and/or phase.
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 11
• The applicant shall obtain and provide evidence of permission from the appropriate
ditch companies to discharge storm runoff into the ditches, and for any relocation or
abandonment of the ditches.
• In locations where Baxter Lane and Fowler Avenue (aka Davis Lane) are being
improved, the various irrigation ditches and/or streams shall be either relocated outside
the right-of-way,accommodated in an approved center median, or placed in a pipe.
• A comprehensive utilities design report for water and sewer main extensions, prepared
and signed by a Professional Engineer (PE) registered in the State of Montana has been
provided to the City Engineer. The applicant is advised that although the general utilities
design concept has been reviewed,the submitted data will be subject to further review as
part of the infrastructure plan and specification review process for each phase.
• At a number of locations, the manhole spacing shown exceeds the maximum manhole
spacing, per the City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy. The
manhole barrel size is 60" for a 20" sanitary sewer pipe,per the City of Bozeman Design
Standards and Specifications Policy. Use of the 10" main to allow a flatter slope does
not meet DEQ requirements and the City of Bozeman Design Standards and
Specifications Policy.
• All water main extensions of more than 500 feet required for any phase of the
development shall be fully looped. Water and sewer mains shall be extended to the
property lines to adequately accommodate future extensions and/or looping.
• Plans and Specifications for water and sewer main extensions for each proposed phase,
prepared and signed by a Professional Engineer (PE) registered in the State of Montana
shall be provided to and approved by the City Engineer. Sewer and Water plans shall also
be approved by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. The applicant shall
also provide Professional Engineering services for Construction Inspection, Post-
Construction Certification, and preparation of mylar Record Drawings. Construction
shall not be initiated on the public infrastructure improvements until the plans and
specifications have been approved and a preconstruction conference has been conducted.
No building permits shall be issued prior to substantial completion and City acceptance of
the required infrastructure improvements unless otherwise allowed by specific approval of
the City Commission under the provisions of Chapters 18.36 and 18.74 of the Bozeman
Unified Development Ordinance.
• All typical street sections, including sidewalk location within the right-of-way and
provisions for bicyclists shall be in conformance with the street standards recommended
in the Greater BozemanA7w TransportationRar; 2001 Update,unless otherwise approved by
the City Commission, or by the City Engineer through the plan and specification review
and approval process. While the typical sections and calming strategies included in this
submittal provide an acceptable general framework for the development, detailed review
and approval of street, sidewalk and associated storm drainage infrastructure will be part
of the plan and specification review process for each phase.
• Plans and Specifications for streets and storm drainage facilities for each phase, prepared
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 12
and signed by a Professional Engineer (PE) registered in the State of Montana shall be
provided to and approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall also provide
Professional Engineering services for Construction Inspection, Post-Construction
Certification, and preparation of mylar Record Drawings. Construction shall not be
initiated on the public infrastructure improvements until the plans and specifications
have been approved and a preconstruction conference has been conducted. No building
permits shall be issued prior to substantial completion and City acceptance of the
required infrastructure improvements unless otherwise allowed by specific approval of
the City Commission under the provisions of Chapters 18.36 and 18.74 of the Bozeman
Unified Development Ordinance.
• All street names shall be reviewed and approved by the Gallatin County Road Office and
CityEngineering Office.
• The following locations shall be modified to meet the access standards in Section
090.D.3 of Chapter 18.44 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance: a. On
Oak Street, the separation between Windward Avenue and Hunter's Way meets the
criteria for partial access but does not provide the 660' minimum for full access; b. The
following locations provide less than the 150' minimum for an access from an
intersection with an arterial: (1) residential lots that front on Buckrake Avenue and
Hunter's Way near Baxter Lane and Oak Street; (2) the location of Cobblestone Court
from Oak Street; (3) the location of Spring View Court from Fowler Avenue (aka Davis
Lane); and (4) a proposed access on east side of Buckrake Avenue from Baxter Lane; c.
On Fowler Avenue (aka Davis Lane), the separation between the streets meets the
criteria for partial access but does not provide the 660' minimum for full access. On
Baxter Lane, the separation between Windward Avenue and Hunter's Way meets the
criteria for partial access but does not provide the 660' tniriimum for full access. The
Traffic Impact Study shall address the left turn movement onto the subdivision streets
from Fowler Avenue (aka Davis Lane) and Baxter Lane.
• Detailed review and approval of the concurrent construction plans will be part of the
infrastructure plan and specification review process for each phase.Building permits may
not be issued until each plan is approved.
• The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, SCS, Montana Department of
Environmental Quality and Army Corps of Engineer's shall be contacted regarding the
proposed project and any required permits (i.e., 310,404, Turbidity exemption, etc.) shall
be obtained.
• Building Permits will be issued incrementally dependent upon the status of installation of
infrastructure improvements.
• The right to a conditional use permit shall be contingent upon the fulfillment of all
general and special conditions imposed by the Conditional Use Permit procedure. All
special conditions and code provisions shall constitute restrictions running with the land,
shall be binding upon the owner of the land,his successors or assigns,shall be consented
to in writing by the applicant prior to commencement of the use and shall be recorded as
such with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder's Office by the property owner prior
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 13
to the final site plan approval or commencement of the use. All of the conditions and
code provisions specifically stated under any conditional use listed in this title shall apply
and be adhered to by the owner of the land, successor or assigns.
• The applicant must submit seven (7) copies a Final Site Plan within one year of
preliminary approval containing all of the conditions, corrections and modifications to
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Office.
• A Building Permit must be obtained prior to the work, and must be obtained within one
year of Final Site Plan approval. Building Permits will not be issued until the Final Site
Plan is approved. Minor site surface preparation and normal maintenance shall be
allowed prior to submittal and approval of the Final Site Plan, including excavation and
footing preparation, but NO CONCRETE MAY BE POURED UNTIL A
BUILDING PERMIT IS OBTAINED.
The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not
specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other
relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. The
following code provisions must be addressed prior to Final Site Plan approval:
3. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations
The applicant is required to provide copies of all applicable permits, in regards to storm
water,wetlands and stream requirements,with the Final Plat submittal.
4. Relationship of site plan elements to conditions both on and off the property
Construction of the trail corridor along Cattail Creek will be continued through the subject
property. The Design Review Board noted the lack of rhythm of the subdivision with regard
to the lot layout, especially the lots backing up to the stream corridor. The lots on the east
side of Hunters Way lack harnnony with the grid pattern on the west side of the street. The
Board recommended that some of the lots be removed along Hunter's Way and additional
open space corridors.added to better integrate the lots with the adjacent grid pattern.
During the initial review of the Concept Plan the Planning Staff had commented on the
need for buildings to be oriented to face the external arterial and collector streets.
Unfortunately, access will not be permitted on the external streets. The developer has
proposed an agreeable alternative. The affected buildings will have additional architectural
requirements to essentially provide a building with two fronts. Page 3-4 of the applicant's
submittal proposes to incorporate small porches and meandering concrete sidewalks to
connect to the boulevard sidewalk The section further states that no rear fences will be
permitted on these lots. For the sake of functionality Planning Staff recommends that the
possibility of a 4 foot fence remain an option. Instead we would prefer to see a coordinated
fence detail or theme for the subdivision. The recommended condition of approval would
require the covenants and the design guidelines to reflect the building design and fencing
issue.
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 14
The development of the subject property will also provide the extension of 27`h Avenue,
Oak Street and eventually Davis Lane. Buckrake Avenue and Hunters Way will be extended
from Harvest Creek Subdivision and Tschache Lane will eventually connect to 19`h Avenue.
5. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking
conditions
The applicant's traffic study projects 5,454 average daily trip ends with the full build out of
the subdivision. Intersections must be designed to provide a Level of Service of at least a C
but in no case shall a Level of Service D be accepted. Table 4, page 30 of the traffic study
indicates an acceptable Level of Service before development and at full build out for the 19`h
Avenue and Tschache Lane. and the 19`h Avenue and Baxter Lane intersections. The study
indicates a current Level of Service E at the intersection of Durston Road and 19`h Avenue.
The Engineering Department will require additional information prior to commencement of
Phase 1.
No access will be allowed from individual lots onto the external streets. Building permits
will be reviewed for parking compliance for single-household to four-plex .buildings.
Parking will be evaluated for buildings providing more than four units and lots that develop
with more than one building per lot during site plan review.
6. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress
The submittal provides details for the street sections in Appendix I. Typical street and
sidewalk details will need to be provided with the Final Site Plan. The street sections
provided in the submittal do not match city standards.
A bike path is required on the north side of Oak Street as an extension of the existing multi-
use path system along the east portions of Oak Street. The Board would prefer a bike land
and a bike path on Oak Street. Bike lanes are required on 276 Avenue, Baxter Lane and
Davis Lane. Tschache Lane is a local street that will be extended through the middle of the
subdivision and is noted in the submittal as a 40 foot local street within 65 feet of right of
way. The detail suggests a 5 foot wide bike lane. In addition, the Bicycle Advisory Board
has recommended a condition of approval requiring Hunters Way to be signed as a bike
route.
The trail within the stream corridor will provide an alternative means of access to the
subdivision. The trail will need to be constructed to a Class II standard.
7. Landscaping, including the enhancement of buildings, the appearance of vehicular
use, open space, and pedestrian areas, and the preservation or replacement of natural
vegetation
The subdivider is responsible for installing irrigation and street trees in the boulevards of the
external streets. The landscape plan indicates a variety of trees being used like Green Ash,
Bur Oak and American Elm.
The watercourse setback must be landscaped per Section 18.42.100. Typically the
watercourse setback would be planted as follows:
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 15
Zone 1:
• 0-9 feet from high water mark with native riparian sedges,forbs and grasses
• 9-30 feet from high water mark with native trees spaced 25 to 35 feet apart and
shrubs 5 to 15 feet apart
Zone 2:
• 30-50 feet from high water mark with new or existing native grasses
Comparatively, a 15 foot watercourse setback would provide plantings as follows:
Zone 1:
• 0-2.7 feet from high water mark with native riparian sedges,forbs and grasses
• 2.7-9 feet from high watermark with native trees spaced 25 to 35 feet apart and
shrubs 5 to 15 feet apart
Zone 2:
• 9-15 feet from high water mark with new or existing native grasses
The applicant did not request a relaxation from the watercourse planting requirements. The
landscaping plan does not currently meet the watercourse setback planting standards.
Despite the width of the setback it will need to be planted as outlined.
The landscape plan also depicts numerous tree and shrub plantings within the designated
soccer field area. The Park Plan will need to include a landscape plan. The plan should
indicate the area free of trees and shrubs if it is in fact Master Planned with soccer fields.
8. Open space
The West Winds plan notes a buffer area around the entire subdivision to buffer the homes
from the arterial and collector streets. The buffer areas are anywhere from 20 to 100 feet in
width.
The watercourse setback is generally identified as open space and utilized to meet the open
space requirements of the Planned Unit Development. The watercourse setback is not
generally permitted to count towards the parkland dedication for the reasons discussed at the
beginning of the staff report. Instead the developer has requested that the watercourse
setback width be relaxed as well as counted towards the parkland dedication requirements.
9. Building location and height
Maximum building height in the "R 3" zoning district:
• 32 feet for a roof pitch less than 3:12
• 38 feet for a roof pitch between 3:12 and 6:12
• 40 feet for a roof pitch between 6:12 and 9:12
• 42 feet for a roof pitch greater than 9:12
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 16
10. Setbacks
Minimum yard setbacks in the "R 3" zoning district:
• 15 or 20 foot front yard setback (20 feet for the garage and 15 feet for the remainder
of the house)
• 20 foot rear yard
• 5 foot side yard
The 50 foot watercourse setback is measured from the edge of the high water mark of the
stream or the edge of the associated wetland or whichever is greater. Planning Staff affirms
that the four lots adjacent to the watercourse in Phase 1A are within the 50 foot setback of
the wetlands. The Unified Development Ordinance does not prohibit lots within the
setback but it does prohibit structures within the watercourse setback. This is the reason
Planning Staff does not support lots platted within the setback. It only leads to future
conflicts with home owners and enforcement problems when people want to build fences or
detached storage buildings on their property. Allowing lots to be platted within the
watercourse setback essentially puts the burden on the home owner rather than the
developer.
11. Lighting
The original street lighting plan did not meet the standards outlined in Section 18.42.150.
Based on Staff comments the plan was revised and submitted on April 8, 2004.
The submittal depicts standard site lighting for the street intersections. This type of light is
permissible as a street light. However, a bollard style light is more appropriate for pathway
intersections. Plarnling Staff would like to see a standardized bollard for the City's trail
system preferably something that would be identifiable anywhere on the City's trail system.
The bollard light detail will be provided to the applicant once the specifications have been
agreed to by the City.
12. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities
There is an existing sewer main that runs north to south through the property. The park has
been designed over the main with a manhole noted within the dedicated parkland. The
Water&Sewer Department will allow the manhole to be constructed within the park as long
as permanent access is constructed to the manhole. This will require an access to be
installed from Buckrake Avenue and for a 10 foot natural fines path to be installed to the far
edge of the manhole. The Parks Department is agreeable to the manhole remaining within
the park as long as it does not interfere with the location of the soccer fields.
There is an existing 10" and 12" water main and a 20" sewer main in Oak Street, 24" sewer
main in Baxter Lane, 10" water main in 27`h Avenue and a 12" water main in Davis Lane.
All of these utilities will be extended from the current locations to service the subdivision.
The Water Plan is depicted in Figure 6.1 and the Sewer Plan in Figure 6.2 of the applicant's
submittal.
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 17
13. Site surface drainage
Figure 6.3 of the applicant's submittal identifies the location of the storm water ponds and
catch basins for the subdivision. The ponds noted within the park cannot be calculated to
meet the parkland dedication requirements.
The Unified Development Ordinance limits storm water facilities to less than 1/3 of the area
of the required front yard. The ponds are a utility function that detracts from the
streetscape. Aspen Meadows on Oak Street and Ferguson Meadows on Durston Road are
good examples of how storm water ponds detract from the overall aesthetics of the
subdivision. This project is being reviewed as a Planned Unit Development and is supposed
provide a project that exceeds the City's standards. The Planning Staff recommends
that not more than 1/3 of the yard area adjacent to the external streets be used for storm
water ponds. The ponds should also be designed with a more organic shape. The. ponds
should be incorporated as a design feature with the appropriate vegetation.
Per the U.D.O., storm water cannot be discharged into an active irrigation facility.
However, a watercourse setback, aside from the numerous benefits previously outlined, is
intended for nutrient and pollution removal from storm water runoff. The pollutants are
supposed to be filtered from the aqueous solution as it passes through the soil profile. An
inadequate setback will lead to major impacts to the City's ability to regulate storm water
quality. This also has potential implications on the cost borne by the City to provide
adequate storm water facilities in order to comply with new storm water quality regulations.
14. Loading and unloading areas
Not applicable.
15. Grading
The applicant's response indicates that the site is relatively flat with a consistent slope of
1.2% to the North. The ditch and the creek provide the only variation in grade. As a result
only typical grading associated with infrastructure installation will be necessary with two
exceptions. One, the 0.07 acre isolated wetland located in the senior living area will be filled.
Two,the east lateral,which has been reclassified from a stream to a ditch,will be filled.
16. Signage
The applicant's submittal refers to subdivision signage but no details were provided. A
Comprehensive Sign Plan that identifies size, lighting, materials and colors must be
submitted with the Final Site Plan. Once the signs have been reviewed and approved then
the subdivider may apply for a sign permit.
17. Screening
Screening is generally recommended between uses of different character or residential uses
with different densities. No screening has been recommended with the Planned Unit
Development. Planning Staff will evaluate the need for screening during site plan review for
the larger building complexes.
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 18
18. Overlay district provisions
Not applicable
19. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties
A letter from Linda Stansbury, 710 Hunters Way was submitted on May 4, 2004. She is
concerned with the possible cut-through traffic that will occur on Hunters Way. Ms.
Stansbury suggests offsetting the road at the Oak Street intersection.
Offset of the road is not an option because the offset distances of all of the connecting
streets would be impacted. The condition of approval requires the applicant to look into
traffic calming devices that can be incorporated into the road design. These details will be
reviewed during the appropriate subdivision phase.
20. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation or
other means of addressing requirement of this title, whether the lots are either.
a. Configured so that the sale of individual lots will not alter the approved
configuration or use of the property or cause the development to become
nonconforming;
b. The subject of reciprocal and perpetual easements or other agreements to which
the City is a party so that the sale of individual lots will not cause one or more
elements of the development to become nonconforming.
Not applicable.
Section 18 34 100 "City Commission Consideration and Findings for Conditional Use
Permits"
In addition to the review criteria outlined above,the City Commission shall,in approving a
conditional use permit,find favorably as follows:
1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and topography to accommodate
such use, and all yards, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading and landscaping are
adequate to properly relate such use with the land and uses in the vicinity.
The subject property is 161.30 gross acres. After netting out 12.53 acres for the perimeter roads
and 30.34 acres for the internal road configuration there is 118.43 acres still remaining. Based
on the density provided in all of the reports and the potential densities obtainable in the "R 3"
Medium Density zoning district staff has calculated a parkland requirement of 26.26 acres
(compared to 31.08 acres required by Planning Staff during Pre-Application review in October
2003).
An average 5,000 square foot single-household residence has a minimum of 2,200 square feet of
yard area (open space) per unit. Apartment buildings are required to provide 150 square feet of
open space per dwelling unit with the assumption that adequate parkland was dedicated with the
subdivision that created the residential lot in the first place. Given this example, an average
apartment dwelling would have less than 7% of the yard space. Yet, based on the applicant's
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 19
•
argument for the 11% dedication factor this same apartment dwelling would only generate the
requirement for 0.008 acres of parkland versus 0.030 acres for every single household residence.
The property owner argues that the open space and parkland requirements are cost prohibitive.
Open space and parkland are amenities that are coveted by most home owners. Besides,
parkland should never be an afterthought or the undevelopable leftovers.
2. That the proposed use will have no material adverse effect upon the abutting property.
Persons objecting to the recommendations of review bodies carry the burden of proof.
Within the "R 3" Medium Density District single-household to four-plex buildings and five unit
townhouse (side by side) buildings are a permitted use. Apartments and senior assisted
living/elderly care facilities are a conditional use in the zoning district. The Unified
Development Ordinance defines apartment buildings as having five or more dwelling units in a
top and bottom configuration. Allowing apartment buildings does not change the density of the
district. Each lot shall be required to provide a minimum of 3,000 square feet of area for each
proposed multi-household unit.
3. That any additional conditions stated in the approval are deemed necessary to protect
the public health, safety and general welfare. Such conditions may include, but are not
limited to:
a. Regulation of use Staff has recommended a condition of approval to require all lots to be
platted outside of the watercourse and wetland setback to protect private property.
b. Special yards, spaces and buffers No special yards are required. However,Planning Staff,the
Development Review Committee, the Design Review Board, the Wetlands Review Board
and the Recreation & Parks Advisory Board do not support the relaxation to the
watercourse setback and the allowance to double count the required watercourse setback to
meet the dedicated parkland requirements.
c. Special fences, solid fences and walls The developer has suggested no fences for the lots that
back onto 27`h Avenue, Oak Street, Davis Lane and Baxter Lane. Planning Staff feels the
allowance for a 4 foot fence should be incorporated into the covenants.
d. Surfacing of parking areas A soccer park generates a significant parking requirement. The
developer will provide the necessary parking for the Neighborhood Center. The preliminary
plan depicts an excess of parking which can be used for the park use. However,the parking
will need to be evaluated further during site plan review. Planning Staff recommends a
condition of approval to remove some of the lots backing up to the park in order to provide
adequate parking in front of the park rather than in front of the residences.
e. Requiring street service road or alley dedications and improvements or appropriate
Bonds All public streets will be dedicated and improved with the appropriate phase. If
concurrent construction is approved by the City Commission then the infrastructure must be
financially guaranteed according to the provisions outlined in the Unified Development
Ordinance.
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 20
f. Regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress A "No Access" easement has been
recommended on all four external streets of the subdivision in order to maintain the access
separation distances for arterial and collector streets.
g. Regulation of signs One low profile sign per development entrance is allowed. Each sign
shall not exceed 16 square feet in area or 5 feet in height. A Comprehensive Sign Plan must
be submitted with the Final Site Plan that depicts a coordinated sign theme for all of the
signs in the subdivision and shall include details describing materials, color, illumination and
size.
h. Requiring maintenance of the grounds The standard recommendation from the Parks
Department is the requirement for the Home Owners Association to be responsible for
maintenance of the park until such time an SID is created for a City-wide Parks Maintenance
District. Furthermore, the Home Owners Association will be required to maintain the open
space, including the watercourse setback, in perpetuity. These requirements must be
identified in the covenants for the subdivision.
i. Regulation of noise, vibrations and odors Bozeman Municipal Code requires property
owners to keep trash in an appropriate receptacle. This includes construction debris.
J. Regulation of hours for certain activities Regulation of construction noise shall be consistent
with Bozeman Municipal Code.
k. Time period within which the proposed use shall be developed The applicant must submit
the Final Site Plan within 1 year of City Commission approval and the Final Plat within 3
years of approval. Certain items must be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of
building permits in order to comply with the concurrent construction ordinance.
1. Duration of use Affordable housing units constructed to meet the PUD points must be
under a 20 year minimum contractual obligation. The Restricted Size Lots have a sunset
clause of 5 years from the adoption of the UDO unless amended by the City Commission.
m. Requiring the dedication of access rights Right of way easements for Oak Street, 27`h
Avenue, Davis Lane and Baxter Lane were provided with the annexation. The rights of way
must be dedicated with the subdivision. All public streets including the local streets will be
dedicated.
n. Other such conditions as will make possible the development of the Ci , in an
orderly and efficient manner The Design Review Board has recommended a condition of
approval requiring review and approval of the Final Site Plan submittal. The Board wants to
ensure that the intent of the Planned Unit Development process is upheld.
Section 18.36.090 "Planned Unit Development Design Objectives and Criteria"
In addition to the review criteria outlined for site plan and conditional use permit review, the City
Commission shall,in approving a planned unite development,find favorably as follows:
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 21
a. All Development All land uses within a proposed planned unit development shall be
reviewed against, and comply with, the applicable objectives and criteria of the
mandatory"All Development" group.
1. Does the development comply with all City design standards, requirements and
specifications for the following services: water supply, trails/walks/bike ways,
sanitary supply, irrigation companies, fire protection, electricity, flood hazard areas,
natural gas, telephone, storm drainage, cable television, and streets?
The subdivision complies with the standards for water supply, trails and bike ways, sanitary
supply, irrigation, fire protection, electricity, flood hazard, natural gas, telephone and cable
television.
Planning Staff does not feel that storm drainage and street standards have been adequately
addressed. Storm drainage quality will remain an issue unless the watercourse and wetland
setbacks are met.
The street standards submitted do not meet the standards identified in the Transportation
Plan. The standards will need to be redrawn for the Final Site Plan. Plans &Specifications
will must be reviewed and approved for Phase 1 prior to installation.
The 2020 Plan and the Transportation Plan call for a boulevard trail on Oak Street. The
standard 10 foot wide trail should be provided. If approved, the asphalt trail would
eventually connect to the asphalt trail on 19`h Avenue. Otherwise, if a typical sidewalk is
constructed on Oak Street then there will be a mismatch of paving at the 19`h Avenue and
Oak Street intersection. The BABAB feels paving must be consistent to provide safe,
identifiable public transportation systems.
2. Does the project preserve or replace existing natural vegetation?
The applicant proposes to fill the 0.07 acre isolated wetland. The Wetlands Review Board
recommends that the existing vegetation be planted within the watercourse setback as
reasonably feasible. The Wetlands Review Board acknowledged that some of the existing
vegetation may not be in the best condition.
3. Are the elements of the site plan (e.g., buildings, circulation, open space and
landscaping, etc.) designed and arranged to produce an efficient, functionally
organized and cohesive planned unit development
The landscaping, as depicted, is not functional in a soccer park. The Landscape Plan will
need to be revised and resubmitted with the Final Site Plan for review and approval by the
Design Review Board.
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 22
4. Does the design and arrangement of elements of the site plan (e.g. building
construction, orientation, and placement; transportation networks; selection and
placement of landscape materials; and/or use of renewable energy sources; etc.)
contribute to the overall reduction of energy use by the project?
The development incorporates trails and multi-use paths as an alternative means of
transportation. Both trails proposed are designated transportation corridors in the
Transportation Plan and the 2020 Plan. The north to south and east to west trails connect
the park systems as well as connect the residential areas to the centers of employment (Oak
Street/19`h Avenue and Valley Center/ 19`h Avenue). The incorporation of a transit stop at
the community center may help reduce energy use once a mass transit system is provided in
the City.
5. Are the elements of the site plan (e.g. buildings, circulation, open space and
landscaping, etc.) designed and arranged to maximize the privacy by the residents of
the project?
Planning Staff does not agree that allowing lots to back onto the park is ideal for privacy of
the residents. The West Winds park is supposed to serve as a public park for a large
neighborhood and potentially outside of the neighborhood too. The U.D.O only requires
50% of the park perimeter to be adjacent to public rights of way. However, Planning Staff,
the Parks Department and the Recreation & Parks Advisory Board advocate more street
frontage in order to provide adequate park access but also to eliminate the creeping of
private property into the public park.
6. Park Land. Does the design and arrangement of buildings and open space areas
contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of the site configuration, and has the area
of park land or open space been provided for each proposed dwelling as required by
'18.50.020, BMC?
I .nk>:'Z57'L^f:ZT.GPn3T`l.�-Pit?F'S' - i su
On October 1, 2003 the Concept Plan for the Planned :. N3 t � J 5
Unit Development was submitted for 1,036 units fP J'�
(Table 2,Page 8 of the Concept Plan Submittal). Staff
indicated in a memo, provided to the applicant and F f h! t
property owner on October 14, 2003, that based on i i'� p,, 'rr.
the densities suggested and the "R 3" zoning that
31.08 acres of parkland would be required. The
J
P q
memo further stated that 44.69 acres (30% of the f I� .�� `'` �` ...
gross) would be required as open space to meet thee,
PUD criteria. Staff also stated that the 50-foot stream
setback could not be calculated as parkland but that
ram,
the wetlands could be calculated towards e parkland
,
requirement if approved by the City Commission. It -�
was then suggested in that cash-in-lieu of parkland
may be supportable given the proximity to Rose Park and the Regional Park. Nowhere in
the memo is it contemplated that an 11% factor could be used to calculate the parkland.
The original proposal has multiple pocket parks which the Board suggested aggregating into
one park. On November 24, 2003 the City Commission indicated support of Staff's
comments. At the time, the Recreation &Parks Advisory Board felt the park required a full
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 23
redesign and were therefore reluctant to comment on the proposed design other than to
point out its inadequacies.
Then on January 20, 2004 the revised plans were submitted to address the numerous
concerns with the first plan. Staff reiterated that all of the City's maps indicated there was
two forks of a watercourse on the property and both would be required to have a 50 foot
setback unless the Conservation District reclassified the streams as ditches. Again, it was
stated that the watercourse setback could not be counted towards the parkland requirement.
Once again, the plans depicted parkland at a rate of 0.03 acres for the single-household and
., ; r ,r ►�ET i��-�'-'°�' townhouse lots but 11% for the multi-family lots. Staff
O
1.r:A, __+,,�, �r, �--•- .- _;,�`.._..�_,_. told the applicant that the 11 /o factor would only be
used if the densities of the lots were unknown but that
r
the densities were known for these lots. The applicant
f^_,-pj and the property owner scheduled a follow-up meeting
with the Recreation & Parks Advisory Board,
tH ,-;�, �, � i(��i==�*= unbeknownst to the Planning Department.
��., t•:, �.:.. ,, Unfortunately, at this meeting there were only two of the
Board Members present and they later indicated that the
- �� it t 1{ �' did not feel that the applicant gave an accurate depiction
`. i PP g P
of the parkland requirements. They were also told by the
I�i III:•. ,-�:•�• ,:_!�
applicant that the stream was a ditch and that no
watercourse setback was required. This was completely
q P Y
wjil..,� - �'� -�!� contrary to the information provided by Planning Staff.
a.,.
,yv `j �d`�lt' +,ks �1 !
The Preliminary Plan was submitted on March 5, 2004 11 XI
with almost the same exact design as the previous w �'
a +, +
submittal. At the initial DRC meeting Planning Staff
questioned the parkland allocation and the open space
delineation. On March 27, 2004,prior to second week
DRC, after a thorough review of the proposal, the
applicant and property owner were notified of the A,.. z�-•
significant parkland and open space discrepancies. At
I � ilk
'`4t;R/OR 1RA'NG.AAcl. > _
the time Planning Staff calculated approximately 30 '
"M
acres of parkland. After lengthy discussions the
P >�Y
Planning agreed reed to allow the 150 skilled
g
nursing facility units to be deducted from the parkland
dedication since these were not typical dwelhn units. ` r
However, it should also be noted that Montana State
Statute does not differentiate between dwelling units and units. So, one could still argue that
the 150 skilled nursing facility units would generate required parkland.
After those initial discussions the applicant and property owner chose to expand their
requested relaxations to include the relaxation to the parkland calculation, a relaxation to the
watercourse setback and to allow the watercourse to be double counted to meet the setback
and parkland requirements. Additionally, on April 15, 2004 the Conservation District
granted a request for the reclassification of the east lateral. The west lateral is still classified
as a stream and is part of the Cattail Creek watercourse.
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 24
7. Performance. All PUDs shall earn at least twenty performance points. Nonresidential
developments within the North 19th Avenue/Oak Street corridor shall earn thirty
points. Points may be earned in any combination of the following. The applicant
shall select the combination of methods but the City may require documentation of
performance, modifications to the configuration of open space, or other assurances
that the options selected shall perform adequately.
(a) Provision of affordable housing: Two points for each percent of constructed
dwellings in the residential development; OR - One point for each constructed
dwelling or lot donated to the City;
(b) Additional open space: One point for each percent of the project area that is
provided as non=public open space; or one and one quarter points for each
percent of the project area that is provided as publicly accessible open space.
Originally, the applicant identified open space and excess parkland as fulfilling the points
requirements. Since staff determined there was no excess parkland but in fact a parkland
deficit they reassessed their point allocation. The revised point schedule,submitted on April
8, 2004 suggests that all 20 of the performance points will be met with a 114 unit Section 42
affordable housing project on lots E-MF-1 and S-4. Although, based on the lot size
requirements only 107 dwelling units could be provided on the designated lots without a
Zone Map Amendment. Even at 107 constructed units the proposal will still meet the 20
point minimum.
8. Is the development being properly integrated into development and circulation
patterns of adjacent and nearby neighborhoods so that this development will not
become an isolated "pad" to adjoining development?
The subdivision will be appropriately integrated into the city with the additional articulation
.to the rear fagade to present a second front to the external street system By presenting the
rear of a structure to the arterial and collector streets lot owners would ignore the boulevard
and streetscape. It is Planning Staff's view that this in turn leads to isolation form the rest of
the community.
The Design Review Board has recommended an additional condition requiring elaborated
architectural guidelines with streetscape and entry details to create a defined sense of entry
into a Planned Unit Development.
b. Residential. Planned unit developments in residential areas (R-S, R-1, R 2, R 3, R-4,
RMH and R-O 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 neighborhoods, with
provisions for a mix of limited commercial development.
1. On a net acreage basis, is the average residential density in the project(calculated for
residential portion of the site only) consistent with the development densities set
forth in the land use guidelines of the Bozeman growth policy?
As previously discussed the proposal does not meet the minimum densities for a Medium
Density District. The recommended density is 12 dwelling units per acre. The current
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 25
proposal accounts for 10 dwelling units per acre. The proposal would meet the minimum if
the required parkland dedication was met.
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 light, sun, ventilation, privacy and convenient
access to the household or commercial units they are intended to serve?
The development guidelines did not include information relating to the design guidelines for
the residential structures. The Design Review Board requested that additional architectural
guidelines be included in the Final Site Plan.
3. Does the project provide for outdoor areas for use by persons living and working in
the development for active or passive recreational activities?
As previously stated, Planning Staff and other review boards did not feel that the parkland
dedication would be adequate to meet the active and passive recreation requirements for a
development of this size.
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?
The applicant is not proposing a density bonus.
5. Is the overall project designed to enhance the natural environment, conserve energy
and to provide efficient public services and facilities?
The Engineering Department has evaluated the water and sewer plans. The proposed
location of the infrastructure appears to provide the most efficient public services and
facilities.
6. Residential Density Bonus. If the project is proposing a residential density bonus (30
percent maximum) above the residential density of the zoning district within which
the project is located and which is set forth in Chapter 18.16, BMC, 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?
Not applicable.
7. Limited Commercial. If limited commercial development, as defined above, is
proposed within the project, is less than 20 percent of the gross area of the PUD
designated to be used for offices or neighborhood service activities not ordinarily
allowed in the particular residential zoning district?
Limited commercial is not currently being proposed with the PUD. The limited commercial
would require a zone change and potentially a master plan amendment as reflected in PUD
requirements.
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 26
8. Does the overall PUD recognize and, to the maximum extent possible, preserve and
promote the unique character of neighborhoods in the surrounding area?
The neighboring City subdivisions include Harvest Creek, Baxter Meadows and Baxter
Square. The proposal will be relatively well integrated with the neighboring subdivisions.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Based on the following analysis, the Planning Staff, find that the application, with conditions, is in general
compliance with the adopted Growth Policy and the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance.
The following conditions of approval are recommended:
1. A trail shall be constructed connecting from 27`h Avenue to Davis Lane away from streets and in
addition to the sidewalk to provide a future connection between Rose Park and the Regional Park
2. Trail crossings shall be located at the nearest cross street.
3. Oak Street (from Fowler Avenue to N. 27`h Avenue) shall include both a Bike Lane and a Bike Path
(shared-use path) for both sides of the road. The Bike Path (shared-use path) will be in accordance
with the Bike Route Network(Figure 6-4) in the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, which
calls for a Bike Path (shared-use path) for the entire extent of Oak The Board also recommends
installing a Bike Lane on Oak to provide connectivity to other planned Bicycle Facilities in the area.
Since Bike Lanes and Bike Paths serve two different user groups (commuters vs. school children),
the Board feels it is important to provide safe and adequate facilities for both user levels in this area.
4. Hunters Way(from Baxter Lane to Oak Street) shall include a Signed Bike Route since this will be
an extension of an existing Signed Bike Route on Hunters Way.
5. The Home Owners Association shall be responsible for maintenance of Park, park fixtures, trails,
etc.,until such time that a Park Maintenance District, or similar form of funding, is established.
6.- A park master plan shall be submitted for approval by the City Parks Division with the Phase I Final
Plat and/or Final Site Plan,whichever comes first.
7. The Final Site Plan, including a Final Park Plan, shall be reviewed and approved by the Design
Review Board.
8. The Final Site Plan shall include elaborated architectural guidelines with streetscape and entry details.
9. A building configuration plan shall be submitted for townhouse lots with subsequent subdivision
phases.
10. The Covenants and Design Guidelines must state the means in which building orientation will be
mitigated along the arterial and collector streets. The lots shall provide a front porch or false fagade,
a sidewalk connection to each building, and the covenants shall prohibit the construction of fences
unless constructed less than 4 feet tall with a coordinated design for all of the lots backing up to Oak
Street,Baxter Lane,27`'Avenue and Davis Lane.
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 27
11. The declaration of covenants for the subdivision must be included and recorded with the Final Plat.
The City of Bozeman shall be party to any changes or modifications made to the restrictive
covenants and Architectural Guidelines as they relate to any zoning and/or planning bylaws. The
covenants shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Office prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
12. The storm water detention ponds shall be designed in a more organic form and landscaped as a
water feature with 6" river rock and wet root tolerant plant types.
13. A one foot "no access" easement shall be provided along Baxter Lane, Oak Street, 27`h Avenue and
Davis Lane.
14. No lots shall be platted within the watercourse and wetland setback
15. The 0.07 acre isolated wetland in the southeast corner of the subdivision may be filled in exchange
for the existing vegetation being transplanted, as reasonably feasible, from the filled wetland to the
Cattail Creek wetlands,under the direct supervision of the wetland consultant.
16. Half of the lots backing onto the park especially those fronting Hunters Way shall be moved to
allow for accessibility to the park
17. The applicant shall provide and file with the County Clerk and Recorder's office an executed Waiver
of Right to Protest Creation of Special Improvement Districts (SID's) for the following:
a. Signalization of the intersection of W Oak Street and North 27`h Avenue.
b. Signalization of the intersection of W Oak Street and Fowler Avenue (aka Davis Lane).
c. Signalization of the intersection of Baxter Lane and North 27`h Avenue.
d. Signalization of the intersection of Baxter Lane and Fowler Avenue (aka Davis Lane).
e. Fowler Avenue (aka Davis Lane) trunk sewer main improvements.
The document filed shall specify that in the event an SID is not utilized for the completion of these
improvements, the developer agrees to participate in an alternate financing method for the
completion of said improvements on a fair share, proportionate basis as determined by square
footage of property, taxable valuation of the property,traffic contribution from the development,'or
a combination thereof.
18. As a part of the infrastructure plans submittal, 100-year flood elevations shall be computed for the
Section-Line Ditch and the center irrigation lateral (stream defined as Cattail Creek by the
Conservation District and as Harmon Ditch from Harvest Creek), and the limits of flooding
identified. If flooding limier encroach onto proposed lots, this shall be noted on the final plat along
with a minimum floor elevation for the structures to be constructed on the lots. Hydraulic
calculations and the water surface profile of the ditches shall take into account the upstream and
downstream culvert capacities as well as the fact the ditch company may use the ditch as a blow-off
at anytime and without notice.
19. Additional information is needed prior to approval of the Phase I improvements. The Traffic Study
Report shall include an analysis of possible warrants at all the proposed intersections with Oak
Street. The Traffic Study Report shall also address pedestrian crossing issues at the intersection of
Oak Street and N 27`h Avenue and make recommendations for approval.
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 28
20. The applicant is advised that Baxter Road, along the property boundary, shall be improved, as part
of this development,to one half of a minor arterial standard as shown in the Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan 2001 Update and shall match the section built by Baxter Meadows. West Oak
Street, along the property boundary, shall be improved, as part of this development, to one half of a
principal arterial standard and shall match the section built by Harvest Creek North 27`h Avenue,
along the property boundary, shall be improved, as part of this development, to one half of a
collector standard and shall match the section built by Harvest Creek Fowler Avenue (aka Davis
Lane), along the property boundary, shall be improved, as part of this development, to one half of a
minor arterial standard. Where one half of a standard collector or arterial is being built 12 feet of
pavement for the opposing lane of travel shall be provided. City standard curb and gutter, and 6 foot
wide sidewalk will be required in the standard location on the development's side of the street.
Detailed review of the street and intersection design, and approval by the City Engineer will be
required as part of the infrastructure plan and specification review process.
21. Tschache Lane shall align with the road in Baxter Meadows west of Fowler Avenue (aka Davis
Lane).
22. Parking will not be allowed on W. Oak Street, North 27`h Avenue, Baxter Lane, and Fowler Avenue
(aka Davis Lane).
CONCLUSION/RE COMMENDATION
The DRC, DRB, WRB, RPAB and BABAB have reviewed the Planned Unit Development application to
establish a unified development plan for 213 single-household residential lots, 92 townhouse lots, 5 multi-
household residential lots for apartment buildings and 8 residential lots for Senior Assisted Living facilities,
and as a result recommend to the City Commission conditional approval of said application with the
conditions and code provisions outlined above. Planning Staff has identified various code provisions which
are currently not met by this application. Some or all of these items are listed in the findings of this staff
report. The applicant must comply with all provisions of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance,
which are applicable to this project prior to receiving Final Site Plan approval. The applicant is advised that
unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does
not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal
Code or state law.
Attachments: Applicant's Submittal Materials with April 2 and 8, 2004 Addendums
DRB Staff Report and Minutes
Recreation&Park Advisory Board Comments March 26,2004 and April 13,2004
Gallatin Conservation District Minutes Dated April 15, 2004
Bicycle Advisory Board Memo Dated May 5,2004
DRC Memo Dated October 28,2003 (see item# 18-21)
GVLT Letter Dated February 11, 2004
Letter from Linda Stansbury
Report Sent To: Quest West LLC, 3825 Valley Commons Drive,Suite 4,Bozeman,MT 59718
HKM Engineering Inc., 601 Nikles Drive, Suite 2,Bozeman,MT 59715
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 29
Page 1 of 2
Jam! Morris
From: Litle, Clint [clitle@hkminc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 8:22 AM
To: Jami Morris; Andy Epple
Cc: John Dunlap (E-mail)
Subject: RE: West Winds Master Plan
Jami and Andy:
Thank you for July 7 e-mail outlining your July 6 discussion with the Commission it is very helpful. We respond as
follows:
Item#1: Comment "Commissioners would encourage you to connect the new, unnamed, east-west street
between Cobblestone Ct. and Breeze Lane back to Buckrake Ave. to the west. All Commissioners felt this would
be a logical connection to complete the grid-like pattern in the southeast quadrant."
Response: During the design of the PUD we put a lot of effort into this area and repeatable found that the current
layout is the most efficient and appropriate layout. This configuration is driven by existing wetlands, watercourse,
adjoining connecting roads, 20"trunk sewer main and street set-back requirements. The bottom line is that it
does not work to extend the road through to Buckrake Avenue. It causes short inefficient block lengths of 300'
and causes the road to encroach into the 50' stream setback.
Your e-mail states the Commission "encourages" us to extended the road to Buckrake Avenue, which implies that
it is not mandatory. Based on the above discussion we have found that it is not practical nor good engineering to
extent the road to buckrake.
Item#2 Comment: "a majority of Commissioners indicated that they will only approve the final PUD Plan if a
similar grid-like street network is planned for and depicted in the southwest quadrant of the project."
Response: We agree to make this revision to the Final PUD Master Plan. We will work with staff on crafting the
language. We want to go on record that we are making this revision as an act of good faith, in that, this
constitutes an additional condition to the PUD being added after the formal hearing and conditional approval.
Engineering Plans
We have been working with Sue in Engineering on the Phase I infrastructure plans. Sue has agreed to the self
certification process for the internal road and utilities and she will review Oak and 27th Streets. She has also
agreed to allow us to proceed with excavating the internal roads prior to full utility approval. However, according
to Sue she has been directed not accept plans by your department. Based on the revised Master Plan and
direction from the Commission I need this direction rescinded. The Phase I Plat has been revised per comment
and has the support of the majority of the Commission. We have preliminary plat approval and we must proceed
with construction of Phase I this season. I plan on submitting all plans to Engineering this Friday. This is critical!!!
Thanks
Clint Litle, P.E.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jami Morris [ma ilto:JMorris@BOZEMAN.NET]
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 11:03 AM
To: Litle, Clint
Subject: FW: West Winds Master Plan
-----Original Message-----
7/20/2004
r
Page 2 of 2
is
From: Andy Epple
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 4:37 PM
To: 'Litle, Clint'; 'John Dunlap'
Cc: Jami Morris; Steve Kirchhoff; Jeff Krauss
Subject: West Winds Master Plan
The Commission engaged in a thorough discussion last night about the June 29th Revised Master Plan for
West Winds Community. All Commissioners acknowledged and appreciated the changes you have
proposed to date, which address many of their concerns. Commissioners agreed, however, that two items
in particular need to be addressed further.
First, Commissioners would encourage you to connect the new, unnamed, east-west street between
Cobblestone Ct. and Breeze Lane back to Buckrake Ave. to the west. All Commissioners felt this would be
a logical connection to complete the grid-like pattern in the southeast quadrant.
Second, a majority of Commissioners indicated that they will only approve the final PUD Plan if a similar
grid-like street network is planned for and depicted in the southwest quadrant of the project. In giving us
this direction, Commissioners were aware of John's plans to develop a campus-like senior and assisted
living complex in the area, and they acknowledged that those types of housing complexes may best be
served by fewer streets with alternative pedestrian and vehicular circulation facilities. But they noted that
owners and plans such as these can change over time. In the event John or a subsequent owner decides
not to do senior and assisted living in a campus-like setting, the Commission wants to have a grid-like
roadway system planned for, in advance, as the basis for a more traditional neighborhood design. They
don't want to negotiate with John or a future landowner about the layout of a grid roadway system in this
area when a new development is proposed; they want it ready for immediate implementation at that time.
Commissioners further explained that the PUD process provides John or a future landowner with the
opportunity to propose varying from the planned grid system, when a specific, detailed development
proposal is presented to the City for review. At that time, in that review process, the applicant could make
the case for alternative pedestrian and vehicular facilities in the area, designed to accomplish the same
objectives for interconnectivity and ease of circulation through and around the development. Language to
this effect could be included in the PUD guidelines, according to the comments made by Commissioners
last night, to make clear that the planned grid system can be varied from in the face of an acceptable,
alternative design proposal. But their intent is to have a grid-like street system planned as the principal
transportation design feature in this area, until such time as an alternative design can be considered in
conjunction with a specific development proposal. Discussed in this context, all five of the Commissioners
felt this was the most appropriate way to proceed, so it would be best for all of us to immediately move in
that direction.
I hope this information is useful, Clint. A number of other comments were made in the course of the
discussion; I've only described the two subjects that a clear majority of Commissioners agreed upon.
Please give Jami or me a call if you have any questions or want to meet. I'll be gone the 9th through the
16thrd, but Jami will be here. We both look forward to seeing this project brought to successful conclusion
in the near future.
Best regards,
Andy Epple
Director of Planning and Community Development
City of Bozeman
20 East Olive Street
Mailing address: P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771-1230
Phone: 406.582.2260
Fax: 406.582.2263
E-mail: aepple@bozeman.net
7/20/2004
IMW
B02� u_ 1
THE CITY OF BOZEMAN
9� 20 E. OLIVE • P.O. BOX 1230
* it
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59771 1230
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
9AIN CO. 0 PHONE: (406) 582-2280 FAX: (406) 582`2263
To: Development Review Committee
From: Sue Stodola, Project Engineer1 S
Date: May 3, 2004
Re: West Winds Zoning PUD #Z-04050 (Morris/Stodola)
The following should be included as conditions of approval for the above referenced Preliminary Plan:
GENERAL:
1. Proposed phasing shall be depicted on the final plan. The full extent of all proposed
infrastructure improvements required for each phase shall also be clearly indicated on the final
plan submittal. No building permits shall be issued prior to.substantial completion and City
acceptance of the required infrastructure improvements unless otherwise allowed by specific
approval of the City Commission under the provisions of Chapters 18.36 and 18.74 of the
Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. Phases shall be numbered in the order in which
they are to be built.
2. The applicant shall provide and file with the County Clerk and Recorder's office an executed
Waiver of Right to Protest Creation of Special Improvement Districts (SID's)for the following:
a. Signalization of the intersection of W Oak Street and North 27,h Avenue.
b. Signalization of the intersection of W Oak Street and Fowler Avenue (aka Davis Lane).
c. Signalization of the intersection of Baxter Lane and North 27,h Avenue.
d. Signalization of the intersection of Baxter Lane and Fowler Avenue (aka Davis Lane).
e. Fowler Avenue (aka Davis Lane) trunk sewer main improvements.
The document filed shall specify that in the event an SID is not utilized for the completion of
these improvements,the developer agrees to participate in an alternate financing method for the
completion of said improvements on a fair share,proportionate basis as determined by square
footage of property, taxable valuation of the property, traffic contribution from the
development, or a combination thereof.
STORMWATER:
3. Storm Water Master Plan:
A Stormwater Master Plan for the PUD for a system designed to remove solids,silt,oils,grease,
and other pollutants from the runoff from the private and.public streets and all lots has been
provided to the City Engineer. The applicant is advised that although the general storm
drainage and grading concept has been reviewed, the submitted data will be subject to further
HOME OF MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
GATEWAY TO YELLOWSTONE PARK
May 3,2004
Page 2 of 5
review as part of the infrastructure plan and specification review process.
A general comment on the report may be useful at this time:
a. The maximum water depth and basin depth shown in the Storm water report does not meet
the COB Design Standards and Specifications Policy and will need to be modified.
Detailed review of the final grading and drainage plan and approval by the City Engineer will be
required as part of the infrastructure plan and specification review process for each phase.
While the runoff from the individual lots will be dependent on the intensity of use on each lot,
the maximum sizing of the storm water retention facilities for each lot will be established based
on maximum site development.Final facility sizing may be reviewed and reduced during design
review of the final site plan for each lot and/or phase.
4. As a part of the infrastructure plans submittal, 100-year flood elevations shall be computed for
the Section-Line Ditch and the center irrigation lateral (stream defined as Cattail Creek by the
Conservation District and as Harmon Ditch from Harvest Creek), and the limits of flooding
identified. If flooding limits encroach onto proposed lots, this shall be noted on the final.plat
along with a minimum floor elevation for the structures to be constructed on the lots.Hydraulic
calculations and the water surface profile of the ditches shall take into account the upstream and
downstream culvert capacities as well as the fact the ditch company may use the ditch as a blow-
off at any time and without notice.
5. The applicant shall obtain and provide evidence of permission from the appropriate ditch
companies to discharge storm runoff into the ditches,and for any relocation or abandonment of
the ditches.
6. In locations where Baxter Lane and Fowler Avenue (aka Davis Lane) are being improved, the
various irrigation ditches and/or streams shall be either relocated outside the right-of-way,
accommodated in an approved center median, or placed in a pipe.
WATER AND SEWER:
7. A comprehensive utilities design report for water and sewer main extensions, prepared and
signed by a Professional Engineer(PE)registered in the State of Montana has been provided to
the City Engineer.The applicant is advised that although the general utilities design concept has
been reviewed,the submitted data will be subject to further review as part of the infrastructure
plan and specification review process for each phase.
Three general comments on the Sewer report may be useful at this time:
a. At a number of locations, the manhole spacing shown exceeds the maximum manhole
spacing,per the COB Design Standards and Specifications Policy.
b. The manhole barrel size is 60"for a 20"sanitary sewer pipe,per the COB Design Standards
and Specifications Policy.
May 3,2004
Page 3 of 5
c. Use of the 10"main to allow a flatter slope does not meet DEQ requirements and the COB
Design Standards and Specifications Policy.
8. All water main extensions of more than 500 feet required for any phase of the development shall
be fully looped. Water and sewer mains shall be extended to the property lines to adequately
accommodate future extensions and/or looping.
9. Plans and Specifications for water and sewer main extensions for each proposed phase,prepared
and signed by a Professional Engineer(PE)registered in the State of Montana shall be provided
to and approved by the City Engineer. Sewer and Water plans shall also be approved by the
Montana Department of Environmental Quality. The applicant shall also provide Professional
Engineering services for Construction Inspection, Post-Construction Certification, and
preparation of mylar Record Drawings. Construction shall not be initiated on the public
infrastructure improvements until the plans and specifications have been approved and a
preconstruction conference has been conducted.
No building permits shall be issued prior to substantial completion and City acceptance of the
required infrastructure improvements unless otherwise allowed by specific approval of the City
Commission under the provisions of Chapters 18.36 and 18.74 of the Bozeman Unified
Development Ordinance.
STREETS, CURB & GUTTER AND SIDEWALKS:
10. A detailed Traffic Study Report for the PUD has been provided to and reviewed by the City
Engineer's office. Additional information is needed prior to approval of the Phase I
improvements.The Traffic Study Report shall include an analysis of possible warrants at all the
proposed intersections with Oak Street.The Traffic Study Report shall also address pedestrian
crossing issues at the intersection of Oak Street and N 27th Avenue and make recommendations
for approval. Additional comments, such as Condition 15c, regarding the analysis has been
provided by the City Engineering office to the developer's engineer. The need for any traffic
impact analysis updates will be identified at the time of pre-application plan submittal for each
subsequent phase.
11. There is a discrepancy between Traffic Impact Studies provided for the North 19th Avenue and
Durston Road intersection regarding the Level of Service that must be resolved before a
condition can be formulated. If it is confirmed the intersection operates below Level of Service
D,then the Final Plat for Phase 1 may not be filed until the improvements necessary to raise the
level of service at the intersection of North 19th Avenue and Durston Road to Level of Service
C are installed and accepted by the City of Bozeman.
12. All typical street sections,including sidewalk location within the right-of-way and provisions for
bicyclists shall be in conformance with the street standards recommended in the GreaterBozeman
Area Transportation Plan,2001 Update,unless otherwise approved by the City Commission,or by
the City Engineer through the plan and specification review and approval process. While the
typical sections and calming strategies included in this submittal provide an acceptable general
framework for the development,detailed review and approval of street,sidewalk and associated
May 3,2004
Page 4of5
storm drainage infrastructure will be part of the plan and specification review process for each
phase.
13. Plans and Specifications for streets and storm drainage facilities for each phase,prepared and
signed by a Professional Engineer(PE) registered in the State of Montana shall be provided to
and approved by the City Engineer.The applicant shall also provide Professional Engineering
services for Construction Inspection,Post-Construction Certification,and preparation of mylar
Record Drawings. Construction shall not be initiated on the public infrastructure improvements
until the plans and specifications have been approved and a preconstruction conference has
been conducted.
No building permits shall be issued prior to substantial completion and City acceptance of the
required infrastructure improvements unless otherwise allowed by specific approval of the City
Commission under the provisions of Chapters 18.36 and 18.74 of the Bozeman Unified.
Development Ordinance.
14. All street names shall be reviewed and approved by the Gallatin County Road Office and City
Engineering Office.
15. The following locations shall be modified to meet the access standards in Section 090.D.3 of
Chapter 18.44 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance:
a. On Oak Street, the separation between Windward Avenue and Hunter's Way meets the
criteria for partial access but does not provide the 660' minimum for full access.
b. The following locations provide less than the 150' minimum for an access from an
intersection with an arterial: (1)residential lots that front on Buckrake Avenue and Hunter's
Way near Baxter Lane and Oak Street; (2) the location of Cobblestone Court from Oak
Street;(3)the location of Spring View Court from Fowler Avenue(aka Davis Lane);and(4)
a proposed access on east side of Buckrake Avenue from Baxter Lane.
d. On Fowler Avenue (aka Davis Lane),the separation between the streets meets the criteria
for partial access but does not provide the 660'minimum for full access. On Baxter Lane,
the separation between Windward Avenue and Hunter's Way meets the criteria for partial
access but does not provide the 660' minimum for full access. The Traffic Impact Study
shall address the left turn movement onto the subdivision streets from Fowler Avenue (aka
Davis Lane) and Baxter Lane.
16. The applicant is advised that Baxter Road,along the property boundary,shall be improved,as
part of this development, to one half of a minor arterial standard as shown in the Greater
Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update and shall match the section built by Baxter
Meadows. W. Oak Street, along the property boundary, shall be improved, as part of this
development, to one half of a principal arterial standard and shall match the section built by
Harvest Creek.North 27th Avenue,along the property boundary, shall be improved,as part of
this development, to one half of a collector standard and shall match the section built by
Harvest Creek. Fowler Avenue (aka Davis Lane), along the property boundary, shall be
improved,as part of this development,to one half of a minor arterial standard.Where one half
May 3,2004
Page 5 of 5
of a standard collector or arterial is being built 12 feet of pavement for the opposing lane of
travel shall be provided.City standard curb and gutter,and 6 foot wide sidewalk will be required
in the standard location on the development's side of the street. Detailed review of the street
and intersection design, and approval by the City Engineer will be required as part of the .
infrastructure plan and specification review process.
17. Tschache Lane shall align with the road in Baxter Meadows west of Fowler Avenue(aka Davis
Lane).
18. Parking will not be allowed on W. Oak Street, North 27th Avenue, Baxter Lane, and Fowler
Avenue (aka Davis Lane).
MISCELLANEOUS
19. Detailed review and approval of the concurrent construction plans will be part of the
infrastructure plan and specification review process for each phase.Building permits may not be
issued until each plan is approved.
20. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, SCS, Montana Department of
Environmental Quality and Army Corps of Engineer's shall be contacted regarding the
proposed project and any required permits (i.e., 310, 404, Turbidity exemption, etc.) shall be
obtained.
CC. Project File
ERF
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD �1-- 'R go, P1 a rni%-v
Qk
TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2004
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Vice Chairperson Bill Hanson called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. and directed the secretary
to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Christopher Livingston Jami Morris, Associate Planner
Mel Howe David Skelton, Senior Planner
Carol Asleson Susan Kozub, Planner I
Joseph Thomas Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Bill Hanson
Visitors Present
Clint Litle
John Dunlap
Lowell Springer
M. McGullum
Lee Hietala
Gene Mickolio
Dick Bridy
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF APRIL 13, 2004
Vice Chairperson Hanson called for corrections or additions to the minutes of April 13, 2004.
MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Mr. Livingston seconded, to approve the minutes as presented.
The motion carried 5-0.
ITEM 3. CONSENT
A. ASI Bozeman Senior Housing SP/COA #Z-04074 (Morris)
.1441 North 15 1h Avenue
A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow the
construction of a 44-unit independent senior housing development and
related site improvements.
Planner Morris presented the Staff Report, noting the DRB, had reviewed the conceptual
application, the Preliminary PUD, and the Preliminary Site Plan. Mr. Livingston stated he did
not remember seeing the submittal prior to this meeting. Planner Morris presented color
renderings and diagrams of the Concept and Preliminary PUD's.
MOTION: Mr. Howe moved, Ms. Asleson seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval
to the City Commission for ASI Bozeman Senior Housing SP/COA#Z-04074. The motion
carried 5-0.
City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—April 27,2004
ITEM 4. PRO ECTVIEW
A. West Winds Zoning PUD#Z-04050 (Morris)
E. of Davis Lane, S. of Baxter Lane, W. of North 27`h Avenue, N. of Oak Street
* A Zoning Planned Unit Development Application to allow a unified
development plan on 160.30 acres with single-household units, .
townhouse, apartment, senior housing units (assisted and independent),
neighborhood community center facilities, and related park/open space
improvements.
John Dunlap and Clint Litle joined the DRB. Planner Morris presented the Staff Report, noting
the DRB had been provided with the minutes from the conceptual review. She stated Staff
supported the project without some of the requested relaxations (a, b, c, & i from the Staff
Report). She reviewed the relaxations requested by the applicant and Staff's position on each.
Ms. Asleson asked if the DRB would be seeing the proposal again as she was concerned with the
landscape plan. Planner Morris responded the DRB might see a Site Plan, but not the Final PUD
unless requested by the DRB. Mr. Litle added that the stream setback and landscape plan would
be integrated at a later date.
Mr. Livingston asked Planner Morris to explain condition #34 from DRC. Planner Morris
responded that the condition stated the applicant had to take access from one of the interior
streets rather than from one of the collector/arterial streets.
Vice Chairperson Hanson stated he could find nothing akin to architectural guidelines in the
submittal. Planner Morris responded there was an option through the PUD process allowing a
more conceptual idea of architectural guidelines; instead, they had an architectural committee
that would sign off on each plan before the building permit was approved. Vice Chairperson
Hanson stated the one thing that was lacking in the submittal was the architectural guidelines and
it was a key piece of the proposal, he added he wanted to be sure the proposal was reviewed
under the same criteria as all the others had been. He asked if the diagram depicted the true
delineation of the wetlands. Mr. Litle explained grey depicted the wetlands and passive park
areas while green was depicting the areas that would be usable. Vice Chairperson Hanson
suggested some lots would be impacted by the edge of the wetlands. Mr. Litle responded the
watercourse ran through the center of the site, and he had measured the setback from the edge of
the watercourse. Mr. Litle added the groundwater was extremely shallow (not a running brook)
which allowed native wetland vegetation to grow there. Mr. Springer noted one could have a
wetland, respect the environment, and put a usable lot there. Planner Morris responded the
owner of the lot would not appreciate being unable to put anything in that location, such as a
fence or any other structure generally permitted in a rear yard.
Mr. Dunlap stated his intention was to work with the Park &Recreation Advisory Board, and
Staff was to govern the PUD as it grew, but he could not bring in all the information at once.
Mr. Dunlap stated the reason for the relaxation of the watercourse setback was to provide for
active recreation areas (soccer fields) and the use of the land would not change with the
development of those recreational areas. Mr. Dunlap stated the requested watercourse setback
relaxation was not to provide for a deficiency in parkland requirement. Planner Morris
responded the applicant would still have to plant the watercourse setback with native vegetation.
City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—April 27,2004 2
'n
Mr. Litle stated the 50 foottack would cause the planting of native wat:�rct"mi >1( ggJa `
an alfalfa field. Mr. Springer added the native plants would not survive too far from the actual
watercourse and suggested transitional plantings. Planner Morris clarified that the setback would
still be required to be planted as outlined in the U.D.O. She added the Wetlands Review Board
wanted to see the area reconstructed back to its original state.
Vice Chairperson Hanson asked if Mr. Dunlap had anything else to discuss. Mr. Dunlap
responded that the relaxations were requested to provide for compliance in the submittal.
Vice Chairperson Hanson stated the park calculation from the planning office was .03 acres per
dwelling unit, and the applicant submitted calculations of.03 acres for single-household lots and
11% for the rest of the lots. Planner Morris responded the Pre-Application stated specific
densities and the number of units were indicated. Mr. Dunlap responded he applied those
densities only as large parcels with an estimated sewer trunk capacity. Mr. Litle stated, in a
multi-family calculation, there was no way of telling the density. Planner Morris responded
there was a maximum density for an "R-Y lot. Vice Chairperson Hanson stated the problem
with the applicant's interpretation of parkland requirements was that it amounted to half of
Staff's calculation and the proposal could not make up the difference the way it was designed.
Mr. Dunlap responded it was his understanding that he needed to follow the U.D.O: as the
regulatory document and according to the U.D.O. he had met his parkland requirements. Planner
Morris responded that the applicant could not provide estimated densities.for the sewer, water,
etc. and not use the same estimations for parkland requirements.
Vice Chairperson Hanson summed up the conversation for the rest of the DRB. Mr. Litle stated
the applicant agreed to disagree with Planning Staff.
Mr. Livingston asked if there was a maximum density that could be calculated on the property as
the lots were zoned. Mr. Dunlap responded there was. Mr. Livingston stated the applicant knew
the overall acreage, they knew the maximum density allowed, and he could not see the argument
if they knew the key pieces to the calculation. Mr. Dunlap stated if he could not offer a Section
42 housing project, the deal would be broken, but the property would still be developed. He
stated he was trying to meet and exceed the PUD standards and provide for Section 42 housing.
Mr. Livingston asked if a Cultural Resource Inventory had been conducted. Mr. Litle stated a
letter was sent and one would be done.
Vice Chairperson Hanson stated the PUD was regimented and not integrated. Mr. Litle
responded the applicant had attempted to integrate with the surrounding developments. Vice
Chairperson Hanson asked if the applicant had considered inter-mingling the types of homes
within the subdivision. Mr. Litle responded the uniform design was used to limit the crossing of
streets over the wetland areas. Vice Chairperson Hanson stated he was more concerned with the
streetscape not having rhythm. Mr. Dunlap stated the streets could not have been moved because
private access could not be made from Davis Lane. Vice Chairperson Hanson suggested
providing access using alleyways instead of streets. He added that he did not see exceptional
design elements proposed making it a project worthwhile for DRB support in exchange for
relaxations.
Mr. Livingston stated the grid street system and design had come a long way from the first
review with the DRB.
City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—April 27,2004 3
Ms. Aselson stated she could not support any relaxations in the landscaping. She stated since the
development itself changed use, so did the use of the watercourse. She stated she could not
support the watercourse setback relaxation, and would defer to Staff to calculate the parkland
requirements. Ms. Asleson stated she completely supported Staff recommendations.
Mr. Howe stated he did not see anything in the submittal that the DRB could review in the way
of architectural design. He stated green usable areas had to be included on the site; however, he
could only forward the proposal to the City Commission stating he supported Staff
recommendations.
Mr. Thomas stated he did not support the relaxation for the watercourse setbacks. He stated the
design of the parking lots could change. He stated he would like to see more of a lead into the
subdivision, using the buildings to bring people into the area instead of parking lots.
Mr. Livingston stated everyone would like to think the UDO was the perfect document, but it
would never be that way, and it all came down to how one interpreted the document. He stated
he had difficulty understanding why the applicant could not calculate the parkland requirements
based on the maximum density. Mr. Livingston stated people forget there is a certain amount of
natural vegetation for wildlife and the preservation of natural environments. He stated he agreed
with the Planning Staff with regard to parkland calculations, and he supported Staff
recommendations.
Vice Chairperson Hanson suggested the park required a different character. He stated he could
not support the requested relaxation for the watercourse setback. He stated he supported Staff's
parkland calculation. He stated the only internal street with bike lanes was Tschache Lane and
he suggested that Hunters Way or Buckrake Avenue include bike lanes.
Ms. Asleson asked to see the landscape plan when the other issues with setbacks and parkland
requirements had been met.
MOTION: Mr. Livingston moved, Ms. Asleson seconded, to forward a recommendation of
approval to the City Commission for West Winds Zoning PUD#Z-04050 with Staff
recommendations, denial of requested relaxations A, B, and C, and the addition of two
conditions; 1) the DRB is to review a Final P.U.D. Plan including the landscape plan and the
Park Master Plan, and 2) the DRB is to review the elaborated architectural guidelines including
streetscapes and entry details. The motion carried 5-0.
B. Hastings Shopping Center SP/COA #Z-04047 (Skelton)
1601 West Main Street
* A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness to allow a
three phase redevelopment of the existing shopping center including;
fagade renovation, parking lot improvements, and new retail space
fronting Main Street.
Dick Bridy joined the DRB. Planner Kozub presented the Staff Report on Planner Skelton's
behalf, noting the proposal included fagade, landscaping, and parking lot improvements. Planner
Kozub stated the three deviations originally requested were no longer needed. She stated there
would be two variances•requested, one for parking spaces along Main Street, and one for the
City of Bozeman Design Review Board Minutes—April 27,2004 4
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MEETING REVIEW SHEET
DATE: PROJECT NAME: U)141�
PREPARED BY: Jami Morris, Associate Planner FILE#: Z- o v4c)M
APPLICANTS/REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: �5t ,t to . (rwu Dun�Qct�
uS� L"� 0
DRB MEMBERS PRESENT:
❑ Dawn Smith Carol Asleson
Chris Livingston E13ill Hanson
l"Melvin Howe E
❑ Randy Carpenter O'loseph Thomas
Others/Alternates:
Questions/Comments:
an M . — %. -�, ,oA -16am "Xd . AAAL�.A i `C
Ujah
PaeI cue
colc
�-
c9�loc..�,�.01,,
C itjoa a.\0 I C, W
��Q 5
ce Perri.ouA 4-D
VC �- W� � ��u�.�-fie. �I-�
v
aA Alk
et
� S zjf,40
1
CIF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260
20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263
P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozemon.net
The following recommended conditions of approval have been forwarded from the various review boards
including the Development Review Committee, the Wetlands Review Board and the Recreation & Parks
Advisory Board: N_0
Parkland, Trails & Open Space
1. Half of the lots backing onto the park especially those fronting Hunters Way shall be moved to
allow for accessibility to the park.
2. A watercourse setback planting plan shall be prepared by a qualified landscape professional and shall
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the commencement of development
or site preparation. The plan shall include a schedule for planting and landscaping as outlined for
Zone 1 and Zone 2 outlined in 18.42.100.
3. A proportionate amount of parkland, open space and restricted size lots, to meet the general
standards and the PUD regulations, shall be noted with each Final Plat and Final Plan.
4. Plans and Specifications for the trail will need to be reviewed by the Parks Department prior to
construction.
5. Trail crossings shall be located at the nearest cross street.
6. The Transportation Plan calls for a bike path on Oak Street.
7. The subdivider shall be responsible for installing sod, boulevard trees and an irrigation system in the
public right-of-way boulevard strips along all external subdivision streets and adjacent to subdivision
parks or other open space areas.
8. Redesign of the Park, with the full 24.3 acres to be dedicated in an aggregated fashion, as
recommended in the Bozeman 2020 community Plan, chapter 9, section 9.2.2.
9. A trail be constructed connecting both North and South ends of the sub-division via the streambed
and through the Park. * A trail be constructed connecting from East to West, away from streets and
sidewalks.
10. HOA be responsible for maintenance of Park, park fixtures, trails, etc., until such time that a Park
Maintenance District, or similar form of funding,is established.
11. A Park master plan be submitted for approval by the City Parks Division with the Phase I Final Plat
and Plan.
12. All park/trail redesign and construction be approved by the City Parks Division, and that it meet
City standards.
planning • zoning . subdivision review . annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration • neighborhood coordination
'13. All trail corridors are the 25 feet in width, as stated in the Bozeman Unified Development
Ordinance, chapter 18.50, section 18.50.070. All Park and Trail plans and construction to be
approved by the City Parks Division.
14. Allow the filling of the 0.07 acre isolated wetland in the southeast corner of the subdivision in
exchange for the existing vegetation being transplanted, as reasonably feasible, from the filled
wetland to the Cattail Creek wetlands,under the direct supervision of the wetland consultant.
15. The subdivider shall maintain the 50 foot stream setback to provide a natural buffer adequate to
support existing wildlife habitat and support the native wetland vegetation.
16. The request to reduce the watercourse setback to fifteen feet from the minimum fifty feet would, in
effect, reduce useable park land by over four acres. The request to count all of the setback as park
land would increase the loss to over six acres.
17. The request to apply 11% park land dedication standard to all of the net buildable area results in a
loss of over fourteen acres in park land. In our previous memo, at comment#2, we pointed out that
the density of the development is known and,under 18.50.020 A 2,the 11% standard is inapplicable.
The developer claims the proposed relaxation is in accordance with the adopted Citywide park plan.
That claim is based on a standard,taken out of context,which is but one of several standards,which
are by no means mutually exclusive. Note that from information in the last sentence of the third
relaxation standard requested by the developer it is simple math to infer that the developer expects
over 2,400 residents in West Winds (10.26 A/ 4.21A per 1000 persons = 2,437). If this is not a
reasonably known density, what is? Further, the developer claims that this "...is in compliance with
Montana State Statute of 11% of the net area." This is clearly not the case; refer to 76-3-621 (2)
MCA. The .03 A per dwelling unit applies.
18. We also emphasize that the proposal now claims that only 10.26 A parkland dedication will be
required, rather than the 24.3 A required by state code and Bozeman ordinance. If the 11 %
standard is applied, will the developer next contend that the 10.26 A is the controlling number,
which might include the full amount of watercourse setbacks?
19. At this point, we strongly recommend that the plan be totally revised, with a trail corridor along the
watercourse (with setbacks in compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance) and that the
park land dedication, based on the 03 A per dwelling unit standard, be designed in a large block (in
accordance with 18.50.050 A) in consultation with Ron Dingman,Parks Manager. The design should
also include connecting trail corridors running east and vest in addition to those running north and
south.
Building Design
20. Each lot shall meet the minimum lot area standards, including the multi-household lots, for an
"R 3" zoned lot unless an alternative zoning designation is approved through a Zone Map
Amendment.
21. A building configuration plan shall be submitted for townhouse lots with subsequent subdivision
phases.
22. The Covenants and Design Guidelines must state the means in which building orientation will be
mitigated along the arterial and collector streets. The lots shall provide a front porch or false fagade,
a sidewalk connection to each building, and shall covenants shall prohibit the construction of fences
unless under 4 feet tall and a coordinated design for all of the lots.
Page 2
23. The declaration of covenants for the subdivision must be included and recorded with the Final Plat.
The City of Bozeman shall be party to any changes or modifications made to the restrictive
covenants and Architectural Guidelines as they relate to any zoning and/or planning bylaws. The
covenants shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Office prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
24. Construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the HOA Architectural Committee prior to
submitting a site plan application or a building permit application, whichever comes first. The plans
shall include a stamp of approval from the Architectural Committee prior to City review. This
language shall be incorporated into the Covenants for the subdivision.
Storm Water:
25. Storm Water Master Plan:
A Stormwater Master Plan for the subdivision for a system designed to remove solids, silt, oils,
grease, and other pollutants from the runoff from the private and public streets and all lots has been
provided to the City Engineer.
The applicant is advised that although the general storm drainage and grading concept has been
reviewed, the submitted data will be subject to further review as part of the infrastructure plan and
specification review process.
26. Stormwater generated by the proposed subdivision which discharges to any privately owned ditch
must have the written permission of the ditch owner.
Water&Sewer:
27. The Developer's engineer has provided a comprehensive Design Report evaluating existing capacity
of water and sewer utilities for the entire West Winds P.U.D.. Detailed review and approval of the
Design Report will be required as part of the infrastructure plan and specification review and
approval process.
28. The location of and distinction between existing and proposed sewer and water mains and all
easements shall be clearly and accurately depicted on the plans and specs, as well as all nearby fire
hydrants and proposed fire hydrants.
29. Any easements needed for the water and sewer main extensions shall be a minimum of 30 feet in
width. While the final location of the water and sewer mains will be determined once the final street
widths are approved, in no case shall the utility be less than 10 feet from the edge of the easement
All necessary easements shall be provided prior to final plat approval and shall be shown on the plat.
Wherever water and/or sewer mains are not located under or accessed from improved streets, a 12
foot wide all weather access drive shall be constructed above the utilities to provide necessary access.
30. Plans and Specifications for water and sewer main extensions,prepared and signed 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 Montana Department of
Environmental Quality. The applicant shall also provide Professional Engineering services for
Construction Inspection, Post-Construction Certification, and preparation of mylar Record
Drawings. Construction shall not be initiated on the public infrastructure improvements until the
plans and specifications have been approved and a preconstruction conference has been conducted.
Page 3
0 •
No building permits shall be issued prior to City acceptance of the required infrastructure
improvements unless approved for concurrent construction.
Streets, Curb &Gutter, Sidewalks, Storm Drainage:
31. Any street rights of way which are within the boundaries of this subdivision and for which
easements were provided with the XL Limited Partnership Annexation Agreement shall be
dedicated to the City on the Final Plat for this subdivision.
32. A detailed Traffic Study Report for the entire West Winds Development has been provided to and
reviewed by the City Engineer's office. Additional information is needed prior to approval of the
Phase I improvements. The Traffic Study Report shall include an analysis of possible warrants at all
the proposed intersections with Oak Street. The Traffic Study Report shall also address pedestrian
crossing issues at the intersection of Oak Street and N 27`h Avenue and make recommendations for
approval. The need for any traffic impact analysis updates will be identified at the time of pre-
application plan submittal for each subsequent phase.
33. Street names must be approved by the City Engineer and county road office.
34. The final plat shall contain a note prohibiting direct access from single family or duplex lots to Oak
Street and N. 27`h Avenue.
35. City standard curb, gutter and sidewalk shall be provided along all streets in the subdivision. Per
Chapter 18.44.080 of the Unified Development Ordinance, sidewalks will be installed prior to
occupancy of any individual lots.
36. The applicant is advised that the installation of any traffic calming devices will be considered in
detail and approved if appropriate during the infrastructure plan and specification review process.
37. All typical street sections,including sidewalk location within the right-of-way and provisions for
bicyclists shall be in conformance with the street standards recommended in the GreaterBazennn
A ma Transportation Plar4 2001 Update,unless otherwise approved by the City Commission, or by the
City Engineer through the plan and specification review and approval process.
38. The west half of N 27`h Avenue,from Oak Street to Breeze Lane, and the north half of Oak Street,
from N 27`h Avenue to Hunters Way must be constructed and accepted by the City prior to filing
the Final Plat for Phase 1A. The west half of N 27`h Avenue,from Tchache Lane to Breeze Lane
must be constructed and accepted by the City prior to filing the Final Plat for Phase 1B. The overall
design of Oak Street shall include a detailed assessment of traffic needs and design solutions for the
phasing. The timing of the development of Harvest Creek shall be taken into account as well. The
Phase 1A infrastructure improvements shall include improvements to the intersection of Oak Street
and N 27`h Avenue to provide a transition between the existing and the future roadway. Design of
the intersection is also to accommodate the existing overhead power lines. The intersection design
will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Office as a part of the infrastructure
improvements review process.
39. Plans and Specifications for streets and storm drainage facilities, prepared and signed by a
Professional Engineer (PE) registered in the State of Montana shall be provided to and approved by
the City Engineer. The applicant shall also provide Professional Engineering services for
Construction Inspection, Post-Construction Certification, and preparation of mylar Record
Drawings. Construction shall not be initiated on the public infrastructure improvements until the
Page 4
plans andsPecificationsTiave been approved d an a P reconstruction conference has been conducted.
No building permits shall be issued prior to City acceptance of the required infrastructure
improvements unless approved for concurrent construction.
40. Project phasing shall be clearly defined on the infrastructure plans and specifications including
installation of infrastructure.
Miscellaneous
41. The location of mailboxes shall be coordinated with the City Engineering Department prior to their
installation.
42. The Montana Department of Fish,Wildlife and Parks, SCS,Montana Department of Environmental
Quality and Army Corps of Engineer's shall be contacted regarding the proposed project and any
required permits (i.e., 310, 404, Turbidity exemption, etc.) shall be obtained prior to plan and
specification approval.
43. If construction activities related to the project result in the disturbance of more than 1 acre of
natural ground, an erosion/sediment control plan may be required. The Montana Department of
Environmental Quality may need to be contacted by the Applicant to determine if a Stormwater
Discharge Permit is necessary. If a permit is required by the State, the Developer shall demonstrate
to the City full permit compliance.
44. A one foot "no access" easement shall be provided along Baxter Lane, Oak Street, 27`h Avenue and
Davis Lane.
45. A Comprehensive Sign Plan for the entire subdivision shall be provided with the final site plan.
There should be a general theme to the style of signs permitted within the PUD and shall include
information regarding the materials, colors and illumination.
46. Stormwater ponds shall not exceed 1/3 of the area of the front yard setback adjacent to the external
streets.
47. Stormwater cannot be discharged into an active ditch. Stormwater discharged into a stream requires
the necessary permitting.
48. Cash-in-lieu of water rights is due with each Final Plat.
49. Based on the existing water table each Final Plat shall include a note regarding the restriction for
basements.
50. If Concurrent Construction is requested with other phases of the subdivision then it must be
explicitly requested in the narrative submitted with the Preliminary Plat application.
Standard
51. The right to a conditional use permit shall be contingent upon the fulfillment of all general and
special conditions imposed by the Conditional Use Permit procedure. All special conditions and
code provisions shall constitute restrictions running with the land, shall be binding upon the owner
of the land, his successors or assigns, shall be consented to in writing by the applicant prior to
commencement of the use and shall be recorded as such with the Gallatin County Clerk and
Page 5
Recorders Office by Pheproperty owner prior to the final site plan approval or commencement of
the use. All of the conditions and code provisions specifically stated under any conditional use listed
in this title shall apply and be adhered to by the owner of the land,successor or assigns.
52. The applicant must submit seven (7) copies a Final Site Plan within one year of preliminary approval
containing all of the conditions, corrections and modifications to be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Office.
53. A Building Permit must be obtained prior to the work, and must be obtained within one year of
Final Site Plan approval. Building Permits will not be issued until the Final Site Plan is approved.
Minor site surface preparation and normal maintenance shall be allowed prior to submittal and
approval of the Final Site Plan, including excavation and footing preparation, but NO
CONCRETE MAYBE POURED UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT IS OBTAINED.
Page 6
i
'DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
IWEST WINDS CUP/PUD ZONING FILE NO. Z-04050
. i
Item: Conditional Use Permit #Z-04050. A Zoning Planned Unit
Development Proposal to establish a unified development plan for 213
Single-household residential lots, 92 Townhouse lots, 5 Multi-
household residential lots for apartment buildings and 8 residential
lots for Senior Assisted Living facilities with requested relaxations
from the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance on
property bound by Baxter Lane, Oak Street, 27h Avenue and Davis
Lane and zoned "R-3" Residential,Medium Density District.
Applicant: HEM Engineering Inc.
601 Nikles Drive, Suite 2
Bozeman,MT 59715
Owner. Quest West LLC
3825 Valley Commons Drive, Suite 4
Bozeman,MT 59718
Date/Time: DRB meeting April 13, 2004, 3:30 pm in the Conference Room, Alfred
Stiff Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street, Bozeman,Montana
Report by: Jami Morris,Associate Planner
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
Denial of requested relaxations, a,b, c and i, listed in the staff report
PROJECT LOCATION
The subject property is described as NW'/a, Section 2, T2S, R5E, Gallatin County, Montana located
between Baxter Lane, Oak Street,.27`h Avenue and Davis Lane. Please refer to the vicinity map
provided.
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 1
BPS - BP B
BA7CiFR R 1
Pro R-3
PLI
m
PROPOSAL
The Conditional Use Permit application for a Zoning Planned Unit Development proposes a unified
plan for a residential subdivision with relaxations from the Unified Development Ordinance. The
applicant has requested review of a Phased Planned Unit Development with simultaneous approval
of all phases of the PUD. If approved,the subdivision will include 213 Single-household residential
lots, 92 Townhouse lots, 5 Multi-household residential lots for apartment buildings and 8 residential
lots for Senior Assisted Living facilities.
The Design Review Board reviewed the Concept Plan at its October 28, 2003 public meeting and
commented on the desire for a basic street grid, better site circulation including pedestrian pathways
and building orientation in relation to the arterial and collector streets.
The applicant has requested the following relaxations:
a) Section 18.42.100 "Watercourse Setback" to allow the watercourse setback to be reduced
from 50 feet to 15 feet. Planning Staff, Dezeloprrern Reu*e7x Commixteq, Racmation & Parks Adz ory
Board and the Wetlands ReziewBaxrd do not support the requested relaxation of dx zeaomurse setba& The
p npase.Jtbe stream setlazck is to protect v ater quality by filtering pollutants, prozide floral wrvd, nitninize
stream hank erasion 7ratzgzte stmam varrrurg, prazide room for lateral nnenrnt of the stmam channel and
protect aquatic habitat
b) Section 18.50.070.A.1 "Linear Parks" to allow the watercourse setback to count towards the
parkland dedication requirement. Planning Staff, Dewkpnvr Reue' w C,onv isee and the Re+cmation&
Parks A dusory Board do not support this 7daxa6m pause it mnders the park land as zirtzrally wwable for
amse mxmatwn Stmam setlazdzs are not supposed to he auras of actrze mcmation This mlaxation would aHow
the proposed sower fields to he dem6oped within a sedu& that has the potential for flooding and the u atermune
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 2
plantings that are requirrc, despite the sedw& relaxatzory will narrow the playing fields cum iderably(please note
the attadxd landscape plan where trams and shrubs uadd be installed in arras doiircd for sour fields). Mozeed
turf lawn is not considered a stream buffer because it proudes no aquatic habitat f mazon and is irreffectise for
flood catod and does not protect the natural ma re f ivm foot traffic Section 9.1.6 "Parkland A cqui=on"in
the 2020 Plan states that parkland daktation in sub&sisiaas sharld only be aaepted when the land is well
to ate� is naded for the ozerall park and nacrration program and is p )sually suited for park and recreation use
A lloueing the stream sed-a& to morn as parkland would allow the dezeloper to dedicate land that is not suitable
for actise nvwtional use
c) Section 18.50.020 "Park Requirements" to allow the park area requirement to be based on
11% net buildable area instead of 0.03 acres per dwelling unit. Planning Staff, Dezelopnra Rezzew
Cavrrittee; Ramatzon & Parks Adusory Board do not support the relaxation to the parklari d calculations.
The Unified Dezeloprrrrrt Ordinance states that 0.03 acres per Belling unit of land dedication or cash donation
i.a lieu of land dedication shall be proudeed A land dedication oJ7 2.5% to I 1% is perrattec dependent on lot
size, if the density of the dezelopment is unknown. The applicant argues that the density cf the
larger lots merwd for apartrrvrn style buildings is unk nozen Staff feels that the density is set forth throughout the
submittal as a mininwm of 960 d Belling units(pg. 6-1,pg.6-5,A pp. E pg3,A pp.J pg 1 andA pp. K pg 1).
The applicant protwed an updated table of parkland cakulatzons ozApril 7, 2004. The tables indicate that
24.3 world be required if based on 810 d filing units (960 units - 150 skilled ratning facility units). They
cun&rnt proposal is for 19.13 acres of parkland indudirg 35 feet of the 50 foot stream and uedand setlw&.
Plarming Staff estin vtes the parkland as fallozea:
Lots/Units
Single Household 213
Townhouse 92
Multi-household 12
Lot Size: "R 3" Zoning Regulates Minimum Lot Size at 3,000 s.f./unit
E-NM-1 159,346 53
E-MF-2 81,144 27
E-MP 6 274,112 91
E-MF-7 191,882 64
E-APT-1 206,887 69
S-2 81,709 27
S-3 88,856 30
S-4 162,264 54
S-5 169,772 57
S-6 166,050 55
S-7 162,236 54
S-8 164,343 55
953 Total Units Possible
8 C,U'Z8,2o Total Acres Required
-27 n a(o,a(o Acres with Park Waiver for Wetlands
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 3
The Recreation& Parks A dzisory Board has agreed that 24.3 acres of dedicated parkland unidd be acceptable
but a density cap of 810 dwelling units would haze to be in place and the deduated parkland should be in
exdusize of the vatercu se luedand setback (50 feet fynm the high waiter murk of the stream or 50 feet from the
delineated edge of the mdancl, zehio�ezer is greater).
d) Section 18.16.020.B "Authorized Uses" to allow assisted living/elderly care facilities and
apartments within the "R 3" Residential Medium Density zoning district. Plar=*ng Staff and the
Derelopnznt Reziew Crnrnrdttx support this relaxation since it is implemenrtang a Growth Policy gaol(5.7.1) to
pwnw an adequate supply of safe housing that is dim-se in type, density, and locatiary ueith special emphasis on
maintaining neighborhood cbaracter and stability
e) Section 18.42.030.0 "Double/Through and Reverse Frontage" to allow double frontage
lots adjacent to the arterial and collector streets. Planning Staff and the Dezdopmvrt Reziero Conrnr tee
conditionally supports this relaxation if cowmnts indude language requiring the construction of the homes to
indude a false front presented to the exterior streets, no rear hard fences pmnttec a sidewalk comwion is
prouded from each building to the exterior streets and as long as the Home Owrur's Association is responsible for
the muinterrance of the exterior street sidewalks, bakwrds and trails. Otherwise, the relaxation came be
supported because it zemid not comply with ahjectiw 8 of goal 4.9.1 Conmtni y Design Obje dw 8 requires
rxw neighborhoods to be integral parts of the broader community structure It is extremely aVxult to be an
integral part of the neighborhood when designed to isolate the dewk prrent from the rest of the City by turning your
back to it
f) Section 18.42.040.B "Block Length" to allow the block lengths to exceed 400 feet. Planning
Staff and the Dezelo7nvr Reuew Conmitee m%biwnally support this requested relaxation except for the blocks
ba&irg onto the dedicated parkland Although 60% of the entire park perimeter is bound by public right of wuy
this park has been designed as a marrow linear park that is not well located for aeicessibilitye The park design
does not facilitate access to large areas cf the park since a rmjanty of the park is l=ted behind prizute lots.
Staff could support the longer blocks within the interior of the subdizision rather than adjacent to thepark.
g) Section 18.42.040.0 "Block Width" to allow the minimum block length to be less than 200
feet for the blocks with Restricted Size Lots. Planning Stafsuppom the increase in block width as long
as adequate street mrmeczizity is maintained within the subdiziswn
h) Section 18.42.180.0 "Number of Restricted Size Lots Required" to allow the townhouse
Restricted Size Lots to be less than 3,000 square feet and more than 3,000 for corner townhouse
lots. Planning Staff supports the smaller lots since pwdous przrjects haze demxmstratad that dezdopnznt with less
than an average of 3,000 square feet for townhouse lots can be aavVIished and ghm the additional corner side
yard setback the increase in lot size for consideration of comer lots is also aaeptable
i) Section 18.44.090.D.3 "Spacing Standards for Drive Accesses" to allow residential lots that
front on Hunter's Way and Buckrake and back onto the linear park to access local streets within
150 feet of an intersection with an arterial street and to allow the proposed access separation
distance between the proposed local streets onto Oak Street, an arterial street, to be separated
less than 660 feet. Placating Staff dos not support the relaxation of dx 150 foot requirement because it has
been determ ned that it is not an applicable relaxation for single household las. The E ngineering Department
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 4
and the DezelTnr7rt Reuero Cow were not in support of relaxing all of the aaa-ss distances on Oak Street
because ad&7uate spacing could be maintained Keith a slight adjustment to the plans.
ZONING DESIGNATION &LAND USES
The subject property is currently vacant and is zoned "R 3" (Residential Medium Density District).
The intent of the "R 3" district is to provide for the development of one- to five-household
residential structures near service facilities within the City. It should provide fro a variety of housing
types to serve the varied needs of households of different size, age and character, while reducing the
adverse effect of nonresidential uses.
The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property:
North: Currently vacant but will be developed with duplex to five-plex building
configurations on townhouse lots in Baxter Square Subdivision PUD, zoned "R 3"
(Residential Medium Density District)and single-household residences in the County,
zoned "A S" (Agricultural Suburban District).
South: Single-household residences in Harvest Creek, zoned "R 1" (Residential Low
Density District)
East: Single Household Residences and agricultural uses, zoned "R 3" (Residential
Medium Density District) and agricultural uses in the County zoned "A S"
(Agricultural Suburban District).
West: Currently vacant but will be developed with single-household residences in Baxter
Meadows Subdivision PUD, zoned "R 3" (Residential Medium Density District) and
the Regional Park on property zoned"PLI" (Public Lands and Institutions).
ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION
The property is designated Residential. The Residential land use designation denotes areas where
the primary activity is urban density living quarters.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INTENT
The intent of the PUD title is to promote the City's pursuit of the following community objectives;
A. To ensure that future growth and development occurring within the City is in accord with the
City's adopted growth policy, its specific elements, and its goals, objectives and policies;
B. To allow opportunities for innovations in land development and redevelopment so that greater
opportunities for high quality housing, recreation, shopping and employment may extend to all
citizens of the Bozeman area;
C. To foster the safe, efficient and economic use of land and transportation and other public
facilities;
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 5
D. To ensure adequate provision of public services such as water, sewer, electricity, open space and
public parks;
E. To avoid inappropriate development of lands and to provide adequate drainage, water quality
and reduction of flood damage;
F. To encourage patterns of development which decrease automobile travel and encourage trip
consolidation, thereby reducing traffic congestion and degradation of the existing air quality,
G. To promote the use of bicycles and walking as effective modes of transportation;
H. To reduce energy consumption and demand;
I. To minimize adverse environmental impacts of development and to protect special features of
the geography;
J. To improve the design, quality and character of new development;
K. .To encourage development of vacant properties within developed areas;
L. To protect existing neighborhoods from the hannful encroachment of incompatible
developments;
M. To promote logical development patterns of residential, commercial, office and industrial uses
that will mutually benefit the developer,the neighborhood and the community as a whole;
N. To promote the efficient use of land resources, full use of urban services, mixed uses,
transportation options, and detailed and human-scale design; and
O. To meet the purposes established in 18.02.040,BMC.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CRITERIA
The intent of Section 18.54 "Planned Unit Development" is to promote maximum flexibility and
innovation in the development of land and the design of development projects within the city. The
applicant is proposing deviations from the city's standards through the Planned Unit
Development process and therefore must demonstrate a plan that will produce an
environment, landscape quality and character superior to that produced under the existing
standards. The following questions should be considered by the Board:
• Are the elements of the site plan designed and arranged to produce an efficient, functionally
organized and cohesive planned unit development?
• Does the design and arrangement of lots and open space areas contribute to the overall aesthetic
quality of the site configuration?
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 6
• 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?
RECOMMENDATION
The Design Review Board is established to evaluate aesthetic considerations of larger and more
complex proposals which are likely to produce significant community impact and to provide
recommendations regarding such proposals to the City Commission. The Board is empowered to
recommend approval or conditional approval of the project with support of some or all of the
requested relaxations or to forward a recommendation of denial. The Design Review Board may
determine that some conditions of approval are necessary to meet the intent of the Planned Unit
Development and to mitigate the requested relaxations.
CONCLUSION/RE COMMENDATION
Planning Staff recommends conditional approval of #Z-04050 without relaxations a,b,c and i. The
applicant must comply with all provisions of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance, which
are applicable to this project prior to receiving Final Site Plan, Final Plat or Building Permit
approval. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not
specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation
of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law.
NOTE: The Design Review Board and Development Review Committee will forward a
formal recommendation to the City Commission on this matter who will in turn consider an
action on this application on Monday,May 10, 2004.
Attachments: Submittal for Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development
Mailed to: John Dunlap, 3285 Valley Commons Drive,Ste 4,Bozeman,MT 59718
HKM Engineering, 601 Nikles Drive,Ste 2,Bozeman,MT 59715
#Z-04050 West Winds CUP/PUD Staff Report 7
1
11 `
LI ,
ll �
1.�
1 �
� I �
� , - _ �� ����� r t �.. o, a.Ol a S• ��► • I•
•
1 � aka--�. . � � i I w � e • � — '• :. i
ffl
WEMR. IWWW:�lblq
INI
NOW
1
�G a ,go•�
�. IT, iD 49 WV _..:._
1 ,
n
- -
r---� �
. .
t t ,.
1
r !
r�
i . + ,,.a�. ,�;a;. ,
•.:. � � `
•ti,:, � ;i ,, ��, �
a
r� �� !�- !
../. _ _
..` -
i
. �._
:> i
l- , - 1
t �.NA ..�.j.k.
�%
f
I T•y.
_' �, � _
s
,_.' h.,,.r J
:�+ —
� K F�
r ,. � r l I r r t. �
' 1
• I
� �
t '
�� �
� � ��
�. ti ,,l � t j..�. .,
1 t ., � .. s
t � �� -
_ r
�,.
•
Iil
CIMOF BOZEMAN 10
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260
20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263
P.O. Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www.bozeman.net
MEMORANDUM
To: Development Review Committee
From: Jami Morris, Associate Planner
Date: April 13, 2004
Subject: West Winds Zoning PUD #Z-04050
Planning Staff has reviewed the Zoning Planned Unit Development application to provide a unified
development plan for a 161.30 acre subdivision for the development of 213 single-household, 92
townhouse, 5 multi-household and 8 senior assisted living lots with the following requested relaxations
from the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance: a) Section 18.42.100 "Watercourse Setback"
to allow a the watercourse setback to be reduced from 50 feet to 15 feet; b) Section 18.50.070.A.1 "Linear
Parks" to allow the watercourse setback to count towards the parkland dedication requirement; c) Section
18.50.020 "Park Requirements" to allow the area requirement to be based on 11% net buildable area
instead of 0.03 acres per dwelling unit; d) Section 18.16.020.B to allow assisted living/elderly care facilities
and apartments within the "R 3" zoning district; e) Section 18.42.030.0"Double/Through and Reverse
Frontage" to allow double frontage lots adjacent to the arterial and collector streets; f) 18.42.040.B "Block
Length" to allow the block lengths to exceed 400 feet; g) Section 18.42.040.0 "Block Width" to allow
the minimum block length to be less than 200 feet for the blocks with Restricted Size Lots; h) Section
18.42.180.0"Number of Restricted Size Lots Required" to allow the townhouse Restricted Size Lots to
be less than 3,000 square feet and more than 3,000 for corner townhouse lots; and i) Section 18.44.090.D.3
"Spacing Standards for Drive Accesses" to allow residential lots that front on Hunter's Way and
Buckrake and back onto the linear park to access local streets within 150 feet of an intersection with an
arterial street and to allow the proposed access separation distance between the proposed local streets onto
Oak Street, an art, ri Staff al street, to be separated less than 660 feet. Sta cannot support requested
relaxations a,b, cand i,but conditionally supports the proposal and relaxations d, e, f and g with
the following conditions of approval.
Parkland, Trails &Open Space
1. Half of the lots backing onto the park especially those fronting Hunters Way shall be moved to
allow for accessibility to the park.
2. A watercourse setback planting plan shall be prepared by a qualified landscape professional and shall
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the commencement of development
or site preparation. The plan shall include a schedule for planting and landscaping as outlined for
Zone 1 and Zone 2 outlined in 18.42.100.
3. A proportionate amount of parkland, open space and restricted size lots, to meet the general
standards and the PUD regulations,shall be noted with each Final Plat and Final Plan.
planning • zoning • subdivision review . annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration • neighborhood coordination
4. Plans and SP ecificanons for the trail will need to be reviewed obythe Parks Department prior to
construction.
5. Trail crossings shall be located at the nearest cross street.
The Transportation Plan calls for a bike path on Oak Street.
7. The subdivider shall be responsible for installing sod, boulevard trees and an irrigation system in the
public right-of-way boulevard strips along all external subdivision streets and adjacent to subdivision
parks or other open space areas.
Building Design
8. Each lot shall meet the minimum lot area standards, including the multi-household lots, for an
"R 3" zoned lot unless an alternative zoning designation is approved through a Zone Map
Amendment.
9. A building configuration.plan shall be submitted for townhouse lots with subsequent subdivision
phases.
10. The Covenants and Design Guidelines must state the means in which building orientation will be
mitigated along the arterial and collector streets. The lots shall provide a front porch or false fa§ade,
a sidewalk connection to each building, and shall covenants shall prohibit the construction of fences
unless under 4 feet tall and a coordinated design for all of the lots.
11. The declaration of covenants for the subdivision must be included and recorded with the Final Plat.
The City of Bozeman shall be party to any changes or modifications made to the restrictive
covenants and Architectural Guidelines as they relate to any zoning and/or planning bylaws. The
covenants shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Office prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
12. Construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the HOA Architectural Committee prior to
submitting a site plan application or a building permit application, whichever comes first. The plans
shall include a stamp of approval from the Architectural Committee prior to City review. This
language shall be incorporated into the Covenants for the subdivision.
Miscellaneous
13. A one foot "no access" easement shall be provided along Baxter Lane, Oak Street, 27`h Avenue and
Davis Lane. oUfAAt. U o4
14. A Comprehensive Sign Plan for the entire subdivision shall be provided with the final site plan.
There should be a general theme to the style of signs permitted within the PUD and shall include
information regarding the materials,colors and illumination.
15. Stormwater ponds shall not exceed 1/3 of the area of the front yard setback adjacent to the external
streets.
16. Stormwater cannot be discharged into an active ditch. Stormwater discharged into a stream requires
the necessary permitting.
17. Cash-in-lieu of water rights is due with each Final Plat.
Page 2
18. Based on the existing water table each Final Plat shall include a note regarding the restriction for
basements.
19. If Concurrent Construction is requested with other phases of the subdivision then it must be
explicitly requested in the narrative submitted with the Preliminary Plat application.
Standard
20. The right to a conditional use permit shall be contingent upon the fulfillment of all general and
special conditions imposed by the Conditional Use Permit procedure. All special conditions and
code provisions shall constitute restrictions running with the land, shall be binding upon the owner
of the land, his successors or assigns, shall be consented to in writing by the applicant prior to
commencement of the use and shall be recorded as such with the Gallatin County Clerk and
Recorder's Office by the property owner prior to the final site plan approval or commencement of
the use. All of the conditions and code provisions specifically stated under any conditional use listed
in this title shall apply and be adhered to by the owner of the land, successor or assigns.
21. The applicant must submit seven (7) copies a Final Site Plan within one year of preliminary approval
containing all of the conditions, corrections and modifications to be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Office.
22. A Building Permit must be obtained prior to the work, and must be obtained within one year of
Final Site Plan approval. Building Permits will not be issued until the Final Site Plan is approved.
Minor site surface preparation and normal maintenance shall be allowed prior to submittal and
approval of the Final Site Plan, including excavation and footing preparation, but NO
CONCRETE MAY BE POURED UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT IS OBTAINED.
Page 3
23. The property owner and the Home Owner's Association shall be responsible for the park
maintenance until such time as a City-wide Parks Maintenance District is created. The wetlands and
the north to south trail corridor shall be the responsibility of the HOA to maintain in perpetuity.
This shall be reflected in the Covenants for the subdivision.
24. The Master Plan for the park shall be submitted for review and approval prior to submitting Final
Plat for Phase 1.
Page 4
Jami, . • Page 1 of 1
Jami Morris
From: Ron Dingman
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 8:47 AM
To: Jami Morris
Subject: West Winds-how's this?
Jami,
After reviewing the West Winds park plan, I recommend approval of their application with the following conditions.
* Redesign of the Park, with the full 24.3 acres to be dedicated in an aggregated fashion, as
recommended in the Bozeman 2020 community Plan, chapter 9, section 9.2.2.
*A trail be constructed connecting both North and South ends of the sub-division via the streambed and
through the Park. *A trail be constructed connecting from East to West, away from streets and sidewalks.
* HOA be responsible for maintenance of Park, park fixtures, trails, etc., until such time that a Park
Maintenance District, or similar form of funding, is established.
*A Park master plan be submitted for approval by the City Parks Division with the Phase I Final Plat and
Plan.
*All park/trail redesign and construction be approved by the City Parks Division, and that it meet City
standards
All trail corridors are to be 25 feet in width, as stated in the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance,
chapter 18.50, section 18.50.070. All Park and Trail plans and construction to be approved by the City
Parks Division.
Thank you.
Ron Dingman
City Parks Manager
4/13/2004
S LI
Jami,
After reviewing the West Winds park plan, I do not recommend approval of their application for
the following reasons.
• Park land proposed to be dedicated does not create a"usable" Park area, but rather
a corridor along existing an streambed which, at best, can serve only as a trail
corridor.
• Park land required would be 24.3 acres based on .03 acres x 810 dwelling units. The
amount of land proposed to be dedicated, in the current plan, is roughly 14 acres,
when the streambed and stream setback are not included. These amount to roughly
4 acres.
• Developer has requested relaxation of UDO requirements, which would further
reduce the amount of park land to be dedicated.
If the DRC committee chooses to approve the West Wind application, I would recommend a
redesign of the Park, with the full 24.3 acres to be dedicated in an aggregated fashion, as
recommended in the Bozeman 2020 community Plan, chapter 9, section 9.2.2. 1 suggest that the
Park be placed between Breeze Lane and Tradewinds and between Buckrake and Hunters Way,
with a trail connecting both North and South ends of the sub-division via the streambed and
through the Park. There should also be a full trail connection from East to West, away from
streets and sidewalks. All trail corridors are to be 25 feet in width, as stated in the Bozeman
Unified Development Ordinance, chapter 18.50, section 18.50.070.
Thank you.
Ron Dingman
City Parks Manager
Jami Morris
From: Susan Stodola
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:18 AM
To: Jami Morris
Subject: FW: West Winds
Jami,
FYI. I'll handle the engineering items.
Sue
Susan M. Stodola, P.E.
Project Engineer
City of Bozeman
406-582-2281 (phone)
406-582-2263(fax)
sstodola(cDbozeman.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Debbie Arkell
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 6:26 PM
To: Susan Stodola
Cc: Richard Hixson
Subject: West Winds
I won't have time to review this in much detail. Please review the XL Properties Annexation Agreement. It's got some
funky stuff in it- like reserved sewer capacity. They need to pay cash in-lieu of or provide water rights when they file final
plat. Ron Dingman should be getting packets. If he didn't get this, please make sure he does. Lots backing onto
arterial/collector streets is continuing to be an issue, especially when they put little "park" strips between the lot and the r/w.
(-hope planning addresses this. Lots backing up to the park is also a problem. People seem to think the park is their back
yard. I'm sure Ron will comment on that!
Make sure we get stop signs in appropriate places. DO NOT let Hunters continue to be a totally through street. I think
traffic should stop on Hunters at Tschache, but I'm not a traffic engineer! We need to do better at looking at neighborhood
needs regarding through traffic, and keep local streets local.
RICK: Should we consider"traffic calming" at N. 27th and Oak, or is it just time to put a signal there? Pedestrian crossing,
especially for school kids going to Emily D, will be an issue.
Debra H. Arkell
Director of Public Service
City of Bozeman, Montana
(406) 582-2306
darkellebozeman.net
1
Page 1 of 1
Jami Morris
From: Ryon Stover
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 1:13 PM
To: Jami Morris
Subject: west winds
There are park and open space designs, and street layouts, but I never saw a landscape/streetscape
plan. Did I just miss that in all those pages, is it not yet required, or did they omit that plan? Have a
good weekend.
Ryon Stover
City Forester
City of Bozeman
Box1230
Bozeman,Mt. 59771
406-582-3200
3/22/2004
1. The parkland dedication is calculated based on 0.03 acres'per unit for the single
household lots and 11% for the multi-household lots. Every table, except the
parkland table, references 960 dwelling units. There are two tables in your packet
that suggest as many as 1,548 units in the development. Therefore, 28.8 acres of
parkland is required, based on 960 units, and should be depicted in your plan. This
means that the extra parkland counted towards your PUD points must also be
deducted and recalculated. 5.46 acres must be dedicated with Phase 1.
W_'1* CO—P "
The wetlands can count tosalards your parkland dedication and the senior assisted living units that
do not inchide kitchen.facilities or are set i!p more as a hospital will not require parkland
dedication.
I did indicate 11% could be used However,you have taken nay comments out of context. I said
you can use the 11%multiplier ifyou don't know the density of those units. As stated before, all of
the tables in the saebnaittal, except for parkland calculation indicates a 960 unit development and
potenfialy a 1,548 unit developrnent. Wle are not changing the rxales at,this point.
2. Everything in our records indicates that there is a watercourse that bisects the
property running north to south. It is primarily located on the north side of the
property with some intermittent flow on the south portion. Evidence,in the form of
letters from FW-P and Gallatin Conservation District, of the classification must be
provided before we can proceed with review. If it is a stream then a 50 foot setback
will be required on both sides and that area can only be calculated as open space and
not parkland. N n 1 Q �1 UXOU MAAA A
Planning Staff wit' not support a 15 foot setback from a stream or from the wetlands associated
u th the stream This is not a streaml ditch. Our maps indicate it is part of Cattail Creek that
could potentially have a floodplain associated with it,. Even though the floodplain has not been
mapped the associated dangers still exist.
3. Figure 1.2 does not differentiate open space and parkland. This needs to be cleared
up.
Same as above.
4. You need to reevaluate the boundaries for the parkland in regards to the
Neighborhood Center. If the building is private then it cannot be calculated towards
parkland dedication. By my estimates, at least 28 of the parking stalls would remain
private with the building since it seems unlikely that joint use will work because of
possible overlap.
You did notpmvide newparkland calculations. This is still required.
5. The relaxations listed do not request a reduction in lot size. As currently stated, the
RSLs would only be able to exceed the 3,000 or 5,000 square foot requirement. You
need to clarify the relaxations being requested.
The minimums are already discussed elsewhere in the text and therefore do not need to be repeated in
the RSL section. It is to,goical to assume that RSL's cannot be less than 5,000 square feet and
3,000 feet based on Section 18.16.040 that states that the minimum lot area,for a townhouse lot is
3,000 square feet and the minimum lot area for a single household residence is 5,000 square feet.
The RSL section further states the maximum thus the lots cannot be more or less than described.
The townhouse lots could be evaluated as an average of 3.000 square feet based on the building
con aguration. Unfortunately,you still have not identi ted the clustering of the units. It could be as
simple as ident�fying units by 14A, 14B, 14C
6. If it is determined that there is a stream on the property then there are watercourse
plantings required as outlined in 18.42.100. In addition, if the trail is constructed
within the stream setback then it cannot be dedicated and it cannot count towards
parkland.
The plan provided does not give our City Forester or our Parks De
urtment anything to evaluate.
There is no description of the species. The City Forester espeda4 likes to see variety in the
planings in the boulevards. The stream setback must be planted according to Section
18.42.100.B.7.
7. The plat should have a table listing the number of single household, townhouse and
multi-household lots being created for this phase and then each subsequent phase
needs this itemized on the preliminary plat as well.
r
This has been satisfactorily met.
8. The lighting information needs to be in Lumens for street lighting. The planned
street light locations do not meet the requirements of the UDO. We can discuss this
further.
I still don't have anything describing the lighting in Lumens and the plan is not in conformance with
Table 42-2 according the Planner that worked on the Section.
9. We need a park,open space and streetscape landscape plan to review now.
Based on the plan provided we would assume that the developer is planting all of the street trees on
all of the public rights of way. You are applying for a PUD which requires a landscape plan.
Obviously, we would not require a plan demonstrating the landscupirg of private lots. What we do
expect is a landscape plan that depicts landscaping in arterial and collector streets, medians if
required and within the open spaces and parkland areas. The plan should provide more detail in
regards to plant types and species.
10. We need to know the type of 404 permit will be issued. A copy of the letter
indicating the type of 404 permit must be submitted to our office. See Section
18.56.030 if you have any questions.
As I indicated to you before you submitted your application, the 404 permit is required with the
preliminary plat if the Corps is taking jurisdiction and if the 404 permit required is not one listed
in Section 18.56.030. Generally, these types qf wetlands are not in association with streams.
There are wetlands in the complex that are described as not being fed by the watercourse.
Apparently, the Corps is taking jurisdiction on some of the wetlands but what type of permit?
Lynn should contact Jody Sad ford with the Planning Once to discYrss further.
11. If the parkland in the Senior Center area is being counted towards the parkland
dedication then it needs to be depicted as such on the maps.
This will work. However, if the area is being calculated to meet PUD points then we skill need an
updated table.
12. We need details for building and fence design for odd shaped lots if we are going to
support them. Specifically, we need to see details for how Lots 6-9, Block 1 and
Lots 8-16,Block 2 are going to work. _
The details provided do not fully take into consideration the possible fence conflicts. Lrlbat happens
on the corners?
13. Planning Staff is not sure whether you can technically request a relaxation from the
RSL square footage. However, if Legal Staff determines it can be called out as a
Lrelaxation then Planning Staff is not going to support the request for larger lots.
Staff may support smaller RSLs if details can be provided as evidence of functional
design.
The plans still indicate townhouse lots being used or RSL requirement. Are you ussn the
�� p g f q y g
,p townhouse lots still because it still possibly is an issue but if we knew the building confgurution then
„et�1�(,'` we may be able to resolve the question?
I Questions:
14. How do you intend to proceed with review? You indicate a phased PUD but what
type of phased PUD? For instance, will you submit the Final PUD for each phase
with the Final Plat? Will you submit the Final PUD for the entire development and
then just come back with Preliminary and Final Plats for each phase? Will you be
submitting the Final PUD before or with the Final Plat? These decisions must be
made now.
Are you going to submit the plan and/or plat before installation of infrastructure or before drnwir1,
a building permit?
15. There is discussion of a well being installed for irrigation of the park and open space
areas. Will this well be made available to the residents for their irrigation purposes
also?
16. The wetland report indicates 3.07 acres of wetland in the subdivision and all but a
small piece is within the parkland area. Only 1.94 acres was deducted for the
parkland dedication. Can you explain this?
17. The private access detail is apparently noted for a private drive aisle, as stated at 1"
week DRC,but this is not a typical standard for even a drive aisle.
I asked at e week DRC if there here ary private streets being proposed and Clintyou said no.
Figure 6.4 indicates a 33 foot local street in the areas I was referring to in my 10128103 letter as
being permitted as a 20 foot private road with a standard public street easement Eon still confused
as to where this is going to be located in relation to Figure 6.4.
18. Generally townhouse lots are noted with letter designations (i.e., 1A, 1B and 1C for a
three unit townhouse cluster). We need to know what type of clustering will be
used. Are these duplex, triplex,four-plex or five-plex configurations?
19. Was the park restriction language intentional? Staff does not support a restriction on
the park use for league practice. You need to confirm if this is how you intend to
proceed so the City Commission can respond to this request.
20. The table for PUD points lists 103.2 acres net and the affordable housing table
suggests a 93.28 acre net. What was further subtracted from the affordable housing
to come up with a 9.92 acre difference?
Ve need to see nesv tables/calculations.
21. The submittal suggests a sign plan. Where is the sign plan?
Fine this will be a condition of approval. However, in the future don't r fer to something that is not
being included in the packet.
22. Which wetland is BB/W-1 referring to on the map and where is BB-2 on the map?
Preliminary Conditions of Approval/Code Provisions:
1. Letters of approval for abandonment of the ditches is required with Final Plat.
Proof that this will not affect downstream water users is also required with the Final
Plat.
This is a UDO requirement that you will need to work out mith Bob Davis.
2. Plans and Specifications for the trail will need to. be reviewed by the Parks
Department prior to construction.
3. Trail crossings need to be located at the nearest cross street.
4. The Transportation Plan calls for a bike path on Oak Street.
5. A Cultural Resource Inventory is required prior to any earth being moved.
6. Stormwater ponds cannot. exceed 1/3 of the front yard. This specifically addresses
Baxter Lane.
In this instance it would be the yard you are providing, specifically on Baxter Lane where all of the
storm water is located Ve don't want a streetscape solely used for storm water(Ferguson Meadows
example).
7. Stormwater cannot be discharged into an active ditch. Stormwater discharged into a
stream requires the necessary permitting.
8. Cash-in-lieu of water rights is due with each Final Plat.
You can do cuss and quantify with the Director of Pubbc Setuce.
9. Irrigation of the Oak Street, 276' Avenue, Davis Lane and Baxter Lane will be the
developer's responsibility to install.
10. Planning Staff and RPAB does not support all of the lots backing onto the park
especially along Hunters Way.
It's simply a recommendation to the City Commission based on our desire to avoid limitations to
accessibility. This will be a recommended condition of approval. You are requesting relaxations to
the standards thmilgh a PUD and our role is to recommend conditions to address additional review
required by the PLID process.
11. The Covenants and Design Guidelines must state the means in which building
orientation will be mitigated along the arterial and collector streets.
12. Placement of the east to west trail should connect between Rose Park and the
Regional Park. I realize there will be a gap between Rose Park until the property is
developed but this will set the course for future development. Commissioner Krauss
had suggested that this path have a large buffer. This could be addressed with a
typical sidewalk and a larger boulevard. This would also have to be approved by
Engineering.
13. If you are going to calculate the affordable housing units to meet your PUD points
then you will be required to provide a deed restriction on the affordable housing lot
or financial guarantee that the lot will be developed with the affordable housing
project.
Week l of 3
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
MEETING REVIEW SHEET
DATE: 3/ta3 /D L I PROJECT NAME: (.A )l/--.)f- 1)-)
PREPARED BY: Jami Morris, Associate Planner FILE #: P-OyQ09 Z-oq 05-0
APPLICANTS/REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT:
DRC MEMBERS PRESENT: � �
M< S � E
o� , Project Engineer 7John Alston, Water/Sewer Superintendent
eil Poulsen, Chief Building Official ❑Dave Skelton, Senior Planner
04ohn Vandelinder, Streets Superintendent Limon Dingman, Parks Department
Q/Greg Megaard, Fire Marshal
Others/Alternates:
SUMMARY:
e3 - CA/l2�
JZACLoL
5
)dA ')S CIA Q J.& 9_
oti-Ez.otiA ��,,� 'Le
<Sl -
Approved/Denied to
Week a 06
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
MEETING REE SHEET
�
DATE: D PROJECT NAME: t�-aU
PREPARE BY: Jami Morris, Associate Planner FILE #: 12,o y oDq 2—Cd VoS o
APPLICANTS/REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT:
DRC MEMBERS PRESENT:
0 , Project Engineer Cr John Alston, Water/Sewer Superintendent
0 Neil Poulsen, Chief Building Official 5,f3ave Skelton, Senior Planner
C4ohn Vandelinder, Streets Superintendent 0 Ron Dingman, Parks Department
0 Greg Megaard, Fire Marshal
Others/Alternates: ,
S ARY:
' i a
7
Approved/Denied to
i •
Week 3 of S
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
MEETING REVIEW SHEET
DATE: 4b-ioi PROJECT NAME: J)JOVVJMM
PREPARED BY: Jami Morris, Associate Planner FILE#: p- O qW q Z -O y 0t
APPLICANTS/REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT:
DRC MEMBERS PRESENT:
Project Engineer RJohn Alston, Water/Sewer Superintendent
ANz44oi4s en, Chief Building Official Ca_JQ- Q�ve Skelton, Senior Planner
Cohn Vandelinder, Streets Superintendent Ron Dingman, Parks Department
allmglTe-g-mrd, Fire Marshal
Others/Alternates:
SUMMARY: _
at�_ �,Q�
"l; QQA o
e_�"11
u'cR. , "'_aA� 0 /0-4)404 & l
u.�.�2L�- ��2 un7►.�-�- �a.�isZ rz ce,��, ec�:�c,�A.. ,acaJlr .
Approve enied_J�_to O
Questions:
Sue
1. Oak Street is supposed to have a bike- oath. Are there approved plans for the design
of Oak Street? Do they depict-a-bike path? Is the path only being installed on the
north side of Oak or will a path be constructed on the south side as well?
2. Could they construct a larger boulevard along Tschache Lane? 9.cQ
o eon
3. Does there need to be a plat note regarding basement restrictions? The groundwater
depth is rather shallow in parts of the subdivision and previous utility activity on this
- property required dewatering. P 1&.� L��Ci��'i�
4. Page 6-5 of the application indicates sewer capacity is conservative. The applicant
believes that there is additional capacity for him in the Mall Sewer Main. The
applican also beli�t addition capacity can be gained from the main on
Baxter. ,
5. The UDO states you cannot discharge stormwater into a ditch. Can they discharge
into the ditch if it is abandoned (page 6-7)? _kQO QA:,�Zz cQ,tio
6. Is existing sewer main going to�moved? .s this what Clint was talking about at
DRC first week) C�,g�o � uS� ,g A �
t &AA-
How do you read a well reply What are domestic and public waters?
U
8. Will parking be permitt d.on Baxter,D o 2Z th.aor will we require a "no acce "
easement?
dQ Jl Q s
rV
au`s�
9. The road sections do no meet t ransportation Ian. Is this okay? Is there a 40
foot local street detail? Which Oak Street detail should they be using? Is 27`h noted
appropriately) WIC �0,�p� �0-�' Pool c ^�
10. Does LOS.on Durston affect this projecte
ere does re co con L _
— tN e�L�lz�o n.ac�oC
ndy
12. To what extent will we count Neighborhood Center towards parkland?
13. Where does Planning Staff stand on undersized RSLs?. C
14. The developer questions acres per unit Toter senior assisted living,primarily the
hospital style units v(here there are beds injtead dwellings or units without kitchens.
C co ti c�C,L -,)/
Did Xksectio equiring pon of to exce ope, 1'/z foot ke it into
` gene standa s? -
4L'16. Can a sewer easement be calculated towards parkland?
17. Do impact fee credits need to be requested at preliminary plat? Do they need to be
called out a special way? lYt*U WVU,
Ron
18. Will the Parks Department suggest a condition requiring all of the park to be
maintained by the HOA? Generally,the city would maintain the park and the HOA
would be responsible for the trail maintenance. This doesn't seem appropriate since
the trail is right in the middle of the park 1 n ` 6L
19. What is the Class designation for the north to south trail. Is Class II appropriate.
Look Up
20. What Waivers did they sign with the Annexation Agreement?
G - W)\G e (&�
pu
o�-
OLZ
/.t¢.
,U1�a��-�► �Cam- � ��-�-�-
< 3 . I scaLf
t
Qu-
� � ,��
I have completed my cursory review of West Winds Preliminary Plat. Based on discussions
with the Planning Director, the following items must be addressed before we can proceed
with DRC review.
1. The parkland dedication is calculated based on 0.03 acres per unit for the single
household lots and 11% for the multi-household lots. Every table, except the
parkland table, references 960 dwelling units. There are two tables in your packet
that suggest as many as 1,548 units in the development. Therefore, 28.8 acres of
parkland is required and should be depicted in your plan. This means that the extra
parkland counted towards your PUD points must also be deducted and recalculated.
5.46 acres must be dedicated with Phase 1.
2. Everything in our records indicates that there is a watercourse that bisects the
property running north to south. It is primarily located on the north side of the
property with some intermittent flow on the south portion. Evidence, in the form of
letters from FWP and Gallatin Conservation District, of the classification must be
provided before we can proceed with review. If it is a stream then a 50 foot setback
will be required on both sides and that area can only be calculated as open space and
not parkland.
3. Figure 1.2 does not differentiate open space and parkland. This needs to be cleared
up.
4. You need to reevaluate the boundaries for the parkland in regards to the
Neighborhood Center. If the building is private then it cannot be calculated towards
parkland dedication. By my estimates, at least 28 of the parking stalls would remain
private with the building since it seems unlikely that joint use will work because of
possible overlap.
5. The relaxations listed do not request a reduction in lot size. As currently stated, the
RSLs would only be able to exceed the 3,000 or 5,000 square foot requirement. You
need to clarify the relaxations being requested.
6. If it is determined that there is a stream on the property then there are watercourse
plantings required as outlined in 18.42.100. In addition, if the trail is constructed
within the stream setback then it cannot be dedicated and it cannot count towards
parkland.
7. The plat should have a table listing the number of single household, townhouse and
multi-household lots being created for this phase and then each subsequent phase
needs this itemized on the preliminary plat as well.
8. The lighting information needs to be in Lumens for street lighting. The planned
street light locations do not meet the requirements of the UDO. We can discuss this
further.
9. We need a park, open space and streetscape landscape plan to review now.
10. We need to know the type of 404 permit will be issued. A copy of the letter
indicating the type of 404 permit must be submitted to our office. See Section
18.56.030 if you have any questions.
11. If the parkland in the Senior Center area is being counted towards the parkland
dedication then it needs to be depicted as such on the maps.
12. We need details for building and fence design for odd shaped lots if we are going to
support them. Specifically, we need to see details for how Lots 6-9, Block 1 and
Lots 8-16,Block 2 are going to work.
13. Planning Staff is not sure whether you can technically request a relaxation from the
RSL square footage. However, if Legal Staff determines it can be called out as a
relaxation then Planning Staff is not going to support the request for larger lots.
Staff may support smaller RSLs if details can be provided as evidence of functional
design.
Questions:
14. How do you intend to proceed with review? You indicate a phased PUD but what
type of phased PUD? For instance, will you submit the Final PUD for each phase
with the Final Plat? Will you submit the Final PUD for the entire development and
then )ust come back with Preliminary and Final Plats for each phase? Will you be
submitting the Final PUD before or with the Final Plat? These decisions must be
made now.
15. There is discussion of a well being installed for irrigation of the park and open space
areas. Will this well be made available to the residents for their irrigation purposes
also?
16. The wetland report indicates 3.07 acres of wetland in the subdivision and all but a
small piece is within the parkland area. Only 1.94 acres was deducted for the
parkland dedication. Can you explain this?
17. The private access detail is apparently noted for a private drive aisle, as stated at 1"
week DRC, but this is not a typical standard for even a drive aisle.
18. Generally townhouse lots are noted with letter designations (i.e., 1A, 1B and 1C for a
three unit townhouse cluster). We need to know what type of clustering will be
used. Are these duplex,triplex,four-plex or five-plex configurations?
19. Was the park restriction language intentional? Staff does not support a restriction on
the park use for league practice. You need to confirm if this is how you intend to
proceed so the City Commission can respond to this request.
20. The table for PUD points lists 103.2 acres net and the affordable housing table
suggests a 93.28 acre net. What was further subtracted from the affordable housing
to come up with a 9.92 acre difference?
21. The submittal suggests a sign plan. Where is the sign plan?
22. Which wetland is BB/W-1 referring to on the map and where is BB-2 on the map?
Additional questions and comments will still likely arise in the continuing review of this
project. I think it would be a good idea to schedule a meeting as soon as possible to cover
any questions you may have regarding the above comments. Otherwise, 2"d week DRC will
be continued until these items are adequately addressed.
Tentative Conditions of Approval/Code Provisions:
1. Letters of approval for abandonment of the ditches is required with Final Plat.
Proof that this will not affect downstream water users is also required with the Final
Plat.
2. Plans and Specifications for the trail will need to be reviewed by the Parks
Department prior to construction.
3. Trail crossings need to be located at the nearest cross street.
4. The Transportation Plan calls for a bike path on Oak Street.
5. A Cultural Resource Inventory is required prior to any earth being moved.
6. Stormwater ponds cannot exceed 1/3 of the front yard. This specifically addresses
Baxter Lane.
7. Stormwater cannot be discharged into an active ditch. Stormwater discharged into a
stream requires the necessary permitting.
8. Cash-in-lieu of water rights is due with each Final Plat.
9. Irrigation of the Oak Street, 27' Avenue, Davis Lane and Baxter Lane will be the
developer's responsibility to install.
10. Planning Staff and RPAB does not support all of the lots backing onto the park
especially along Hunters Way.
11. The Covenants and Design Guidelines must state the means in which building
orientation will be mitigated along the arterial and collector streets.
12. Placement of the east to west trail should connect between Rose Park and the
Regional Park I realize there will be a gap between Rose Park until the property is
developed but this will set the course for future development. Commissioner Krauss
had suggested that this path have a large buffer. This could be addressed with a
typical sidewalk and a larger boulevard. This would also have to be approved by
Engineering.
• Page 1 of 2
Jami Morris
From: JOHN HARPER Uslsharper@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:26 AM
To: anban@bigsky.net; yzadegan@montana.edu; sdodge@mcn.net; kathybob2@usa.net; Ron
Dingman; Sue Harkin;jojen@mcn.net
Cc: Jami Morris
Subject: West Winds
Attached are the West Winds comment in a Microsoft Works file. They are also pasted following
this. Since it appeared these were due today, I delivered a copy to Jami this morning. The only
change to the draft was the addition of the last sentence.
John
To: Jami Morris (jmorris@bozeman.net)
From: John Harper
Date: 4-13-04
RE: West Winds Preliminary PUD and Phase I Subdivision Preliminary Plat
Applications meeting 4-9-04
attending: Jami Morris (Planning Department), Ron Dingman (Parks Manager), Sue Harkin
(Recreation Director), Sandy Dodge, Anne Banks, John Harper
Description: 93.28 Acres; North of Oak, East of Davis Lane, South of Baxter Lane, West of 27th
Street
West Winds developer has not responded to any of the fourteen comments in memo dated 3-26-
04. Instead, the developer now requests relaxation of basic requirements of the Bozeman Unified
Development Ordinance. Without addressing all of the relaxation requests, the following are the
most egregious:
1. The request to reduce the watercourse setback to fifteen feet from the minimum fifty feet
would, in effect, reduce useable park land by over four acres. The request to count all of the
setback as park land would increase the loss to over six acres.
2. The request to apply 11% park land dedication standard to all of the net buildable area results
in a loss of over fourteen acres in park land. In our previous memo, at comment #2, we pointed
out that the density of the development is known and, under 18.50.020 A 2, the 11% standard is
inapplicable. The developer claims the proposed relaxation is in accordance with the adopted
Citywide park plan. That claim is based on a standard, taken out of context, which is but one of
several standards, which are by no means mutually exclusive. Note that from information in the
last sentence of the third relaxation standard requested by the developer it is simple math to
infer that the developer expects over 2,400 residents in West Winds (10.26 A/ 4.21A per 1000
persons = 2,437). If this is not a reasonably known density, what is? Further, the developer
claims that this "...is in compliance with Montana State Statute of 11% of the net area." This is
4/13/2004
• Page 2 of 2
clearly not the case; refer to 76-3-621 (2) MCA. The .03 A per dwelling unit applies.
We also emphasize that the proposal now claims that only 10.26 A parkland dedication will be
required, rather than the 24.3 A required by state code and Bozeman ordinance. If the 11 %
standard is applied, will the developer next contend that the 10.26 A is the controlling number,
which might include the full amount of watercourse setbacks?
At this point, we strongly recommend that the plan be totally revised, with a trail corridor along
the watercourse (with setbacks in compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance) and that
the park land dedication, based on the 03 A per dwelling unit standard, be designed in a large
block (in accordance with 18.50.050 A) in consultation with Ron Dingman, Parks Manager. The
design should also include connecting trail corridors running east and west in addition to those
running north and south.
4/13/2004
CITY OZEMAN
�2�'� DiPARENT OF PLANNING AND COPUNITY DEVELOPMENT
V 9x
Street address: Alfred M.Stiff Professional Building Phone: (406) 582-2260
20 East Olive Street Fax: (406) 582-2263
co �o��e Mailing address: P.O.Box 1230 E-mail: planning@bozeman.net
Bozeman,Montana 59771-1230 Worldwide web: www.bozeman.net
I
I MAR 2 3 2004
MEMORANDUM U l!
TO: John Harper-Recreation and Parks Advisory Board oEPARTt;ENT of PtAiMING
.... ..ti, 'IT J
y Sue Harkin-Recreation and Parks Advisory Board —_A
Pat Byorth-Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
Colter Seitz-Natural Resources Conservation Service
State Historic Preservation Office
FROM: Tara Hastie, Planning Secretary
RE: West Winds Preliminary Plat#P-04009 and Zoning PUD#Z-04050
Applications
DATE: March 17, 2004
Attached you will find the preliminary plat application for the proposed Major Subdivision
referenced above to subdivide 93.28 acres into 88 residential lots. The property is legally
described as a tract of land located in the NW'/4 of Section 2, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., Gallatin
County, Montana, and is generally located north of West Oak Street, east of Davis Lane, south of
Baxter Lane,'and west of North 27th Avenue.
Please review the attached information and provide comments to this office no later than
Tuesday, April 6, 2004. The proposed subdivision will be discussed by the Development
Review Committee on Tuesdays, March 23, 30, and April 6, 2004, at 10:00 a.m. The meetings
will be held in the Conference Room of the Alfred M. Stiff Building, 20 East Olive Street. The
City Planning Board will discuss the Preliminary Plat application on Tuesday, April 20, 2004, at
7:00 p.m. and the City Commission will conduct a public hearing on both proposals at 7:00 p.m.
Monday, May 10, 2004, in the Commission Meeting Room at City Hall, 411 East Main Street.
You are welcome.and encouraged to attend these meetings.
Please return all materials as they are needed for packets for
Planning Board and City Commission.
If you are unable to respond in writing by the above deadline or if you have questions or concerns
regarding the application, we ask that you contact Associate Planner Jami Morris at 582-2260
Thank you for your cooperation.
TH/th
Attachments
planning- zoning - subdivision review - annexation - historic preservation - housing - grant administration - neighborhood coordination
CITY OZEMAN
DEPAR vtENT OF PLANNING AND CON91UNITY DEVELOPMENT
v 9'L
Street address: Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building Phone: (406) 582-2260
°s ==- --=-• �� 20 East Olive Street Fax: (406) 582-2263
o��e Mailing address: P.O.Box 1230 E-mail: planning@bozeman.net
CO.
Bozeman,Montana 59771-1230 World wide web: www.bozeman.net
L I
Gi� � I �
MEMORANDUM -�
U MAR 1 9 2004
TO: John Harper-Recreation and Parks Advisory Board;
Sue Harkin-Recreation and Parks Advisory Board I DEPr',Ri'.'.dNT 0F Pt.
Pat Byorth-Fish, Wildlife, and Parks "IT
Colter Seitz-Natural Resources Conservation Service
State Historic Preservation Office
FROM: Tara Hastie, Planning Secretary
RE: West Winds Preliminary Plat#P-04009 and Zoning PUD#Z-04050
Applications
DATE: March 17, 2004
Attached you will find the preliminary plat application for the proposed Major Subdivision
referenced above to subdivide 93.28 acres into 88 residential lots. The property is legally
described as a tract of land located in the NWIA of Section 2, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., Gallatin
County, Montana, and is generally located north of West Oak Street, east of Davis Lane, south of
Baxter Lane, and west of North 27th Avenue.
Please review the attached information and provide comments to this office no later than
Tuesday, April 6, 2004. The proposed subdivision will be discussed by the Development
Review Committee on Tuesdays, March 23, 30, and April 6, 2004, at 10:00 a.m. The meetings
will be held in the Conference Room of the Alfred M. Stiff Building, 20 East Olive Street. The
City Planning Board will discuss the Preliminary Plat application on Tuesday, April 20, 2004, at
7:00 p.m. and the City Commission will conduct a public hearing on both proposals at 7:00 p.m.
Monday, May 10, 2004, in the Commission Meeting Room at City Hall, 411 East Main Street.
You are welcome and encouraged to attend these meetings.
f
Please return all materials as they are needed for packets for
Planning Board and City Commission.
If you are unable to respond in writing by the above deadline or if you have questions or concerns
regarding the application, we ask that you contact Associate Planner Jami Morris at 582-2260
Thank you for your cooperation.
TH/th
Attachments
planning• zoning • subdivision review • annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration • neighborhood coordination
1 -
�� I ! 56A
f(
ll
[L
�
p flof,
A Aft
IWAN, MEMO
:r�Mir� • �l � �
i
�I
ff
Lf � •
HE
([ WAK
t � �
1
l�
rr
i
! IS
n.`
', i u .�- , .�.�.r._..Y'a:<'1'1-":i:'t'" ~ :�: e- hY'�'�'-- •� —}. ,ti lam• � � r.�; '�i f r
f
"h
i
aA
ov
16
R t ��'Z�S:ti �"'1 ..1.r :.�',+.� 's •1
r
qi
PrJ. /110k
aT
Jy f}
� ct
te� _ O n, °lam
v�
P
►.r
4�
\1
r
i ! N
{
_ y i
J � '
A
IY�9A
i
_ 2 G� 2
6 C) LL) f-t�=,-� u
LLD
�- c�IC�,L,L o
A oLuu
24
AJ
C4u z� L
O r
r
IU
ca .�
I T �o
cp
► • ► r 1 s�y�� ' / / •lI
11EWA
1
rr 'Al1 / '
MWWWWRI
� � II
UWAM
IV
'04-10-"Am.-a.
II
• _
f
_ ll
r
�► � ' ' �-'cam-� '�_- �• I / , � ��►
a
1 -�_• ..
kv
/ � V �V I� r •1 / t� r
i
N '7 �� C
e
Q'^ A W
{ lid
W\ CUCa
n k;�L�Tta_3 �1 �� -Z—kA el
�(
_ r
v<D
a
� 4CA-"14
L`
IA 4, Lk
� D
CD ? C� A_ -��
i . C
o U VS .
• � i
be
0
�� c�-t-�.c� 1 • `�ycro
SIZ6�L-al r
C `"
�,i
i �
..
-� � ;s
as 4-..r
1 �\. 1•+
l
f
t
ID
G-al
taQ
1
2 ✓�
G
d4Q GCS r
f�C& k-k�� dQ��tin i.sac_l�
kO
U S.
13
�L 6
1 .
CITY OF BZEM
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNINGAND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
V 9�
* ` Street address: Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building Phone: (406)582-2260
20 East Olive Street Fax: (406)582-2263
co �°�'�e Mailing address: P.O.Box 1230 E-mail: planning@bozeman.net
Bozeman,Montana 59771-1240 World wide web: www.bozeman.net
MEMORANDUM
To: Development Review Committee
From: Jami Morris, Associate Planner
Date: October 28, 2003
Subject: West Winds Major Subdivision PUD/Pre-App #Z-03247 and#P-03034
Planning Staff has reviewed the Concept Plan application to allow construction on 160 acres of
single- household units, senior housing units (assisted and independent), neighborhood commercial
facilities, and park/open space with related site improvements and Phase 1 of a Major Subdivision Pre-
Application to subdivide 24.64 acres into 115 residential lots and park/open space and offers the
following comments:
General
1. Planning Staff cannot support Neighborhood Commercial in the northern portion of the property.
Staff would support the option of providing Neighborhood Commercial in the Southwest corner
of the property if approved as a Master Plan Amendment by the City Commission. Application
could be made for concurrent review of a Zone Map Amendment to establish`B-1". Staff would
also suggest the addition of "R-4" with the ZMA (See Figure 6-3 of the Bozeman 2020
Community Plan for expected development patterns in association with Neighborhood
Commercial).
Streets
2. Buckrake and Hunter's Way should connect between Oak Street and Baxter Lane.
3. Tschache Lane should bisect the property and remain on the section line as much as possible.
4. Private roads must be a minimum of 20 feet in width for two lanes of traffic and 28 feet for two
lanes of traffic and one parking lane.
5. Curb and sidewalk is required on all public and private streets but boulevard width could be
reduced with Subdivision PUD.
6. Planning Staff cannot support all of the cul-de-sacs. Use of cul-de-sacs should be restricted to
areas where an attempt to is being made to avoid conflict with adjacent streams or wetlands.
Lot Design
7. The Subdivision Regulations are designed to encourage subdivisions utilizing a basic street grid.
planning • zoning • subdivision review • annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration 9 neighborhood coordination
r.
8. Consideration should be given to Lots backing onto arterial streets. This isolates the subdivision
from future development across the street. Some thought should be given to presenting the
building fronts towards 27I" Avenue, Oak Street, Fowler Avenue and Baxter Lane. A redesign
incorporating alleys may be one option.
9. All lots must provide 25 feet of frontage for access purposes.
10. The canal must be abandoned or realigned so that the canal does not intersect any of the lot lines. .
Written approval should be obtained prior to submitting a preliminary plat.
11. Odd shaped lots should be avoided. They create conflicts with building design and setbacks.
Elimination of the cul-de-sacs would address this issue.
12. On private streets the setback is taken from the easement line. All dwelling units must be
constructed with the building setback to allow a 20-foot stall between the garage door and the
back of the sidewalk.
13. Homes on corner lots must be oriented to face the same direction as the houses in the middle of
the block (look at Lot 11, Block 3).
14. Block width must be at least 200 feet and block length should not exceed 400 feet.
15. No lot shall have an average depth greater than three times its width.
16. The subdivision must meet the new standards outlined in Commission Resolution 3630 in
regards to affordable housing (10% of the lots based on net area shall be designed under
minimum lot size requirements).
17. Townhouse lots need to provide an average of 3,000 square feet per lot exclusive of the public
street easement.
Park
18. 31.08 acres of parkland and 35 acres of open space required.
19. Cash-in-lieu of parkland for development of Rose Park or the Regional Park may be considered
by the City Commission. However, the Recreation & Parks Advisory Board does not support the
use of cash-in-lieu for this subdivision.
20. The 50-foot stream setback cannot be calculated towards the parkland requirement. The
wetlands can only be calculated towards meeting the parkland requirement if approved by the
City Commission.
21. Roads and lots must maintain a 50-foot setback from the stream and the wetland boundary
associated with the stream/riparian area. UDO changes may require all wetlands, even those not
adjacent to the stream, to meet the setback requirements (as determined by the Wetlands Board).
Page 2
22. At least 50% of the parkland perimeter must be adjacent to streets.
23. Consideration should be given to placement of storm water facilities in regards to parkland
dedication. If storm water facilities are placed in the park area then that area does not count
towards the parkland requirements.
Trails
24. The east west trail connection noted in the 2020 Plan should be depicted on the preliminary plat
and plan.
25. A 25-foot trail easement is required over the north/south and east/west (not noted) trail.
Miscellaneous
26. Draft covenants should be included with the preliminary plat. Design Guidelines must be
attached with the Zoning PUD.
27. Preliminary Plat and Plan will need a lighting plan, landscape plan, parking plan and watercourse
landscaping plan.
28. Preliminary plan should depict the building clusters for townhouse units.
29. Need phase lines on the land use plan.
30. The Preliminary Plan for the property should utilize the standard land use color combinations
(i.e., yellow for single-household)
31. Utility easements must be shown on the preliminary plat.
32. Cash-in-lieu of water rights will be due at final plat for each phase.
While the Planning Staff tries to identify all issues and concerns during Pre-Application and Concept
Plan review, additional comments or concerns may be identified during review of the Preliminary Plat
application.
Page 3
P-fl3o3Y
nCCE WE
Gallatin Valley an Trust o,
11
F E B 1 1 2004 'D
DEPARTRIENT OF PLANNING
AP r01"!!,`'IT/HIT'OP TNT
February 6, 2004
To: Jami Morris
Senior Planner
City of Bozeman
Department of Planning and Community Development
From: Gary Vodehnal
Gallatin Valley Land Trust
Subject: West Winds MaSub Pre-App#P- 03034
Dear Jami:
I offer the following comments in an effort to improve public park and bike/pedestrian
amenities in the proposed West Winds subdivision. I certainly like the parkland and trails
proposed along the north-south stream corridor in this subdivision. It appears the
proposed trails will tie in with Harvest Creek to the south and help extend this important
neighborhood trail system. I recommend that curb cuts, crosswalk signs and crosswalk
striping be installed on Oak Street, all street crossings within West Winds subdivision,
and at Baxter. The trails will be safer and function better if sharp right angle turns are
avoided and the trail flows smoothly through the corridor.
I would rather have the proposed open space strips along the outer perimeter of the
subdivision moved to the dedicated park land along the stream drainage. By enlarging the
park land area there would be more room for active play areas and park amenities. The
open space areas along major roads will have little benefit for residents or visitors. The
open space strips seem like a much better location for higher density housing.
I believe the 2020 plan proposes a separate 8-10 ft. bike/pedestrian path along Oak Street.
This would be one piece of a very important community goal of developing a bike-ped
path that would completely circle Bozeman. Perhaps some open space could be dedicated
along Oak Street so that a high quality, landscaped paved path could be created.
Please consider these id s ' our review. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincere ,
r
G Vodehnal
Trail Program Coordinator
P.O. Box 7021 ■ Bozeman, Montana 59771-7021 ■ 406-587-8404 ■ Fax 406-582-1136 ■ www.gvlt.org
recycled paper