Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11-17-25 Public Comment - G. Poole - Public comment on Site Plan #25238
From:Geoffrey Poole To:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]Public comment on Site Plan #25238 Date:Friday, November 14, 2025 9:33:23 PM Attachments:Final Comments 25238 with appendix.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please accept my attached comments on Site Plan #25238,Proposed development on Sundance Springs commercial lot #2. Thank you. From:Geoffrey Poole To:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]Correction to comments Date:Saturday, November 15, 2025 10:38:40 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please note the following correction to my submitted comments: "Second, relative to the Approved Commercial Uses shown on the Final Master Plan, SitePlan #25238 proposes changes that exceed “minor changes” and cannot be approvedadministratively under BMC 38.440.030, including" My original comment had "can" where "cannot" was intended. Thank you. Geoffrey PooleBozeman, MT Erin George Director of Community Development Bozeman, MT Dear Erin: As an adjacent landowner, I write regarding your upcoming decision to approve or deny Site Plan Application #25238, Lot 2, Sundance Springs PUD. I understand your role to be the even- handed application of the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) to determine if the Site Plan meets applicable requirements. Site Plan #25238 must be denied under the current BMC for multiple independent reasons. First, the City has determined twice before that the proposed building and parking lot arrangement violates block frontage standards. Approving the same arrangement in this third submission would be arbitrary and capricious. Second, relative to the Approved Commercial Uses shown on the Final Master Plan, Site Plan #25238 proposes changes that exceed “minor changes” that can be approved administratively under BMC 38.440.030, including: •proposing a building and dining patio not indicated on the Master Plan •doubling the leasable commercial floor area •changing the approved location of the building •proposing uses other than a convenience store. Third, the proposed parking lot encroaches into the rear setback in violation of Section 8.3.c of the Development Guidelines. Fourth, the proposed restaurant occupies approximately 30% of the building’s floor area, exceeding the 20% maximum established in Footnote 3 of BMC Table 38.310.040.A. Fifth, there are several other code violations including parking screening widths, sidewalk dimensions, snow storage, tree requirements, and setback encroachments. Each seems minor in isolation, but addressing all of them requires substantial space. When combined, these violations demonstrate that the developer is proposing more commercial development than can fit on a 1.3 acre lot in a code compliant fashion. Any one of the five points is sufficient to deny this application. Combined, they demonstrate that the application is simply not salvageable. The application fails to adequately respond to clear feedback provided to the applicant during the 2020 Concept Review and by the Commission's decision overturning the remarkably similar Site Plan #22047. For the purposes of any potential appeal or subsequent court action, I incorporate by reference any relevant issues raised by me or my attorney in prior public comments on Site Plan #22047. Thank you for your attention to my detailed comments, attached. Geoffrey Poole Bozeman, MT 1.Context The aerial image of the site provided on application #25238 is at least a decade old. The image to the right provides a sense of the current context of Commercial Lot #2 and its proximity to adjacent residences. The lot abuts R-S zoning to the north, east, and southeast, and therefore meets the definition of a “lot with residential adjacency” under BMC 38.700.110.L. 2.Background The Sundance Springs PUD was approved in 1996 (Preliminary) and 1998 (Final) as a phased PUD under the 1992 Zoning Ordinance.1 As permitted under BMC 18.54.080 (1992), the PUD Preliminary Application (Z-95125) contained only a Master Plan and Development Guidelines. The City Commission vetted the application’s Preliminary Master Plan and Development Guidelines in 1996. At the time, BMC 18.54.080.C (1992) required that the Master Plan and Development Guidelines contain sufficient detail to ensure compliance with all 52 requirements for approval of a PUD listed in BMC 18.54.100.E (1992). The Commission found that the Master Plan and Development Guidelines had sufficient detail for conditional approval. The Master Plan and Development Guidelines, together with the Conditions of Approval, became the Approved Preliminary Plan. The Final PUD application, submitted to the City in 1998, was also approved, creating the Approved Final Plan. It consisted of the Final Master Plan and Development Guidelines and was a “lawfully adopted set of [development] rules” (sensu 38.100.050.A). The historic code (BMC 18.54.080.C (1992), BMC 18.54.050.C.4 (1992), BMC 18.54.090 (1992)), the current code (BMC 38.440.030.A, 38.440.050, and 38.100.050.A.), and the 1995 Staff Report regarding the PUD application2 all show that the terms of the Master Plan and Development Guidelines must be enforced during the review of development under the PUD. The City has lost the official record of the Approved Final Plan and the associated Final Master Plan and Development Guidelines. The absence of the required documents for Site Plan review yielded considerable uncertainty about review requirements and, ultimately, precipitated an appeal to the Commission regarding review and approval of Site Plan #22047 (a prior application for Commercial Lot #2). 1 Appendix 1 – Article 18.54 governing PUDs, 1992 Bozeman Zoning Ordinance 2 Appendix 2 – 1995 Staff Report, Page 24. “Site Plan review will occur for all development within the neighborhood services area, and that review will ensure compliance with the [Development] Guidelines. 3.The surviving Master Plan and Development Guidelines During Appeal #23214, City Administrative Personnel represented to the City Commission that review of Site Plan #22047 was proper, in part because the terms of the Final Master Plan and Final Development Guidelines survived in other documents:3 “Appellants correctly identify the Master Plan and Development Guidelines as critical components of the type of PUD for which Sundance Springs was approved. Both documents exist within the surviving files associated with the Sundance Springs PUD... An official, stamped copy of the Master Plan exists in the City’s working file for the Final PUD (file Z-9812) and the development guidelines are incorporated into the property owners’ association Covenants.” After considering the facts presented in Appeal #23214, the City Commission ruled that the Development Guidelines were: “a required component of the original Sundance Springs PUD approval, integral to this PUD, [and] should have been considered and applied." That same logic applies to the Master Plan, which stands on equal footing with the Development Guidelines as a required and integral component of the PUD (BMC 18.54.080.C and D (1992)). Most specifically, the Approved Commercial Uses on the Master Plan arose from an order of the City Commission (see Section 5) and must be enforced during Site Plan review. 4.The Director’s Memo mischaracterized the Master Plan Curiously, after acknowledging the Master Plan as a “critical component” of the PUD and identifying the surviving document containing the terms of the Final Master Plan, the Director’s Memo characterized the Final Master Plan as a “conceptual sketch” with no enforceable requirements. This characterization was fabricated from whole cloth. When citing 18.54.080.D.1 (1992) to support the argument that the Master Plan is a “conceptual sketch,” the Memo uses ellipsis (…) to omit the following language:4 Master Plans for phased PUDs shall consist of a detailed Site Plan depicting [current and proposed conditions]. The Director’s Memo also omits citation to the governing standard for approving phased PUDs, found in the immediately preceding section (BMC 18.54.080.C): BMC 18.54.080.C (1992) Phased PUD Approval Process In those cases where the Master Plans and Development Guidelines are proposed to govern the development of the future phases of the PUD, the City Commission must determine that the proposed Master Plan and Development Guidelines are provided in sufficient detail to support a finding that the phased PUD will comply with all requirements for PUD approval if developed in accordance with the approved Master Plan and Development Guidelines. 3 Appendix 3 – Directors Memo to the Commission regarding Appeal 23214,Page 11, Section 2. 4 Appendix 3 – Directors Memo to the Commission regarding Appeal 23214,Page 11-12, Section 2a. Finally, the Memo makes no mention of BMC 18.54.100 (1992), which defines “all requirements for PUD approval” as compliance with 52 mandatory PUD review criteria. Thus, the Master Plan was not a “concept sketch,” as characterized in the Director’s Memo. BMC 18.54.080.C and D required that the Master Plan be a “detailed Site Plan” with sufficient detail to show how 52 PUD evaluation criteria would be met “if developed in accordance with the approved Master Plan and Development Guidelines” – language that binds subsequent development to the terms shown on the Final Master Plan. 5.Specific commercial uses on the Master Plan were ordered by the Commission and approved by the City The Director's Memo (page 12) notes correctly that the Master Plan for the Preliminary Application proposed no specific structures, concluding: "Clearly, the construction of any specific buildings and the precise land use ... were matters for future site plan development applications. The usefulness of the Master Plan sketch is its clear depiction of the intention to include a commercial node within the Sundance Springs PUD." However, the conclusion is drawn hastily and conflates the Preliminary and Final Master Plans. The City never bothers to ask why buildings not included in the Preliminary Application are prominent features of the Approved Final Master Plan. As I show below, the Commission ordered that commercial uses be included in the Final Application. Otherwise, the PUD could not have been approved under BMC 18.54.080.C (1992). Staff's responses to mandatory PUD Evaluation Criteria (BMC 18.54.100.C (1992)) appear in the 19-page Appendix to the 1995 Staff Report. The Staff response to Residential PUD Evaluation Criterion 10 is found on Page 18 of that Appendix: Criterion 10: ... Is a market analysis provided demonstrating that less than fifty percent of the market required to support proposed neighborhood service activities is located outside the immediate area of the PUD...? Staff Response: NA. An area is reserved for neighborhood services. No buildings or specific uses are proposed at this time. Without a specific use proposal, it is impossible to conduct a market analysis. On its face, however, the correct answer to the question "Is a market analysis provided?" would have been "No," which would have precluded approval of the PUD under BMC 18.54.080.C (1992) and BMC 18.54.100.C (1992). In approving the PUD, the Commission cured this deficiency with Condition of Approval #29,5 ordering that proposed commercial uses be added to the PUD to allow the required Market Study. The Market Study survives in Z-9812 and describes the proposed buildings and uses in a manner consistent with the buildings and uses shown on the Final Master Plan: Description of Property/Proposed Buildings. 5 Appendix 4 – 1996 Findings of Fact and Order Creating the Sundance Springs PUD, Condition of Approval #29 It is anticipated that Lot 2 will be utilized for a one story convenience store… Uses [across Lots 1 and 2] will be those of a nature to service the local residents and to reduce trip generation outside of the service area. It is not anticipated that there will be large retail stores, large supermarkets, or stores so unique as to generate traffic or use from outside the service area. When the Final Application was approved by the City, the Proposed Commercial Uses shown on the Final Master Plan became the PUD’s Approved Commercial Uses. In the end, the details shown on the Approved Final Master Plan – no matter how they arise – are binding terms of the PUD’s Approved Final Plan (BMC 18.54.080.C (1992), BMC 38.440.030). In this case, the Approved Commercial Uses carry additional weight, having arisen in response to a specific order of the City Commission. 6.Allowable deviations from the Final Master Plan BMC 38.440.030 governs application of PUD development requirements by defining when and how the PUD must be amended before approving proposed changes to a PUD’s Approved Final Plan. BMC 38.440.030 starts by establishing that only minor deviations from the Approved Final Plan can be approved administratively: “Issuance of building permits and other development approvals are basedon the approved final plan and any conditions of approval. No city administrative personnel are permitted to issue permits for improvements which are not indicated on the approved final plan [exceptfor minor changes].” The code then goes on to define nine allowable minor changes, including: a. Those developments that do not change the character of the development; c. An increase of less than five percent in the approved gross leasable floor areas of retail, service, office and/or industrial buildings; d. A change in building location or placement less than 20 percent of the building width without compromising requirements of the UDO. Finally it states that deviations other than the nine allowed minor changes cannot be approved without a PUD amendment, processed as a PDZ. The Approved Commercial Uses shown on the Master Plan for Commercial Lot #2 limit improvements to a single 5000-square-foot building, centrally located on the lot, and housing a convenience store. Any Site Plan that proposes more than a 5% increase in leasable floor area, adjusts the location of the building by more than 20 percent of the buildings width, or changes the character of the development may not be approved administratively. 7.Applicability of the 1992 Zoning Ordinance on the site The current BMC requires that the PUD’s Development Guidelines (i.e., the requirements found in the Commercial Covenants) must be enforced. (BMC 38.440.030.A, 38.440.050 and BMC 38.100.050) The Introduction to the Covenants states: “The Covenants detail how the Neighborhood Service properties within the Sundance Springs subdivision are to be developed and maintained beyond the minimum requirements of the Bozeman Zoning Code which exists at the date of the execution of this document.” The 1992 Zoning Code was in effect in 1996 when the requirements of the Covenants were approved and ordered by the Commission to be the PUD’s Development Guidelines, and in 1998 when the Covenants were executed as private agreements. Thus the current BMC enforces the PUD’s Development Guidelines and the Development Guidelines implement the 1992 Zoning. When any direct requirement of the Current BMC, the Master Plan and Development Guidelines, or the 1992 Zoning are in conflict, the most restrictive applies (BMC 38.100.050). The 2020 Concept Review6 shows conclusively that staff – who in 2020, had access to the now missing Approved Final Plan for reference – applied both the 1992 standard and the current standard on the site. 8.Prior application of the Block Frontage Standards During the 2020 Concept Review for the site, the City notified the applicant that the proposed layout of buildings and parking areas did not properly address trail frontages on the site and therefore violated the Block Frontage Standards (BMC 38.510.020.F.1). The follow-on Site Plan application (#22047) sought a departure from BMC 38.510.020.F.1. During Appeal #23214, the City Commission ruled that the layout of the buildings and parking lot did not qualify for departure. Site Plan #25238 again proposes the same building and parking lot layout that the City has twice determined to be a violation of the Block Frontage Standards. 9.Summary of enforcement requirements under the current BMC The following facts are at hand regarding enforcement of the current BMC: •The current BMC enforces the terms of the PUD. •The terms of the PUD are found on the Final Master Plan and in the Final Development Guidelines, the official record of which is lost. •The City has identified the terms of the Final Master Plan and Final Development Guidelines in the surviving record of the PUD’s approval. •The Final Master Plan shows Approved Commercial Uses that are described in the required Market Study. •The Development Guidelines require enforcement of the 1992 Zoning standards. •Deviations from the Master Plan other than minor changes defined in BMC 38.440.030 cannot be approved administratively. 6 Appendix 5 – 2020 Concept Plan Review •The proposed layout of the buildings and parking lot has been identified by the City as a violation of the Block Frontages Standards twice before. 10.Violations of current BMC by Site Plan 25238. 10.1.Proposed buildings and uses do not adhere to the PUD’s Final Master Plan Relative to the Approved Commercial Uses shown on the Final Master Plan, Site Plan #25238 proposes •a 100% increase in the leasable floor space; •repositioning the approved building location by more than 20% of the building width; •a second building, which is not indicated on the Master Plan; •an outdoor dining patio, which is not indicated on the Master Plan and changes the character of the development by: ◦creating spaces for unapproved outdoor business activities and ◦promoting outdoor alcohol consumption in a residential neighborhood and under a Residential PUD. •proposes uses other than a convenience store, which change the character of the development.7 None of these conditions qualify as “minor changes” under BMC 38.440.030.A and therefore cannot be approved administratively. Any one of these conditions is sufficient to require denial of Application #25238. 10.2.Prior Assessment of Block Frontage Standards The arrangement and juxtaposition of the buildings and parking lot is a durable aspect of the proposed development. The same layout has been proposed: 1) during the 2020 Concept Review, 2) in Site Plan #22047, rejected by the City Commission, and 3) in the current Site Plan #25238. The City has twice rejected the building and parking lot layout proposed in Site Plan #25238 as non-compliant with BMC 38.510.020.F.1. Approval of that same building and parking lot layout in this third submission would be arbitrary and capricious. 10.3.Restaurant size Footnote 3 in BMC 38.310.040.A states that allowable restaurants in the B-1 Zone are those “occupying not more than 20 percent of the gross floor area of a building.” Combined, the various areas of the proposed restaurant (waiting, serving, bar, and kitchen areas) occupy approximately 30 percent of the gross floor area in the building. 7 The Covenants, Development Guidelines, Conditions of Approval, and 1995 Staff Report all state that the uses will be those allowed in the 1992 B-1 Neighborhood Services District. However, these documents apply across both Commercial Lots 1 and 2. The Master Plan makes no limitations on Commercial Lot 1, but limits Commercial Lot 2 to a Village Store (described as a “convenience store” in the Market Study) As mentioned above, the addition of an outdoor dining patio allowing the consumption of alcohol in a residential neighborhood and under a residential PUD would change the character of the commercial development ans approved by the City under the PUD. Such a proposed change does not qualify as a minor change that can be approved administratively under BMC 38.440.030.A. Further, a restaurant seating 101 patrons, serving alcohol, and offering outdoor patio dining/drinking would likely draw more than 50% of its patronage from across the city. This would violate the intent of Commission’s Condition of Approval #29. It would also fail to meet the criteria found in 18.54.100.E (1992), under which the PUD was approved. The 1995 Staff report (Page 24) shows that planning staff deemed a “supper club” type establishment serving alcohol as inappropriate for the site and in conflict with the PUD approval criteria. Even without considering an outdoor patio, staff concluded “that type of use could potentially draw more than 50% of its business from outside the neighborhood.”. Permitting a 101-seat restaurant serving alcohol on an outdoor dining patio, after staff flagged such a use as inappropriate when the PUD was approved, would also be arbitrary and capricious. 10.4.Encroachment into rear setbacks Section 8.3.c of the PUD Development Guidelines forbids improvements other than landscaping in the setbacks. Site Plan #25238 proposes a parking lot that extends into the rear setback. 10.5.Parking lot screening: BMC 18.50.100.D.5.c.(1) (1992), enforced by the current code as part of the PUD’s Development Guidelines, requires that parking lots have a continuous 8’ wide landscape screen, 4-6 ft in height, when the parking lot is on property with residential adjacency8 or when located between a principal structure and a public street. Current BMC 38.550.050.B.2 also requires a continuous 4-6’ high landscape screen for parking lots on property with residential adjacency or when parking lots are between a principal structure and a public street. The required width is the greater of 4’ or that required by the site’s Block Frontage Standard. Application #25238 is subject to Landscape Block Frontage Standards, which are outlined in BMC Table 38.510.30.C. The “Parking Location” row of that table states that parking lot landscape buffers must be 10’ wide. The north and east property lines abut residential (R-S) zoning. A continuous landscape screen for the parking lots is required but not provided on the north property line and on the north end of the east property line. Parking along the west property line is between a primary structure and a public street. The proposed 4’ wide berm is too narrow and has discontinuous landscaping of an unspecified height. 8 Non-residential building sites abutting R-S zoning are “Lots with residential adjacency.” BMC 38.700 10.6.Required use of trees with residential adjacency. BMC 38.550.050 requires that all landscape plans must include, for each setback with a residential adjacency, at least one canopy or non-canopy tree for each 50 lineal feet of the adjacent area. The north and east site boundaries abut residential zoning (R-S). Trees are required along the entire east setback including where the east retention pond is situated. Most of the landscaping proposed along the north site boundary is on land that is neither owned nor controlled by the applicant. During Appeal #24124, the City ruled that requirements of the BMC could not be met by proposing improvements on adjacent property. 10.7.Parking lot dimensions and landscaping BMC 18.50.120.B (1992), enforced by the current code as part of the PUD’s Development Guidelines, requires a 26 foot parking aisle width. A 24 foot wide aisle is proposed. 10.8.Pedestrian facilities adjacent to parking lots Proposed parking stalls are 18’ deep. In this case the sidewalk curb serves as a wheelstop (Figure BMC 38.540.020.A). BMC 38.540.020.L requires 7’ sidewalk widths between buildings and parking lots when the sidewalk curb serves as a wheelstop. A 5’ wide sidewalk is proposed. 10.9.Primary Facade BMC 38.510.020.F.3 requires that the west building must present the “front and primary facade” to Little Horse Drive. A side entrance on the short axis of the building, which serves only one business in the building, faces the Little Horse Drive frontage. The “front and primary facade” of the building is the long axis where the entrance provides access to the atrium, stairs, bathrooms, elevator, and all four business spaces. This front and primary facade addresses the parking lot. 10.10.Snow storage and removal BMC 38.540.020.M states that snow removal and storage areas may not be placed in such a manner as to damage landscaping. More than half of the area designated for snow removal and storage contain landscaping. Additionally, light bases contained in these areas will be at risk of damage when pushing snow into the snow storage areas. 10.11.Special use permits are required The 2020 Concept Review noted: “The 1992 zoning ordinance required ... restaurants serving alcoholic beverages to seek and justify conditional use authorization. Current Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) standards for a B-1 zone-equivalent is the B-1, Neighborhood Commercial District. Currently, the current B-1 zone ... requires Special Use authorization for restaurants selling alcohol (BMC 38.230.120). If you wish to sell the alcoholic beverage for consumption on-site, please submit an application for the Special Use permit with the site plan submittal.” The 2020 Concept Review explicitly instructed the applicant to submit the Special Use Permit application with the site plan. To my knowledge, the applicant has failed to do so. 11.Summary of Violations In summary, Site Plan #25238 violates: (1) the Approved Final Master Plan, (2) the Block Frontage Standards, in the same manner already rejected twice, (3) explicit Development Guidelines prohibitions, (4) restaurant size limitations, (5) setback requirements, and (6) multiple parking, landscaping, and pedestrian facility standards. The last set of violations, viewed in isolation, seem to be minor technical deficiencies. Collectively, however, they demonstrate that the proposed development is too large for the site. Correcting the parking screening widths, sidewalk dimensions, snow storage, tree requirements, and setback encroachments will require significant additional space—space the site does not have while accommodating two 5000 sq ft buildings, outdoor patios, and required parking. Application #25238 proposes to overcrowd a 1.3-acre lot in a residential neighborhood, exceeding what the site can physically accommodate in code-compliant fashion. Appendix 1 – Article 18.54 governing PUDs, 1992 Bozeman Zoning Ordinance Appendix 2 – 1995 Staff Report .'^n^^/^\.>,BOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNING BOARDSTAFF REPORTCONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTZONING PUD APPLICATION NO. Z-95125PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION FOR PHASE 1PLANNING APPLICATION NO. P-9539SUNDANCE SPMNGS PUD SUBDIVISIONITEM:APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER:Z-95125 -- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PUD TODEVELOP 147.2 ACRES FOR 141 SINGLE-FAMILYRESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 6.18 ACRES OFNEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE USES ON PROPERTY ZONED"R-S" RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN, COUNTRY ESTATESANDP-9539 - PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION FOR ASUBDIVISION PUD TO DIVIDE 72.85 ACRES INTO 67 LOTSFOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE, TWO LOTSTOTALD^G 6.18 ACRES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICEUSES, STREETS, AND OPEN SPACE, BEING THE FIRST OFFOUR PHASES FOR THE PROJECTAPPLICANT:DONALD HANNAH210 SHERIDAN AVE.BOZEMAN,MT59715PROPERTY OWNER:SOURDOUGH CREEK PROPERTIESP.O. BOX 1645GREAT FALLS, MT 59403DATE/TIME OFPUBLIC HEARINGS:REPORT BY:BOZEMAN CIT^-COUNTy PLANNING BOARD -TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1995, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THECOMMISSION MEETING ROOM, BOZEMAN CITY HALL,411 EAST MAW STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANABOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION - MONDAY, NOVEMBER6, 1995, AT 7:00 P.M. m THE COMMISSION MEETINGROOM, BOZEMAN CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN STREET,BOZEMAN, MONTANABOZEMAN CITY-COUNTY PLANNWG STAFF (ARECELL)RECOMMENDATION CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF BOTH APPLICATIONS I-..knnLocation/DescriptionThe subject property^ located in the NE1/4 of Section 25, T2S, R5E, PMM, and the NW/4 ofsection 30'T2S'R6E'PMM' Gallatin county' Montana. The property has been gFvenc'onditionaiapproval to annex to thecity of Bozeman' but the official amiexation has not ylt occurred." Theion is for master plan zoning Planned Unit Development approval of the entire 147.2'acres^andfor Phase lsubdiyisionapprovalof72.85 acres. The property^ located aUh'enorthe'ast'co'mer^lt^mtersection of south Third Avenue and Goldenstein Lane- please refer to'fhevTcmity'mapsNorthSQWVOCUG^veex M.It^SWW30VW•/•a®CfCCK M. t-f*<rSubjectPropertytwt.9.1. f'9< l -Ji^xwewH^J-]WW M S-!\\ ••V;-\fSvroOvCM^K^c^imsnvwuw/-WStf fO.I-SDi"K^s:i:Mft,\ris£jaHIHOt SUI.'U\iiMO. UABIBBsmfl.X77mm16NORTH1-1wwl§H>;w<;!sLaQ0rt-03uHr<m^sE-i"r;BE-is0wAPPROXIMATE r-SUBDIVISION ^BOUNDARY••s-^/^7.2 1.r^0a.kProject Review ProcessesThe Sundance Springs project is a zoning Planned Unit Development (PUD), which will allow thedevelopment of the property into lots less than. 20 acres in size. Although the property is proposedto be annexed to the City, the R-S zoning designation and Suburban Residential Master Plan landuse designations will remain on the property. Lot area and width for newly created lots in the R-Sdistrict which are located within the designated urban growth area of the Bozeman Area Master Planmust be detennined through the PUD review process.The proposal is also a subdivision PUD for the creation of common open space and for thedevelopment of interior streets at less than city or county standards. The PUD is proposed todevelop in four phases. In order for the subdivision to be in compliance with the Bozenian AreaMaster Plan, a minimum of one dwelling unit per gross residential acre must be created. If theZoning PUD is not approved, the subdivision would not comply with zoning or the master plan, andshould not be approved as proposed.This report will first provide an overview of the entire project, then focus individually on the ZoningPUD and the Subdivision PUD. Much of the information relevant to the subdivision will also bediscussed in the zoning section.PROJECT OVERVIEWThe Planned Unit Development will create lots for 141 single-family dwelling units and two lotstotaling 6.18 acres for neighborhood service. The single family residential lots vary in size fromone-fourth to one-half acre. Planned unit developments in residential areas, including the R-Szoning district, may provide provisions for a mix of limited commercial development under certaincircumstances. It has been determined that such limited coinmercial development can be pennittedwithin the subject PUD, as will be more fully explained and reviewed later in this report. Nodensity bonus is proposed.Open space areas (71.1 acres or 48% of the site) are proposed to be owned and maintained by a lotowners association, rather than dedicated park land. Public access easements are provided inportions of the open spaces, particularly for trail connections. A series ofti-ails are proposed in theopen space areas to provide a recreational amenity and as a management tool to direct pedestaianactivity through the open space areas. These ti-ails are proposed to be installed by the developer.The submittal indicates that the "overall concept of the plan is to produce a residential project thatis sensitive to the site and fills a void in the supply of housing lots in Bozeman: efficient, reasonablescale lots with City mfi-astructure that are competitive with large lots outside the City. Additionally,the plan provides nodes for neighborhood services" which serves several key objectives, includingproviding neighborhood services that reduce the need for residents within the area to travel to townfor such services.3 kAccess to the project will be primarily from South Third Avenue (one access) and Goldenstein Lane(two accesses). Secondary access will occur from Graf Street, which is proposed to be extendednorth through Grafs Fourth Addition to connect with the existing Graf Street. This extension wouldnot occur with this development, but rather when Grafs Fourth is developed. Little Horse Driveprovides access to the neighborhood service area from both South Third Avenue and GoldensteinLane.Internal circulation is proposed to be provided with private roads within 70-foot wide public rights-of-way. All roads are proposed to be paved to a 24-foot width, with sidewalks proposed to beconstmcted on both sides of the streets. Municipal water and sewer will be utilized for the entireproject.The project is proposed to develop in four phases, with the first phase ready for home consti-uctionduring the 1996 building season. Subsequent phases are anticipated to occur as the market demandsto create a total of 141 single family residential lots and 6.18 acres of neighborhood service. Thetotal number of lots created per phase may vary, but the total number of single family residentiallots created will not exceed 141.Phase 1 will create 67 single family lots and the only two neighborhood service lots. Theneighborhood service lots will be subject to further subdivision and/or site plan review.Approximately 31.50 acres of open space and 12.98 acres of street right-of-way will be created.Access to Phase 1 will be from South Third Avenue and Goldenstein Lane via Little Horse Drive,and from Goldenstein Lane via Morning Sun Drive. No direct access fi-om any lots is proposed toGoldenstein Lane or South Third Avenue. All lots will access onto an interior sti-eet prior toexisting the development onto Goldenstein or South Third.Phase 2 is located at the northern boundary of the property and will create approximately 26 lotsand additional open space, and will connect Graf Street to the north boundary of the property. GrafSti'eet and Rocking Bear Circle will provide access to most lots.Phase 3 will create approximately 16 lots in the southeast comer of the property, with those lotsserved by Sweet Water Drive. A minimal amount of open space will also be created with Phase 3.Phase 4, the final phase, will create approximately 32 lots at the northwest comer of the property,with access from all lots to Rain Roper Drive and Silver Cloud Circle. Open space will also becreated with this phase.Covenants and Development Guidelines have been prepared for both the single-family residentiallots and the neighborhood service lots. Article X of the document discusses building and sitedevelopment for the single family lots, including building setbacks, height, and special foundationdesign requirements due to the potential of high groundwater. Article XI provides very thoroughbuilding design guidelines requiring building mass break-up, major roof component pitch of 6:12,and a minimum of 18" eaves, to name a few required features.4 hnSection II of the document provides general covenants and architectural control for theneighborhood services property. The intent of the building and site development section is to ensurethat the proposed design is commensurate to the higher quality residential lots and homes adjacentto the neighborhood service lots and to higher quality homes in general. The Guidelines follow therequirements of the B-l Neighborhood Service section of the Zoning Ordinance, and furtherprovides for a design theme for the development of the area. Most major design elements arerequired to shadow the requirements for single-family construction.Adiacent Land UsesThe property adjacent to the subject site is zoned and developed as follows:Northeast — R-2, Grafs Fourth Addition, Annexed in 1972, currently farmedNorth, Northwest — R-S, Residential subdivision on lots ranging from -.5 to 1+ acresSouth, East and West — R-S, four lot subdivision ranging from 5 to 10 acres per lotEast - R-S residential subdivision on lots ranging from .5 to 1+ acreWest — A-S, agriculture useMacleod Park, a County subdivision park, and Gardner Park, a park dedicated to the City, alsoadjoin the property on the northwest and east. Nash Spring Creek flows through the eastern portionof the site, and Matthew Bird Creek flows through the central portion of the site. Sundance Creek,a spring or seep ditch, adjoins the property at the southwest comer and flows north. This water bodybecomes a stream as it nears Good Medicine Way. There is approximately 9.5 acres of identifiedwetlands on the property.BACKGROUNDInfonnal, Concept, Pre-application, annexation, zoning and master plan reviews have occurred onthis property since 1991, as well as a recent zoning/subdivision PUD review which was withdrawnby the applicant prior to being considered at public hearings. The original informal proposal,presented to the Planning Board shortly after adoption of the 1990 Bozeman Area Master PlanUpdate, proposed a mixed use development on this land and the Green Pastures Tract (Westfield).That proposal included commercial, multi-family, townhouse, and single family development forapproximately 590 residential units. The developer was clustered at a much greater density than iscurrently proposed.A PUD Concept Plan was reviewed in 1993 for 166 lots, with townhouse or condominium lots nearSouth Third. A neighborhood commercial area was proposed for the intersection of South Thirdand Goldenstein, an idea which has been retained with the current submittal. Individual/communitywater and sewer systems were proposed. It was noted at that time that if city water and sewer wereused, the land would have to be annexed, and "all mfrastmcture improvements (water, sewer, publicstreets, curb/gutter, sidewalk and related storm water improvements) should be consti^icted to citystandards".5 »>The Design Review Board noted of the 1993 plan that it "does not provide any link with the rest ofthe community... appears very standard, unfocused and incoherent, creating a feeling of a privatenode... because there are no direct connections to the City".An application for annexation was received in 1993 and approved in 1994. A Master PlanAmendment to change the land use designation from Suburban Residential to Urban Residential wasapproved by the City Commission but not approved by the County Commission. The CityCommission then amended conditions ofarmexation approval to allow the property to be amiexedwith the Suburban Residential Master Plan designation and the existing R-S, Residential SuburbanCountry Estates zoning designation. The Annexation Agreement has not yet been completed, andany subdivision of the property would be contingent upon completion of the document, compliancewith any conditions of annexation approval, and final annexation by the City Commission.A subdivision pre-application was submitted in 1994. Based on the time lapse between the ConceptPlan review and the changes to the plan, the Planning Director required the property to undergoanother PUD Concept Plan review, which was conducted in February 1995. That proposalanticipated 150 dwelling units, with a majority of the lots being one-half acre. An addendum to thatapplication was made which proposed adding 13 lots varying from 6,000 sq.ft. to slightly more thanone-halfacre. On-site investigation during Concept Review did not reveal the groundwater or soilsaturation concerns identified during the May 1995 preliminary plan review due to the winterweather.In April 1995 application was made for a Planned Unit Development to create lots for 169 dwellingimits, with 14 of the lots targeted as "affordable". The lots ranged in size from one-halfacre orlarger to one-fourth acre in size, with the "affordable" lots each approximately 6,500 sq.fit. A 15%density bonus was being requested.During review of that application, the Planning Staff was not convinced that the proposal compliedwith Ihe Bozeman Zonmg Ordinance, and found fhat fhe application procedures required in the PUDregulations were not strictly followed. Further, issues of high groundwater in the western area ofthe project and the construction of homes and streets in that area were identified. The design of theproject was found to be standard, with the exception of sub-standard streets, and no ti'ade-offoralternative for the narrower streets was identified. Due to the standard design of the project, itappeared that the project was not entitled to a density bonus, and further, because of the physicalconstraints of the property, including the sensitive wetland and stream comdors, the Staff found thatthe property does not lend itself to a density bonus. The design and layout of the streets were alsoquestioned, as was whether the proposal addressed major issues which were raised/suggested duringthe Concept Plan reviews.The Staff concluded during that review that in order to find that the issues raised by Board andCommission members during Concept Reviews could be addressed, a substantial redesign of theproject was needed. Staff made several suggestions with regard to that redesign.6 ^riAfter reviewing the Staff Report, the applicant elected to withdraw the application, add membersto his design team, and revise the project. That effort included using the May 1995 Staff Report asa starting point, with a goal to have the new application address each negative issue raised in thereport to the best ability possible. The development team met with the Planning Staff on severaloccasions, as well as with the residents of the neighborhood. A second engineering firm wasretained by the applicant to verify the infonnation and findings of the project engineering fu-m.The result of that effort is the project under review at this time. The proposal has been reviewedby the DRB, DRC, and the County Road Department, and they have found that most of the mainissues of concern identified in the April submittal have been addressed/mitigated.ZONING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTThe property is zoned R-S, Residential Suburban Country Estates. R-S zoned property which lieswithin the urban growth area boundary of the 1990 Bozeman Area Master Plan Update, as thisproperty does, must be developed using the Planned Unit Development provisions, as outlined inthe Update. Per this requirement, the property must develop at an average gross density not lessthan one unit per acre, nor greater than six units per acre. The Zoning Ordinance further limitsdensity to a potential 30% bonus over one unit per acre. In this case, a maximum of 191 dwellingunits could be allowed. The subject development does not request a density bonus, and onedwelling unit per residential acre is proposed.The intent of the PUD concept is to promote maximiim flexibility and innovation in thedevelopment of land and the design of development projects, while ensuring the protection of thepublic health, safety, and welfare. Section 18.54.020 of the Zoning Ordinance (page 396-20) lists13 objectives which are to be promoted through a PUD. Staff review of these 13 objectives findsthat this development, as proposed, generally promotes these objectives, and could further promotethe objectives with minor modifications. Staff has specific comments on the following criteria:The intent of Criteria C is to "foster the safe, efficient and economic use of land and ti-ansportationand ofher public facilities" and Criteria F is to "encourage patterns of development which decreaseautomobile travel and encourage trip consolidation, thereby reducing traffic congestion...". Theproposed 24-foot wide county street standard is the main concern with regard to Criteria C. In theinterest of safety, the Public Service Director and Engineering and Planning Staff continue torecommend that the internal streets be constmcted to a standard street width of37-feet from backof curb to back ofciirb, 5.5' boulevard parkways, and 5' sidewalks, in lieu of the proposed 24-footpaved road with no curb and gutter. With regard to Criteria F, the proposal of a neighborhoodservice district shoidd decrease automobile travel and encourage tnp consolidation, thereby reducingtraffic congestion, not only from this development, but from existing residential development in thegeneral area as well.As with all development, there is also some concern, with Criteria D, the intent of which is: "Toensxjre adequate provision of public services...". The further the City expands, the more area thereis to cover/patrol for police and fire personnel, and the longer the response time from one location7 .(~^n> hto another. As the City expands through annexation, the City Conmiission should ensure thatadequate personnel are added to the emergency response departments to ensure adequate protection.Criteria E, "To avoid inappropriate development of lands and to provide adequate drainage andreduction offload damage" has been better promoted than the May 1995 plan through the redesignof the project to avoid known areas of extremely high groundwater. There are still concernsregarding development on lands with known high groundwater tables, but the mitigation measiu-esproposed in the submittal address most of those concerns.The development of the property as proposed will be in confonnance with the Suburban Residentialland use designation of the Bozeman Area Master Plan, as the project is being developed throughthe PUD process and the gross density is a minimum of one dwelling unit per residential acre. PUDintent Criteria A indicates that the development will be in "accord" with the specific elements ofthe Master Plan, including the goals, objectives and policies (Goals, Objectives and ImplementationPolicies begin on page 42 of the Master Plan). The development, as proposed, positively addressessome of the goals, objectives and policies, as it: offers benefits toward the protection of theenvironment; preserves, establishes and constmcts open space/trail corridors; provides an open spacemanagement plan; provides outdoor enjoyment of the stream corridors and large open space areas;buffers the stream banks; provides open space and vegetative buffering of the Pointed RidgeSubdivision; utilizes city sewer services, thus protecting the groundwater from pollution from septicsystems; is somewhat in character with the existing development to the northwest and east; and theproperty is within the urban growth area. The project is located in an area with three streamcorridors, floodplain, and 9+ acres ofjurisdictional wetlands, and most of these areas are "protected"as open space. While the land is known to have high groundwater which can create problems withroad and foundation constmction, engineering mitigation measures have been identified to addressthose problems.The project is not in full accord with several of the specific elements of the Master Plan, as it: willremove agriciilturally productive soils from production (although the property is designated withinthe Urban Growth Boundary); there is no major einployment within walking distance to thedevelopment, but neighborhood services are being proposed; the development will add to a sewersystem with known bottlenecks, which the developer is aware of and will correct; and emergencyresponse times are long. These were major issues identified in the May 1995 submittal, with mostof the issues being addressed in the redesign.Section 18.54.050.0(3) of the Ordinance (page 396-22) lists 14 review criteria to be consideredduring review of Planned Unit Developments. The following provides a summary of commentsreceived from fhe Development Review Committee and Design Review Board which are applicableto these criteria:8 na) ENTERRELATIONSmP OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT ELEMENTS TO CONDITIONSBOTH ON AND OFF THE PROPERTY.The use of sub-standard streets within the development is the major concern expressed byDRC members, and has a two-fold response. First, fhe sub-standard streets would be similarto the streets m the existing nearby neighborhoods - Gardner Park and the Sourdough CreekProperties. However, these are county subdivisions, and the subject property will beannexed to the City if developed as proposed. The DRC recommends that the internalstreets be constructed to City standards because sub-standard streets in urban densitysubdivisions within the City ofBozeman cannot support on-street parking, bicycle traffic,or emergency vehicles. Further, the residents of this new subdivision, will expect to use thestreets for parking, when needed, and parking on the streets, as proposed, will obstinctemergency services. In the interest of safety, the Director of Public Sendee and DRCmembers continue to believe that subdivisions within the City limits should be required todevelop their internal streets to City standards. However, the Committee recognizes that thePlanned Unit Development process is a means of proposing alternative street designstandards, and that private sti-eets are permitted in Subdivision PUDs under certainconditions. With this in mind, if the City Commission chooses to accept a reduced streetstandard, the DRC recoinmends that a more direct north-south extension of Graf Street beprovided, and the Graf Street extension should be constiiicted to City standards, due to it's"collector" function.Further, m order to ensure a minimum 20-foot wide travel way for emergency vehicles, thesti'eets should be constructed to a minimum alternate standard of two 12-foot driving lanes,an 8-foot surfaced (preferably paved, graveled at a minimum) parking lane on one side ofthe private streets, graded swales, and sidewalks on both sides of the streets. The sideopposite the parking lane should be posted "No Parking".The least preferred alternative to city standard streets is the currently proposed layout of two12-foot driving lanes, 2-foot shoulders, graded swales and sidewalks. This standard is leastpreferred because it introduces the potential for restricted emergency access. If used, "NoParking" signs should be posted on both sides of the streets.While the size of lots is generally compatible with the lots in the Sourdough and GardnerPark Subdivisions (although somewhat smaller, the fact that all but approximately 15 lotsadjoin open space will give a "feeling" of larger lot sizes), the development is not ascompatible with the Pointed Ridge (Minor 85) Subdivision. This 34-acre subdivisioncontains four lots ranging in size from 5.5 to 10.1 acres. None of the lots in the SundanceSpring proposal back directly up to the adjoining property line of this minor subdivision —open space is provided between the subdivision and all lots. These areas of open space areproposed in the Open Space Management Plan to be landscaped with large deciduous andconifer plantings, which, upon maturity, will provide a sense of buffer between the twodevelopments. The fact that the Pointed Ridge Subdivision sits on a hill prohibits true visualbuffering.9 nt>b) CONFORMANCE TO THE BOZEMAN AREA MASTER PLAN.The Master Plan designates this land as Suburban Residential, the intent of which is topennit the subdivision of land at a variety of densities while ensuring an. overall density andconfiguration of development that will accommodate the extension of urban services at anaffordable cost to each dwelling unit. The property is located outside of the ServiceBoundary of the Existing Sewer System; however, the City commission has passed aResolution of Intent to Annex the property and provide municipal sewer and water for thedevelopment.The property is within the Urban Growth Area of the 1990 Bozeman Area Master PlanUpdate, which indicates residential development is expected to occur within the next 20years (by 2010). Three development options are available for land within this area, and thedeveloper has elected to utilize the PUD procedure option, which is also supported in the R-S zoning designation.c) THE EMPACT OF THE PLAN ON THE EXISTING AND ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC AM)PARKING CONDITIONS.The development of any vacant land will create traffic impacts on existing roads. Trafficfrom the PUD will initially use Goldenstein Lane to South Third and South 19th. TheTraffic Analysis, was completed in 1993 and updated in 1994 and August 1995 by Thomas,Dean and Hoskins. The 1995 update summarizes that the development of Sundance Springswith a neighborhood service area will have a long term reduction on South Third Avenueti-affic volumes between Kagy and Graf Street. It further notes that proposed improvementsidentified in the 1993 Transportation Plan along South Third and at the intersection of SouthThird and Kagy will improve the Level of Service (LOS) on South Third to at least "C".Kagy LOS levels remain a "B". Without the suggested improvements, the Sundance trafficimpact on South Third at the intersection of South Third and Kagy Boulevard will cause theLOS to remain at level "E" during the morning peak hour and at level "D" at the eveningpeak hour.The Analysis recommends that this development participate in improvements to South Thirdand the mtersection of South Third and Kagy Boulevard, and provide rights-of-way for therealignment of the intersection of South Third Avenue and Goldenstein Lane.The developer is proposing to provide the necessary rights-of-way for the intersectionimprovements as his "fair share" contribution to the improvements (estimated by thedeveloper to be approximately 50% of the cost). However, both the Director of PublicService and the County Road Superintendent have found that the traffic impacts created bythis subdivision should be mitigated by the developer constructing improvements consistentwith the City's G.O. Bond Issue for South Third for that portion of South Third to berealigned near Goldenstein Lane and by the developer constructing improvements to theintersection of South Third and Goldenstein. In addition to these improvements, the10 property owner should sign waivers ofright-to-protest creation ofSIDs (if not akeady onfile via the Aimexation Agreement) for improvements to South Third Avenue, betweenKagy Boulevard and Goldenstein Lane, and for the intersection of South Third/Willson/Kagy Boulevard (to include signalization). A waiver ofright-to-protest creation ofRIDsand the possible installation of a future signal light at Goldenstein and South Third shouldalso be signed.As mentioned earlier in this report, if the City Commission decides to accept an alternatestreet standard, a more direct north-south extension of Graf Street should be providedthrough this property, and the extension should be constmcted to City standards. If thismore direct extension is not required, centerline curves "K" and "L" on Wind Flower Driveshould be combmed into a single curve without an intervening tangent; there should not beany centerline offset at the intersection of Wind Flower Drive and Peace Pipe Drive. Toavoid future confusion, the "South" designation should be dropped from Graf Street, asproperties on the existing north-south leg of Graf Street near Spring Meadows Drive arelisted by the post office as being on "Graf Street". Also, if an alternate street standard isaccepted, more specific discussion of maintenance of the internal roadway should beincluded in the covenants (e.g. sidewalk snow removal along open spaces, driveway andstreet intersection culverts, weed mowing, pothole patching, etc.). The City must also beplaced in an approval position should changes to relevant sections of the covenants beproposed by future owners of this property.Both the Director of Public Service and the Planning Staff feel the roadway connections tothe three existing dead-end rights-of-way adjacent to this property should be provided. Thiswould include the extension of Good Medicine Way, Sundance Drive, and Sour DoughCreek Road to this property. The County Road Superintendent, however, has indicated thatit is not necessary to extend these county roads to this property due to topographic andstream crossing concerns, as well as concerns of increased traffic through adjacentneighborhoods. The developer has expressed a desire to not extend these streets based ondiscussions with adjacent residents, and their concern of increased ti'affic.The additional rights-of-way necessary for South Third and Goldenstein Lane should bededicated with this project.On-sfa-eet parking is a concern identified by DRC, as explained above. The developer hassuggested requiring every single-family stmcture to provide a minimum of a two-car garagewith two parking spaces in the driveway to provide four off-street parking spaces. TheZoning Ordinance requires three off-street parking spaces to be provided if there is no on-street parking. If an alternative street standard is approved by the City Commission, theDRC again recon-unends a standard that provides for parking on one side of the street, toadequately address guest parking.In order to ensure proper street constmction in potential high groundwater areas, a DesignReport for a roadway design section must be prepared by the developer's Professional11 Engineer, registered in the State of Montana, and submitted with plan and specificationreview. The Report must include an analysis of the on-site and future public right-of-waysoil conditions, special grading recommendations, roadway bearing capacities, the impactsofgroundwater on the design, projected traffic loadings, and street section(s) design. Thedesign must incorporate the findings of an independent on-site soil investigations, existinggroundwater monitoring investigations, and the findings of the April 27, 1995 SCS study.d) THE ADEQUACY OF THE PLAN WITH RESPECT TO LAND USE.The adequacy of the plan with respect to land use is acceptable. Over one-halfofthe siteremains undeveloped, providing open space and stream corridors. Severe areas of highgroundwater will remain in open space, and should not be adversely affected by street orbuilding constinction.The Design Review Board questioned the design of Morning Sun Drive, noting it servesonly five lots and could be eliminated through redesign. The developer's architect noted thatthey were very determined to provide a strong visual element from Goldenstein Lane andfhe proposed design opens up the view from Goldenstein to the north. They agreed that thecost of the street is considerable as it serves only a few lots, but felt the ti-ade-offwas worththe expense.e) PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR INGRESS AND EGRESS INCLUDINGHANDICAPPED ACCESSIBILITY.Pedestrian facilities appear adequate, with the provision of sidewalks on both sides of allinterior sfa-eets, as well as trails through the open space. The sidewalks will be consti-uctedin a city standard location on all public and private street frontages prior to occupancy of anystmcture on a lot. All sidewalks must be constmcted within three years of filing the plat foreach subdivision phase, regardless of whether a lot is constiiicted on or not. The developerwill be responsible for constructing sidewalks on all open space areas which adjoin streetsas part of the infrastruch.tre improvements for each phase. The developer has also indicatedhe will install the trails as each phase develops.Provisions for pedestrian conveyance along South Third and Goldenstein Lane should beprovided by the developer. These provisions must meet with the County RoadSuperintendent's approval.Little Horse Drive will serve the neighborhood service area from both South Third andGoldenstein, as well as provide access to the residential lots. Encroachment permits for alldevelopment roads exiting onto South Third and Goldenstein must be obtained from theCounty Road Superintendent prior to construction of the roads. No access will be permittedfrom any lots directly to South Third or Goldenstein.12 nThe County Road Superintendent has noted there are some vertical aligmnent problems onGoldenstein Lane that are currently being reviewed. Due to the additional traffic caused bythis development, and keeping in mind the sight distance problem created by the verticalalignment, fhe developer will be required to participate in some way in resolving any verticalaligmnent problems identified.The County Road Superintendent carefully reviewed the proposal to have Little Horse Driveloop South Third Avenue and Goldenstein Lane, and found that the proposal meets allcounty standards.f) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN.The Development Guidelines were reviewed by the Design Review Board, and severalminor changes were requested, most of which provide clarification within the document.The Board discussed requiring staggered setbacks along interior roadways to avoid acomdor of housing which could create a lineal feeling. It was determined that it would bedifficult to dictate which lot could build where without having specific plans, and that thefinal landscape plan and review will be used to avoid that concern. It was also noted thatstaggered setbacks could cause problems on curvalinear streets, and that the open space isbeing maximized along the front lot lines through the provision of 70-foot wide rights-of-way.g) LANDSCAPING.Landscaping of the open space areas is discussed in the Open Space Management Plan inSection 5 of the submittal. The plan presented with this application provides a generalschematic of the overall landscaping of the development, and the final plan of each phasewill provide a more detailed plan which gives more specific locations and species.Landscape screens are proposed along South Third and Goldenstein Lane and at the roadentiy locations. Additional screens ofmulti-level tree and shrub plantings will be providedalong the boundaries with the adjoining properties. Openings will be provided at locationsalong the boundanes where it is important to retain or direct views across the site, and theseareas will incorporate faster growing native deciduous varieties and evergreens. Wildlifehabitat enhancement plantmgs are specified along the stream, corridors and in the large blockof open space adjacent to Gardner Park. Wetland enhancements are proposed in a series ofponds south ofMcLeod Park.Installation of the landscaping shown on the Landscape Plan will be made by the developerin sequence with the phasing of the project. The Covenants for the project obligate the lotowners association to manage the open spaces in perpetuity. The covenants further requirespecific landscaping of each lot owner. Lawns are not allowed in the rear yard setbacks, andthese areas can only be seeded with drought tolerant fescue seed mixes, and will bemaintained to provide a transition from the manicured lawns around the homes to the openspace areas. Underground sprinkler systems are required where lawns are planted.13 nAminuniun often trees are required per lot, with 30% of the trees required to be conifers.Fruit trees are discouraged in order to promote the health and welfare of certain wildlifespecies.The developer has identified a particular concern for the neighbors in the Pointed RidgeSubdivision with regarding to planting screening that will not block their views.h) PROVISIONS FOR UTILITIES.Water mains will be extended from Soiu-dough Road, and will require approximately 6,600lineal feet of main extension. The city's sewer main will also be extended to serve thedevelopment via a 2,000± extension from Graf Street. The developer will be required tosubmit a comprehensive Design Report, prepared by a Professional Engineer licensed in theState of Montana, which evaluates the existing capacity of water and sewer utilities. Thereport must include detailed hydraulic evaluations for each utility for both existing and post-development demands for each phase of the development, and demonsta-ate adequatecapacity to serve the full development. If the Design Report finds that adequate sewerand/or water capacity is not available for full development, the report must identifynecessary water system and sewer system improvements required for full development. Thedeveloper will be responsible to complete the necessary system improvements to serve thefull development.Based on the City's sanitary sewer model, there appears to be inadequate sewer capacity toserve the development. Specifically, the 12" sewer extending between the intersections ofTracy/Hoffinan and Mason/South Willson, m addition to one section of 8" sewer in FairwayDrive, south ofKagy Boulevard, will be over capacity with the first phase of the project.This finding was made by the City Engineering Department considering existing sewageflows in addition to pending flows from new developments tributary to this sewer system.It will be the responsibility of the developer to increase the capacity of the describedpipelines to adequately convey sewage effluent from his total future development.There appears to be inadequate water pressure in the City's water system to serve thewesterly portion of the project. The exact limits are unknown at this time. The Developerwill be required to have designed and consti^icted a booster system to provide adequatepressure and volumes to the impacts lots. The system shall be subject to the review andapproval by the City Engineer and shall be adequately addressed in the Design Report.A 30-foot wide sewer easement must be provided to the City from the affected propertyowners to the north for the sewer extension along Graf Street from the north terminus ofPhase 1 to the northerly property boundary of the development and from the north propertyboundary to existing Graf Street. The easements shall follow the future aligmnent of GrafStreet.14 nThe Fire Chief is requiring all commercial stmctures within the neighborhood service areato be fire sprmklered due to the distance from the fire stations. Thus, fire service linestandards must be met for all service lines.Utility easements must be provided in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations, unlessall utility companies install services in the front of the lots. Montana Power Company hasnoted that utilities will not be located in the rights-of-way; a 12-foot front lot line easementis needed in order to avoid conflicts with the sewer and water facilities, and to keep the padmounted equipment off public right-of-way, where practical. They will not requireeasements on rear or side lot lines.U.S. West Coinmunications has indicated that the realigmnent of the intersection ofGoldenstein Lane and South Third appears to not cause a need to relocate all of the existingtelephone utilities in the area, which was a major concern during Concept Plan review. Thecost to relocate the existing utilities is estimated to be minimal, and those costs can bedetermined once a detailed design is submitted. The costs will be the responsibility of thedeveloper. U.S. West prefers back lot placement of their utility in the majority of allsubdivisions with a minor exception for lots with limitations.TCI Cablevision did not respond to the Plaiming Office's request for review.I) SITE DRAINAGE.A Stormwater Drainage/Treatment Plan for a system designed to remove solids, silt, oils,grease, and other pollutants must be provided to and approved by the City Engineer.Individual stormwater plans will be required for the development of the neighborhoodservice lots at the time they are developed. A site grading plan must be prepared as asupplement to the project improvement drawings, which includes, at a minimum, existingcontours, contours after the streets are constmcted but before development grading, spotelevations and flow directional arrows. The plan must demonsfa'ate adequate drainage to anacceptable discharge device, and the plan should be used to establish sti-eet and buildingfoundation grades. If the grading design discloses any adverse impact to off-site properties,necessary design alterations and/or drainage conveyance devices and easements must beprovided.The Natural Resources Conservation Service notes that groundwater is high in the entirearea. A May 1995 Planning Staff on-site investigation found groundwater at a depth of 12"to 18" in monitor #3, and very saturated soils in the southwest portion of the site.Development, both lot and street, will not occur in the very saturated soil areas. Engineeredroad and foundation designs have been proposed which should address these site conditions.15 nj) OPEN SPACE, PUBLIC LAND DEDICATIONS, AND VIEW CORRTOORPRESERVATION.Planned Unit Developments are required to provide 30% of the project as open space,exclusive of yard setbacks and parking lot interior landscape. Approximately 48% of thisdevelopment is set aside for open space. All open space is proposed to be dedicated to thehome owners association. The Recreation and Parks Advisory Board reviewed the project,focusing on the network of public trails and the need for dedicated linear parks. The Boardfelt that the trail right-of-way for the "Sundance Trail" should be dedicated linear park alongthe north and west boundary of the property between the northwest comer of Gardner Parkand the southeast comer of Macleod Park. This trail would connect to the Phase 1subdivision and include Matthew Bird Creek in Macleod Park. The width of the linear parkwould be 50 feet except for the 500 foot length at fhe east end which would be 100 feet wideto include more ofNash Spring Creek and provide a better trail route. The Board felt thiswill be a heavily used public trail connecting the Sourdough Trail to the Wagon Wheel Roadarea, includmg Westfield Subdivisions and the new middle school.The Board also found that an additional 50-foot wide open space buffer, owned andcontrolled by the homeowner's association, should separate the linear park area from theresidential lots. This would ensure that no lots would connect directly to the dedicated linearparks, particularly between existing Gardner Park/Sourdough Trail and the lots in Phase III.The Board noted that there is a large area of open space north of Peace Pipe Drive, south andwest of Macleod Park. Public trail easements with unproved paths (built to the samespecifications as the Sourdough Trail) should be provided by the developer in this area toconnect Macleod Park to South Third Avenue with a connection to Good Medicine Way,and a second comiection to Peace Pipe Drive between Blocks 8 and 11. A second publictrail is needed between the southeast comer ofMacleod Park and Peace Pipe Drive along thewest bank of Matthew Bird Creek. All trails should be located at least 50 feet fromresidential lots to provide an effective buffer zone.The developer has, m effect, provided these ti'ails, although not in the route proposed by theRecreation and Park Advisory Board. Leeway should be given to the developer to providehim with an opportunity to review the Board's recommendations and determine if he agreeswith them.The Park Superintendent reviewed the Board's recommendations and at first was concernedwith intermixing public and private park land (i.e. a 50 foot dedicated trail through privatepark). However, he concluded that if the City did own the dedicated trail, it would be theCity's responsibility to maintain the trail, which they do with the existing trail in GardnerPark. The private open space along the trail would provide a good buffer between the trailand private lots.16 4nThe Board discussed the possibility of requesting additional dedicated park in the indicatedopen space around Macleod Park for future park development, and concluded that thiswetland area is not suitable for a developed park and is best left natural as open space ownedand controlled by the homeowners association.There was a general agreement among Recreation and Parks Advisory Board members withthe proposed open space plan and the proposed management of the common areas by thehomeowner's association. They requested that the covenants specifically state that thehomeowner's association cannot prohibit or unreasonably restrict the public use of the trailson public easements for walking, jogging, and hiking. No motor vehicles will be allowedon the trails except for maintenance.The subject property sets below the joining residences to the west and center/south. Thus,the construction of structures will not obscure mountain views from the existing homes. Theview of the stream corridors and farm field that is currently enjoyed by those residents willbe impacted. However, the 1 0 feet of additional street right-of-way and the open spacecorridors will assist in mitigating that impact.The development of this property will also obsti-uct the view north from Goldenstein Laneand south from Spring Meadows and Grafs Fourth Addition. Again, the additional streetright-of-way and open space corridors will provide some relief from these obstructions.The Wildlife Assessment prepared by Richard Mackie and Robert Eng reports that thisdevelopment, like others like it, "will move housing and people into wildlife habitat andresult in direct impact" to wildlife in the area. They further note that this is also:..."one more in an ever increasing number of developments throughout theupper Gallatin Valley and Bozeman area that have gradually and consistentlyresulted in the loss of natural landscapes. The cumulative effect of thesedevelopments on wildlife habitat and populations through loss of open space,habitat fragmentation, and intensified human activities probably exceeds thedirect and local impacts. The natural areas and systems that remain arereduced in size and diversity and becoming more simplified in theirbiological/ecological struct.ire and function. This will ultunately result alsoin the loss of beauty, recreation, and educational experiences that theseresources have offered for people in the area."95Many of the open space management suggestions made by the reviewers were incorporatedin the plan. They suggested riparian corridors a minimum of 50 to 100 feet on either sideof the streams. A 50-foot corridor is proposed. Staff feels that a 100 foot corridor wouldbe more appropriate given the presence of floodplain in the area. The submittal notes thatall Zone X (500 year) floodplain areas are reserved as open space except for minor areas atthe rear of several lots. The required rear yard setback will essentially eliminateconstruction within any floodplain area, Zone AE or Zone X. Fiu-ther, the development17 nlayout provides a 100 foot buffer between all streams and lots except in a few instances.Given the fact that construction is essentially restricted in any floodplain zone, a 50 footsetback appears adequate.k) GRADING.Grading for sti-eet constonction may be impacted by the soil conditions on the site. Thedeveloper retained Morrison Maierle, Inc. to review the project engineer's conclusions withregard to stonn water, the flood plain and soils conditions with respect to the constinctionof subdivision roads. Their executive summary, found in section 9 of the submittal,concludes fhat a combination of "standard" and "modified" pavement sections can providesuitable access roads for the development. They further note that their experience with roaddesigns and construction in Gallatin County and in the immediate area of Sundance Springshas provided a history of successful projects containing similar site characteristics (such asthe paving of Goldenstein Lane from South Third to South 19th and the intersection ofGoldenstein and South Third Avenue). As noted earlier, a site grading plan must besubmitted for review.1) CONFORMANCE TO THE INTENT OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTCHAPTER (18.54.020) (page 396-20 of the Ordinance).The intent of the PUD chapter is to promote maximum flexibility and innovation in thedevelopment of land and the design of development projects within the zoning jurisdictionof the City. Specifics are listed in the Ordinance, and with conditions, Staff finds that thisproject is in confonnance with that intent.m) CONFORMANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA OFSECTION 18.54.100.Section 18.54.100 (page 396-32) states that for any PUD to be approved it must first befound to be in compliance with this section of the Ordinance. The design objectives andcriteria which a PUD must comply with are dependent upon the designated land useclassification of the site. The Section further outlines two groups of objectives and criteriafor review. A PUD must satisfy all the objectives and criteria of both groups, unless it isdetermined that certain criteria are not applicable or are irrelevant to a particulardevelopment proposal.The developer has responded to these criteria, as required, in Section 6 of the submittal. Thefirst section, ALL DEVELOPMENT, discusses neighborhood compatibility, publicfacilities, services and transportation, natural resources, environmental standards, and sitedesign. The second section, RESIDENTIAL, discusses density, provision of privateoutdoor areas, enhanceinent of the natural environment, limited commercial development,and preservation of the character of the surrounding area. Staff has reviewed the developer'sresponse to the criteria as well as independently reviewed the project with regard to the18 ncriteria, and find that with specific conditions, the project would address most of the criteria.Staff has the following detailed response to a few of the criteria:Criteria 5. page 396-33 asks: Does the development comply with all city design standards,requirements and specifications for several services, including streets? As noted earlier, theproposal does not comply with city STANDARD street designs, but the PUD is asking forrelaxed street standards, as is pennitted under a subdivision PUD. The relaxation of sti-eetstandards for some of the sti'eets may be appropriate, but the DRC is requesting analternative standard other than that proposed by the developer if the City Coinmission allowsan alternate street standard..Criteria 6. page 396-33 asks: Will the sewage generated by the development not exceed thesanitary sewer system's line and treatment capacity? There appears to be inadequate sewercapacity to serve the development, as explained earlier. It will be the responsibility of thedeveloper to increase the capacity of the affected pipelines to adequately convey sewageeffluent from the development.Criteria 13. page 396-34 asks: Have known areas of natural or geological hazard or soilconditions unfavorable to urban development had special engineering precautions taken toovercome natural constraints or have these areas been set aside from development? Severalareas of high groundwater and unfavorable soil conditions exist on the site. The developerhas retained two engineering firms to ensure that proper street and foundation constiuctionis possible under these conditions. Further, street and home development are not located inthe most severe areas.Criteria 25. page 396-35 asks: Are the elements of the site plan (e.g., buildings, circulation,open space and landscaping, etc.) arranged on the site so that activities are integrated withthe organizational scheme of the community and neighborhood? It was determined by theCounty Road Superintendent that the continuation of Good Medicine Way, Sundance Drive,or Sour Dough Creek Road to this development were not necessary due to physicalconstraints (wetlands, stream crossings), and the impact it would have on existingneighborhoods. By not extending these streets, the development becoines somewhat of anisolated pod, with the only access to adjacent property being to the north through GrafsFourth Addition. This access will not be constmcted until the property to the north isdeveloped. The configuration of Wind Flower Drive and its indirect intersection withGoldenstein Road could be unproved.Criteria 31. page 396-35 asks: Does the street and parking system provide for the smooth,safe and convenient movement of vehicles both on and off the site? The alternative streetsystem proposed by the developer would allow no on-street parking; however, the developerhas indicated it is his intent to require a minimum of four off-street parking spaces perresidential lot. If the City Commission chooses to accept a reduced street standard, analternative to the developer's design has been suggested by City Staff to ensure safe,convenient movement of vehicles on-site.19 nResidential PUDs may provide for a mix of limited commercial development. "Limitedcommercial development" is identified as professional offices and other permitted uses listedin the B-l neighborhood service district (Chapter 18.28) within parameters established bythe PUD chapter. All uses within the PUD must be sited and designed such that the activitiespresent will not detrimentally affect the adjacent residential neighborhood.Criteria 9. page 396-38. asks: If limited commercial development is proposed within theproject, is less than 20% of the gross area of the PUD designated to be used for offices orneighborhood service activities not ordinarily allowed in the particular residential zoningdistrict? The auswer is, yes, as only four percent of the project is intended for limitedcommercial activities.Criteria 10. page 396-38i^sks_If neighborhood service activities are proposed within theproject, is a market analysis provided demonstrating that less than 50% of the marketrequired to support proposed neighborhood service activities is located outside theimmediate area of the PUD and are the neighborhood services of a nature that does notrequire drive-in facilities or justification for through traffic? As required with otherresidential PUDs requesting neighborhood commercial, a market study will be required tobe provided prior to final plan approval if the commercial node is allowed by the CityCommission. If the study does not demonsti-ate that less than 50% of the market requiredto support the service activities is located outside the itiunediate area of the PUD, then theproposed neighborhood service will not be permitted.The idea of providing neighborhood services in this area is not new; it was discussed overfive years ago by Mr. Carter Williams with the Planning Board, and was also proposed inone of this developer's concept reviews. Neither the Planning Board nor City Coinmissionnoted major concerns about the development of such services in this location. The PlanningStaff feels that neighborhood service districts can become a vital part of neighborhoods anda convenience to area residents, and that the proposed location is very acceptable.Criteria 11, page 396-38. asks: If the project contains limited conunercial development, isthe project located at the intersection of arterial streets, or arterial and collector streets?Goldenstein Lane is designated an arterial, and South Third a collector. Therefore, thiscriteria is met.Criteria 12. page 396-39. asks: If the project contains limited coimnercial development, hasthe project been. sited and designed such that the activities present will not dete'imentallyaffect the adjacent residential neighborhood and have the commercial activities beendeveloped at a scale compatible with residential development? The siting of the commercialactivities should not detrimentally affect the adjacent residential neighborhood, as it is notimmediately adjacent to any existing residential area. The Goldenstein's will be the closestneighbor affected, and their property is separated from the development by GoldensteinLane as well as a landscape buffer between Goldenstein Lane and the commercial lot.Further, access to the commercial node can only occur from an interior subdivision street.20 nn) OTHER RELATED MATTERS.Two final plans will be required for this project. The first is the final PUD plan whichshows building sites, landscaping, parking, etc. This plan must meet the requirements ofSection 18.54.060.C of the Ordinance, and be submitted within a maxiinum of three yearsfollowing approval of the preliminary plan. The applicant must undertake and complete thedevelopment of an approved final plan within two years from the time of final approval.The second plan required is the final subdivision plat for Phase 1. The final plat mustcomply with Section 16.10.030 of the Bozeman Area Subdivision Regulations, and besubmitted within three years of preliminary plat approval. All required infrastructureimprovements for Phase 1 must be completed or financially guaranteed prior to finalsubdivision plat approval. No building permits will be issued prior to the installation andacceptance ofinfrastmcture improvements.DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEEThe DRC reviewed the project and each department involved in the review submitted recommendedconditions. All written reconimendations and a copy of the October 3, 1995 DRC minutes areattached to the Planning Board, City Commission, and development teain's copies of this report.All written recommendations are available for review by the general public in the planning office.The Committee voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of conditional approval of theproject to the Planning Board.DESIGN REVIEW BQARDAs with all Planned Unit Developments, this project was also reviewed by the Design ReviewBoard. A copy of the minutes of their September 26 review of the project is attached to thePlanning Board, City Coinmission, and development team's staff rq)orts. The minutes are availablein the planning office for review by the general public.The Board suggested several general corrections to fhe Covenants and Development Guidelines, anddiscussed the design and landscaping of the project, but made no recommendations for majorchanges to the plan. They found a "clean and sound approach" was used with the redesign of theproject, and voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Board.CONDITIONAL USE PERMITPlanned Unit Developments are listed as Conditional Uses in the R-S zoning district. Section18.53.030 (page 396-19) of the Ordinance states that the City Commission, in approving a CUP,shall find that the following sue critena are adequately addressed. Comments made by DRB, DRC,and other reviewing agencies which are pertinent to these criteria are incorporated in the reviewbelow.21 nA. THAT THE SITE FOR THE PROPOSED USE IS ADEQUATE IN SIZE ANDTOPOGRAPHY TO ACCOMMODATE SAID USE, AND ALL YARDS, SPACES, WALLSAND FENCES, PARKING, LOADING, AND LANDSCAPING ARE ADEQUATE TOPROPERLY RELATE SUCH USE WITH THE LAND AND USES IN THE VICINITY.Development of the site is affected by the presence oflow-lying ground near and adjacentto floodplains and wetlands. The proposed design preserves, to a great extent, a majorityof those lands, and keeps development and street consti-uction out of problems areas. Thesite appears to be adequate in size and topography to accoinmodate the development.B. THAT THE SITE FOR THE PROPOSED USE RELATES TO STREETS ANDHIGHWAYS ADEQUATE IN WIDTH AND PAVEMENT TYPE TO CARRY THEQUANTITY AND KIND OF TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED USE.This issue is thoroughly discussed earlier in this report. Mitigation measures to adjoiningstreets are needed, and the construction standard of the interior streets has been questionedby the DRC.As noted during Concept Plan review, the preliminary plat of Matthew Bird CreekSubdivision, a 26.9 acre tract proposed to create 68 single-family residences in Grafs FourthAddition north of this development, was denied by the City Commission, in part because ofthe affect the volume of traffic added to South Third Avenue and Willson Avenue. TheCommission found that the Matthew Bird Creek Subdivision would create a developmentat the end of a street system (South 3rd) not prepared for growth, and will add a strain onthe existing system that was not constmcted for the additional amount of traffic thesubdivision would create. They further found that until South Third Avenue is improved,bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles are currently sharing a street without shoulders orsidewalks, which is an unsafe condition identified in the City's 20-year transportation plan.The Commission determined at that time that until a secondary arterial or collector street isconstructed in the area, such as the extension of South llth Avenue, additionaldevelopments that depend solely on South Third Avenue would have a negative effect onthe public health and safety. This project does not depend solely on South Third Avenue.Two of the traffic analyses provided with the submittal are not totally accurate for thesubject submittal because they include access via an extension of Good Medicine Way, aswell as an extension of Graf Street through Grafs Fourth Addition. Neither of theseextensions are proposed with this development; however, all traffic from those extensionswould have ended up on South Third Avenue. The March 1994 analysis indicates that thevolume of traffic on South Third between Kagy and Graf could drop due to the addition ofthe coinmercial area in the development, and Staff concurs with this indication.22 The G.O. Bond will fund some improvements to South Third Avenue, and it isrecommended that the developer financially assist in some of those improvements, as wellas constmct the improvements necessary at the intersection of South Third and Goldenstein.C. THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL HAVE NO ADVERSE EFFECT UPON THEABUTTING PROPERTY.Development of the property will have an effect on existing residential property due to thedevelopment of a now vacant field. The open space plan proposed by the developer shouldmitigate the impacts by providing vegetative buffering and open space corridors with publicaccess trails.D. THAT THE PROPOSED USE SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE BOZEMANAREA MASTER PLAN.As mentioned earlier in the report, the use is in conformance with the Master Plan, andappears to address most goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan. Previously identifiedenvironmental constraints have been addressed by the developer and his engineers.E. THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE HAS COMPLIED WITH ALL CONDITIONSSTIPULATED IN SECTION 18.50 OF THIS ORDINANCE.Section 18.50 begins on page 373 of the Ordinance and continues through page 396-9. Thechapter establishes general development standards which are intended and designed to assurecompatibility of uses; to prevent urban blight, deterioration and decay; and to enhance thepeace, health, safety and general welfare of the residents living within the zoning jurisdictionof the City of Bozeman. These standards are to be used as guidelines when reviewingPUDs. Several conditions are suggested to ensure that the proposal meets the intent of thosestandards.F. THAT ANY ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS STATED IN THE APPROVAL AREDEEMED NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERALWELFARE. (Such conditions may include but are not limited to several issues listed in theordinance.)The Development Review Committee, County Road Superintendent, and other reviewingagencies have recommended conditions to address the issues listed above. The followingare comments leading to potential additional conditions which pertain only to theneighborhood service area.The developer has no plans to personally develop the neighborhood service lots. The lotscan either be developed as they are, or could be further subdivided into smaller lots.Regardless of their size, ALL USES PROPOSED ON ANY PORTION OF THENEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE LOTS MUST UNDERGO FURTHER ZONING REVIEW,23 nAS REQUIRED D^ CHAPTER 18.52 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. The inclusion ofthe neighborhood service lots in this PUD give no pre-approval for any of the uses reviewedbelow. Either minor site plan, major site plan, or conditional use review will be required forevery proposed use or structure.The uses pennitted in the neighborhood service area would include the following (perChapter 18.28, B-l):Principal Uses:Day care centersApartments on second or subsequent floorsFood stores (grocery, bakery, etc.)Personal and convenience servicesConditional Uses:Auto service stationsEssential services (Type II)Restaurants serving alcoholic beveragesEssential services (Type I)Retail usesRestaurants (no drive-ins)ChurchesProfessional & business officesStaff has given considerable thought to the allowable uses, and the only use questioned isrestaurants serving alcoholic beverages. However, the use is a conditional use, and allconditional uses will be considered at a public hearing before the Planning Board, with theCity Commission making the final decision on an application. Therefore, Staff feels it ispossible, for example, that a small pizza or sandwich parlor serving beer or wine may befeasible in this location. However, it is doubtful that Staff would support a supperclub/lounge proposal, as that type of use could potentially draw more than 50% of itsbusiness from the neighborhood.As has been required of other residential PUDs with commercial services, Staff recommendsthat all neighborhood services be limited to the business hours of 7 a.m. through 9 p.m.COVENANTS AND DEVELOPMENT GUfflELINESCovenants and Developmental Guidelines are found in Section. 8 of the submittal. Further DRB/siteplan review will not occur for the residential lots, but a building permit must be obtained for eachlot, and at that time, the Planning Office will ensure that the consti^iction complies with all adoptedGuidelines. Site Plan review will occur for all development within the neighborhood sendee area,and that review will ensure conipliance with the Guidelines.The Guidelines appear to be very clearly written, with easy to read graphic illustrations. Theyinclude site development and landscape guidelines, fence regulation, mail box location, and theOpen Space Management Plan and general building guidelines.24 The City ofBozeman should be made a party to the Covenants, and any covenant which is includedtherein as a condition of the preliminary plan or plat approval and required by the city commissionmay not be amended or revoked without the mutual consent of the owners in accordance with theamendment procedures established in the covenants, and by the City Commission. The followingcorrections are requested to be made in the document:Article III, General Covenants, should specifically state that the homeowner's association cannotprohibit or unreasonably restrict the public use of the ta'ails on public easements for walking,jogging, and biking. No motor vehicles will be allowed on the trails except for maintenance.SECTION I. RESIDENTIAL LOTSa) Add a section requiring the annual mowing of grasses in the entire PUD, to occur atapproximately the same time hay is cut in the vicinity, to a height of not more than six inches.b) Page 20, Section 10.4, Eliminate first sentence regarding determming maximum roof height, andjust reference a 34 foot maximum height.c) Page 22, Correct spelling throughout Section 11.2.d, "eves" to "eaves".d) Page 24. Correct or eliminate drawing in Section 11.6.C regarding exposed concrete.e) Page 27. Clarify reference to on-street parking in Section 11.8 to comply with City Commissiondecision regarding internal street constmction standards.f) Page 32. Section 12.15, Signs. Home occupation signs are limited to no more than two sq.ft. perthe Sign Code. Correct to comply.g) Page 38, Section 9.15. Correct the spelling of "except" to "accept".h) Page 39. Add a paragraph regarding installation of sidewalks per the City policy.I) Add a section IF an alternative street standard is accepted which specifically discusses themaintenance oftiie interior roadways (e.g. sidewalk snow removal along open spaces, driveway andsti-eet intersection culverts, weed mowing, pothole patching, etc.).j) Add a section infonning lot owners that an Elevation Certificate must be provided to the CityEngineer for each building within the 100 year floodplain following completion ofconstin.iction.SECTION II. NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICESa) Add a section IF an alternative street standard is accepted which specifically discusses themaintenance of the interior roadways (e.g. sidewalk snow removal along ope spaces, driveway andstreet intersection culverts, weed mowing, pothole patching, etc.).25 b) Add a section informing lot owners that an Elevation Certificate must be provided to the CityEngineer for each building within the 100 year floodplain following completion of construction.c) Add a section requiring the annual mowing of grasses in the entire PUD, to occur atapproximately the same time as hay is cut in the vicinity, to a height of not more than six inches.d) Page 19, Section 9.4. Eliminate first sentence regarding detennination of building height, andjust reference a maximum 34 foot building height.e) Page 23, correct spelling throughout Section 10.2.d., "eavs" to "eaves".f) Page 26, Section 10.8. Clarify section regarding on-street parking per the City Commission'sdecision on street standards.g) Page 27, Section 11.6, Exterior lighting. Add a sentence stating lights cannot be higher than theheight of the building or 20 feet, whichever is less.h) Add a section regarding installation of sidewalks per the City policy.I) Include a section which limits the hours of business for all uses within the neighborhood sendeelots to 7 a.m. through 9 p.m.CONCLUSION OF THE ZONING PUDBased on the above review, a recommendation of conditional approval is being forwarded to thePlanning Board from DRC, DRB and the Planning Staff. The conditions of approval will besummarized at the end of this report. If the Zoning PUD is denied, the subdivision cannot beapproved.PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEWA preliminary plat for a subdivision planned unit development was submitted with the above-reviewed zoning PUD to create the individual lots, sti-eets, and open space areas within Phase 1 ofthe development. The preliminary plat for Phase 1 proposes to divide 72.85 acres into 67 single-family residential lots, two neighborhood service lots, open space, and private streets. Thesubdivision will be accessed from Goldenstein Lane and South Third Avenue. All internal streetsare proposed to be private streets, and as with all private sfareets, they will be plowed and maintainedby the homeowner's association.The developer is requesting that the subdivision be reviewed as a PUD in conjunction with theZoning PUD proposed on the property. The subdivision PUD status can allow private commonopen space areas, and private roads constmcted to less than city standards.26 ^Approval of this subdivision is contingent on approval of the Zoning PUD. It cannot be approvedif the Zoning PUD is denied. Final platting of the subdivision is contingent on finalization,completion of conditions, and filing of the Annexation Agreement for the property.Pursuant to Section 16.08.030.C offhe Subdivision Regulations, copies of the preliminary plat weredistributed to various county, state and federal agencies for their review and comment. Thefollowing are Staffs findings with regard to the prelimmary plat, which includes comments receivedfrom the reviewing agencies.STAFF FINDINGSThe preliminary plat application was received on Septeniber 1, 1995. On October 1, 1995,amendtnents to the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act went into affect. The City Attorney wascontacted with regard to the review process for this subdivision — whether it should be reviewedunder the laws in effect at the time of submittal, or at the time of approval. He issued amemorandum on October 2,1995 which cited a recent Montana Supreme Court decision on a verysimilar question. The City Attorney concluded that the subdivision must be reviewed under theSubdivision Regulations in effect at the time of submittal, but any statute amendments in effect atthe time of approval must be followed. Therefore, this review follows the Bozeman AreaSubdivision Regulations, as well as amendments to statute which will affect the SubdivisionRegulations (when updated).Many of the comments expressed during the zoning PUD review may be repeated here, as theypertain specifically to the subdivision of that land. However, if they are not specifically repeatedin this section of the Staff Report, but conditions relating to them are recommended in theconclusion, it is only because Staff felt the issue was thoroughly covered earlier in the report.The subdivision will be served by City ofBozeman water and sewer. Plans and specifications mustbe approved by the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences and City Engineering andWater/Sewer Department. Mains should be located in standard locations, with the possibleexception of the mains in South Third and Goldenstein, as the location of mains in the standardlocations in these rights-of-way would require the disruption of existing pavement. The water mainmust be looped with the first phase.Easements for the water and sewer main extensions (when necessary) must be a minimum of 30 feetin width, with the utility located in the center of the easement. In no case shall the utility be lessthan 10 feet from the edge of an easement. All required easements must be provided prior to or onthe final plat.The Montana Departments ofFWP, SCS, Environmental Quality, and Army Corps of Engineersmust approve any required permits (i.e., 310, 404, Turbidity exemption, etc.), and a copy of allrequired permitted submitted with plan and specification review, when necessary, or with the finalplat.27 nA ditch is proposed to be relocated in the western portion of the site. All required ditch relocationprocesses must be followed.Appropriate flood plain development permits must be obtained from the City Engineer, whenapplicable. The 100 year flood plain boundary and flood elevations must be depicted on the finalimprovement plan. Culvert sizing design calculations shall be provided for the stream crossings.All buildings must be flood-proofed to at least 2 feet above the 100 year flood elevation, andelevation certificates must be provided for each building following completion of constmction.As reviewed in. the Zoning PUD review, Design Reports must be submitted which addresspreviously identified water, sewer, and traffic issues.Where project phasing results in dead end streets, temporary cul-de-sacs shall be designed andconstructed with each phase. If the temporary cul-de-sac is not on the developer/owner's property,a temporary easement must be obtained and filed with the Clerk and Recorder's Office. It appearsthat no temporary cul-de-sacs will be required with Phase 1 .DRC recommends that the internal streets for the subdivision be constmcted to a city standard sti'eetwidth of 37' from back of curb to back of curb, 5.5' boulevard parkways, and 5' sidewalks, in lieuof the proposed 24' paved road without curb and gutter. Should the City Commission choose toaccept a reduced standard, DRC recommends that the streets be constmcted to the followingstandards by order of preference:1. In order to ensure a minimum of 20 feet of travel way for emergency vehicles, two 12'driving lanes, and 8' surfaced (preferably paved, graveled at a minimum) parking lane onone side of the private street, graded swales, and sidewalks on both sides of the drive shallbe provided. The side opposite the parking lane should be posted "No Parking".2. The least preferred alternative is the currently proposed layout of two 12' driving lanes, 2'shoulders, graded swales and sidewalks. This item is the least preferred because itintroduces the potential for restricted emergency access. It is recommended that "NoParking" signs be posted on both sides of the sti-eet with this alternative.Regardless of the street section approved for the private internal streets, it is strongly recommendedthat a more direct north-south street extension of Graf Street be provided through this project (i.e,from the north property boundary to Goldenstein Lane). The Graf Street extension should beconstiTicted to a minimum City standard section consistent with the existing Graf Sti-eet north of theproject site. If the proposed design of the north-south street (Wind Flower Drive) is not requiredby the City Commission, the centerline curves "K" and "L" should be combined into a single ciuvewithout an intervening tangent; there should not be any centerline offset at the intersection of WindFlower Drive and Peace Pipe Drive.28 <A sewer easement is proposed between Lots 4 and 5, Block 8, from Peace Pipe Drive to GoodIVIedicine Way, to provide an access for a potential future sewer easement to serve property in thisvicinity. The word "future" should be deleted from "future sewer easement" on the plat.The owner should sign waivers of right-to-protest creation of SIDs for improvements to SouthThird, between Kagy and Goldenstein, and the intersection of South Third/Willson/Kagy Boulevard(to include signalizadon), if not ah-eady on file with the County Clerk and Recorder. A waiver ofright to protest RIDs should also be filed, which includes a traffic signal and South Third andGoldenstein.A 50 foot right-of-way (one-halfofa 100 foot fature right-of-way) shall be dedicated for therealignment of the intersection of South Third Avenue and Goldenstein Lane. A full 100 foot right-of-way shall be dedicated in the area where the future road falls entirely within the project site. Theright-of-way dedication for Goldenstein shall be 45 feet (one-halfofa 90 foot future right-of-way).An additional 20 feet of right-of-way will be required along South Third avenue for the entire lengthof the development. All right-of-way shall be dedicated with Phase 1 in the instances where Phase1 adjoins the affected rights-of-way.The widths of the right-of-way dedications for South Third and Goldenstein Lane should be clearlyindicated on the plat. Provisions for pedesta-ian conveyance along these two arterials should beprovided by the developer. These provisions must meet with the County Road Supervisor'sapproval.The realignment and constiT-iction of the realignment of the South Third and Goldensteinintersection, as well as improvements consistent with the City's G.O. Bond Issue project for SouthThird for that portion of South Third to be realigned near Goldenstein, shall be funded andconst-ucted by the developer to the standards approved by the city and county.All infrastmcture improvements including 1) water and sewer main extensions, and 2) public streets;curb/gutter; sidewalks fronting parks, open space, rear yard frontage, or other non-lot frontages; andrelated storm drainage infrastructure improvements shall be constmcted by the developer prior tofinal plat approval. No building permits will be issued prior to acceptance of subdivisioninfrastructure improvements.City standard residential sidewalks (including a concrete sidewalk section through all private driveapproaches) shall be constmcted on all public and private street frontages of a property prior tooccupancy of any storucture on the property. Upon the third anniversary of the plat recordation ofany phase of the subdivision, any lot owner who has not constructed a sidewalk shall do soregardless of whether other improvements have been made upon the lot. This condition shall beincluded on the plat and in the covenants for the development.A 10-foot maintenance easement must be provided on both sides of all ditches.29 Appropriate utility easements must be shown on the plat, as discussed during the Zoning PUDreview. A BLANKET NOTE REGARDING THE WIDTH OF EASEMENTS WILL NOT BEACCEPTED. ALL APPLICABLE EASEMENTS MUST BE SHOWN ON EACH LOT.A weed control plan should be entered into between the owner and the County Weed ControlOfficer prior to final plat approval. Any mitigations identified in the plan niust be conipleted by thedeveloper prior to filing of the plat.The plat should show the public access easements for the trails.The "Landowner" and "Floodplain" notes on the plat should be clarified. A note should be addedto the plat regarding the presence of high groundwater and the recommendation that no basementsbe constiTicted (it should be noted that the covenants contain such a statement, but it should also beadded to the plat so it will be noted in a title report).To avoid future confusion, the "South" designation should be dropped from Graf Street, asproperties on the existing north-south leg of Graf Street near Spring Meadows Drive are listed bythe post office as being on "Graf Street".The site statistic block for the subdivision should include reference to the neighborhood service lots.All appropriate certificates must be provided on the final plat, as well as a legal metes and boundsdescription of Phase 1.As with all final plats, an abstractor's certificate must be submitted with the Clothbacks and mylars(two each). A digital copy of the final plat, on a double sided, high-density 3l/2 inch floppy diskshall also be provided.ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND COMMUNITV IMPACT STATEMENTAs required, fhese studies were submitted with the application and are found in Sections 3 and 4 ofthe submittal. The issues have been reviewed throughout this report. However, the comments fromthe Recreation and Parks Advisory Board should be fully considered during subdivision review.A subdivision Planned Unit Development is required to provide an area for dedicated park and/oropen space, with the area not less than 30% of the area of the PUD, with 50% of the required openspace (or 15% of the total development) to be held in common ownership by the property ownerswifhtn fhe development. The Recreation and Parks Advisory Board is recommending that a sectionof the trail be dedicated to the public, even though the developer has indicated that all ti-ails will becontained within public trail easements. The reason for this is to ensure proper and similarmaintenance of the main trail to that of the existing Sourdough Trail.30 »IiThe City Commission must issue an order waiving land dedication and cash donation requirementsif permanently set aside park and recreational use land is being held in common ownership and isnot dedicated to the public.PMMARY REVIEW CRITERIAThe basis for the City Commission's decision to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove asubdivision must be whether the Preliminary Plat, Environmental Assessment, public hearing,Planning Board recommendation, and additional infonnation demonstrate that development of thesubdivision meets the requirements of the Bozeman Area Subdivision Regulations, 1990 BozemanArea Master Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance, and Montana statute. A governing body may not denyapproval of a subdivision based solely on the subdivision's impacts on educational services.Section 16.12.010.B of the Bozeman Area Subdivision Regulations contains the following statementregarding land unsuitable for subdivision:Land which the appropriate Governing Body has found to be unsuitable forsubdivision because of potential hazards such as flooding, land slides, excessiveslope, rock falls, snow avalanches, subsidence, high water table, polluted or non-potable water; or because of unreasonable burdens on the general public such asrequirements for the excessive expenditure of public funds, environmentaldegradation, and congestion in the streets, shall not be subdivided for building orresidential purposes unless the hazards or excessive public burdens are eliminatedor will be overcome by approved design and construction plans...The area has known high ground water and soils identified as "sever" for road and foundationconsti'uction. Engineering practices can overcome these hazards, but a question remains on whatconstruction in this area will do to properties to the north with regard to ground and surface waterimpacts. The installation of water and sewer mains is known to provide a conduit for ground waterand will, in fact, actually assist in decreasing the amount of ground water in the immediate area.However, because it works as a conduit, the ground water then moves north, which may cause anegative ground water situation there.The Montana Subdivision and Flatting Act, as amended on October 1, 1995, establishes six primarycriteria which the governing body must also consider when evaluating subdivisions. The PlanningStaff has the following comments (in addition to those made during zoning PUD review) in relationto those criteria.1) Effects on AgricultureThe property is currently used for grain production (67%) and grazing. The subdivision willremove 72+ acres from agricultural production. The property is located in the UrbanGrowth Area of the Bozeman Area Master Plan, where development is expected to occurwithin the next 20 years (by 2010).31 ^n2) Effects on Agricultural Water User FacilitiesThe subdivision proposes to relocate an existing inigation ditch. This relocation should noteffect the agricultural water user facilities, as the enter and exit points of the ditch willessentially remain the same, as will the flow of water.3) Effects on Local ServicesLetters in response to local services review of the subdivision can be found in the appendix(Section 9) of the submittal.Fire ServiceThe Uniform Fire Code is clear in its requirements for 20 foot unobstmcted road widths.If an alternative road standard is approved, it is imperative that it include requirements toensure that on-street parking will not obstruct emergency vehicle operations.Due to the excessive travel time from the Bozeman Fire Station No. 2, all commercialproperties should be sprinklered. This recommended condition from the Fire Chief is basedupon the greater hazard of these occupancies as opposed to the single family dwellings, andthe apparent limitations for water system fire flows. The Fire Chief has noted that they arestrongly considering the relocation of their facility which would create acceptable travel timeto the subdivision. However, until that occurs, all commercial sta^ictares should besprinklered.Police ServiceThe farther the City expands and develops, the more area there is for this department tocover/patrol. The response times also increase. The new growth in the area has created anaccumulative effect on the ability for all emergency services to serve the citizens withreasonable response times.Bozeman School DistrictGary Griffith, Supervisor of Maintenance, Operations, and Support Services, noted that if80% of all subdivisions the school district has reviewed in the last three years are occupiedin the year 2000, they expect to be overcrowded by 850 students. The subdivision can beserved by existing school bus routes.Dr. Paula Butterfield, Superintendent ofBozeman Schools, has stated that impacts on theBozeman School District should not be used as a reason to deny subdivisions.32 -n<nPrivate streets may be allowed in subdivision planned unit developments where collectorsto-eets designated to furnish access to adjacent areas are dedicated, adequate responsibilityfor the improvement and maintenance of the streets is by the property owner's association,and when all sti-eets are unproved to City ofBozeman and/or Gallatin County Standards.As noted several times in this report, the DRC is recommending city standard sti-eets in thisdevelopment, but because those standards can be relaxed during subdivision PUD review,have proposed two design alternatives for all interior streets except the north-south extensionofdraf Sti'eet. As this street will serve at a collector function for this subdivision, as wellas for future subdivisions to the north, it is recommended that this street be constructed toa full city standard, and that it be realigned to provide a more direct north-south streetextention. Compliance with these recommendations would ensure minimal effects on publicservices, as well as on public health and safety.The annexation approval also required the reimbursement of the prorata portion of the costsfor the South Third/Graf/Wagon Wheel intersection modifications, previously completed bythe City. Calculation of the subject property's prorata share will be determined for inclusionin the Annexation Agreement.The provision of water rights or a cash-in-lieu fee is typically required at the time ofannexation. However, for annexations over 10 acres in size, the water rights or cash-iu-lieufee may be provided prior to final plat approval, final site plan approval, or the issuance ofa building pennit, whichever comes first. The amount required for this phase of thesubdivision will be determined by the Director of Public Service, and must be paid prior tofiling the final plat.Other ServicesPower, postal, telephone and gas services can be provided to the property.4) Effects on Natural EnvironmentThe potential for developmental constraints due to environmental concerns was identifiedduring annexation review. A condition of annexation approval is that a deed restriction orsimilar mechanism must be filed with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder, setting forththat developmental constraints exist on the subject property due to the presence of sensitiveenvironmental conditions, including groundwater and surface water resources, floodplain,wildlife habitat, etc., with the final language and fonn of the document to be subject toreview and approval by the City Attorney.33 —' nThe soils are described as being appropriate for cropland, rangeland, and woodland. TheBuilding Site Development Report prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture SoilConservation Service identifies nine soil types on the property. Six of the soils are listed as"severe", two as "moderate", and one as "slight" for construction of dwellings withoutbasements due to weteiess and flooding. Six soils are rated as "severe" for local streets androads, with three rated as "nioderate", due to low strength, frost action, flooding, shrink-swell potential, and wetness.The soils where a majority of the development is proposed, are listed as 509B Enbar, withsevere building site development ratings for shallow excavations, dwellings with and withoutbasements, and local stireets and roads. There is a slight rating for lawns, landscaping andgolf fairway s.The review prepared by the Engineering finn of Morrison-Maierle, Inc. (found in theAppendbc, Section 9) states that "site limitations are apparent for construction of subdivisionroads. However, a properly designed pavement section to accommodate site conditions andexpected traffic loading will provide long tenn access... With properly engineered roads andgood constmction practices, road maintenance and service life will be comparable to otherroads in Gallatin County." Based on their project experience, including the paving ofGoldenstein Lane from South Third to South 19th Avenue, Morrison-Maierle provided roaddesign/construction/preservation comments, noting that the elements that need to be closelyconsidered are high ground water conditions, frost susceptible soils, and maintenance ofstorm water flows. A "modified" pavement section is recommended for various sections ofthe sti'eets.The City Engineering Department is requiring a Design Report which includes roadwaydesign sections. This report, coupled with the developer's engineer's knowledge of areasoils, should ensure proper compaction and fill of building and street sites.A 100-foot stream course setback has been recommended to provide ample buffer of thestreams/ditches, and water course flooding. It appears that this setback is provided frommost building sites, especially those within a flood plain area. Therefore, the developer'sproposed 50-foot minimum setback has been found to be sufficient.Kurt Alt, Wildlife Biologist for FWP, noted that the wetlands and riparian areas in andimmediately adjacent to Bozeman are in short supply and if developed should be done witha carefully developed plan designed to maintain their integrity. The Anny Corps ofEngineers has approved 404 permits for wetland enhancement, which addresses issues raisedby Mr. Alt.The connection of the subdivision to the City's water and sewer systems will provide thebest protection of the groundwater from effluent pollution. However, there may be someadditional costs for installation of the water and sewer mains in areas of such highgroundwater. Further, installation of such pipes can create a natural drainage for34 groundwater.properties.nSome of this groundwater will flow north, underground, to adjoiningAll necessary water service stubs for domestic and fire sprinkler services inust be installedwith the initial construction, specifically for Blocks 10 and 11, the neighborhood servicearea. Future subdivision/development of those areas may require water main extensionswhich could ensure adequate services at that time.Ditch relocation must be approved by the FWP department and any required permits mustbe obtained. The applicant must obtain written permission from the ditch owner for anyproposed relocation or creation of any ponds from the ditch.Flood Plain Development Permit processes must be adhered to. Stream crossings for thetrails must be addressed by the appropriate personnel (i.e. permits for culverts, bridges, etc.).With regard to the City's Critical Land Study, most of the critical land resources have beenmapped, but they are mapped at a scale in less detail than the information received with thissubmittal. No analysis of resource data and no development of policy with regard to thestudy have been made at this time. Therefore, the Staff is relying on the policies stated inthe Master Plan, Subdivision Regulations, and Zoning Ordinance with regard to the effectson natural resources. It should be noted that even if completed, the Critical Lands Studywould probably have served only to alert Staff to the potential of critical lands in this area,which would have prompted the detailed reviews that have been completed for this project.5) Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife HabitatA Preliminary Wildlife Assessment was prepared by Richard Mackie, Ph.D and Robert L.Eng, Ph.D for the development. Their summary, which was based on an earlier submittalwhich provided 36% of open space versus 48% open space for the current submittal, notesthat the reduction of open space and grassland will reduce the diversity of habitats used bycurrent wildlife occupants. The protection and enhancement of the riparian zones willbecome more attractive to some existing species. The species wifh larger space requirements(e.g. sandhill cranes, northern harriers) will probably abandon the area. Use of the area byetk will be precluded, and use by deer, coyote, and fox will be reduced. Kurt Alt, WildlifeBiologist for FWP, responded that elk have not been known to use the general area and thearea does not represent a cmcial wintering area for elk, but it does provide habitat forwhitetail deer through the year. It should be reiterated here that 67% of the site is plantedin grain production, which leaves little area of natural vegetation for a food source for deer.The report indicates that this development will result in increased human-wildlife interactionand conflict, which will further impact some species as residents undertake or requestwildlife control. If the diverse wildlife resources and values of the area are to persist,human-wildlife conflicts must be expected and accommodated in planning for developmentand in covenants for the area.35I The Wildlife Assessment states that this development, like others in subwban and ruralareas, will move housing and people into wildlife habitat and result in the direct impactsnoted above. It is also one more in an ever increasing number of developments throughoutthe upper Gallatin Valley and Bozeman area that have gradually and consistently resultedin the loss of natural landscapes. The cumulative effect of these developments on wildlifehabitat and populations through loss of open space, habitat fragmentation, and intensifiedhuman activities probably exceeds the direct and local impacts. The natural areas thatremain are reduced in size and diversity and become more simplified in biological/ecological sti^icture and function.The development of these types of lands will result in the loss of the beauty, recreation, andeducational experiences these resources have offered for people in the area (with therecreation and educational experiences occurring on privately held land).The Wildlife Assessment suggests covenants which should help mitigate wildlife habitatlosses and unpacts. Most of the suggestions were incorporated into the developer'scovenants. The reviewers suggested a 50- to 100-foot stream setback, and a 50 foot setbackis proposed. As noted above, however, most development will be at least 100 feet from thestreams due to the subdivision design. The Assessment suggests that in the development ofponds, consideration should be given to constmcting relatively shallow ponds, usable by adiversity of wildlife.6) Effects on Public Health and SafetyThere will be some effect on the volume of traffic added to the existing road systems. Theproposed 24-foot wide interior roads could have a detirmental effect on public health andsafety by not providing a clear area for emergency vehicles.The additional fa-affic this development will add to the existing road/street system will causeimpacts on existing conditions. The realignment of the intersection of South Third andGoldenstein Lane should be completed by the developer, as should G.O. Bond Issuesidentified for the portion of South Third at the intersection. Participation in futureSIDs/RIDs for improvements in the area should be required.Due to the high groundwater on the property, residences with basements should be stronglydiscouraged. All buildings must be flood-proofed to at least two-feet above the 100 yearfloor elevation. Elevation Certifications must be provided for each building within the 100year floodplain following completion of constmction.PUBLIC COMMENTAs of the writing of this report, one letter has been received from George A. Engstrom, 10 WestArnold, who suggested that the project not be reviewed until the Critical Lands Study is completed.A copy of the letter is attached.36 nCONCUJSION OF THE SUBDIVISION PUDPlanning and other applicable Staff and agencies have reviewed the application and find that it isin general compliance with the Bozeman Area Subdivision Regulations, Zoning Ordinance,Bozeman Area Master Plan, and the Montana Subdivision and Flatting Act, and that no detrimentaleffects will be caused by the subdivision that cannot be mitigated through conditions. Therefore,conditional approval is recommended for the project.RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECTIf the Board finds that the subdivision PUD and zoning PUD meet the review requirements, that nodeti-imental effects will be caused by the subdivision that cannot be mitigated through conditions,and intends to recommend approval of the project to the City Commission, the following conditionsare recommended. Staff notes that these conditions are placed upon both the Zoning PUD and thePhase 1 Subdivision PUD applications. Many of the conditions will carry over to future phases ofthe subdivision, as well.1. Preliminary plan/plat approval does not exempt the developer from impact fees which may beestablished at a later date which are based on final plat approval or building permit approval. Finalplan/plat approval shall be subject to any impact fees which may be implemented prior to said finalplan/plat approval. Development of individual lots shall be subject to any impact fees applicableto building pennit applications implemented with any impact fee policy prior to building permitapproval.2. Seven copies of the Final Site Plan for the Zoning Planned Unit Development which containsall of the conditions, corrections, and modifications approved by the City Commission which areapplicable to it shall be approved by the Planning Director within three years following the approvaloffhe preliminary plan by the Bozeman City Commission. Upon application and for good cause,the Planning Director may adminisb-atively extend the period for filing a final site plan for twosuccessive suc-monfh periods. Any additional sbc-month extensions must be approved, if at all, onlyby the Planning Board. The final site plan shall comply with Section 18.54.060© of the BozemauZoning ordinance, as printed in the 9-93 Codification of the Bozeman Municipal Code, and shallbe adequately dimensioned. The final site plan must be approved prior to Final Subdivision Platapproval.The applicant shall enter into an Improvements Agreement with the City to guarantee the installationof required on-site unprovements at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. These unprovements willinclude those identified with each subdivision phase, including sidewalks fronting parks, open space,rear yard frontages, or other non-lot frontages, and landscape and trail improvements. Detailed costestimates, construction plans, and methods of security for on-site improvements shall be made a partof that Agreement. All required infrastructure and site improvements for Phase 1 shall be completedwithin two years after final approval.37 nnnPUD APPLK^ATION(CRITERIA00 nnChapter 18.54.100 (E.), PUD APPLICATION CRITERIACriteria Summary Statement: Of the 55 total PUD review criteriain Chapter 18.54.100, 44 questions have been answered "yes", 11were answered "NA" (not applicable) and none answered "no". Ofthe "All Development" criteria 34 were answered "yes", 8 answered"NA" and none answered "no". Of the "Residential" criteria, 10were answered "yes", 3 answered "NA" and none answered "no".NOTE: Because this application is a PUD subdivision that createsonly lots, no specific structures are proposed at this time.Future construction on individual lots will be controlled by theBozeman area zoning and building codes and the covenants anddevelopmental guidelines for the project, as required in Chapter18.54.080, A.,2. of the Bozeman Zoning Ordinanace.00All Development. Neicrhborhood Comuatibilitv:1. Is the development compatible with, and sensitive to,the immediate environment of the site and the adjacentneighborhoods relative to architectural design, buildingbulk and height, neighborhood identity, landscaping,historical character, orientation of buildings on the siteand visual integration?Response: Yes. All future construction will be controlled bythe city zone and building codes, covenants and the developmentalguidelines for the project, which further specify architecturaland landscaping treatments to individual lots, structures, andopen spaces. (The zoning for the site is R-S, the same as on thesurrounding properties.) The covenants and developmentalguidelines assure that the neighborhood services portion of theproperty will remain in scale with the surrounding residentialdevelopments.The proposed layout provides for visual integration by providingstrategically located open spaces and lot sizes intermediatebetween traditional urban lots and the low density lots found inthe surrounding developments. Open 3pace areas are providedthroughout the project, especially along the stream corridors andadjacent to the exisiting parks. Additional open space buffersare provided along Goldenstein Lane and South Third.Landscaping proposed for the open space areas is specified in thelandscape plan. In general the landscaping and open spaces aredesigned to enhance the stream corridors, enhance wildlifehabitat, preserve visual corridors across the site and bufferviews onto the property.2. Is the project designed so that additional trafficgeneration beyond what may be approved for permitted usesdoes not have a significant adverse impact on adjacent andsurrounding development?1 Response: NA. Uses not permitted by the zoning are notbeing proposed. As a consequence, no additional traffic beyondwhat would be expected from the permitted uses in an R-S PUD willbe generated. All of the uses proposed are permitted in an R-SPUD. The density of the project is less than that possible witha density bonus. The traffic studies for the project indicatethat the neighborhood service area may have the net effect ofreducing the amount of traffic that would otherwise be generatedby a strictly residential development. In general, the streetswithin the project are designed to direct traffic to GoldensteinLane rather than to surrounding neighborhoods or South Third.3. Have the guidelines outlined in Chapter 18.51,Development Review Committee, been followed concerningidentification and discussion of impacts related to theproposed development?Response: Yes. The project has been through concept review bythe Design Review Committe, the Design Review Board, the PlanningBoard and the City Commission. The general and specific commentsraised by the concept review process have been addressed in thepreliminary plat design, the developmental guidelines and lotowners association documents.4. Is the development in accordance with the adoptedelements of the Bozeman Area Master Plan and itsaccompanying goals, objectives and policies?Response: Yes. The proposal is in compliance with the MasterPlan and Plan Map. The map designates the site for "suburbanresidential" uses (from 1 to 6 dwelling units per acre, if cityservices are utilized) and open space along the Mathew Bird Creekcorridor. The entire 147 acre parcel lies within the identifiedUrban Growth Area. Item #3 on page 1 of the Bozeman Area MasterPlan (Intoduction to the Plan) indicates that one of the primaryreasons for preparing the plan was to "encourage more developmentwithin the Urban Growth Area, and less scattered development inthe unserviced rural area". This proposal helps accomplish thisend by building in the urban service area and creating lots whichappeal to buyers wanting larger lots that are otherwise onlyavailable in the county.The proposal would use development option #3 as specified in theSuburban Residential portion of the Master Plan. (The complianceissue for the site was discussed at length during the annexationreview process and found to be an appropriate location forsuburban residential development.)The proposed coinmercial area at the intersection of GoldensteinLane and South Third complies with the Master Plan. Under thethe Residential Land Use Guidelines in the Master Plan, one ofthe criteria for location of commercial uses in residential areasis that they be located at the intersection of arterials or atthe intersection of an arterial and a collector street. Theintersection of Goldenstein and South Third meets this2 ^outside the urban area and thereby decrease the overallimpact on agriculture. Objective (d.) is met in that anoxious weed control program is proposed in the covenants.The 147 acre tract of land has several drawbacks foragricultural purposes. It is too small by itself to be asustaining agricultural unit. Only in conjunction withother lands can it be farmed effectively. Of the totalacreage, approximately 98 acres can be used for croppingpurposes. The balance is used for pasture and hay.Master Plan Goal #6. PRESERVE, PROTECT AND PROMOTEHIGH QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE BOZEMAN AREA/S GROUNDWATER,SURFACE WATER AND AIR.This goal is met by the proposal in several ways. First,extending city services to the property, rather thanallowing development using septic tanks and drainfields andindividual wells, will reduce the potential for groundwaterpollution and demands on underground aquifers. Increasingthe supply of lots in the urban service area that areaesthetically competitive with lots outside the urbanservice area will reduce the demand for lots that otherwisewould require septic tanks and wells. Second, streambankbuffers and rehabilitation are proposed. None of theproposed uses: residential, open space or neighborhoodservice, pose a threat to air quality.Master Plan Goal #7. PROMOTE, ENCOURAGE AND ENHANCE ANAESTHETICALLY PLEASING COMMUNITY.This goal will be met by the proposed landscaping ofprivate, common, and public lands as specified in thelandscaping plan and covenants. Views across and from thesite are reserved by the use of clustered home sites andopen space corridors.Master Plan Goal #8. PROMOTE AND STIMULATE THEDEVELOPMENT OF BUSINESSES THAT COMPLEMENT OUR COMMUNITY^GOALS, EXEMPLIFY CREATIVITY IN CONSTRUCTION DESIGN TOCOMPLEMENT THE SURROUNDING LAND AND BEAUTY OF THE AREA, ANDTHAT ENCOURAGE A STRONG BUSINESS-COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPTHROUGH CREATIVE BUILDING AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN.While this goal may not specifically apply to this project,the proposed neighborhood services area would help thecommunity meet the goal by providing services in an areathat will reduce traffic and increase convenience to thesurrounding residents. Future building compatibility withadjacent developments is assured by the developmentalguidelines.04 requirement.The application complies with the goals stated in the MasterPlan as noted in the following discussion. Of the 31 goalslisted in the Master Plan, 17 were found to be applicable orpartially applicable to this proposal. The discussion will bepresented in the sequence in which the Master Plan goals arelisted in the Bozeman Area Master Plan.A. ENVIRONMENT. AESTHETICS. AND NATT.T^AL RESOURCE GoalsMaster Plan Goal #1. Applies to the City of Bozeman,not to this proposal.Master Plan Goal #2. SUPPORT THE ESTABLISHMENT ANDMAINTENANCE OF GREENBELTS AND/OR OPE;« SPACE INCLUDING THEPRESERVATION OF TRAIL AND OPEN SPACE CORRIDORS.Objective (b.) of this goal is applicable and is met in thatthe project would reserve open space corridors along thestreams, along view corridors from Go'denstein Lane, andimportant trails connections between Gardner Park, McLeodPark and South Third.Master Plan Goal #3. ENCOURAGE ADEQUATE DEVELOPMENT,MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE FOR PARKS AND RECREATIONAL AREAS.Objective (a.) of this goal is applicable. The goal is metby p oposed open space dedications which will increase theamount of reserved open space on Bozeman/s south side thatwill be managed and maintained by a lot owners associationfor a variety of recreational and habitat purposes.Master Plan Goal #4. ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFETHROUGH RECREATION AND LEISURE PROGRAMMING.Implementation Policy (f.) of this goal is applicable. Thepolicy is met by this proposal by reservation of open spacecorridors along all of the streams, the extensive trailssystem and spaces reserved for recreation.Master Plan Goal #5. ENCOURAGE AGRI CULTURE/AGRI-BUSINESS BY PROTECTING AND PRESERVING GALLATIN VALLEY'SPRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS THROUGH WELL-PLANNEDDEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE JURISDITIONAL AREA.This proposal meets Objective (c.) of goal #5 by proposingsmaller lots inside the Urban Growth Area that arecompetitive with larger lots outside the jurisdictionalarea. Increasing the supply of lots within the urban areais necessary in order to decrease the demand for lots3 0Master Plan Goal #9. PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGEAESTHETICALLY-PLEASING CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT ON THE APPROACHESTO THE CITY.This goal may not be specifically applicable because thevicinity of this project has not been identified as anentryway. However, the goal is met because the project is acluster plan designed to maximize open space and visuallybuffer the entries.B. ENERGY AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION Goals0Master Plan Goal #1. ENCOURAGE INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENTTO BE DESIGNED FOR MAXIMUM USE OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGYRESOURCES AND TO CONSERVE ENERGY AND OTHER RESOURCES.The project meets Objective (a.) of this goal. Energyconservation is promoted by the requirement of high R factorconstruction in all structures. Objective (c.) is met byproposing development that is within walking and bicyclingdistance of several activity centers which would save onenergy consumption for transportation. It is withinapproximately 1 mile of the Morning Star elementary schoolyless than 1/2 mile from the site of the new middle school, 2miles from the MSU campus, and has proposed on-siteconvenience facilities. The site is also within walkingdistance of three existing parks, McLeod, Graf and Gardner.C. HISTORIC PRESERVATION GoalsMaster Plan Goal #1. This goal may not apply as thereare no structures other than 4 sheet metal granaries on thesite and no known sites of historic interest.D. ADMINISTRATIVE/REVIEW PROCESS GoalsMaster Plan Goal #1. This goal does not apply.0E. RESIDENTIAL GoalsMaster Plan Goal #1. ENCOURAGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTIN THE CITY OF BOZEMAN WHERE THERE IS ADEQUATE ROAD, BICYCLEAND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, WITH PROVISIONS FOR SHOPPING ANDCOMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.While this goal may be directed at development near the CBDand other commercial nodes, the proposal meets the goal byproposing good vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access toexisting networks and a neighborhood service area.5 Master Plan Goal #2. ENCOURAGE CONSTRUCTION OF A FULLRANGE OF HOUSING TYPES, SIZES AND COSTS, INCLUDINGMANUFACTURED AND MODULAR HOMES, TO ASSURE THE OPPORTUNITYFOR FUTURE RESIDENTS TO OBTAIN A CHOICE OF LIVINGENVIRONMENTS.The project meets thisviewed and implementedIt may be impracticalinfrastructure point ofin the same area, letintent of this projectdensity lot sizes thatwith low density rural(a.) of this goal.goal, however, the goal needs to bein the context of the entire City.from a marketing, aesthetic andview to provide all types of housingalone the same site. The overallis to provide a variety of lower"compete on a cost and style basis"housing, as specified in ObjectiveMaster Plan Goal #3. ENCOURAGE PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTS AND CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL TECHNIQUES THAT FEATUREA VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES, DESIGNED TO ENHANCE THE NATURALENVIRONMENT, CONSERVE ENERGY AND TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT PUBLICSERVICES AND FACILITIES.This goal is met in that the project is a clustered PUDdesigned to maximize and enhance open space while remainingeconomically feasible yet compatible with the surroundinglow density developments.Master Plan Goal #4. Does not apply to this project.(There are no existing homes on the site.)Master Plan Goal #5. RECOGNIZE AND, TO THE EXTENTPOSSIBLE, PRESERVE AND PROMOTE THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OFNEIGHBORHOODS IN THE CITY OF BOZEMAN THROUGH LAND USECLASSIFICATIONS AND ZONING.The project meets this goal by proposing an overall densitysimilar to the surrounding properties. While it is notfeasible to develop this site at the same low density(approximately 1 dwelling unit per acre) as the surroundingneighborhoods, the proposed cluster plan serves as a mid-range density buffer between the existing homes and higherurban densities to the north.F. COMMERCIAL. INDUSTRIAL, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GoalsMaster Plan Goals #1 through #6. These do not apply tothis project.6 n0G. PUBLIC FACILITIES GoalsMaster Plan Goal #1. ASSESS, PLAN FOR AND PROVIDEADEQUATE MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY AND CENTRAL SEWER SERVICESTO MEET FUTURE NEEDS OF THE BOZEMAN URBAN AREA, ANDENCOURAGE AND PROMOTE THE CONSERVATION OF WATER.The proposal meets this goal by providing a mechanismwhereby city facilities will be extended into the designatedUrban Growth Area. The utility and transportation corridorsneeded to serve this site will provide facilities andalignments important to other properties in the Urban GrowthArea. Of particular note, this project will provide for theextension of water supply lines to the corner of Goldensteinand South Third, realignment of the Goldenstein Lane - SouthThird intersection, and a secondary access to adjacentproperties on the north.Without private sector proposals such as this, the Citywould be largely incapable of extending facilities into theUrban Growth Area, and therefore incapable of implementingits own Master Plan. Since the City applies such a smallportion of its annual budget to infrastructure improvements,let alone extensions, private investment has been, andlikely will remain to be, the primary method to extend urbanfacilities.Of additional interest. Objectives d. and e. of this goalspecifically encourage the revision of annexation, zoningand subdivision policies to encourage development in thedesignated Urban Growth Area. The project site is in thedesignated Urban Growth Area.Master Plan Goal #2. This goal applies to the City,not specifically to this annexation request.Master Plan Goal #3. ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT TO OCCURWITHIN THE BOZEMAN URBAN GROWTH AREA.The proposal specifically complies with this goal.0Master Plan Goal #4. ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF NEWLYPLANNED RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN LOCATIONS WHICH MINIMIZE THECOST AND MAXIMIZE THE BENEFIT OF PROVIDING PUBLIC SERVICESAND FACILITIES.The project meets this goal in that the timeliness ofdevelopment at this site was discussed during the annexationreview process. It was found that the site is appropriatefor development at this time. All developments will seek tominimize costs and maximize benefits, whether the investmentis publicly or privately funded.7 Master Plan Goal #5. THE COST OF PROVIDING PUBLICFACILITIES FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE BORNE, ON A FAIRSHARE BASIS, BY THE DEVELOPMENT THAT REQUIRES THEM.The proposed project meets this goal. In addition to thecity tax base which will be increased by this project, offsite impacts will be mitigated by conditions imposed at theannexation stage and additional conditions and waivers ofprotest to be applied at the subdivision review stage. Thecost of extending public facilities to and through this sitewill be paid for by the project.Master Plan Goal #6. Does not apply to this proposal.Master Plan Goal #7. Does not apply to this proposal.H. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION GoalsMaster Plan Goal #1. DEVELOP A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMWHICH CAN ACCOMODATE BOTH CURRENT AND PROJECTED GROWTHPATTERNS, TIED TO A FUNDING MECHANISM FOR EACH OF THEFOLLOWING OBJECTIVES.Most of the objectives noted for this goal apply to the Cityin general, rather than to specific sites. However, thisproposal is in compliance in that it will help the communitymeet this goal for the south margin of town. As notedearlier, it offers pedestrian and bicycle linkages betweenGardner Park and the Sourdough Trail to the Gallagator Trailon South 3rd. and to Goldenstein Lane. The intersection ofSouth 3rd. and Goldenstein Lane will be realigned into a 90degree intersection. A connection from the extention of theGraf Street alignment will be made to Goldenstein Lane.All Development, Public Facilities. Services and Transportation:5. Does the development comply with all city designstandards, requirements and specifications for the followingservices:Water supply. Sanitary supply. Fire protection, Floodhazard areas. Telephone, Cable television, Trails /walks / bikeways. Irrigation companies, Electricity,Natural gas. Storm drainage. StreetsResponse: Yes. Development will proceed based on City standardsor deviations approved during the PUD approval process.6. Will the sewage generated by the development not exceed8 r\the sanitary sewer system's line and treatment capacity?Res inse: Yes. Treatment capacity is adequate. Severalbottlenecks have been identified in the lines serving theproject. The applicant has agreed to participate on a fair sharebasis in eliminating these.7. Will an adequate water supply exist to serve thedevelopment?Response: Yes. The existing water supply is adequate to servethe proje . Water pressure for fire flows will be increased forthe extreme southwest portion of the project site.8. Will an adequate electrical power supply exist to servethe development?Response: Yes. The Montana Power Company indicates that thereis an adequate supply.9. Will the city transportation plan be capable ofhandling the development's traffic generation?Respc -se: Yes. The plan anticipates development in this areaand recoinmended 6 changes in the vicinity needed to improve ormaintain levels of service. At the present time, 4 of theserecommended improvements are complete. The fifth recommendedimprovement (realignment of the Goldenstein/South Thirdintersection) would be facilitated by this project. The sixthrecoinmended improvement will be funded by the transportation bondapproved in 1994.10. Does the development provide adequate access foremergency service?Response: Yes. Emergency access will be available to the sitevia Goldenstein Lane, South Third and Graf Street.11. Are all vehicular use areas and exterior buildingareas provided with adequate security lighting?Response: NA. Because this is a subdivision PUD, no stucturesare proposed. However, security and yard lighting are subject torestrictions specified in the developmental guidelines.0All DeyelpDinent_L Natural Resources:12. Have precautions been taken to minimize hazards tolife or property due to irrigation cannals, stream channelsor other water bodies?Response: Yes. Potential hazards to property consist oferosional or flooding hazards. Flooding hazards to the propertyare identified by the 1988 FEMA map for the area. No development9 is proposed in these areas. No erosional hazards have beenidentified, however; the stream banks are proposed to bestabilized and enhanced for wildlife habitat.One irrigation ditch is currently in use on site. This is theditch that empties into the west branch of Mathew Bird Creek inthe southwest portion of the property. This ditch will bererouted as shown on the preliminary plat. All backslopes forthe ditch will be sloped to a minimum 3:1 slope to facilitatestability, maintenance and safety.Potential hazards to life are limited by the small size ofexisting streams and ditches. In general, the stream banks willbe enhanced for wildlife habitat and currently have numerouslocations where they can easily be forded on foot. These will beretained to provide habitat variety and public safety. The pondsproposed in the project will have portions of their banks builtto a minimum 3:1 slope to provide for safety.13. Have areas of natural or geologic hazard (e.g.unstable or potentially unstable slopes, faulting,landslides, rockfalls, floods and wildfire,etc.) or soilconditions unfavorable to urban development had specialengineering precautions taken to overcome naturalconstraints or have these areas been set aside fromdevelopment?Response: Yes. The only identified natural or geologic hazardis from flooding. No development is proposed in these areas.Portions of the property have high ground water. Development inthese areas has been avoided where possible. In the high groundwater areas that could not be avoided engineering solutions havebeen proposed. The management plan for the open space areasprovides for the reduction and prevention of wildfire.14. Does the project preserve or replace existing naturalvegetation?Response: Yes. Very little native vegetation exists on site dueto its current agricultural use. Where possible, the managementplan for the open space areas calls for replacing existingvegetation with native species. This is particularly true of thestream corridors. Between the streams much of the open spacewill be managed on a low-key basis to provide low maintenanceopen space and wildlife habitat. The covenants also discourageplanting of plant species that will contibute to future wildlifedepredation problems.15. Have special precautions been taken to preserveexisting wildlife habitats, natural wildlife food services,or existing places, or are these areas preserved?Response: Yes. A wildlife assessment done for the project siteproposed a series of recommendations to minimize the impact onwildlife habitat. These recommendations have been incorporated'.;-/10 into the design of the project and Open Space Management Plan.In general, the stream corridors, the most valuable wildlifeareas, have been reserved. Blocks of land adjacent to GardnerPark and McLeod park have also been left as open space. Wetlandenhancements are proposed for portions of the project.16. If the proposed project is located within a locallydesignated historical district or includes a locallydesignated landmark structure, is the project in conformancewith the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance?Response: NA. There are no identified landmarksite nor is the site within a historic district.structures on17. If the development is on existing agricultural land oropen space, does it meet master plan objectives forclustering development?Response: Yes. Even though the Bozeman Area Master Plan has nostated objectives relating to clustering, the proposed planclusters home sites around open space clocks and corridors.00All Development. Environmental Standards.18. Will the project conform to applicable local, stateand federal air quality standards, including, but notlimited to: odor, dust, fumes or gases which are noxious,toxic or corrosive: suspended, solid or liquid particles: orany air contaminant which may obscure an observers vision orimpair breathing?Response: Yes. None of the uses proposed will create thecondi Ions noted above. Future land uses and residents will besubject- to the same local, state or federal air quality standardsas the rest of the community.19. Will the project conform to applicable local, stateand federal water quality standards, including, but notlimited to: erosion and sedimentation; runoff control;discharge of solid wastes; and discharge of hazardoussubstances?Response: Yes. The project design must conform to water qualitystandards established and enforced by the City and the MontanaDepartment of Health and Environmental Sciences beforeconstruction can begin. As a minimumy State 310 and Federal 404permits must be obtained prior to construction. Several of thesehave been approved as rf this writing.20. Can the proposed land uses and activities be conductedso that noise generated shall not exceed the minimumperformance levels as specified in the city/s Noise ControlOrdinanace Chapter 18.50 of the zoning code?11 Response: NA. None of the uses proposed will create constant ordiscontinuous noises as defined in Chapter 18.50.035,1.21. If the proposed activity produces glare or heat,whether direct or reflected, is the operation conductedwithin an enclosed building or with other effectivescreening in such a manner as to make such glare or heatcompletely imperceptible from any point along the propertyline?Response;heat.NA.None of the proposed uses will create glare or22. Will the project cause an inherent or recurringgenerated vibration perceptible without instruments at anypoint along the property line? Temporary construction maybe excluded from this criterion.Response: NA. None of the proposed uses will create inherent orrecurring vibrations detectable fro the property line.23. Is the exterior lighting, except for warning, emergencyor traffic signals, installed in such a manner that thelight source is obscured to prevent excessive glare onpublic streets and walkways or into any residential area?Response: Yes. Exterior lighting is limited to one low wattfixture per lot in the residential portion of the project.Exterior lighting in the neighborhood services area is controlledby the development guidelines and is subject to review by theCity for any future proposal.24. Will all sewerage and industrial wastes be treated anddisposed of in such a manner as to comply with applicablelocal, state and federal standards?Response: Yes.Bozeman system.All sewage will be disposed of using the City ofNo industrial wastes will be generated.All Developments Site Desicrn:25. Are the elements of the site plan (e.g. buildings,circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) arranged onthe site so that activities are integrated with theorganizational scheme of the coirmiunity and neighborhood?Response: Yes. To reduce traffic impacts on adjacentneighborhoods, the vehicular circulation system is laid out toencourage traffic to enter and exit from Goldenstein Lane.Circulation around the neighborhood services area is designed tohave access off the interior road only. Access off South Thirdand Goldenstein, which would conflict with traffic near theintersection, is not allowed. Pedestrian circulation via trailsand sidewalks is designed to connect to the existing parks, trail12 p.00systems, roads in the neighborhood and to connect the residentialportions of the neighborhood to the neighborhood services area.Open space and park dedications in the project are designed toadd to the size of existing parks, increase park access, provideuseful trails corridors, preserve riparian areas, protect viewsacross the site and integrate the site plan with other openspaces in the area.Proposed landscaping is designed tointersections and views into the site.soften and buffer26. Are the elements of the site plan (e.g. buildings,circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) designed andarranged to produce an efficient, functionally organized,and cohesive PUD?Response: Yes. The functional organization of the site planfollows the general south-north orientation of the streamcorridors with stream side views preserved at the entry pointsoff Goldenstein and South Third. The home sites are clusteredaround open space areas. All but a few of the home sites have atleast one side exposed to open space. Pedestrian circulationfacilities integrate all portions of the site, providing accessto the parks, the neighborhood services area and surroundingneighborhoods.27. Is the design and arrangement of elements of the siteplan (e.g. buildings, circulation, open space andlandscaping, etc.) in harmony with the existing naturaltopography; natural water bodies and water courses andexisting vegetation?Response: Yes. This question has been materially answered inquestions #14, 15, 25 and 26 above. Additionally, the sitereserves the two topographic depressions located adjacent andwest of Nash Spring Creek as open space. These two areas providea design opportunity that increases the interest of the site andsoftens the streetscape. The raised section road design proposedfor this project is better suited for drainage control, snowremoval, road base stability y and to visually blend with thesurrounding rural developments than the typical city design.28. Does the design and arrangement of elements of thesite plan (e.g. building construction, orientation, andplacement; transportation networks; selection and placementof landscape materials; and/or use of use of renewableenergy sources, etc.) contribute to the overall reduction ofenergy use by the project?Response: Yes. The project is designed to encourage pedestriantraffic to neighborhood parks, services and schools therbyreducing reliance on vehicles. While no buildings are proposedby this application, the covenants and development guidelinesrequire energy saving high R-factor insulation for all future13 construction.29. Are the elements of the site plan (e.g. buildings,circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) designed andarranged to maximize the privacy by residents of theproject?Response: Yes. While one of the overall design objectives is tocreate a neighborhood atmosphere by connecting the clusters withopen space and pedestrian facilities, each of the residentialunits has private yards. The covenants specify appropriatelocations, heights and materials for privacy fences orenclosures. The neighborhood services area is separated from theresidential portion of the project by a street and landscapedopen space.30. Does the design and arrangement of buildings and openspace areas contribute to the overall aesthetic quality ofthe site configuration, and is at least thirty percent ofthe project, exclusive of yard setbacks and parking lotinterior landscape, developed as open space?Response: Yes. As noted before, the open space is designed topreserve stream side areas, add to existing parks in the area,increase access opportunities to thesey provide pedestrian andview shed corridors and provide a central design theme for theproject. Forty eight (48%) percent of the project is reserved asopen space, to be owned and maintained by the owners association.Public easements are provided in portions of the open space.31. Does the street and parking system provide for asmooth, safe and convenient movement of vehicles both on andoff site?Response: Yes. As noted earlier, the road system provides for asmooth flow of traffic within the project and is designed tofocus traffic onto Goldenstein rather than into adjacentneighborhoods. Of the 10 road intersections within the site, 8are "T" (3 way) intersections, which are safer than 4 wayintersections. This proposal proposes 3 cul de sac roads. Thepeliminary plat submitted in March of 1995 proposed 10.32. Does the development satisfy the parking capacityrequirements of the city and provide adequate space suitedto the loading and unloading of persons, materials andgoods?Response: Yes. Off street parking will be provided on eachresidential lot and is specified in the covenants. On streetparking will be limited to that specified by the street design.Parking and loading requirements for future uses in theneighborhood services area will be determined at the time ofapplication.33.Is the active recreation area suitably located and14 00accessible to the residential units it is intended to serveand is adequate screening provided to ensure privacy andquiet for neighboring residential uses?Response: Yes. Two a five recreational areas are proposed. Thefirst would be located in the north central portion of the siteeast of Block 17. The second is located in the open space westof Nash ""nring Creek in the southeast portion of the site east ofBlock 4 Landscapin is proposed to provide screening fromadjacent lots for these sites. Only low key recreationalfacilities are proposed. The Open Space Management Plan for thesites will allow for installation of small scale recinationalfacilities.34. Is the pedestrian circulation system designed toassure that pedestrians can move safely and easily bothwithin the site and between properties and activities withinthe neighborhood area?Response: Yes. This has been discussed previously in theresponses to questions #25, 26, 28, and 29. The core of thepedestrian circulation system will be 5' wide sidewalks on eachside of the streets. These will be maintained by the ownersassociation. The sidewalks are connected to the gravel surfacetrail system in the open space corridors and to adjacent trailsystems. T!~e sidewalks and trails are shown in the pedestriancirculation plan.35. Is the development being properly integrated intodevelopment and circulation patterns of adjacent and nearbyneighborhoods so that this development will not become anisolated "pad" to adjoining development?Respon s: Yes. As noted previously, the project provides forstreet connections to the future extension of Graf Street,Goldenstein Lane and South Third. Pedestrian connections areprovided at Gardner Park, McLeod Park, Good Medicine Way, SouthThird and Goldenstein Lane. It provides additional public accessto McLeod and Gardner Parks.36. Does the pedestrian circulation system incorporatedesign features to enhance convenience, safety and amenityacross parking lots and streets, including, but not limitedto, paving patterns, grade differences, landscaping andlighting?Response: Yes. Sidewalk and trail crossings at roads will be atgrade and wheel chair accessible. Cross walks will be providedas needed bv the lot owners association. Parking lots requiringpedestrian considerations are not proposed by this application.37. Does the pedestrian and bicycle trail systemadequately connect to the systems in adjacent developments?Response: Yes. This was discussed previously in the responses15 to questions #25, 26, 28, 29, 34 and 35.38. Does the landscape plan enhance the appearance ofvehicular use, open space and pedestrian areas whichcontribute to their usage and visual appearance?Response: Yes. Landscaped open spaces are proposed at keyintersections within the project and entryways, especially alongthe stream corridors which will enhance their appearance.39. Does the landscaping plan enhance the buildings?Response: NA. No buildings are proposed by this application.However, the covenants specify minimum landscaping guidelines forall lots. A landscaping plan is included for the open spaceareas of the project.40. Does the landscape plan screen utility boxes, parkingareas, loading areas, trash containers, outside storageareas, blank wall or fences and other areas of low visualinterest from roadways, pedestrian areas and public view?Response: NA. No structures are proposed by this application.However, the covenants and development guidelines proposelandscaping requirements beyond those required by the City forall lots. Future site plans for the neighborhood service areawill need to meet City landscaping requirements and thedevelopment guidelines for the project.41. If the development is adjacent to an existing orapproved public park or public open space area, haveprovisions been made in the site plan to avoid interferingwith public access to that area?Response. Yes. The project will improve public access to McLeodand Gardner Park.42. Will all signs in the project be in compliance withprovisions of the Bozeman sign code?Response: Yes. No signs are proposed by this application.Signs will be required to meet the developmental guidelines inaddition to the City of Bozeman Sign Code.Residential Development Required Criteria1. On a gross acreage basis, is the average residentialdensity in the project (calculated for residential portionof the site only), consistent with the development densitiesset forth in the land use guidelines of the Bozeman areamaster plan?Response: Yes. The gross acreage of the site after removing the16 00neighborhood services area is 141 acres. There are 141residential lots proposed. No density bonus is requested.Development densities in the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinanacerequire at least 1 dwelling unit per gross acre.2. Does the project provide for private outdoor areas(e.g. private yards, patios and balconies, etc.) for use bythe residents and employees of the project which aresufficient in size and have adequate light, sun,ventilation, privacy and convenient access to the householdor conunercial units they are intended to serve?Response: Yes. This was adressed in the response to "AllDevelopment" question #29.3. Does the project provide for outdoor areas for use bypersons living and working in the development for active andpassive recreational activities?Response: Yes. This was adressed in the response to "/11Development" question #33. Additionally, passive recreationareas are available throughout the project in the open spaceareas and on the trail/sidewalk network.4. If the project is proposing a residential density bonusas described below, does it include a variety of housingtypes and styles designed to address conununity-wide issuesof affordability and diversity of housing stock?Response: NA. A density bonus is not requested.5. If the PUD is located within, or adjacent to, the city,is the project within two thousand feet of an existing orapproved neighborhood service center, public school, daycare center, major emplyoment center, or public neighborhoodor coBimunity park?Response: Yes. The site is less than 2000 feet from a park, thenew middle school and a proposed neighborhood services center.6. Is the overall project deigned to enhance the naturalenvironment, conserve energy and to provide efficient publicservices and facilities?Response: Yes. This question has been addressed in theresponses to the "All Development" questions.7. Is the project within six hundred fifty feet of anexisting collector or arterial street?Response: Yes. The site has frontage on Goldenstein Lane andSouth Third Avenue.8. If the project is proposing a residential density bonus(thirty percent maximum) above that which is set forth17i below, does the proposed project exceed the establishedregulatory design standards (such as setbacks, off streetparking, open space, etc.) and ensure compatibility withadjacent neighborhood development?Response: NA. A density bonus is not requested.9. If limited commercial development as defined above isproposed within the project, is less than twenty percent ofthe gross area of the PUD designated to be used for officesor neighborhood service activities nor ordinarily allowed inthe particular residential zoning district?Response: Yes. Of the total 147.23 acres on the site, 5.9 acresare proposed for neighborhood services activities. This is 4percent of the site.10. If neighborhood service activities are proposed withinthe project, is a market analysis provided demonstratingthat less than fifty percent of the market required tosupport proposed neighborhood service activities is locatedoutside the immediate area of the PUD and are theneighborhood services of a nature that does not requiredrive-in facilities or justification for through traffic?Response: NA. An area is reserved for neighborhood services.No buildings or specific uses are proposed at this time. Withouta specific use proposal it is impossible to conduct a marketanalysis. Future uses will be limited by the developmentalguidelines and the Bozeman Zone Code.11. If the project contains limited commercial developmentas defined above, is the project located at the intersectionof arterial streets, or arterial and collector streets?Response: Yes. The site is located at the intersection ofGoldenstein and South Third.12. If the project contains limited commercial developmentas defined above, has the project been sited and designedsuch that the activities present will not detrimentallyaffect the adjacent neighborhood and have the commercialactivities been developed at a scale compatible withresidential development?Response: Yes. Circulation to the neighborhood services areawill be from an interior road. The area is separated from theexisting and proposed residential areas by open space buffers.The limited commercial area is located in an area than providesthe maximum convenience (for access) to all residences in thevicinity. Also, pedestrian access to the site is maximized toincrease access and reduce vehicular traffic.13. Does the overall PUD recognize and, to the maximumextent possible, preserve and promote the unique character•?!./18 ,^of the neighborhoods surrounding the area?Response: Yes. The overall density is in keeping with existingresidential densities, yet provides lot sizes that are capable ofbeing served efficiently by urban services. The open space areaswill enhance wildlife habitat to the extent possible and preservestream corridors and views across the property from off sitewhile providing an organizational theme for the project design.0019 Appendix 3 – Directors Memo to the Commission regarding Appeal 23214 Memorandum REPORT TO:City Commission FROM:Brian Krueger, Development Review Manager Anna Bentley, Director of Community Development SUBJECT:Appeal 23214 of the Community Development Director's Conditional Approval of the Sundance Springs Subdivision, Phase 1B, Commercial Lot 2 Site Plan application 22047 MEETING DATE:February 27, 2024 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Community Development - Quasi-Judicial RECOMMENDATION:Uphold the Director's decision. STRATEGIC PLAN:4.1 Informed Conversation on Growth: Continue developing an in-depth understanding of how Bozeman is growing and changing and proactively address change in a balanced and coordinated manner. BACKGROUND:Site Plan development application 22047 proposes to develop one commercial lot within the commercial node in the Sundance Springs PUD, located near the intersection of Goldenstein Lane and South 3rd Avenue. The application was conditionally approved by the Community Development Director on June 28, 2023. Appellants are neighbors of the proposed development. They challenge the City's approval based on several grounds, including the following allegations: the PUD's approved Final Plan is missing and without it the City cannot approve the site plan application; the site plan violates several requirements found in the PUD covenants, historic Bozeman Municipal Code, and in the surviving record and the City ignored or failed to enforce those requirements; and the City's calculation of parking spaces and approval of departures for Block Frontage Standards was in error. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None. ALTERNATIVES:1. Uphold the Director’s conditional approval decision for Application 22047 as written in her June 28, 2023 letter. 2. Amend the conditional approval after making findings as to which of the criteria are met or not met, modify the conditions of approval, and approve the amended Conditional Approval of the Sundance Springs Subdivision Phase 1B, Commercial Lot 2 Site Plan Application 22047. 3. Overturn the Director’s decision. Find that the Director’s decision was in error, make alternative findings, and deny Application 22047. 325 FISCAL EFFECTS:None. Attachments: 23214 Sundance Springs Appeal staff report.pdf Report compiled on: February 15, 2024 326 Commission Memo Sundance Springs Appeal Appeal number 23214 Report To: Mayor and City Commission From: Anna Bentley, Community Development Director Subject:Appeal #23214 Filed by Tim & Nancy Swanson and Geoffrey Poole Regarding Conditional of Approval of the Sundance Springs Subdivision, Phase 1B, Commercial Lot 2 Site Plan, Application #22047 Meeting Date: February 27, 2024 Agenda Type: Action Project Location: Corner of South 3 rd Avenue and Little Horse Drive CITY COMMISSION ACTION: At the conclusion of consideration of the appeal, the City Commission may uphold, amend, or overturn the administrative project approval decision for the Sundance Springs Subdivision, Phase 1B, Commercial Lot 2 Site Plan Application 22047. The decision may be overturned or amended upon the finding that the final administrative decision was erroneous. Report Date: February 15, 2024 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This appeal, filed by Tim & Nancy Swanson and Geoffrey Poole, seeks to overturn the Director of Community Development’s (Director) administrative decision approving site plan application 22047 (decision) for three reasons: (i)“the City has lost the PUD’s Approved Final Plan; without the Approved Final Plan, the City’s approval of Site Plan #22047 violates the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC);”(ii)“[t]he City ignored (and Site Plan #22047 violates) many PUD requirements that are known from the surviving record;”and (iii)“the City’s approval of departures requested by the applicant violated the BMC.” The project at issue proposes to develop one commercial lot within the Sundance Springs Planned Unit Development (PUD). Sundance Springs PUD is a neighborhood in the southwest area of the city near the intersection of Goldenstein Lane and South 3 rd Avenue. In 1996, the Sundance Springs PUD received preliminary approval and in 1998 it received final approval. The development proposed both residential components and a commercial 327 Page 2 of 24 node, to be developed in phases. The commercial node consists of two lots. The residential portions of the PUD began construction immediately, but the only proposal to develop the commercial node came over a decade later with the site plan application that is the subject of this appeal. A brief review of the PUD approval process and past applications in the Sundance Springs subdivision may be helpful. In the 1990’s, Sundance Springs submitted several applications simultaneously to plat the property, establish zoning through a phased PUD, and get approval to develop the first phase of the subdivision. To establish a PUD, Sundance Springs went through three procedural steps: concept plan review; preliminary plan approval, which analyzes the “type, size, and location of the principal design elements of the PUD;”and final plan approval, which merely checks for “compliance with the approved preliminary plan and/or development guidelines.”18.54.050 and 18.54.050.C.2, BMC (1/23/1992)1. A Master Plan of the overall PUD provides information regarding “building location, open spaces, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and boundaries of the individual phases of the PUD.”18.54.080.D.1, BMC (1/23/1992). The information need only be a “conceptual (sketch) drawing showing the proposed location of the uses of land, major streets and other significant feature on the site and within one-half mile of the site.” 18.54.060.A.2, BMC (1/23/1992). Development guidelines are required for future phases of the development that are not fully detailed in the PUD application pursuant to 18.54.050.B.1, BMC (1/23/1992). A site plan application containing specific and detailed information is required to develop any phase of the development in the future after Final PUD approval 2. Application 22047, the subject of this appeal, is one such site plan. The site plan application proposes two commercial buildings with second-floor offices and ground-level grocery/retail/restaurant space, along with patio space, landscape features, and trail connectivity, on a currently undeveloped lot. 406 Coal Blowers, LLC is the property owner (the Developer) and submitted the site plan application (#22047) that is the subject of this appeal. 1 The Final PUD was approved in 1998. However, the City cites to the 1992 Bozeman Municipal Code because Community Development records indicate that the City’s subdivision and zoning regulations went through a major overhaul in 1992. The City has a complete copy of the 1992 code, but does not have a copy of the code as it existed in 1998. However, the City has detailed records tracking each amendment to the code after the 1992 code adoption and no amendments to Chapter 18.54 Planned Unit Development are reflected in those records. Therefore, the City is confident that the 1992 code cited to and attached to this report is the code that governed PUDs in 1998 when the Sundance Springs PUD received final approval. 2 The PUD regulations in effect in 2022 when the City received application 22047 contained essentially the same process as the 1992 codes. Since that time, the City Commission has repealed those PUD regulations and adopted regulations for Planned Development Zones through Ordinance 2104, now codified at Division 38.430, BMC. 328 Page 3 of 24 This application for appeal was submitted by attorney Robert Farris-Olsen of the Helena law firm Morrison, Sherwood, Wilson, Deola PLLP on behalf of his clients, Tim and Nancy Swanson and Geoffrey Poole, who each live in Bozeman, Montana within the Sundance Springs subdivision (Appellants). Appeals of administrative project decisions are governed by 38.250.030 BMC. For a discussion of the procedures governing this appeal, see below. The record of review for this matter consists of: the Appeal Application and supporting documents, which include Appellants’cover letter, power point, and document entitled “Detail: Grounds and allegations for the appeal of approval of Site Plan #22047;”the Director’s Decision Letter Conditionally Approving the Sundance Springs Subdivision, Phase 1B, Commercial Lot 2 Site Plan and incorporated Staff Report for Application 22047; all application materials submitted by the Developer; and all public comment from 2022 and 2023 and correspondence regarding application 22047. Only “aggrieved persons”may appeal an administrative decision in accordance with section 38.250.030.A BMC. Appellants contend that they are aggrieved persons as defined in section 38.700.020 BMC3 because they reside in the Sundance Springs Subdivision, within sight and earshot of the proposed development. Mr. Poole lives within two hundred feet of the subject property and his deck overlooks the site. Appeals are limited to specific issues raised during the public comment period. 38.250.030.B,BMC. The City of Bozeman (City) received 191 public comments on application 22047 in total. Appellants and their attorneys submitted 8 public comments, which appear to discuss the issues raised on appeal. At the conclusion of consideration of the appeal, the City Commission may uphold, amend, or overturn the administrative project decision for Application 22047. The decision may be overturned or amended upon the finding that such final administrative decision was erroneous. 3 Aggrieved person.A person, as defined in this division 38.700, who has a specific, personal and legal interest in the final decision of an agency, board or commission, as distinguished from a general interest such as is the concern of all members of the community, and which interest would be specifically and personally prejudiced by the decision or benefited by its reversal. 329 Page 4 of 24 Consider the Recommended Motion: Having reviewed and considered Appeal number 23214 seeking to overturn the decision of the Director of Community Development conditionally approving the Sundance Springs Sundance Springs Subdivision, Phase 1B, Commercial Lot 2 Site Plan Application number 22047, the record of review, the presentation of staff and the Appellant, public comment, and all information presented, I move to uphold the decision of the Director of Community Development reflected in her June 28, 2023 conditional approval letter. 330 Page 5 of 24 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:........................................................................................................................................1 TABLE OF CONTENTS:..........................................................................................................................................5 BACKGROUND:……………………………………………………………………………………………………….….6 Site Plan Application 22047……………………………………….…………………………………………6 Timeline of the Sundance Springs Site Plan Application and Appeal…………...…………..6 38.250.030.A “Aggrieved Person”….………………………………………………………………………7 38.250.030.B –Issue Preclusion……………………………………………………………………………7 BASIS OF THE APPEAL:………………………………………………………………………………………………7 Staff Evaluation and Director’s Conditional Approval of the Application……………………………8 A. Procedural Issues…………………………………………………………………………………………………8 1. Missing Final PUD Binder and Reviewed Documents.…………………………….8 2. The Surviving Record and Covenants.…………………………………………………11 3. Application of Current Code Standards.………………………………………………16 B. Substantive Issues……………………………………………………………………………………………..18 1. Parking………………………………………………………………………………………………………..18 2. Departures from Block Frontage Standards……………………………………….………….19 APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION………………………………………………………….21 APPEAL PUBLIC NOTICE:………………………………………………………………………………………….22 APPEAL PUBLIC COMMENT:…………………………………………………………………………………….22 EVALUATION OF THE APPEAL:………………………………………………………………………………...22 Authority of the City Commission under the Bozeman Municipal Code…………………22 City Commission May Act as a Board of Adjustment…………………………………………….22 APPEAL PROCEDURE:………………………………………………………………………………………………23 UNRESOLVED ISSUES:………………………………………………………………………………………………23 ALTERNATIVES:……………………………………………………………………………………………………….23 FISCAL EFFECT:……………………………………………………………………………………………………..…23 ATTACHMENTS:………………………………………………………………………………………………………24 331 Page 6 of 24 BACKGROUND: Site Plan, Application 22047 The site plan for the Sundance Springs Subdivision Phase 1B, Commercial Lot 2, was submitted originally on February 4, 2022, and conditionally approved by the Director of Community Development on June 28, 2023. No building permits have been issued for this approved site plan. The Development Review Committee considered the application and found that the application was adequate, conforms to standards, and is sufficient for approval with conditions and code provisions. Timeline of the Sundance Springs Subdivision Phase 1B, Commercial Lot 2 Site Plan Approval and Appeal 22047 Application Submitted February 4, 2022 Development Review Committee adequacy determination August 17, 2022 Notice and public comment period open Sept. 30, 2022 to Oct. 30, 2022 Notice and public comment 1 st deadline extension Nov. 13, 2022 Notice and public comment 2 nd deadline extension Dec. 13, 2022 Letter re: legal analysis received from applicant’s attorney Dec. 13, 2022 Request to pause application review submitted by applicant Dec. 22, 2022 Letter re: public comment submitted by applicant’s attorney Dec. 29, 2022 Request to resume application review submitted by applicant January 2, 2023 Additional information requested by city January 6, 2023 Additional information provided by applicant March 3, 2023 Letter re: guidance on City’s review from City Attorney to applicant May 19, 2023 Notice and public comment open, limited to new information May 29, 2023 to June 13, 2023 Final staff report prepared for Director June 28, 2023 Director decision conditionally approving application 22047 June 28, 2023 Appeal 23214 submitted by Appellants July 11, 2023 Notice of appeal hearing and public comment period August 11, 2023 to Sept. 26, 2023 Request by Appellants to stay the appeal pending mediation Sept. 20, 2023 Rescheduled notice of appeal hearing and public comment period Feb. 2, 2024 to Feb. 27, 2024 Commission Hearing Feb. 27, 2024 332 Page 7 of 24 38.250.030.A Aggrieved Person: Based on the proximity of Appellants’homes to the proposed development, the City Attorney advises Appellants likely meet the definition of “aggrieved persons”pursuant to Bozeman Municipal Code section 38.700.020 with standing to bring this appeal. The City reserves the right to dispute any claimed impact of this decision, monetary or otherwise, on Appellants. 38.250.030.B - Issue Preclusion Pursuant to the Bozeman Municipal Code,“failure to raise an issue during the provided public comment opportunity, in person or in writing, or the failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the administrative review authority an opportunity to respond to an issue, precludes an appeal based on that issue, unless the issue could not have been reasonably known by any party during the time of the public comment opportunity.”38.250.030.B, BMC. All issues raised in this appeal were discussed in public comment submitted regarding application 22047. BASIS OF THE APPEAL: The appeal raises several arguments, organized in different ways in the Appellants’ cover letter, power point titled “Narrative: Grounds and Allegations for Appealing Approval of #22047,”and document titled “Detail: Grounds and allegations for the appeal of approval of Site Plan #22047.”The arguments can generally be grouped as procedural issues and substantive issues. Appellants’procedural issues focus on the City’s process of reviewing the development application and the information the City considered in its review. Among the procedural issues raised by Appellants are: 1. Missing Final PUD File and Reviewed Documents: Appellants allege because the PUD’s Approved Final Plan is missing, the City cannot evaluate the development application against it. Therefore, the City cannot approve the development application; 2. The Surviving Record, and Covenants: Appellants allege the City’s review of the development application was insufficient because it did not review the PUD’s Master Plan and the Development Guidelines or other surviving elements of the PUD’s Approved Final Plan. Additionally, Appellants contend that the City is responsible for enforcing all of the private covenants this commercial parcel is subject to, but it failed to do so; and 333 Page 8 of 24 3. Application of current code standards: Appellants allege the City should have applied 1998-era codes in place at the time the PUD received final approval, rather than evaluating the development application against the current BMC standards. Appellants also allege the City improperly approved the development application because certain elements of the application are contrary to code standards. These substantive issues raised by Appellants include: 1. Parking: Appellants allege the proposed development fails to meet 1992-era parking standards, which are memorialized in the Covenants 4; and 2. Departures from Block Frontage Standards: Appellants allege the development should not have been approved because it proposes buildings that do not meet block frontage standards in code and the request fails to meet criteria to obtain a departure from the standards. Because many of Appellants’issues listed above are organized differently throughout the appeal documents and many are interrelated, Staff’s response below is organized as outlined and summarized above. Each of Appellants’procedural issues will be addressed first and substantive issues will be addressed second. Staff Evaluation and Director’s Conditional Approval of the Application City staff reviewed the site plan application that is the subject of this appeal for compliance with all applicable criteria. Staff’s analysis and findings related to each criterion are contained in the June 28, 2023, staff report, which the Director adopted in her conditional approval decision. It is part of the record of review and included in the packet materials for this appeal. Specific to the issues on appeal, staff provides the following information to explain the analysis and conclusions supporting approval of the application and to address Appellants’allegations: A. Procedural Issues 1. Missing Final PUD File and Reviewed Documents Appellants contend that approved final PUD file is required to evaluate the instant site plan application. However, the code provision Appellants rely on for that proposition is inapplicable because it governs amendments to Final PUD plans 5.See section 4 “Covenants”refers to the recorded DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR SUNDANCE SPRINGS Section II Neighborhood Services Property, dated March 4, 1998. 5 There is no difference between the 1992 code and current code in this respect; both contain the exact same language applicable to amendments to a final plan. 334 Page 9 of 24 38.430.040.A.3.d, BMC (1/3/2022). The application at issue here does not propose to amend the approved PUD. Because the Sundance Springs PUD is a phased PUD, section 38.430.070 of the 2022 code is relevant to this application. It sets forth the review and approval procedures for phased PUDs and notably relies upon compliance with the approved preliminary plan by following the same review procedures as for approval of a Final PUD. 6 Therefore, the City followed the appropriate review procedure in code when it prioritized the terms and conditions found in the Preliminary PUD Findings of Fact and Order in analyzing the development Application. The City has been unable to locate the Final PUD file. Although each PUD is unique, a Final PUD file would generally include a stamped and signed document from the Director of Community Development indicating approval of the Final PUD application and providing documents that memorialize the approval. As noted above, the process for approval of a PUD principally requires a Final PUD application to demonstrate all conditions of the Preliminary PUD approval have been satisfied. The City does have many files related to the Sundance Springs PUD, subdivision plats, master site plan, and site plan applications, including: Z-95125 Sundance Springs Planned Unit Development –September 1, 1995 P- 9539 Sundance Springs MaSub Preliminary Plat –September 1, 1995 Z-9753 Sundance Springs 1A & 1B MaSub –November 1997 –July 1998 Z-9812 Sundance Springs Final Plat PUD –January 30, 1998 (working file) P-0042 Sundance Springs SE MaSub Final Plat –November 27, 2000 The files listed above contain sufficient information about the Final PUD and contain all critical elements of the approved preliminary PUD to enable the City to evaluate a site plan application pursuant to 38.430.070.B, BMC (1/3/2022). Additionally, certain documents associated with the final subdivision plat and PUD files, like the residential and commercial covenants, were recorded with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder. The City reviewed the files listed above as well as documents available through the Clerk and Recorder in its efforts to find the Final PUD file and, later, to compile relevant documents 6 The Sundance Springs PUD was originally approved as a phased PUD seeking approval for the initial phase of the PUD with subsequent phases master planned and subject to development guidelines, pursuant to 18.54.080.A.2, BMC (1/23/1992). See also page 8 of the Preliminary PUD Findings of Fact and Order. This type of application for a phased PUD exists in current code as well at 38.430.070.A.2, BMC (1/3/2022). The code provides that “. . . each phase of the PUD may be developed in accordance with the review and approval procedures set forth in this division 38.430 for final plan reviews.”38.430.070.B, BMC (1/3/2022). Review and approval procedures for final plans are set forth in sections 38.430.040.A.3.b and c, BMC (1/3/2022). Those provisions rely exclusively on evaluating the application against the approved preliminary PUD plan and any conditions of approval imposed by the Commission on the preliminary plan. 335 Page 10 of 24 that would have been included in the Final PUD file for the review of the site plan application that is the basis for this appeal. Within the surviving files, the City reviewed perhaps the two most important documents reflecting the approval of and conditions associated with the Final PUD: 1) the Findings of Fact established at the time of the original approval of the Sundance Springs PUD, dated January 22, 1996, and associated with files Z-95125 and P-9539; and 2) a document titled Sundance Springs P.U.D. Findings of Fact and Order, found within final plat file P-0042 (the file is dated November 27, 2000), which provides a detailed response regarding how the Developer complied with each condition of approval from the preliminary plat and PUD Findings of Fact. Findings of Fact provide conclusive evidence of the Commission’s conditional approval of the Sundance Springs PUD. First, the preliminary PUD Findings of Fact memorializes the approval of the preliminary PUD application and conditions applied to it. Second, the Findings of Fact included in the final plat file (#P-0042) provide detailed documentation of compliance with each condition of approval of the Preliminary PUD. There is no better reflection of the Commission’s intent in approving the PUD than these two available Findings of Fact. Therefore, after reviewing all available documents from its files as well as recorded documents, the City relied heavily on the two Findings of Fact documents that form the basis of final PUD approval and demonstrate compliance with the approved preliminary plan and conditions of approval. Additionally, the City not only reviewed the Covenants, it also incorporated relevant and City-enforceable Covenants into approval of application 22047. The City specifically required, as conditions of approval for this application, that all requirements of Exhibit B in the Covenants remain in full force and effect, including prohibitions against on-street parking, exterior lighting restrictions, and limited business hours of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Further, the City bolstered the on-street parking prohibition by requiring “No parking” signs on all roads surrounding the development. In addition to respecting the City- required covenants, these conditions of approval responded to concerns raised in public comment. Faced with the options of denying application 22047 because the City cannot locate the Final PUD file or rendering a decision on the Application based on key documents that comprise the Final PUD file, the City chose the latter approach and conditionally approved the Application. Additionally, the City recognizes that if Appellants’argument prevails, no other development application within the Sundance Springs PUD can be evaluated or approved until the Final PUD file is located, resulting in a moratorium on any development in the area covered by the PUD. Such a prohibition on development does not serve the 336 Page 11 of 24 expressed purposes of the PUD, which includes a commercial node along with residential development, or the City’s growth policy. 2. The Surviving Record and Covenants Appellants argue the City’s review of the development application was insufficient because it did not review the PUD’s Master Plan and the Development Guidelines or other surviving elements of the PUD’s Approved Final Plan and the City is responsible for enforcing all of the Covenants, which the City did not do. Appellants correctly identify the Master Plan and Development Guidelines as critical components of the type of PUD for which Sundance Springs was approved. Both documents exist within the surviving files associated with the Sundance Springs PUD and were reviewed by the City in approving the development application at issue in this appeal. An official, stamped copy of the Master Plan exists in the City’s working file for the Final PUD (file Z-9812) and the development guidelines are incorporated into the property owners’association Covenants. However, Appellants build their argument on two incorrect foundational assertions: a) Appellants incorrectly assert that the Master Plan provides a level of detail that restricts development to any specific design or use; and b) Appellants incorrectly conflate the entirety of the Covenants with the design guidelines, and assert that the City is responsible for enforcing all Covenants. a. The Master Plan is a sketch drawing that generally depicts commercial buildings in commercial areas but was never intended to provide a level of detail sufficient to entitle or restrict development to a specific design or use. Appellants correctly note the final Master Plan survives within the City’s working file for the final PUD. However, Appellants assign a level of importance to the Master Plan beyond which it was intended and inappropriately rely on it as a set-in-stone depiction of the commercial development. Under the municipal code in place at the time the original Sundance Springs PUD was approved, a phased planned unit development had to provide “…proposed conditions pertaining to such elements as building location, open spaces, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and boundaries of the individual phases of the PUD in as much detail as is required by the findings of the Concept Plan review as outlined in this Chapter.”18.54.080.D.1, BMC (1/23/1992). The concept plan review code in place at the time the PUD was approved required a “conceptual (sketch) drawing showing the proposed location of the uses of land, major streets and other significant feature on the site and within one-half mile of the site.”18.54.060.A.2, BMC (1/23/1992)(emphasis added). The Master Plan drawing conformed with the code requirement and as such was only required to provide the various uses of land in proposed locations. The Master Plan was not meant to 337 Page 12 of 24 provide the level of detail sufficient to construct any building, nor does it convey which specific land uses, such as a brewery, will be ultimately exist on the site. Currently and at the time the Sundance Springs PUD was approved, a site plan application is required under the BMC to develop any subsequent phase of a Master Plan PUD. The site plan provides detail about the precise aspects proposed for development, including infrastructure, site design, and the size and number of buildings in each subsequent phase. 7 In fact, the Sundance Springs preliminary PUD and plat (file # Z- 95125) recognizes the high-level conceptual nature of the original proposals and that future development would provide specific site design where it states: NOTE: Because this application is a PUD subdivision that creates only lots, no specific structures are proposed at this time. Future construction on individual lots will be controlled by the Bozeman area zoning and building codes and the covenants and developmental guidelines for the project, as required in Chapter 18.54.080, A., 2. of the Bozeman Zoning Ordinance. File #Z-95125 application, tab 6 PUD Application Criteria, page 1. 8 Clearly, the construction of any specific buildings and the precise land use of it within the available menu of appropriate land uses were matters for future site plan development applications. The usefulness of the Master Plan sketch is its clear depiction of the intention to include a commercial node within the Sundance Springs PUD. Appellants incorrectly suggest that the commercial node could or should be converted to more residential development. At the time of the approval of the PUD, the Commission imposed only one condition of approval regarding the commercial node: to conduct a market study to determine whether the commercial node would be viable. The market study was conducted and submitted and approved with the final PUD application. See P-0042 Sundance Springs P.U.D. Findings of Fact, p. 13 (indicating the market study was addressed during Phase 1). An application to modify the final PUD would be required to change the designated commercial node to additional residential units. No such modification application has been filed. 7 See BMC section 38.430.070.A.2 and 38.430.070.B of the January 1, 2022, code and BMC chapter 18.54.080.A.2 and 18.54.080.B of the January 23, 1992, code. 8 This excerpt recognizes that future development will be controlled by zoning and building codes, as well as the covenants and development guidelines for the project. As discussed in the next subsection of this report, the covenants will guide the build-out of the PUD, but enforcement of those covenants is primarily the responsibility of the property owners association. 338 Page 13 of 24 Additionally, Appellants contend that marketing materials, real estate listings, and the market study from the 1990s present a set-in-stone portrayal of what the PUD’s ultimate development must look like. However, the proposed buildings described in the market study, marketing materials, and real estate listings serve only as examples of what could have been proposed and approved in subsequent development applications. A private representation of intent or possibilities for development found in marketing materials or a real estate listing is not binding on the City in the review process. At the time of the original PUD approval, the owners indicated they had Lot 2 of the commercial development under contract with a person who intended to design and construct a convenience store. The parcel was planned to develop during the first phase of construction along with the first 67 single family residences. Circumstances apparently changed and a site plan application for a convenience store was never submitted. The mere fact that a convenience store, or a brewery, were mentioned as potential tenants of commercial buildings does not commit a developer to only those uses, nor could a reference to these uses in marketing materials constitute City approval of these possible uses. Similarly, the market study required as a condition of approval for the PUD was intended merely to demonstrate that commercial uses could be supported in their proposed location, with sufficient business generated from both the nearby residences as well as from customers outside of the PUD. The City considered all relevant materials from the various historic files, including the Master Plan, in approving application 22047. Although the Master Plan is not cited in the Director’s decision, pursuant to requirements in code regarding the level of detail required for master plans, the City determined it provides only a conceptual level of detail regarding future development. The Master Plan was therefore of very limited use in evaluating the detailed site plan application 22047. The approved application is consistent with the Master Plan in that it proposes commercial development in the area reserved by the PUD for its commercial node. b.The design guidelines are not the entirety of the Covenants nor is the City responsible for enforcing the Covenants, according to the Covenants. Appellants argue that many of the design elements proposed in application 22047 run afoul of the recorded Covenants for the Sundance Springs commercial node, particularly design guidelines encompassed within the Covenants. Appellants assert the City must enforce all requirements in the Covenants, not just those Covenants the City required as part of its approval of the PUD found in Exhibit B. 339 Page 14 of 24 Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions are private contracts commonly entered between landowners and a property owners’association (POA) that memorialize an agreement among all landowner members of a POA to voluntarily limit the way property within the POA can be used or developed. The City frequently requires new subdivisions to include in POA Covenants information and requirements about the future maintenance of required public infrastructure, like stormwater systems, or other code-required amenities, like open space. When covenants are required by the City, the City usually also requires that any amendments to those covenants must be approved by the City Commission so that enduring responsibilities for public infrastructure cannot be easily abandoned or changed. The City has no duty to enforce private covenants that impose higher standards than the BMC provisions, according to the BMC and as noted in the City’s May 19, 2023 letter to the Developer. Further, even as to those covenants required by the City, the code allows the City to determine whether to enforce them; the code does not require enforcement. The BMC states: Sec. 38.100.100 Private restrictions. This chapter is not intended to affect any existing private agreement or condition such as a deed restriction or covenant. If any provision of this chapter is more restrictive or imposes a higher standard than any such private restriction, the requirements of this chapter control.Where the provisions of any private restriction are more restrictive or impose higher standards than the provisions of this chapter, the city has no duty to enforce such private restrictions or advise of their existence.The city may enforce a private restriction if the city is a party to such covenant or restriction, if such restriction was required by the city, or if it was relied upon by the city during the land development process in order to meet the requirements of this chapter or another required standard.…(emphasis added) The City does not contend that the entirety of the Covenants are unenforceable. Rather, the City recognizes that the primary enforcer of Covenants is the property owners’ association (Association) established by the Covenants. The City enforces only those portions of the Covenants, clearly enumerated in Exhibit B of the Covenants, that the City was concerned about during approval of the PUD, as evidenced by conditions of approval memorialized in the Findings of Fact. In fact, the City did enforce the Exhibit B covenants by including conditions of approval 1 and 3 in the conditional approval of application 22047.9 9 See p. 3 of the Director’s June 28, 2023 Conditional Approval. 340 Page 15 of 24 The Covenants themselves are replete with language that names the Association as the enforcement authority of the Covenants 10. In fact, the entirety of Article XIV Enforcement within the Covenants does not mention the City at all. Instead, it prescribes enforcement authority to the original developer, Sundance Springs LLC, or the Association. See Covenants, Article XIV, p. 35. Additionally, the introduction to the Covenants provides: It is the Board of Directors duty to implement, administer, and enforce all the Covenants including the maintenance and management of the Common Open Space, Trails, Roads, and to carry on the day-to-day activities of the Owners Association. See Covenants, p. 3 (emphasis added). Additionally, section 4.2 of the Covenants provides: 4.2 Purpose of the Association. The Association has been formed as a non-profit corporation in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title 35, Montana Code Annotated for the purpose of enforcing these covenants and operating the Association for the benefit of all members therein. See Covenants, p.13 (emphasis added). Merely because the design guidelines were incorporated into the Covenants document does not render the entirety of the Covenants enforceable by the City. As noted in the Intent section of Article VII of the Covenants: The architectural and design Covenants and guidelines which follow are intended to compliment the Bozeman Zoning Code and any future protective covenants which govern this project, and to clarify the intention for the design of buildings for this project.…”See Covenants, p. 17. In addition to the express enforcement required of the Board of the Association, the Covenants establish a Building and Landscape Review Committee (Committee or BLRC) to evaluate development proposals against design guidelines that exceed standards in City code.“…[T]he Committee shall review and approve or disapprove all plans and specifications submitted to it for any proposed development.”See Covenants, page 18. Regardless of who enforces them, the design guidelines were meant to be guidelines and not meant to strictly prescribe aesthetics or be used to stifle development: 10 Appellants assert that the property owners’association was dissolved and cannot be reconstituted. According to the Montana Secretary of State’s website, the Sundance Springs Neighborhood Services Owners’ Association, Inc. was registered on September 13, 2022 and is in “active-good standing”status. Any responsibility the Developer may have to obtain approval from the Building and Landscape Review Committee, pursuant to the Covenants, are not within the City’s purview in reviewing the application, nor is it among the criteria for approving application 22047. 341 Page 16 of 24 …The intent of these guidelines is to allow as much flexibility as possible while at the same time define a minimum level of quality and consistency of building design which will be consistent with and maximize the quality of the overall project. The unique design elements of the Developer, Building Contractor, Architect, and Owners for both the landscaping and the buildings will be respected, and individual expression is encouraged, provided they are harmonious with the overall plan of the Project. See Covenants, section 7.1, page 17. Therefore, the Covenants themselves provide ample guidance regarding enforcement authority of the Covenants and the design guidelines. The enforcement authority rests with the Association and the BLRC. In its review of the Application, the City appropriately enforced only City-required Covenants found in Exhibit B and ensured the application complies with city code requirements. The Director’s decision should be upheld. 3. Application of Current Code Standards Appellants argue the City should have applied the code standards that were in place at the time the original PUD application was approved, rather than applying current development standards. However, the Covenants expressly state that development within the Sundance Springs PUD will be evaluated based on current code standards. It also recognizes that the City of Bozeman’s review of a development proposal is separate from and in addition to the Building and Landscaping Review Committee of the Association. Section 8.2 of the Covenants provides: 8.2 General Regulations. All lands within Sundance are subject to the zoning regulations of the City of Bozeman except for any variances thereto granted by the City of Bozeman as shown on the Sundance Springs plat as filed in the Gallatin County Courthouse. All such variances to the zoning requirements of the City of Bozeman shall be specified on the final plat noted above or within the body of this Declaration. In addition to these Regulations, building design may be regulated by City, County, State and Federal regulatory agencies having jurisdiction. The owner or his or her agent shall be responsible to ensure conformance with any applicable regulations,and should check with the City of Bozeman,Gallatin County, and the State of Montana Building Codes Division to verify that the most recently adopted edition of any applicable regulation is being used.No construction of, or alteration to, any improvements …shall be commenced on any lot prior to receiving the written 342 Page 17 of 24 approval of the BLRC and the City of Bozeman. See Covenants, p. 20 (emphasis added). Further, State law and local regulations unequivocally state that applications like 22047 are reviewed under regulations in effect at the time an application is deemed adequate. The City cited the following provisions of Montana law and the BMC to support its conclusion that current code applies to applications in its May 19, 2023, letter: Mont. Code Ann. § 7-21-1003(2) (emphasis added).11 Except as provided under 76-2-206 or 76-2-306 or otherwise agreed to in writing by the applicant,the review approval with conditions, or denial of the site-specific development plan must be based solely upon the ordinances and regulations in effect at the time that the complete site-specific development plan was submitted to the local government entity that has jurisdiction over the application. . . . And Section 38.200.080.B of the BMC states in relevant part: Review of nonsubdivision applications will be under such regulations as are in effect at the time an application for approval of a preliminary site plan is deemed adequate . . . Therefore, based on the covenants, Montana law, and local regulations, application 22047 was properly evaluated based on the standards found in the 2022 BMC because the application was deemed adequate on August 17, 2022. In conclusion, the City’s processes and procedures in evaluating application 22047 were sufficient to determine application 22047 should be conditionally approved. The City analyzed all relevant information found in the surviving files, which was sufficient to conclude that application 22047 complied with the Final PUD. The City did not err in relying principally on the Findings of Fact, rather than the Master Plan that provided merely sketch-plan level detail, in analyzing application 22047 for compliance with the Final PUD. The City properly enforced covenants related to parking, which were among the few City-enforceable covenants imposed as a condition of approval on the PUD. However, the City has no responsibility to enforce private covenants prescribing detailed design specifications. The City analyzed the application against the appropriate development standards in applying the 2023 Bozeman Municipal Code. The Director’s decision should be upheld. 11 Section 7-21-1003 was repealed in the 2023 legislative session. However, the provision cited was in effect at the time Sundance Springs application 22047 was deemed adequate for review. 343 Page 18 of 24 B. Substantive Issues 1. Parking The City disagrees with Appellants’contention that the development or applied parking reductions “will create an excess parking demand of more than 100 spaces. 12” Even under 1998-era parking calculations, the same number of total parking spaces, 68, would have been required. No parking reductions were available under historic code as they do under current code to incentivize multi-modal transportation. The proposed development offers 44 on-site parking spaces, so a difference of only 24 spaces exists between 1998-era code and current code. For the City’s complete analysis of how application 22047 complies with parking requirements, please see the Director’s Decision Letter, item 7d. Conformance with Article 5 –Parking (38.540), at page 21 of the incorporated staff report. As explained above, the 1998-era code is inapplicable to this Application and the City is responsible for reviewing and enforcing only certain requirements contained in the Covenants. As such, the City reviewed the parking aspects of the Site Plan according to the current parking standards. It is clear, however, that the City Commission desired to prohibit on-street parking when it approved the PUD. The Commission’s Findings of Fact required an amendment to the Covenants regarding parking:“Page 26, Section 10.8 Clarify section regarding on-street parking per the City Commission’s decision on street standards, to prohibit parking of cars or other vehicles on the streets.”See Findings of Fact and Order (Z-95125 P-9539), at p. 19. The Findings of Fact are silent, however, on any future required number of parking spaces or the calculation thereof. Interestingly, the final recorded covenant regarding parking includes both a prohibition of on-street parking and requirement “to have at least the minimum number of parking spaces as defined in the Neighborhood Service District of the Bozeman Zone Code.”See Covenant 9.8. There is no evidence that the City Commission desired to set requirements regarding the minimum number of parking spaces. Recall that the Covenants themselves direct developers to check with the City for current code requirements. Given these facts, the City reasonably declined to exercise any authority it may have under the Covenants regarding the number of parking spaces. Rather, conditions of approval 1 and 3 in the Director’s conditional approval letter reaffirm the City Commission’s original intent: to prohibit on-street parking. Applying parking requirements from current code in BMC 38.540.050.A.2 and Table 38.540.050-3, staff calculated a baseline total of 68 parking spaces are required for the proposed development. After applicable parking reductions were applied pursuant to BMC 38.540.050.A.2.c, staff determined that a total of 41 parking spaces and 7 bicycle parking spaces were required. The allowed parking reductions are incorporated as part of the 12 See Appellants’Narrative, Issue 7. Parking, slide 44. 344 Page 19 of 24 parking standards and do not require a variance or other special exception process. This development proposes 44 off-street parking spaces and 20 bicycle parking spaces, surpassing the required minimum amounts. See Section 7.d of the Director’s Decision Letter. Therefore, approval of the parking aspects of application 22047 was appropriate. 2. Departures from Block Frontage Standards Appellants argue the development should not have been approved because it proposes buildings that do not meet block frontage standards in code and the applicant's requested departure from those standards fails to meet required criteria. The municipal code provides flexibility for applicants to present alternative designs that better fit site constraints by requesting departures, pursuant to BMC section 38.250.060. To approve a departure, an applicant must demonstrate that the departure “meets the purpose(s) of the standard and other applicable departure criteria that applies to the specific standard.”38.250.060.E, BMC. Block frontage standards, as described in division 38.510 of the Bozeman Municipal Code, serve three purposes. One of those purposes is at issue in this appeal:“To design sites and orient buildings with an emphasis on compatible development and creating a comfortable walking environment.” 38.510.010.A.2, BMC. Because this property has frontage on Little Horse Drive, from which the site is accessible, as well as fronting on South 3 rd Avenue, the code governing multiple frontage situations is applicable here. See 38.510.020.F, BMC The Developer requested a departure from the requirements of BMC section 38.510.020.F.1 regarding the orientation of the buildings. As noted above, to grant this departure, the Developer must demonstrate that the purposes of the block frontage standard are met and “the location and front orientation of the buildings are compatible with the character of the area and enhance the character of the street.”38.250.020.F.1.d, BMC Block frontage standards present a hierarchy of ways to locate buildings on a site, “…the orientation of the front of the building must be sited and placed on the property in the following order of precedence: a. Streets (all types …) b. Trail/Park c. Special residential or internal roadway (parking areas/lots, block separation corridors).”38.510.020.F.1.a.-c, BMC. The departure request from the requirements of 38.510.020.F.1 was appropriately approved because the narrow frontage along Little Horse drive presented a physical site constraint that lends itself to flexibility from code standards. The west building in the proposed development faces and presents its storefront entrance toward Little Horse Drive, in compliance with code. The east building faces the adjacent property owners association trail system, which is an option (second in precedence) under the code. To further the purposes of ensuring a comfortable walking environment, the development 345 Page 20 of 24 proposes to construct additional trails to connect the buildings to the sidewalks around the buildings and to the existing trail system. Through condition of approval 2, the City also ensured the compatibility of this development and enhanced a comfortable walking environment by requiring the Developer to construct a city standard sidewalk along South 3rd Avenue. The current character of the area is residential and suburban with no other commercial buildings that front along either Little Horse Drive or South 3 rd Avenue. The character of the area and character of the street are preserved by the construction of a landscape berm along the entire frontage of South 3 rd Avenue to shield the view of the parking lot from the street, providing a more visually attractive interaction with the site from the street. Next, the Developer requested another departure from code standards which require the placement of parking to the side, rear, below, or above the building and limiting the surface parking area to no more than 50% of the street frontage. See Table 38.510.030.C, BMC. To approve this departure, the Developer must demonstrate that the purpose of designing the sites and orienting the buildings emphasized compatible development and creating a comfortable walking environment, as discussed above, as well as satisfying specific departure criteria found in BMC 38.510.030.C.3.Relevant to this request, departure criteria 3.c. provides: Parking location. There must be an acceptable tradeoff in terms of the amount and quality of storefront area that is integrated with the development and the applicable parking location departure. Plus, the alternative must include design features to successfully mitigate the visual impact of additional parking areas along designated landscaped streets.38.510.030.C.3.c, BMC. The Director found that the relevant criteria for the departure were met because the irregular shape of the lot “forces the buildings to be placed back from Little Horse Drive, leaving less lot area to the side and rear for parking. The buildings’architectural designs provide quality storefront façade throughout the development. In addition the design successfully mitigates the visual impact of the parking through clusters of landscaping that will screen the parking from Little Horse Drive.”13 See Director’s Decision Letter at p. 19. The Director’s approval cited additional tradeoffs satisfying the departure criteria requirements, including that the building exceeds the minimum 10’setback, the building entrance is visible and accessible from the street, the façade transparency far exceeds the required minimum under code, and the area between the street and building is landscaped, 13 Appellant notes that the Developer, in its departure narrative, cited “open space for recreation and a riparian buffer,…creating a better experience for the intended user.”Section 7.a. Director’s June 28, 2023 conditional approval does not rely on the Developer’s departure narrative, and rather articulates the Director’s own rationale for approval of the departure request under applicable criteria. 346 Page 21 of 24 mitigating the visual impact of the development. See Director’s Decision Letter at pp. 18- 19. In addition to the rationale provided above, these elements of the design also demonstrate the site design is compatible with surrounding development and provide a comfortable walking environment. 14 Therefore, the Director correctly determined the requested departures from block frontage standards met the necessary criteria and appropriately approved them. Conclusion The Director’s approval of 22047 was appropriate and should be upheld. The City relied on official documents from several files associated with the Sundance Springs PUD showing the intent of the Commission in approving the original PUD to evaluate the current application. The City reviewed Covenants relevant to the City’s approval and diligently enforced all City-enforceable provisions through its approval. The City appropriately applied current code to the Application, including applying available parking reductions and granting the requested departures relating to block frontage standards. The City also carefully considered public comment and incorporated conditions of approval to address the most common critiques of the development application, including prohibiting on-street parking and restricting hours of operation for the commercial tenant. APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION: The deadline for submission of an appeal application was July 13, 2023. On July 11, 2023, the Community Development Division received an appeal from an attorney on behalf of Appellants, pursuant to section 38.250.030 BMC, “Administrative project decision appeals.” Staff reviewed the appeal application materials and found that the application met all submittal requirements for processing the appeal. The Appellant was notified by letter on July 14, 2023, that the appeal materials submitted were complete and that a hearing on the appeal before the City Commission on August 22, 2023, was scheduled. At the request of Appellants and consent of the Developer, the City Commission hearing on the appeal was rescheduled to September 26, 2023. The Appellants requested to stay the September 26, 2023, hearing in order to mediate the matter. The mediation attempt failed and Appellants subsequently requested to reschedule the hearing, which was set for February 27, 2024. 14 See pp. 18-19 of the Director’s June 28, 2023 Decision for a complete analysis of block frontage standards and the requested departures. 347 Page 22 of 24 APPEAL PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the appeal hearing was completed in conformance with division 38.220 BMC, “Applications and Noticing.” Notice was posted on the site and mailed to property owners within 200 feet. The notice on the project site was initially posted on August 11, 2023, through September 26, 2023. Notice was posted on the site and mailed to property owners again on February 2, 2024. Notice of the hearing was also published in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on January 27, 2024, and February 3, 2024. The public comment period closes on February 27, 2024, at the conclusion of the City Commission’s hearing on this matter. APPEAL PUBLIC COMMENT: The City has received 21 public comments during the public comment periods for this appeal 15 as of the writing of this staff report. Any further public comment received on this appeal will be forwarded to the City Clerk’s office for Commission consideration. Public comment relating to this application and appeal are available online. EVALUATION OF THE APPEAL: Authority of the City Commission under the Bozeman Municipal Code The City Commission has the authority to uphold, amend, or overturn the Director’s decision pursuant to section 38.250.030.J, BMC. City Commission May Act as a Board of Adjustment The City of Bozeman does not have a Board of Adjustment as described in Montana Code Annotated section 76-2-321. Rather, the City Commission has reserved for itself the powers of a board of adjustments through Resolution 4419 in 2012. The City Commission may choose to exercise its powers as a Board of Adjustments 16, separate from those expressly provided under the BMC. 15 This number includes public comments received during the first appeal public comment period from August 11, 2023, to September 26, 2023. Some of the public comments did not address the appeal but expressed opposition to application 22047. Additionally, it appears that some of the public comments are duplicates. 16 Section 76-2-323, Montana Code Annotated provides: 76-2-323. Powers of board of adjustment.(1) The board of adjustment shall have the following powers: (a) to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of this part or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto; (b) to hear and decide special exceptions to the terms of the ordinance upon which such board is required to pass under such ordinance; 348 Page 23 of 24 APPEAL PROCEDURE: The City Commission must comply with the procedures for appeal as set forth in section 38.250.030.I, BMC. During the appeal, the Commission will first hear from the administrative staff who are required to give an “explanation of the application and nature of the appeal.”Next, the Appellant will have an opportunity to present its position. If requested, the landowner may then make a presentation. Then, the Commission will hear public comment regarding the appeal from any proponent or opponent. At the close of public comment, the Commission must consider the merits of the appeal, including considering motions, discussion, and taking a vote. During the process, no person making a presentation may be subject to cross-examination. However, Commission members and the City Attorney may ask questions for the purpose of eliciting information or clarifying information presented. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None identified. ALTERNATIVES: The City Commission has the following alternative actions available: 1. Uphold the Director’s conditional approval decision for Application 22047 as written in her June 28, 2023 letter. 2. Amend the conditional approval after making findings as to which of the criteria are met or not met, modify the conditions of approval, and approve the amended Conditional Approval of the Sundance Springs Subdivision Phase 1B, Commercial Lot 2 Site Plan Application 22047. 3. Overturn the Director’s decision. Find that the Director’s decision was in error, make alternative findings, and deny Application 22047. FISCAL EFFECT:None other than standard effects related to processing applications. (c) to authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from the terms of the ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship and so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. (2) In exercising the above-mentioned powers, such board may, in conformity with the provisions of this part, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement, decision, or determination as ought to be made and to that end shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken. 349 Page 24 of 24 ATTACHMENTS: 23214 Appeal – • All appeal submission materials; and • Appeal public comment from 2023 and 2024 Record of Review: • 22047 Director’s Decision Letter Conditionally Approving the Sundance Springs Subdivision Phase 1B, Commercial Lot 2 Site Plan and incorporated Staff Report for Application 22047, June 28, 2023; • All 22047 application materials submitted by the Developer; • All public comment from 2022 and 2023; and • All correspondence regarding application 22047. Bozeman Municipal Code Excerpts: • January 3, 2022, version of BMC Division 38.430 Planned Unit Developments • January 23, 1992, version of BMC Chapter 18.54 Planned Unit Development Relevant Documents from Sundance Springs Planning Files • File Z-95125/P-9539 Findings of Fact and Order In the Matter of the Application of Donald Hannah for Preliminary Subdivision Plat Approval of Sundance Springs Planned Unit Development Subdivision, Phase I, and for Conditional Approval of a Zoning Planned Unit Development, January 22, 1996 • File P-0042 Sundance Springs P.U.D. Findings of Fact and Order with notations regarding completion of each requirement from file P-0042 Sundance Springs S.E. MaSub Final Plat • Recorded Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Sundance Springs Section II Neighborhood Services Property, March 4, 1998 • Sundance Springs Master Plan, received April 8, 1997, from file Z-9812 Full application and file record:available to view by contacting the Community Development Division, 20 E. Olive, Bozeman, MT 59715. Please contact Susana Montana at smontana@bozeman.net or 406-582-2285 to make arrangements to view the file. 350 Appendix 4 – 1996 Findings of Fact and Order Creating the Sundance Springs PUD ^i r^f^ /,7^nBEFORE THE BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSIONCITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANAIN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF FINDINGS OF FACTDONALD HANNAH FOR PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION AND ORDERPLAT APPROVAL OF SUNDANCE SPRIGS PLANNEDUNIT DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION, PHASE I, ANDFOR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A ZONINGPLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTPURSUANT to the Montana Subdivision and Flatting Act, Section 76-3-101 through 76-3-614, Montana Codes Annotated, the Bozeman Area Subdivision Regulations, and the BozemanZoning Ordinance, public hearings were held, after notice givea, before the Bozeman City-CountyPlanning Board on October 17, 1995, and before the Bozeman City Commission on November 20,1995, on the above-entitled applications. The purpose of the public hearings was to review thepreliminary applications for the Sundance Springs Zoning Planned Unit Development aud for thePhase 1 subdivision thereof, as submitted by the applicant, together with the required supplementaryplans and information, to detennine if the infonnation submitted meets the requirements of theBozeman Area Subdivision Regulations, Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, Bozeman ZoningOrdinance, and the Bozeman Area Master Plan, and in addition, to listen to and consider publictestimony concerning the applications and to consider written comments.It appeared to the City Commission that all parties wishing to appear and comment weregiven a reasonable opportunity to do so, and as the City Commission was fully advised of all mattershaving come before it regarding these applications, makes the following Findings of Fact, asrequired:FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER -- SUNDANCE SPRINGS P.U.D.PAGE1 nFINDINGS OF FACTI.The application for a Conditional Use Permit for a zoning Planned Unit Development(P.U.D.) for the phased development of 147.23 acres and the subdivision preliminary plat for thefirst subdivision phase to divide 72.2 acres into residential and neighborhood service lots, commonopen space, and public streets, was made on September 1, 1995. The applications were made onproperty located in the NE1/4 of Section 25, T2S, R5E, PMM, and the NWi4 of Section 30, T2S,R6E, PMM, Gallatin County, Montana. The lots will be served by City of Bozeman water andsewer services, and will be accessed from South Third Avenue and Goldenstein Lane.II.Notices of the public hearings before the City-County Planning Board and the Bozeman CityCommission were published in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on October 1, 1995 (for Zoning PUD)and October 5, 1995 (for preliminary plat). The notice of the Zoning PUD were mailed to allproperty owners within 200 feet of the subject property, and the notice of the preliminary plathearing was mailed by Certified mail, return receipt requested, to adjoining property owners onSeptember 29, 1995.III.The matter was heard before the Bozeman City-County Planning Board on October 17,1995. Ten members of the public testified agamst the application with concerns regarding highgroundwater levels, loss of open space, buffering from adjacent properties, traffic impacts,premature annexation, lack of city streets connecting to the site, the use of substandard streets, lossof wildlife habitat, building foundations in relation to groundwater, and sewer capacity.FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER -- SUNDANCE SPRINGS P.U.D.PAGE2 fnThe developer agreed with all conditions recommended in Planning Staff Report Z-95125/P-9539 with the exception of the conditions requiring the construction of city standard streets withinthe development, and the realignment of Graf Street.IV.After finding that the applications were properly submitted and reviewed under theprocedures of the Bozeman Zoning Ordinance and Bozeman Area Subdivision Regulations, thePlanning Board reviewed and considered the 14 review criteria to be considered during review ofPlanned Unit Developments, the six criteria established in Section 18.53.030 of the BozemanZoning Ordinance to be considered during review of a Conditional Use Permit, and the six criteriaestablished in Title 76-3-608, M.C.A. for the review of preliminary subdivision plats. The PlanningBoard also considered the testimony from the developer and the public.Following their review, a majority of Planning Board members found that the applicationsdid not comply with each of the approval criteria established, with specific concerns noted regardingconstruction in areas of high groundwater, effects on wildlife habitat, and the cumulative effects ofthe subdivision on sewer, ti-affic and groundwater.Based on their review and findings, the Planning Board, on a vote of 6-2, referred theConditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development application, and on. a vote of 7-1, referred thePreliminary plat application to the Bozeman City Commission for their final decision with arecommendation of denial for both applications.FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER - SUNDANCE SPRINGS P.U.D.PAGE3 nnV.The applications were scheduled to be considered by the Bozeman City Commission atpublic hearings on November 6,1995. At the request of the applicant, the Commission opened theNovember 6, 1995 public hearings, acknowledged receipt of one letter in support of the application,and continued the public hearings until November 20, 1995.VI.The matter was considered by the City Commission at public hearings on November 20,1995. Eight members of the public spoke in favor of the applications noting: the benefit of theproposed public ti:ails; the benefit of development of the land with city water and sewer services;the addition to the tax base; the need for larger lots with city services; the need for residentialdevelopment in close proximity to Montana State University and public schools; and that 48% ofthe site is left in open space.Seventeen members of the public spoke in opposition to the applications noting: knpactson mammals and birds; there are no city streets serving the development; only 12% of thedevelopment border is touched by the City; there are three streams aadjurisdictional wetlands onthe property; high water table; insufficient data on hydrology; discrepancy between topographymaps and groundwater monitor site maps; non-point source pollution to wells north of thedevelopment; groundwater concerns; the softening of the real estate market; and that the project didnot comply with all P.U.D. review criteria.The public testimony portion of the public hearings was closed by the City Commission, andtheir decision on the project was continued to their 3:00 p.m. meeting on December 4, 1995.FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER -- SUNDANCE SPRINGS P.U.D.PAGE4 nnVII.At their December 4, 1995 meeting, the Bozeman City Commission considered the minutes,record and reconimendatioa of the Planning Board and the public testimony received at theNovember 20, 1995 hearings. The Commission specifically reviewed P.U.D. All DevelopmentCriteria Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 12,13,15,17, 19,23, 25, 30,and 35, and P.U.D. Residential Criteria No.6. The Commission further reviewed: groundwater data and mitigation measures; open space, parkand wetland issues; effects of fences; street standards and alignments; lighting details; firemitigations; water and sewer services; RID and SID waivers; affordable housing; maintenance ofthe internal roads; and the ability for the city to use the open space area for domestic water wells.- The City Comxnission weighed the proposed Phase 1 subdivision against the review criteriaestablished by State Statute. The Commission further consulted the developer concerning theproposed conditions and gave due weight and consideration to the expressed preferenced of thedeveloper. The Commission found as follows:AGRICULTURE:The property is currently used for grain production and grazing. The subdivision willremove 72+ acres from agricultural production. However, the property is located in theUrban Growth Area of the Bozeman Area Master Plan, where development is expected tooccur within the next 20 years.AGRICULTURAL WATER USER FACILITIESThe subdivision, proposes to relocate an existing irrigation ditch. This relocation should notaffect the agricultural water user facilities, as the enter and exit points of the ditch willessentially remain the same, as will the flow of water.LOCAL SERVICES:Fire Service: The use of 24-foot county standard roads will provide unobstructed roadwidths for emergency seryices. Per the Fu-e Chiefs April 1, 1994 letter to the developer,and the Fire Marshall's October 3, 1995 Memorandum, all commercial properties shall beFINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER - SUNDANCE SPRINGS P.U.D.PAGE5 nnfully protected with approved fire sprinkler systems, due to the excessive fravel time fromBozeman Fire Station No. 2. The need for mitigation to the long fire department responsetimes which are probable prior to the time new fire station facilities may be constructednearer to this area, such as, but not limited to, sprinklering of residential dwelling structures,shall be discussed by the developer with the Fire Chief, and any necessary mitigationsidentified by the Fire Chief will be provided by the developer.Police Service: The City will provide police service for this newly annexed area.Bozeman SchcM3l District: Based on comments received from the Bozeman School District,this subdivision will not create immediate effects on their services.Streets: The county street standard proposed by the developer will provide adequate accesswithin the subdivision. Graf Street should not be constructed to a city-standard nor shouldthe sb-eet be straightened, as the proposed construction and configuration will better deterhigher speed through traffic through the development.The traffic from the development will impact the intersection of South Third/Graf/Wagonwheel Road, and the developer should reimburse the city a prorata portion of the costof the improvements previously completed by the City.The traffic from the development will also impact the intersection of South Third andGoldenstein Lane. These impacts can be mitigated by the developer providing necessaryright-of-way for the realignment of the intersection and by completing the realignmentconsti^iction.Water: Water is available through major water main extensions, which. must be extended bythe developer at fhe developer's expense. A booster pump may be required in the southwestcomer of the development to ensure adequate pressure. The provision of water rights orcash-in-lieu thereof must be provided for phase 1.The provision by the property owner to the City of a "Right of Entry" form granting the Cityof Bozeman access to all open space areas of the subdivision for the drilling of a well orwells for drinkmg water supply will provide the City with a future avenue of water supply,if needed.;r: Sanitary sewer mains will be installed for this development. A Design Reportprepared by the developer's engineer will be required that studies the existing sewer maincapacities that will serve this subdivision. Any bottlenecks in the system must be correctedby the developer.Other Services: Power, postal, telephone and gas services can be provided to the property.FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER - SUNDANCE SPRINGS P.U.D.PAGE6 nnNATURAL ENVIRONMENT:Physical constrains exist on the property, as were first identified during the annexationprocess. Mitigations of the effects on the natural environment will include: 1) thepreparation of a Design Report by the developer's engineer that addresses roadway designsections and more specific soils information; 2) a 50-foot minimum stream setback on allstreams; 3) 404 pennits for wetland enhancement; 4) Flood Plain Development Permits; 5)no consta^iction withiu the 500 year flood plain; 6) the installation of clay or concrete cutoffwalls along all sanitary sewer lines and water lines to impede ground water migration alongpublic utility trenches; 7) limiting mowing within the Type 1 Management Areas; 8) and areconimendation in the covenants that organic fertilizer be used instead of chemicalfertilizer.Limiting constmction in the southeast comer of the development would provide additionalopen space and a better view corridor north from Goldenstein Lane along the SourdoughTrail. The developer will provide the City with a "first right of refusal" for the purchase ofall or any portion of the 16 lots proposed along Sweet Water Drive, at the time that phaseof the development is finalized.WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT:The development will leave 48% of the property in open space. As with any developmentof open space, wildlife and wildlife habitat will be affected to some degree. Wetlandenhancement will be provided by the developer, which will include one pond a minimumof one acre in size. The developer's wetland consultant will consult with the MontanaDepartment of Fish, Wildlife & Parks during the design of the wetland enhancement plan.A mimmum 50 foot stream setback, which is 15 feet wider than required, will be provided.Mowing will be limited in the Type 1 Management Areas to provide better coverage forwildlife and birds.PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY:There will be effects from the volume ofti'affic added to the existing road systems. The useof 24-foot wide interior sfreets should slow traffic and limit through traffic. The developerwill make improvements to the intersection of South Third Avenue and Goldeastein Lane,and sign waivers of right to protest SIDs/RIDs for future improvements in the area.Due to the high ground water on the property, residences with basements are stronglydiscouraged in the Covenants, and a notation will be added to the subdivision plat infonningbuyers of the potential for high ground water. Further reference in the foundation designsection of the Covenants regarding the potential for certain lots as having high ground waterwill also refer to lots bordering the open space in Block 4 west of the open space area.FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER - SUNDANCE SPRINGS P.U.D.PAGE7 nCOMPLIANCE WITH SURVEY REQUIREMENTS OF PART 4. CHAPTER 3. MONTANASUBDIVISION AND PLATTING ACT ('76-3-401 - 76-3-406:The subdivision shall comply with the siirvey requirements of this statute.COMPLIANCE WITH THE BOZEMAN AREA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ANDSUBIDI VISION REVIEW PROCEDURES:With certain conditions, the subdivision will comply with the Bozeman Area SubdivisionRegulations. Having been properly and completely submitted, and required public hearings. held, the subdivision complies with the subdivision review procedures.PROVISION OF EASEMENTS FOR THE LOCATION AND INSTALLATION OF PLANNEDUTILITIES:The subdivision will provide necessary easements for the location and installation of plannedutilities.PROVISION OF LEGAL AND PHYSICAL ACCESS TO EACH PARCEL WITHIN THESUBDIVISION:Legal and physical access to each parcel within the subdivision will be from internalsubdivision roads. No du-ect access to Goldenstein Lane or South Third Avenue will bepennitted, and the required notation of that access restriction will be placed on the final platof the subdivision.ORDERAfter considering all matters of record presented at the public hearings and meetings, whichis on record in the Clerk of the Commission's Office, the Bozeman City Commission found thatthe proposed Zoning Planned Unit Development for application Z-95125 to develop 147.2 acresfor 141 single-family residential lots and 6.18 acres of neighborhood service uses, and PreliminarySubdivision application P-9539 for Phase 1 of the Sundance Springs Planned Unit Developmentto create 67 lots for single-family residential use, two lots totaling 6.18 acres for neighborhoodservice uses, streets, and open space, could comply with the Bozeman Area Subdivision Regulations,Bozeman Zoning Ordinance, 1990 Bozeman Area Master Plan Update, and Montana SubdivisionFINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER -- SUNDANCE SPRINGS P.U.D.PAGE 8 nnand Platting Act if certain conditions are imposed on the project. The evidence that justifies theconditions is that the subdivision must comply the above-referenced documents, and adverseimpacts created by the subdivision, which require mitigation, justify the imposition of the conditionsbelow.THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the subject development be approved,subject to the conditions listed below. This City Commission order may be appealed by bringingan action in the Eighteenth District Court ofGallatin County, within 30 days after the adoption ofthis document by the City Commission, by following the procedures of Section 76-3-625, M.C.A.1. Preliminary plan/plat approval does not exempt the developer from impact fees which may beestablished at a later date which are based on final plat approval or building permit approval. Finalplan/plat approval shall be subject to any impact fees which may be implemented prior to said finalplan/plat approval. Development of individual lots shall be subject to any impact fees applicable 'to building permit applications implemented with any impact fee policy prior to building pennitapproval.2. Seven copies of the Final Site Plan for the Zoning Planned Unit Development which containsall of the conditions, corrections, and modifications approved by the City Coinmission which areapplicable to it shall be approved by the Planning Du-ector within three years following the approvalof the preliminary plan by the Bozeman City Commission. Upon application and for good cause,the Planning Director may administratively extend the period for filing a final site plan for twosuccessive six-month periods. Any additional six-month extensions must be approved, if at all, onlyby the Planning Board. The final site plan shall comply with Section 18.54.060® of the BozemaaZoning ordinance, as printed in the 9-93 Codification of the Bozeman Municipal Code, and shallbe adequately dimensioned. The final site plan must be approved prior to Final Subdivision Platapproval.The applicant shall enter into an Improvements Agreement with the City to guarantee the installationof required on-site improvements at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. These improvements willinclude those identified with each subdivision phase, including sidewalks fronting parks, open space,rear yard frontages, or other non-lot frontages, and landscape and trail improvements. Detailed costestimates, constmction plans, and methods of security for oa-site improvements shall be made a partof that Agreement. All required infrastructure and site improvements for Phase 1 shall be completedwithin two years after final approval.FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER -- SUNDANCE SPRINGS P.U.D.PAGE9 n^3. Prelunmary Subdivision Plat approval must be granted for each phase of the development, withthe final plat filed prior to the sale of any homesites within each phase. A building permit will notbe issued for any new construction within each phase until the final plat is filed and infrastructureimprovements are completed and accepted.4. The Final Subdivision Plat shall conform to the Uniform Standards for Final Subdivision Plats,contain all appropriate certificates, page titles, and be accompanied by all appropriate documents,including a Platting Certificate. A digital copy of the final plat, on a double sided, high-density 3!^inch floppy disk, shall be submitted with the final plat application. The Final Subdivision Plat mustbe approved within three years from the date of preliminary plat approval by the Bozeman CityCommission. Prior to the expiration date, the subdivider may submit a letter of request to thePlanning Director for a one year extension. Thereafter, the City Commission may approve anextension for not more than one additional calendar year.The Final Subdivision Plat may not be filed until the Final Site Plan is approved. If it is thedeveloper's mtent to file the final subdivision plat prior to the completion of all required subdivisionimprovements, which includes, but is not limited to, interior streets, curb, gutter, water aud sewer,pedestrian conveyance along South Third and Goldenstein, sidewalks fronting parks, open space,rear yard frontage, or other non-lot frontages, and storm water infrastructiire, a SubdivisionImprovements Agreement shall be entered into with the City of Bozeman guaranteeing thecompletion of all required Phase 1 improvements in accordance with the Preliminary Plat submittalinformation and conditions of approval. If the Fmal Subdivision Plat is filed prior to the installationof all improvements, the developer shall supply the City ofBozeman with an acceptable method ofsecurity equal to 150% of the cost of the remaining improvements. Under no circumstances willbuUding permits be issued prior to acceptance of subdivision infrastructure improvements (i.e.water, sewer, streets).The Final Subdivision Plat submittal must include a separate open space landscape plan for Phase1 which details the location and species of vegetative plantings and trail Lmprovemeats for reviewand approval by the Planning Office prior to final plat approval. The plan must show that all streetintersection sight triangles will be free of plantings which at mature growth will obscure visionwithin the sight ti-iangle.5. Approval of the Final Subdivision Plat from the Subdivision Program of the MontanaDepartment of Health and Environmental Sciences Water Quality Bureau must occur prior to FinalSubdivision Plat approval, pursuant to Section 16.16.101 through 16.16.805, ARM. Notificationof that approval must be submitted with the final plat.6. A Storm water Drainage/Treatment Plan for a system designed to remove solids, silts, oils,grease, and other pollutants must be provided to and approved by the City Engineer prior toinfrastizicture construction. The plan must demonstrate adequate site drainage (including sufficientspot elevations),, the hydraulic and drainage treatment properties of the proposed vegetated roadwayFINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER -- SUNDANCE SPRINGS P.U.D.PAGE 10 r"'?^":M•Mnswales, storm water detention/retentioa basin details (including basin sizing and dischargecalculations, and discharge stiucture details), aud storm water discharge destination. Sufficientstonn water systems shall be designed and constructed to support each phase of development.A storm water drainage/treatment facilities plan must be prepared and submitted to the CityEngineer for approval. The Plan must include the following provisions: description of maintenanceoperations, frequency of inspections and maintenance, responsible parties.and record keepingmethodology. It will ultimately be the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association to ensure thatthe Maintenance Plan is consistently enforced. It is further recommended that implementation ofthe plan be included in the covenants and therefore, a condition of plat approval.7. A site grading plan shall be prepared as a supplement to the project improvement drawings,which includes, at a minimum, existing contours, contours after the sti-eet is constructed but beforedevelopment grading, spot elevations and flow directional arrows. The plan must demonstrateadequate drainage to an acceptable discharge device, and should be used to establish street andbuilding foundation grades. If the grading design discloses any adverse impact to off-site properties,necessary design alterations and/or drainage conveyance devices and easements must be provided.8. Plans and specifications for all water, sewer, and stonn sewer main extensions, as well as publicand private streets (including curb, gutter, and sidewalks/pedestiian conveyances) prepared by aProfessional Engineer (PE) licensed in the state of Montana shall be provided to and approved bythe City Engineer, and where applicable, the County Road Superintendent. Water and sewer plansshall also be approved by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. The applicant shallprovide Professional Engineering services for Construction Inspection, Post-ConstructionCertification, and preparation of Mylar Record Drawings. Specific comments regarding the existingand proposed infrastructure shall be provided at that time. Consti-xiction shall not be initiated on thepublic infrastructiu-e improvements until the plans, specifications and shop drawings have beenapproved and a preconstruction conference has been conducted.Any proposed sewer lift stations or water booster stations, as well as the location of existing andproposed water and sewer mains and fire hydrants shall be shown on the Final Site Plan. Proposedmain extensions shall be noted as such.Proposed water mains on South Third and Goldenstein Lane shall be installed and accepted by theCity ofBozeman as part of the first phase to satisfy the requirement of a looped water system.Additional, required, internal water main loopmg will be addressed during the water and sewer planreviews. Project infrastincture phasing, including all utility phasing, shall be clearly shown duringplan and specification review to ensure adequate water looping requirements.INo sewer or water stubs shall be installed on the sewer and water mains in Goldenstein Lane exceptthose necessary to serve the Sundauce Springs development and those necessary at or near theintersection of South Thu-d Avenue and Goldenstein Lane.1 •FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER - SUNDANCE SPRINGS P.U.D.PAGE 11 y:0^^p^i^^ --yw^V" ••!{'••-IITo impede ground water migration along public utility trenches, clay or concrete cutoff walls shallbe installed along all sanitary sewer lines and water lines within the development and along theextension of the sewer line connecting with the existing sewer in Graf Street through Grafs FourthAddition. The location of the cutoff walls shall be subject to review and approval of the CityEngineer.9. All mfrastmcture improvements includmg 1) water and sewer main extensions, and 2) public andprivate streets, curb/gutter, sidewalks fronting parks, open space, rear yard frontage, or other non-lotfrontages, and related stonn drainage infrastructure improvements shall be constructed for eachphase prior to final plat approval of each phase. No building pennits will be issued prior toacceptance of subdivision infrastructure improvements.City standard residential sidewalks (including a concrete sidewalk section through all private driveapproaches) shall be constructed on all public and private street frontages of a property prior tooccupancy of any structure on the property. Upon the third anniversary of the plat recordation ofany phase of the subdivision, any lot owner who has not constructed said sidewalk shall, without ,.further notice, construct within 30 days said sidewalk for their lot(s), regardless of whether otherimprovements have been made upon the lot. This condition shall be included on the face of the finalsubdivision plat and in the covenants.10. Easements for the water and sewer main extensions, where needed, shall be a minimum of 30feet in width, with the utility located in the center of the easement or standard locations, with thepossible exception of the water mains on South Third and Goldensteia Lane. All existing andproposed utility easements shall be shown on the final subdivision plat and the final site plan, andutility easements shall be in the location required by the subdivision regulations unless a utilitycompany requests otherwise. A blanket utility note may not be used; each lot must show all utilityeasements.11. jniefinal_Eht^ayj1ho^^l^uMLc_acce^eassBEimt&JfilLA^^^^^^ access easements forall trails in the |entIrePUD ^faall be filed prior i6 final plan approvaL12. With regard to Ditch Relocation:a. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks shall be contacted by theapplicant regarding any proposed diteb/stream relocation and any required permits(i.e., 310,404, Turbidity exemption, etc.) obtained prior to final improvement planapproval.*b. The applicant shall obtain written permission from the ditch owner for any proposedrelocation or creation of any ponds therefrom.i •FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER -- SUNDANCE SPRINGS P.U.D.PAGE 12•^ ^::n13. With regard to flood plain:'iV"!^~;w<1.€T•;.-•':;:?i0&^f.. : •i ••'•^fc'"C-a. A Flood Plain Development Permit must be obtained from the City Engineer priorto approval of any work within the flood plain.b. The 100 year flood plain boundary and flood elevations must be depicted on the finalimprovement plan.c. Culvert sizing design calculations shall be provided for the stream crossing.d. All buildings must be flood-proofed to at least two feet above the 100 year floodelevation. Elevation Certificates must be provided for each building followingcompletion of construction.14. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Bureau, shall be contacted ^r<by the applicant to detennine if a Stonn Water Discharge Permit is necessary. Written notification % '^^of tfae need or no need for the permit shall be submitted with the construction drawings. If a pennitis required by the State, the developer shall demonstrate to the City full permit compliance.15. The developer's Professional Engineer, licensed in the State of Montana, shall be required toprepare a comprehensive Design Report evaluating existing capacity of water and sewer utilities.The report must include detailed hydraulic evaluations of each utility for both existing and post-development demands for each phase of development. The report findings must demonstrateadequate capacity to serve the full developmeut.If adequate water and/or sewer capacity is not available for full development, the report mustidentify necessary water system and sewer system improvements required for full development. Thedeveloper shall be responsible to complete the necessary system improvements to serve the fulldevelopment.The Design Report shall also include a roadway design section. The Report must include ananalysis of the on-site and future public right-of-way soil couditions, special gradingrecommendations, roadway bearing capacities, the impacts ofgroundwater on the design, projectedti-affic loadings, and street section(s) design. The design must incorporate the findings of anindependent oa-site soils investigations, existing groundwater monitoring investigations, and thefindings of the April 27, 1995 SCS study. .' - .•• ,^-.?The developer shall be responsible to increase the capacity of the 12" sewer extending between theintersections of Tracy/Hofiman and Mason/South Willson, in addition to one section of 8" sewerin Fairway Drive, south ofKagy Boulevard, which will be over capacity with the first phase of thesubdivision. It will be the responsibility of the developer to increase the capacity of the describedpipelines to adequately convey sewage effluent from the total future development, i.e. all phasescombined.FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER - SUNDANCE SPRINGS P.U.D.PAGE 13 ? - :"i^9:w^ ^^i'^^^w^^•^•^-'^The developer shall be responsible to have designed and constmcted a booster system to provid^ladequate pressure and volumes to the lots in the westerly portion of the project that may be impactedby potential inadequate water pressure in the City's water system. The system shall be subject toreview and approval by the City Engineer and shall be adequately addressed in the Design Report.16. The developer shall provide the City ofBozemaa a minimum 30 foot wide sewer easementextending along Graf Street from the north tenninus of Phase 1 to the northerly property boundaryof the development. The easement shall follow the future alignment of Graf Street. The developershall also cause to be provided to the City ofBozeman a minimum 30 foot wide sewer easementextending along the future alignment of Graf Street from the northerly property boundary to theexisting sewer main in existing Graf Street, north of the project.17. A 50 foot wide right-of-way shall be dedicated for the realignment of the intersection of SouthThird Avenue and Goldenstein Lane. A full 100 foot right-of-way shall be dedicated in the areawhere the future road falls entirely within the project site. A 45 foot wide right-of-way dedicationfor Goldenstem Lane shall also be provided along the section of Goldenstein Lane adjoining Phase1. A 20 foot wide right-of-way shall be dedicated along South Third Avenue for the entire lengthof the development (except where additional right-of-way is required). The widths of the right-of-way dedications for South Third Avenue and Goldenstein Lane shall be clearly indicated on the finalplat.18. The realigmnent of the roadway and intersection of South Third Avenue and Goldenstein Lane ^^.^^shall be funded and constructed by the developer, at standards approved by the County Road ^ ^'Superintendent. Improvements consistent with the City's G.O. Bond Issue project for South Third ^i^\Avenue shall be constructed by the developer for that portion of Soufh Third Avenue to be realignednear Goldenstein Lane, at standards approved by the City Engineer and County RoadSuperintendent. These improvements shall be consti^icted prior to final plat approval of Phase 1,unless included in a Subdivision Improvements Agreement. Building permits for the project willnot be issued for any lots within Phase 1 even if included in an Improvements Agreement. Theseimprovements must be completed prior to home or commercial construction in Phase 1. Thedeveloper shall obtain any wetland pennits required concerning the realigmnent and roadimprovements.19. Provisions for pedestrian conveyance along South Third Avenue and Goldenstein Lane shallbe provided by the developer. These provisions must meet wdth the County Road Supervisor'sapproval, and shall be completed prior to final plat approval of Phase F.; These improvements maybe financially guaranteed through an Improvements Agreement, and if so guaranteed, will notimpede the issuance of building pemiits within the project. However, the improvements must beconipleted within the time period allowed in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement.20. Internal sti-eets within the subdivision shall be contained within 70 foot wide rights-of-way andshall be constructed to the 24-foot standard proposed in the submittal.FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER -- SUNDANCE SPRINGS P.U.D.PAGE 14 '"'.^-^21. Graf Sti'eet shall continue through the project and not change names at the intersection withPeace Pipe Drive (i.e. eliminate reference to Wind Flower Drive), and shall tenninate at MorningSun Drive. The "South" designation" shall be dropped from Graf Street references.22. There shall be no centerline offset at the intersection of Wind Flower Drive and Peace PipeDrive.23. The word "future" shall be deleted from the "future sewer easement" between Lots 4 and 5,Block 8, on the final plat.AT24. Encroachment pennits shall be obtained from the County Road Office for all developmentste'eets existing onto South Third Avenue and Goldenstein Lane prior to construction of the streets.Street name and stop signs shall be provided at all road intersections.25. A waiver of right to protest the creation of Rural Improvement Districts and the possibleinstallation of a future signal light at the intersection of Goldenstein and South Third Avenue shallbe recorded with the final plat.V26. The property owner shall provide and file with the final subdivision plat an executed Waiverof Right to Protest Creation of Special Improvement Districts for improvements to South ThirdAvenue, between Kagy Boulevard and Goldenstein Lane, and for improvements to the SouthThirdAVillson/Kagy Boulevard intersection (to include signalization), unless the document isalready on file with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. The Waiver shall specify thatin the event SIDs are not utilized for the completion of these projects, the owner shall agree toparticipate in an alternate financing method for completion of said improvements on a fair share,proportionate basis as detennined by the square footage of the property, Imear front footage of theproperty, taxable valuation of the property, or combination thereof. Said Waiver shall be acovenants running with the land and shall not expire.27. A 100 foot wide linear park from the northwest comer of Gardner Park, west along the northproperty boundary for a distance of 500 feet, then reduce the width to 50 feet and continue westalong fhe north property boundary to Graf Sti-eet shall be dedicated with Phase 1. This linear parkshall become an extension of Gardner Park.A 50 foot wide linear park from the southeast coma- ofMcLeodPark north along the east boundaryofMcLeod Park to the end of Sundance Drive, then east along the north property boundary to theproperty comer, then north to the northwest property comer and fiinally east along the north propertyboundary to Graf Street shall be dedicated with PhaseJ_. This dedication shall include the 50 feetof Graf Sti-eet to connect the extenslonof Gardner Park. and wilt become an extension of McLeod •Park.The final Zoning PUD and final Subdivision designs shall provide a minimum of 50 feet of openspace, owned and controlled by the homeowners association, between all residential lots anddedicated linear parks.FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER - SUNDANCE SPRINGS P.U.D.PAGE 15..^-~: --•'"s-^^ga^FsyiitWWTCT.^^-.:-,;."- -VSf^y^r^--;-"-"^nThe developer's wedand consultant shall consult with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife &Parks during the design of the wetland enhancement plan. At least one pond shall be a minimumof one acre in size.The developer shall not be required to construct the trail(s) through McLeod Park, but shall contactand work with the Gallatin County Conmussion regarding the possibility of the installation of atiial(s) through McLeod Park. This contact will then provide an opportunity for.volunteer groupsto construct the ti-ail network. If the Gallatin County Commission will not grant approval for theconstruction of a trail(s) through McLeod Park, the developer, in the appropriate phase, shallconsti^ict a trail through the open space north of Peace Pipe Drive to connect McLeod Park to SouthThird Avenue, with a connection to Good Medicine Way and a second coimection to Peace PipeDrive between Blocks 8 and 10.The Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee shall be contacted by the developer with regard toa linear trail, with a pennanent public trail easement, to be constmcted by the developer, on the west^ide^ftihe^xi^m^freesmthenprtheast^ppenspace^ar^ SourDough Trail to the trail on the north boundary of the subdivision. The location and construction ofthe trail shall be approved by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee. This ti'ail shall bedevelop ed_whegjhatj)has'e of the property develops. If the Parks and Recreation AdvisoryCommittee finds that this trail is not wanted or needed as part of the linear trail system, thedeveloper shall not be required to install it.28. The developer shall participate in resolving any identified vertical alignment problems onGoldenstein Lane to the satisfaction of the County Road Superintendent and City ofBozeman.29. A documented market shidy shall be provided prior to submittal of the final site plan for thezoning PUD that shows the proposed uses within the neighborhood service area (Blocks 10 and 11)will be supported by the area residents. If the study does not conclude that 50% of the business willbe generated from this area, development of the neighborhood service lots will not be allowed. Usespermitted on these lots include professional offices and other pennitted uses listed in the B-lneighborhood service disb^ct chapter of the Bozeman Zoning Ordinance. Full site plan reviewand/or subdivision review will be required for all development within Blocks 10 and 11, Phase 1subdivision. If not allowed, a maximum of six additional single-family residential lots could becreated within these two blocks via further subdivision review and approval.All coinmercial structures shall be fully protected with an approved fire sprinkler system, unlesswaived by the Fire Chief in the event a fire station is consti^icted cfoser to the site which willprovide adequately improved response times.The need for mitigation to the long fire department response times which are probable prior to thetime new fire station facilities may be constructed nearer to this area, such as, but not limited to,sprinklering of residential dwelling structures, shall be left to the discretion of the Fire Chief.FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER - SUNDANCE SPRINGS P.U.D.PAGE 16 r^'»»The hours of business for all uses within the neighborhood service lots shall be limited to 7 a.m.through 9 p.m.30. The final subdivision plat shall contain the following:a) A note stating: Due to the relatively high groundwater table within the subdivision, it isnot recommended that structures with full or daylight basements be constructed.b) The "landowner" and "floodplain" notes shown on the preliminary plat shall be clarified..'".'"'. c) A "no access" note prohibited direct access to Goldenstein Lane and South Third Avenuefor all lots fronting those streets.d) The correct site statistics for phase 1.31. The County Weed Control Officer shall approve a Weed Control Plan for the subdivision, auda signed copy of the Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Office prior to final subdivision platapproval. Any mitigations requu-ed in the plan shall be completed by the developer, and approvedby the,:County Weed Control Officer in writing, prior to final plat approval.32. A 10 foot wide maintenance easement shall be provided on both sides of all irrigation ditches.33. The Covenants and Design Guideliaes shall be amended as follows.a) The Covenants shall be amended to indicate that the City ofBozeman is a party to theCovenants, and any covenant contained therein as a condition of preliminary plan or platapproval and required by the City Commission may not be amended or revoked without themutual consent of the owners in accordance with the amendment procedures listed in thecovenants, and by the City ofBozeman.SECTION I. RESIDENTIAL LOTSb) Clarify Article IX, Section 9.4, Mowing Practices, to state that the Fire Chief shall becontacted by the Homeowner's Association regarding the need to mow in Type 1Management Areas for fire preventiou. If not necessary, Type 1 Management Areas shallbe left in a natural, uumowed state.c) Add a statement to Article IX, Section 9.15 of the Covenants that requires the right-of-way (barrow pits) to be mowed and maintained by the homeowners and/or HomeownersAssociation, and that specifically states that the barrow ditches may not be filled.)g|||||FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER - SUNDANCE SPRINGS P.U.D.'sssss^si^s'^-PAGE 17 ^swa^wsss.s,^H^^^^^»'.^"aCT^;,«^?..:'^W''^^:^•^3k,fSS^-'~iWWWr^d) Article IX, Section 9.15. Because an alternative street standard was accepted, add asection which specifically discusses the maintenance of the interior roadways (e.g. sidewalksnow removal along open spaces, driveway and sti'eet intersection culverts, weed mowing,pothole patching, etc.).e) Page 28, Section 9,15. correct the spelling of "except" to "accept".f) Page 20, Section 10.4, Eliminate first sentence regarding detennining maximum roofheight, and just reference a 34 foot maximum height.g) Page 20, Section 10.6, Foundation Design. Add reference to the lots bordering the openspace in Block 4 west of the open space area, with regard to the potential for these lotshaving high ground water.h) Page 22, Correct spelling throughout Section 11.2.d, "eves" to "eaves".i) Page 24. Correct or eliminate drawing in Section 1 1.6.c regarding exposed concrete.j) Page 27. Amend the reference to on-street parking in Section 11.8 to delete the lastsentence regardmg the acceptableness of parking temporary visitor's cars over-night on thestreet.k) Add the following to Section 12.7, page 29: All light fixtures shall be arranged to deflectlight down and/or away from adjoining properties and streets. Lighting fixtures mustincorporate cut-off shields to direct light downward. Luminaires shall not be visible fromadjacent streets or properties. Fixtures should be compatible with architectural and sitedesign.1) Page 32. Section 12.15, Signs. Home occupation signs are limited to no more than twosq.ft. per the Sign Code. Correct to comply.m) Section 12.18, page 32. Add a statement that recommends the use of organic fertilizerinstead of chemical fertilizer, and that the fertilizer be applied when plants are active.n) Section 12.18, page 32. Add to third sentence from end, that native bushes and ti-ees maybe planted in the rear yard setbacks in addition to the fescue seed mixes.o) Add a section infomiing lot owners that an Elevation Certificate must be provided to theCity Engineer for each building within the 100 year floodplain following completion ofconstruction.p) Page 39. Add a paragraph regarding installation of sidewalks per the City policy.^FINDD^GS OF FACT AND ORDER - SUNDANCE SPRINGS P.U.D.PAGE 18 w"^.I0tSECTION II. NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICESy,' y:.('•iOa) Page 19, Section 9.4 Eliminate first sentence regarding detemiination of building height,and just reference a maximum 34 foot building height.b) Page 23, correct spelling throughout Section 10.2.d., "eavs" to "eaves".-c) Page 26, Section 10.8. Clarify section regarding on-sta-eet parking per the CityCommission's decision on street standards, to prohibit all parking of cars or other vehicleson the streets.d) Page 27, Section 11.6, Exterior lighting. Add a sentence stating lights cannot be higherthan the height of the building or 20 feet, whichever is less. Add the following statement:All light fixtures shall be arranged to deflect light down and/or away from adjoiningproperties and streets. Lighting fixtures must incorporate cut-off shields to direct lightdownward. Luminaires shall not be visible from adjacent streets or properties. Fbctures. should be compatible with architectural and site design.e) Section 11.14, page 29. Add a statement that recommends the use of organic fertilizerinstead of chemical fertilizer, and that the fertilizer be applied when plants are active.f) Add a section regarding installation of sidewalks per the City policy.g) Clarify Article XII, Section 12.4, Mowing Practices, to state that the Fire Chief shall becontacted regarding the need to mow in Type 1 Management Areas for fire prevention. Ifnot necessary, Type 1 Management Areas shall be left in a natural, umnowed state.h) Add a statement to Article XII, Section 12.15 of the Covenants that requires the right-of-way (barrow pits) to be mowed and maintained by the homeowners and/or HomeownersAssociation, and that specifically states that barrow ditches may not be filled.i) Because an alternative sti'eet standard was accepted, add a section which specificallydiscusses the maintenance of&e interior roadways (e.g. sidewalk snow removal along openspaces, driveway and street intersection culverts, weed mowing, pothole patching, etc.).j) Include a section which limits the hours of business for all uses within the neighborhoodsendee lots to 7 a.m. through 9 p.m. ^: ?34. The owner shall sign a "Right of Entry" form, or other similar document satisfactory to the CityAttorney, granting the_Cit^ofBozeman_accessJo^lljQ^n_Sp_a£e.areas_ofjthe subdivision, anddedicating an^asement(s) for public utilitx_purposes, which would bejumitedjp grilling a well orwells for dririking^ater su£ply,_on the final pjat_of the. subdiyision. The "Right of Entry" fonn shalldesignate that all wells shall be constructed so as to have a minimal visual impact.xFINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER - SUNDANCE SPRINGS P.U.D.PAGE 19 •,.»ssiy-"'.wvK^.f^•;.' ^:: •Vv^^Vvf^^j^^SS'^i'sy^^:-^^??^"^'^'»^'s^^ %^y®-*-t.'^t';?;^^;«^^• n<.^.-..m;.a»35. The developer shall grant the City ofBozeman the first right of refusal for the purchase ofall^or any portion of the 16 lots proposed along Sweet Water Drive, at the time that phase of thedevelopment is finalized.36. The right to a use and occupancy pennit for the Zoning PUD shall be contingent upon thefulfilhnent of all general and special conditions imposed on the Conditional Use Permit.37. All of the special conditions imposed by the City Commission shall constitute restiictionsrunning with the land use and shall be binding upon the owner of the land, his successors or assigns.38. All of the special conditions required by the City Commission shall be consented to in writingby the applicant prior to final plan or plat approval.39. The Annexation Agreement for the property must be finally accepted by the City Commission v~v5<^i—^and filed at the Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to the approval of a final plan or plat for theproperty.40. Water rights or a cash-in-lieu fee in an amount determined by the Director of Public Service ^ \^shall be provided prior to final plat approval.The preliminaiy approval of this development shall be effective for three (3) years from thedate of adoption of this document by the City Commission. At the end of this period the CityCommission may, at the request of the subdivider, extend its approval as indicated in Conditions ,2 and 4 of this document.DATED this 22nd day of January _^1996.BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSIONATTEST:c«>Robin L. SullivanClerk of the CommissiouBY:^Don E. Stueck, Mayor,. ,^.7APPROVED AS TO FORM:/"'..^"%//' ^' 7•/t-AfM.^PaulJ.Luwe VCity^AttomeyFINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER " SUNDANCE SPRINGS P.U.D.PAGE 20 Appendix 5 – 2020 Concept Plan Review Page 1 of 11 October 1, 2020 Marlene Chris Synergy Engineering and Konsulting Western Mountain Investments LLC marlene@seakmt.com chris@westernmountaininvestments.com RE: Development Review Comments for the Sundance Springs Phase 1B Commercial Lot 2 Conceptual Review Application No. 20298; Sundance Springs Subdivision Phase 1B, Commercial Lot 2 Plat J-257, Geocode No. 06-0798-25-1-08-14-0000, Bozeman, MT. Dear Applicants: Your September 2, 2020 application for a Conceptual Review of development of two commercial buildings on the above-referenced 1.3-acre property was reviewed by the City’s Development Review Committee (DRC) on September 23, 2020 and their comments are noted below. If you have questions about the comments please contact the reviewer directly. If you have any questions about the content of this letter, please feel free to contact me at 406- 582-2285 or smontana@bozeman.net. We look forward to working with you on this proposal and await your site plan submittal. Thank you. Sincerely, Susana Montana, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development Attachments: Fire apparatus turn-around requirements Trash enclosure solid waste requirements Page 2 of 11 Application No. 20298; Sundance Springs Commercial Lot 2, Phase 1B Site Plan CONR review comments Context: Property/Site: Commercial Lot 2, Plat J-257 Sundance Springs Subdivision Phase 1B. Geocode: 06-0798-25-1-08-14-0000; no address; 1.3 acres in size Zoned B-1, Neighborhood Service District pursuant to the 1998 Sundance Springs Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan. The Site is designated for a “Village Store” in the Sundance Springs Master Plan map. The Future Land Use Plan map of the City’s Community Plan/Growth Policy designates the Site for Community Commercial Mixed Use development. The Site is designated a Landscape Block Frontage on its west (S. 3rd Avenue) and south (Little Horse Dr.) frontages. The north frontage of the Site borders a City Park and trail and any buildings facing the park/trail would meet the Mixed Block Frontage standards per the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) Section 38.510.030.I. Property is an irregularly-shaped corner lot at the northeast corner of S. 3rd Avenue and Little Horse Road. It is bordered on the east by the Middle Creek Ditch watercourse which lies within the Sundance Springs Subdivision Open Space Lot which is owned, operated and maintained by the Sundance Springs Home Owners Association (HOA). It is also bordered on its north, east and west sides by a portion of that Sundance Springs open space designation. The subdivision plat shows a 13.47-foot wide open space easement bordering the Site on its west frontage. North of the Site lies the 0.417-acre Ellis View Estates Public Park owned, operated and maintained by the City of Bozeman, granted to the City by the Ellis View Estates subdivision developer. Within the bounds of the Site is a gravel/dirt trail meandering along its northern and western edges which connects to trails within the larger Sundance Springs open space lot to the east and to an existing sidewalk along the Little Horse Rd. right-of-way (ROW). Bordering the Site to the west is S. 3rd Avenue and to the south is Little Horse Road. There is no sidewalk abutting the Site along S. 3rd Avenue. Proposed Development: The Applicant is proposing to develop a commercial center consisting of two 2-story buildings, parking areas, trails, a splash-park water feature, and an on-site trail extension to the existing trail on the north edge of the Site. The Applicant is proposing to build one building which would house 2nd-story office use and a ground floor micro-brewery and restaurant (Building #1). A second building would house 2nd-story office use and ground floor retail and a neighborhood grocery store (Building #2). The Applicant would develop, own, operate and maintain the common areas including vehicle and bicycle parking, landscaping, open space and recreation amenities and trails. Page 3 of 11 Community Development Department Comments, Susana Montana, Senior Planner, 406- 852-2285, smontana@bozeman.net: Note that the BMC references herein refer to the relevant sections and tables of the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) also known elsewhere as the Unified Development Code (UDC). 1. BMC 38.410.100.A.1.a (1) b. Watercourse Setback. The concept site plan does not show or label the required watercourse setback from Middle Creek Ditch (formal name) shown with a “ghosted” label of “Spring Creek”. There is one label of 50-feet at the southern end of the site plan but it does not extend to the entire east side of the Site. There is also a light image of a blue line near the eastern trail but it does not match the legend for “watercourse setback” and is hard to see. Please provide a wetlands delineation report and amended site plan with this area shown. Note that no fence, commercial structure, fill material, parking or other similar improvements may be located within required watercourse setback [38.410.100.A.1.a. (2)]. Please show and label the dimensions of the required watercourse setback relative to all such features on the Site. 2. 38.510.020. F.1 and 38.510.030.I. Block Frontage orientation. Pursuant to the BMC Block Frontage hierarchy, buildings on the Site must first be sited and placed on the property to face the street, then a park or trail, and then a parking area. The buildings on this Site must face either S. 3rd Avenue or Little Horse Rd. Both the S. 3rd Avenue and Little Horse Rd. frontages are designated Landscape Block Frontages. Pursuant to 38.510.030.C, parking must be placed to the side or rear of the buildings. a. According to the site plan Sheet C-101 and the Ground Floor Planned Uses Sheet C- 102A, Building #1 has its main entrance facing Little Horse Rd. which meets the Landscape Block Frontage standard. However, it is showing parking spaces “in front of” the building facing the Little Horse Road Landscape Block Frontage. This is not permitted with the Landscape Block Frontage designation; please remove the parking from this frontage. b. The site plan and Sheet C-102A shows Building # 2 with its main entrance facing a parking lot on the north side of the Site, rather than facing S. 3rd Avenue. Furthermore, the Landscape Plan Sheet C-104 shows a 3-feet high earthen berm along the S. 3rd Avenue property boundary with tall landscaping along the berm which would obscure views of both buildings from the S. 3rd Avenue frontage. The secondary hierarchy Block Frontage for Building #2 would be that of its north frontage which abuts a designated Sundance Springs Open Space Lot and trail. If Building #2 cannot “fit” along the Little Horse Rd. or be seen from its S. 3rd Avenue Page 4 of 11 frontage due to the berm and vertical vegetation, it should address the standards of 38.510.030.I which require the standards of a Mixed Block Frontage per Table 38.510.030.C, with a minimum building setback of 10-feet from the Sundance Springs open space/trail easement. Please provide a code-complying pedestrian connection from the open space trail to the Building #2 entrance. With a site plan submittal, please provide a narrative, site plan and elevations for Building #2 addressing these standards. 3. BMC 38.510.030.C. Landscape Block Frontage. It is noted that there are two “frontages” for this corner lot: the S. 3rd Avenue frontage designated a Landscape Block Frontage and the Little Horse Rd. frontage also designated a Landscape Block Frontage. On those frontages, a 10-foot wide landscaped setback is required and this appears to be provided. Please clearly label those setbacks on the site and landscape plans. 4. BMC 410.020.A. Neighborhood Center. The proposed 1.3-acre development would serve as half of the neighborhood center for the Sundance Springs subdivision; the 5-acre Commercial Lot 1 to the south would complete the required neighborhood center for this subdivision. 5. Land Uses. The 1998 Sundance Springs PUD designated this property as B-1, Neighborhood Service District, pursuant to the 1992 zoning ordinance. That designation allowed food stores and restaurants as principal permitted uses. The 1992 zoning ordinance required office use and restaurants serving alcoholic beverages to seek and justify conditional use authorization. Current Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) standards for a B-1 zone-equivalent is the B-1, Neighborhood Commercial District. Currently, the current B-1 zone allows office and grocery stores as principal uses but requires Special Use authorization for restaurants selling alcohol (BMC 38-230.120). Breweries of this scale would be deemed “manufacturing, artisan” and would be a principal permitted use without the on-site sale of alcohol. If you wish to sell the alcoholic beverage for consumption on-site, please submit an application for the Special Use permit with the site plan submittal. The Special Use permit criteria for evaluating your project are found in BMC sections 38.230.100, 38.230.120 and 38.230.110.e through I. This process is an administrative process, although it does require public notice involving a posted notice on the property, mail notice to adjacent property owners, and a legal notice in the local newspaper. Page 5 of 11 6. Lot Size. a. The 1992 B-1 zone limited lot size to 5,000 square feet (sf) and 50-feet in width. It limited building height to 32-feet and allowed 100% lot coverage. It is noted that this lot is 1.3-acres in size with a lot width along Little Horse Rd. at 131.57-feet; both exceed the PUD B-1 zoning standard. This may be deemed administratively as a legal nonconforming lot area conditions pursuant to BMC 38.380.030. Please make that request in your site plan narrative. b. The current BMC B-1 zone standards (1) do not limit lot size; (2) allow 100% lot coverage; (3) require a minimum 50-feet lot width; (4) requires a minimum floor-to- ceiling (FTC) height of 13-feet for the first floor of buildings; and (5) limits building heights to 38-feet if the roof pitch is greater than 3:12. The proposed buildings are 30-feet in height with a ground-floor floor-to-ceiling height of 13-feet; both meet BMC standards. 7. Setbacks. The 1992 B-1 zone requires a 25-foot front yard, a 20-feet rear yard and 5- feet side setbacks. The current BMC B-1 zone requires zero to 10-feet front landscaped setbacks, a 10-feet rear setback, and 5-feet side setbacks per BMC 38.320.020.F and 38.510.030.C. For these setback purposes, the “front” of the Site abuts Little Horse Road; its rear abuts the Sundance Springs open space lot to the north; and the sides are the Middle Creek Ditch irrigation ditch/Sundance Springs open space lot to the east and S. 3rd Avenue to the west with the 13.47-feet trail easement along that lot frontage. The site plan labels this 13.47-feet open space easement as 10-feet and does not indicate that it is a platted easement (which it is); please label that easement in the revised site and landscape plans. 8. BMC 38.400. 110 and 38.420.110. Transportation pathways. a. The existing Sundance Springs Trail gravel/dirt trail lies within the Site along its north and west edges. This trail is deemed a Recreation Pathway per 38.420.110.B and must meet those standards for development, easement and maintenance. b. Please provide details of the development/improvements for the “proposed trail extension” along the east and southeast side of the Site. c. The S. 3rd Avenue frontage is deemed a “Transportation pathway” and must meet the sidewalk, bike lane, trail standards of 38.400.110.B.1 with the 5-feet wide Landscape Block Frontage sidewalk standards of Table 38.510.030.C. The site plan does not show a sidewalk along the S. 3rd Avenue right-of-way connecting to the Little Horse Rd frontage sidewalk. It shows a 2-foot addition to an existing asphalt pathway; however, this does not connect to the Little Horse sidewalk. The Road Improvements Sheet C-103 Note No. 3 indicates that a bike lane will be provided Page 6 of 11 within the S. 3rd Avenue ROW to “tie into the existing bike lane 500’ north of the property”. Note No. 4 states that sidewalk widths are 5 feet. d. Building #2 has its main entrance facing a parking lot and the Sundance Springs open space and trail beyond. Therefore, its “frontage” represents a Mixed Block Frontage pursuant to BMC 38.510.030.I. The building has ground floor retail uses must meet the setback standards of BMC Table 38.510.030.D. Per the BMC B-1 zoning, Table 38.320.050, the first floor must have the minimum 13-feet FTC height. The storefront façade must meet the façade transparency standards of the Storefront block frontage per BMC 38.510.030.D and B. The Mixed Block Frontage designation and standards do not limit the location of the associated parking lot, so it may be located in front of the building. The sidewalk must be a minimum of 5- feet wide with an extra 2 feet width provided where parking spaces abut the sidewalk per BMC 38.520.040.D.2. Please make this correction to Note No. 4 on Sheet C-103 and on Sheet C-104. e. BMC 38.400.110.G and 38.420.110.E and F. Please provide a copy of the recorded perpetual public access easement for the north and west trails located within the Site and provide a copy of the maintenance agreement for those trails in perpetuity, including snow removal. 9. Parking. a. Parking for commercial land uses is calculated at the “net” square footage which, per 38.540.010.A.1.a, means 85% of the gross floor area of each use. Sheet C-120B lists the office use as a combined gross floor area of 5,465 square feet (gsf). The net square footage, at 85%, is 4,645 sf. The parking requirement for office use at a ratio of 1 space per 250 net sf is 18 spaces. b. Sheet C-102A shows retail uses of a combined 2,208 gsf requiring 6 parking spaces at a ratio of 1:300 for the 1,876 net sf (nsf) of that space. c. That same sheet shows a micro-brewery establishment with 577 gsf of beer production space which would require 1 parking space at the manufacturing rate of 1:1,000 nsf, plus 1 space per 2 employees of the brewery on a maximum working shift. For this purpose we will assume a maximum brewery shift of two employees for a total of 2 parking spaces for this brewery use. d. Sheet 102A shows a brewery tasting room/restaurant with 1,183 gsf of indoor serving area and 622 gsf of outdoor serving area. The parking requirement for this use is 1 space per 50 nsf of indoor serving area plus 1 space per 100 nsf of outdoor serving area. The parking requirement for the 1,005 nsf of indoor serving space is 20 parking spaces and for the 528 nsf of outdoor serving space is 5 spaces for a Page 7 of 11 total of 25 spaces for this use. The total minimum parking requirement for all uses on the Site is 51 off-street parking spaces. The site plan is showing 47 spaces which is deficient by 4 spaces. Note that the 5 spaces abutting Building #1 to the south are not allowed in front of the Little Horse Rd. Landscape Block Frontage area. Please reconfigure the parking lot areas and correct the Table C.103 on Sheet C-103 as follows, filling in the blanks in the table below. Land Use Gross sf on site Net sf at 85% of gsf Ratio of Required spaces to nsf No spaces required No. spaces provided Differences Requested Reduction per 38.540.050.A.2.c(1), Table 050-4 office 5,465 4,645 1 per 250 nsf 18 20% or 3 spaces retail 2,208 1,876 1:300 nsf 6 40% or 2 spaces brewery 577 490 1:1,000 nsf plus 1:2 employees 2 30% or 0.5 Restaurant 1,183 indoor serving space 1,005 1:50 nsf 20 % of 25 or 12 spaces 622 outdoor serving space 528 1:100 nsf 5 Total vehicle parking spaces requires for the Site 51 47 -4 Bicycle parking required at 10% of required vehicle # 5 33 +28 e. Note No. 12 of Sheet C-103 refers to a Mixed Block Frontage designation. The Site has two frontages, both of which are designated Landscape Block Frontages which require parking to be to the side, rear, below or above uses. A mixed Block Frontage designation would only apply to the Site’s north boundary which abuts an open space/trail per 38.510.030.I. Please make this correction to Sheet C-103. 10. BMC 38.520.040. Non-motorized circulation and design. a. Please label the widths of sidewalks on the site plan, landscape plan and road improvements sheet. b. Please show a pedestrian crosswalk meeting the standards of this section on all parking lot rows to the adjacent building. Please describe the materials to be applied. c. Please provide a pathway from the drive aisle to each of the bicycle parking areas. d. Please provide a pedestrian pathway connecting the 3rd Avenue on-site trail to the entrance to Building #1 and from the north off-site open space trail to the entrance to Building # 2. Page 8 of 11 11. The Site area is 1.312-acres in size or 57,150 sf. The open space requirement for commercial developments is 2% of the site area or 1,143 sf for this Site. Sheet C-103 Note No. 11 indicates that the open space provided on-site is 7,312 sf. Please provide a calculation box or table on both the site plan and landscape plans showing what elements constitute this open space and the size of each. 12. 38.520.070. B. Loading Zones. Please show a loading zone for deliveries to both buildings with screening required by this section. 13. BMC 38.220.100. Landscape Plan. a. Please make corrections to the Sheet C-104 Landscape Plan per the Block Frontage, open space and parking comments noted above. b. Please provide a calculation box or table showing the contents of the landscape plan required by BMC 38.220.100.C.5 through 10 and 17. c. The legend that is associated with Note No. 2, is not accurately shown on the map. Please add the species icon next to the row for that species on the requested landscape table. d. Please correct Note No. 4 to add the additional 2-feet to sidewalks that abut parking spaces where parked vehicles could block pedestrian pathways per BMC 38.520.040.D.2. e. On Sheet C-104, Note No. 7, please also provide a calculation or table showing the required open space requirement and identifying what elements, and their square footage, that constitute this open space. f. BMC 3/.520.040. Non-motorized circulation and design. Please show a pedestrian connection from the main entrance of Building #2 to the existing “walking and bike path” of the Sundance Springs Open Space Lot to the north of the Site. Please show a pedestrian connection from the S. 3rd Avenue bike trail and internal trail to the sidewalk of Building #1. g. Please label the width of the minimum 3-feet of landscaping separating the sidewalk and the building façade per 38.520.040.D.3. h. Please add a note on Sheet C-104 stating that no parking space shall be located more than 70-feet from a tree per 38.550.050.C.2.c. 14. BMC 38.520.070. Service areas and mechanical equipment. On the site plan, landscape plan and road improvements sheets, please show the locations and design of trash enclosures meeting these standards as well as the access standards of the City’s Solid Waste Division. It is noted that there is no turn-around area for garbage trucks or fire engines. These large vehicles cannot be expected to back-out of parking lots. Please provide an adequate turn-around area for these large service vehicles (handout attached). Page 9 of 11 15. BMC 38.570.010. Lighting. Please show the location of parking lot lighting standards on the landscape plan and road improvements sheets. Please provide details of the light standards and cut sheets of all exterior light fixtures with the site plan submittal. 16. Building Design. a. BMC 38.510.030. Block Frontage standards. As noted above, the facades of the buildings with the main entrances must meet the applicable Block Frontage standards for ground-floor treatments including minimum floor-to-ceiling heights, building placement, building entrance treatments, façade transparency, weather protection features and parking location. Please provide a calculation box for each façade describing the required and provided façade transparencies. b. BMC 38.530.040. Building massing and articulation. Please describe in a narrative and show and label on the building elevation sheets how each building meets the façade articulation requirements of subsection B and C. c. BMC 38.530.050. Building details. Please describe in a narrative and show and label on the building elevation sheets how each building meets the building detail standards of subsection B and E. d. BMC 38.530.060. Building materials. Please provide a narrative and table describing how each façade building materials meets these standards. e. Which building façade is depicted on Sheet C-120? 17. BMC 38.410.130.Water Rights. Please describe how the development proposes to meet the regulations of this section of the BMC. Bozeman Fire Department, Scott Mueller, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal, 582-2382, smueller@bozeman.net. Please provide a fire apparatus turn-around meeting the standards of the 2018 International Fire Code, Appendix D (attached). Page 10 of 11 Bozeman Solid Waste Division, Russ Ward, Assistant Superintendent, rward@bozeman.net | 406-582-3235 1. Need to identify location of refuse enclosure. 2. Need detailed plan for refuse enclosure (see attached handout). 3. Refuse enclosure will need to be covered. Northwest Energy, Tom Stewart, District Engineer – Bozeman Division O 406-582-4602, C 406-223-0573, thomas.stewart@northwestern.com New Construction (1-833-672-9453) Apply Online at www.northwesternenergy.com/construction 24-Hour Service 888-467-2669 121 East Griffin Drive I P.O. Box 490 I Bozeman, MT 59771-0490 20298 – SUNDANCE SPRINGS Commercial CONR, Kory Graham Project Engineer. Will the buildings need three phase or single phase electric service? Elevation plans show only one building which looks similar to building #2 as shown on the site plan. Need to show proposed gas and electric meter locations on both the building site plan and elevation plans. Meter location. NorthWestern Energy reserves the right to specify the location of our meters. All meters are to be located outdoors on the corner of the building or wall area closest to the transformer serving your property. On new construction, electric meter locations must be within 10 feet of the gas meter if NorthWestern Energy will be providing both electric and gas service. Meter locations will need to be approved by NWE. NWE policy is to maintain a minimum 30-inches wide by 3-feet clear zone Page 11 of 11 between the front of the meter and landscape screening and allow easy access to the meters for operation and maintenance. This can be determined through the design process after an application is submitted through NWE and the area project engineer will work through allowable shrubs and plants for screening and to determine adequate clearances for access to our meters. The following applies to all buildings in regards to the gas regulator. The gas regulator cannot be placed under a window or within 3’ of the operable portion of the window. It can be placed under a window/deck on the second story, provided the “open/operable” portion has at least 6’ of clearance from the regulator. Ensure that there is 10’ of separation from any mechanical air intake, including air conditioning units. The regulator will need to be 3’ from the closest corner of any portion of the electric meter base. Submitting an application to NWE will get the NWE project engineer involved and can help with this process. Transformer location to Building. If the buildings will be requiring 3 phase power a transformer pad site should be planned. Typical 3-phase pad is going to be a 7’x7’ pad. For oil filled transformers a 2-foot clearance is required to non-combustible walls and surfaces that do not have any openings such as doors, windows, air intake, and fire escapes routes. For transformers 750kVA & larger a 3-foot 6-inch clearance is required. For both locations, 10-feet of clearance is required on the front side of the pad where the transformer doors are located. Note, all distances are referenced to the edge of the pad. For any combustible surface a minimum of a 10-foot clearance is required. For planting of bushes or shrubs a Minimum Working Space for a Pad-Mounted Transformer, is 4- feet on the sides and back portion of the concrete pad and 10-feet of clearance on the front side of the pad where the transformer doors are located. Note, all distances are referenced to the edge of the pad. The NWE project engineer will help to determine the appropriate location for the transformer. Utility easement. Any extension of gas main or electric primary will need to be installed within an easement. To establish the needed utility easement locations the NWE project engineer and Northwester Energy’s real estate representative will help to establish these locations as well as the needed documentation. Submit an application online to have the area project engineer work with the applicant. Go to www.northwesternenergy.com/construction to apply online Montana Construction Application, and access Montana New Service Guide to provide information on electric and gas service requirements.