HomeMy WebLinkAboutStory Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development
Report compiled on November 13, 2007
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development P-07159 Findings
of Fact
MEETING DATE: Monday, April 7, 2008
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development
findings of fact documenting the 12/3/2007 decision by the City Commission.
BACKGROUND: The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development was given
preliminary approval on December 3, 2007. The findings of fact documenting the review, public
hearing, and Commission decision have been prepared. The Commission must now give final
approval to the findings.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None
FISCAL EFFECTS: None
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
CONTACT: Please contact Chris Saunders at csaunders@bozeman.net or 582-2260 if you have
questions on this item.
APPROVED BY: Chris Kukulski, City Manager
Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Attachments: Findings of Fact for the Story Mill Neighborhood PUD.
86
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
BEFORE THE BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION
GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF BLUE
SKY DEVELOPMENT AND WAKE-UP INC.,
REPRESENTED BY HYALITE ENGINEERS AND GBD
ARCHITECTS, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
THE STORY MILL NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT.
FINDINGS
OF FACT
AND ORDER
This matter came before the Bozeman City Commission on December 3, 2007 for review and
decision pursuant to the City of Bozeman Growth Policy and City of Bozeman Unified Development
Ordinance. The applicant presented to the Commission a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a
proposed Preliminary Plan for a 10 phase Planned Unit Development (PUD), as submitted in its
original form on July 3, 2007, #Z-07159. The Commission held a public hearing on the preliminary
PUD and considered all relevant evidence relating to the public health, safety, and welfare, including
the recommendation of the Bozeman Design Review Board, to determine whether the Preliminary
PUD should be approved, conditionally approved, or disapproved.
It appeared to the Commission that all parties wishing to appear and comment were given the
opportunity to do so, and therefore, being fully advised of all matters having come before it regarding
this application, the Commission makes the following Findings of Fact:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I.
On July 3, 2007, Blue Sky Development, Inc and Wake Up, Inc., represented by Hyalite
Engineers and GBD Architects, submitted an application for approval to create a PUD on 106.651
87
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-2-
acres. The PUD was submitted in conjunction with a 167 lot major subdivision. The two projects are
substantially interrelated and the approval of the subdivision required approval of modified
development standards proposed through the Planned Unit Development. The subject properties are
legally described as Certificate of Survey 2547 and Tract 18, Northeast Annexation, located in NW¼
of Section 5, and NE¼ of Section 6, Township 2 South, Range 6 East, and the SE¼ of Section 31
and the SW¼ of Section 32, Township 1 South, Range 6 East, P.M.M., Gallatin County, Montana..
The property is annexed with zoning designations of B-1 (Neighborhood Business District), B-2
(Community Business District), M-1 (Light Manufacturing District), RS (Residential Suburban
District), R-2 (Residential Two-household Medium Density District) and R-4 (Residential High
Density District) and portions fall within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and the
North Rouse Avenue/Bridger Drive Entryway Overlay District.
During review of the application for Adequacy pursuant to Section 18.34.070, BMC a
deficiency was identified in a missing signature on the application from the owner of one of the
parcels within the proposed subdivision. The parcel affected was the subject of a contract to purchase
dispute between Blue Sky Development, Inc and the previous owner. Rather than have the
application rejected as inadequate for review, the applicants granted a series of extensions to the
required review period for adequacy while they pursued legal remedies to obtain the required
signature. The City received a copy of a judicial order dated October 11, 2007 authorizing the City to
proceed with the subdivision review while the contractual matters were resolved. Upon receipt of the
judicial order the application was considered to be adequate for review and the application continued
88
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-3-
in the review process.
II.
The comments of the Development Review Committee, Design Review Board, Historic
Preservation Advisory Board, Wetlands Review Board, Recreation and Parks Advisory Board, along
with those of Planning & Community Development Staff, and others were incorporated into a staff
report with suggested conditions of approval, which was provided to the City of Bozeman City
Commission.
III.
Public notice was provided via publication of a legal notice in the newspaper on October 21,
2007, posting the subject property on October 19, 2007, and first class mailing of notices to adjacent
and other property owners within 200 feet of the subject property on October 18, 2007. The notices
included all identified requests for deviations from the City’s development standards.
The City of Bozeman Planning Board held a public hearing on the subdivision only on
November 6, 2007. The Planning Board found that the application was properly submitted and
reviewed under the procedures of the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance, Title 18,
BMC. Staff reviewed the staff report and the evidence which justified the imposition of conditions.
The City of Bozeman Planning Board after consideration of the subdivision review criteria, the
application materials, and public testimony moved to recommend conditional approval of the
subdivision with conditions as recommended by Staff and passed on a vote of 9-0.
89
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-4-
IV.
The application was considered by the Bozeman City Commission at its regular meeting on
December 3, 2007, at which time the recommendation of the advisory bodies and information
compiled by City staff was reviewed. All written public comments received were provided to the
Commission prior to the meeting and four members of the public offered comment relating to the
application at the public hearing.
V.
Compliance with the required PUD review process.
A preliminary PUD plan and preliminary plat applications were submitted on July 3, 2007.
The required acceptability letter was sent on July 11, 2007. The preliminary plan was
reviewed by the DRC on July 18 and 25, 2007. During the review a problem was identified
regarding owner signatures. Rather that having the application deemed inadequate for review
the owners granted extensions until the matter could be corrected. On October 15, 2007 the
City received a court order from the Montana 18th Judicial Circuit Court authorizing the City
to continue the review while the matter of owner’s signatures was resolved. The DRC, with
the owner’s representatives present, then conducted its final review and found the subdivision
adequate for review on October 24, 2007 and recommended conditions of approval. The
Design Review Board, with the owner’s representatives present, conducted its review and
found the PUD to comply with the review criteria, when certain conditions were imposed, on
October 24, 2007 and forwarded a recommendation to the City Commission. During the
review by the DRB, the applicant’s representatives and DRB agreed that it would be
beneficial for the DRB to review all buildings within the PUD which met the DRB review
thresholds, even if the building is located outside of an overlay district. The required adequacy
letter was mailed on October 30, 2007. Additional review entities or agencies provided
written comments which were also included within the materials provided for the City
Commission.
The public hearing before the City Commission was properly noticed, as required in the
Bozeman Municipal Code. Public notice for this application was placed in the Bozeman Daily
Chronicle on Sunday, October 21, 2007. The site was posted with a public notice on October
19, 2007. Notice was sent to adjacent property owners and to other property owners of
record within 200 feet of the subject property via first class mail, on October 18, 2007. The
City had compiled a list of interested persons other than those who were adjacent or within
90
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-5-
200 feet who had provided a mailing address. On October 22, 2007 the City sent notice to the
additional interested persons via first class mail.
The PUD staff report was drafted and forwarded with a recommendation of conditional
approval. The City Commission made a final decision at the December 3, 2007 public
hearing. In conjunction with the PUD, application was made for a major subdivision for the
Story Mill Neighborhood. Portions of the site were previously developed with a variety of
residential and industrial/agricultural uses.
Numerous deviations were requested to enable development of the project with a character
more urban in design and configuration. Although there were many deviations requested, the
complexity and size of the project means that no individual lot is affected by a majority of
requested deviations. After consideration of the application, staff report, and public testimony
the City Commission found that the approval of the relaxations or special consideration
resulted in a superior design and character of development than would have been attained by
strict compliance to the development standards as required by Section 18.36.030.D, BMC.
Where necessary, conditions of approval were imposed to mitigate negative impacts resulting
from the development. Other relaxations were requested which are applicable to the
subdivision standards. The deviations are described in greater detail in the findings below and
in the materials provided for City Commission review.
Building Permits: The applicant requested approval for a Concurrent Construction Plan under
Section 18.74.030.D. A Concurrent Construction Plan that addresses all aspects of this
section must be submitted to the Planning Department for DRC review and Planning Director
approval before concurrent construction may be approved. The concurrent construction only
was requested for Phases 1 and 2 of the development. Individual site plans have been
submitted for these phases as part of the PUD submittal in parallel with the subdivision. The
request for concurrent construction was approved. Building permits will not be issued for any
lot in this subdivision until all required on and off-site improvements are completed and
accepted by the City of Bozeman or the requirements of the concurrent construction
standards are met. No building permits will be issued until the Final PUD plan and appropriate
plans and specifications for infrastructure have been approved.
VI
Review Criteria
The City of Bozeman reviewed the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with deviations for the
Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development (PUD) Preliminary Plan against the
criteria set forth in Section 18.34.090, Section 18.34.100 and Chapter 18.36 of the Bozeman
Municipal Code. Portions of the project are also located within the Entryway Overlay district
91
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-6-
and the Story Mill Historic District and is therefore subject to the requirements and criteria
included in Chapters 18.28 and 18.30, BMC. The Design Objectives Plan and the Design
Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District are
incorporated by reference into Chapters 18.28 and 18.30, BMC. Review criteria are
cumulative.
The application as presented to the Commission required the following deviations. All
deviations were included in the public notices provided prior to the public hearing.
18.06.040.D.6 Subdivision Application Approval Period – request a preliminary
approval period for up to 10 years
18.16.020 Authorized Residential Uses – add recycling center
18.16.020 Authorized Residential Uses – attached dwellings more than normally
allowed, Block 1 only
18.16.030 Residential Lot Coverage – several different relaxations with differing
amounts depending on affected lots and underlying zoning district
18.16.040 Residential Lot Area – several different relaxations with differing amounts
depending on affected lots and underlying zoning district
18.16.040 Residential Lot Width - several different relaxations with differing amounts
depending on affected lots and underlying zoning district
18.16.050 Residential Front Yards - several different relaxations with differing
amounts depending on affected lots, underlying zoning district, and adjacent street
classification
18.16.050 Residential Rear Yard – allow encroachment for alternate lot configuration
18.16.050 Residential Side Yard – allow encroachment for alternate lot configuration
and building orientation
18.16.050 Residential Garage yard – allow encroachment for alternate lot
configuration
18.16.060 Residential Building Height - several different relaxations with differing
amounts depending on affected lots and underlying zoning district, heights of up to 75
feet are requested
18.18.030.B B-1 District Building Footprint – increase allowed size
18.18.040 Commercial Lot Width – reduce allowed width
18.18.050 Commercial Front Yard – reduce minimum yard for buildings and parking
18.18.050 Commercial Rear Yard – reduce minimum yard for buildings and parking
18.18.050 Commercial Side Yard – reduce required yard for buildings and parking
18.18.060 Commercial Building Height - several different relaxations with differing
amounts depending on affected lots and underlying zoning district with a maximum of
75 feet
18.20.020 Authorized Industrial Uses – allow a greater proportion of building area for
residential uses than normally allowed and additional area for retail uses
92
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-7-
18.20.050 Industrial Front Yard – reduce minimum yard for buildings and parking
18.20.060 Industrial Building Height – increased allowed building heights with a
maximum of 75 feet
18.30.060 Entryway Corridor Setback – reduce width of corridor setback variably
between 20 and 0 feet
18.36.060 – Duration of Planned Unit Development Approval - request a preliminary
approval period for up to 10 years for all phases with first phase to comply with
timing requirement.
18.38.050.F Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Screening – to allow solar and wind
energy generation to not be screened
18.38.060.C Special Yard Setback – allow an arterial front yard of less than 25 feet in
width
18.38.060.D Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Height – in addition to increases in
overall building height the request would allow up to an additional 15 feet for
solar/wind energy generation
18.42.030.A Lot Shape – allow some unusual shaped lots, some resulting from
existing conditions
18.42.030.F Lot Depth – allow a lot depth to length ratio in excess of 3:1
18.42.040.B Block Length – allow a block length in excess of 400 feet
18.42.040.C Block Width – Allow a narrower width of block for defined areas to as
little as 100 feet
18.42.040.D Right of Way for Pedestrians – Allow longer block lengths without
pedestrian crossing points
18.42.060.D Ditch Easement Width – provide an off set easement for an irrigation
facility
18.42.100.B Watercourse Setbacks – allow a setback paralleling a delineated wetland
boundary
18.42.140 Loading Berth – to not require a formal loading dock
18.42.150 Lighting – provide an alternative lighting standard with differing heights,
spacing, and shielding, allow light to project above the lowest part of the light
emitting element.
18.42.180.C Restricted Size Lots – allow two RSL to exceed 5,000 square feet in
area
18.44.050, 18.44.060, and 18.44.080 to provide non-standard privately maintained
streets through a planned unit development
18.46.010.D Stacking of Off-Street Parking Spaces – allow stacking for other than
detached homes, townhomes, duplexes
18.46.010.E Parking in Required Front and Side Yards – allow parking
encroachments to facilitate shared parking
18.46.020 Backing Requirement – due to non-typical lot design allow a lesser backing
93
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-8-
distance to a property line
18.46.040 Number of Parking Spaces Required – allow a lesser number of parking
stalls, reduction is variable depending on lot
18.48.050.A Yard Landscaping Required – coordinate landscaping requirements with
requested lesser yard setbacks
18.48.050.C – Parking lot landscaping, to not require screening or internal
landscaping
18.48.060 Landscape Performance Standards – provide an alternative landscaping
program
18.50.020.C On-Site Open Space – allow aggregation of required open space into
larger common areas
18.50.060 Park frontage to public streets on less than 100% of perimeter, amount of
deviation varies by individual park
18.52.030 Prohibited Signs – to allow sandwich board signs along certain streets in
commercially zoned areas
18.52.060.A Projecting Signs – allow projecting signs with a greater area and
projection than specified in code
18.52.060.B Sign Area (B-1 only) – allow 170 square feet greater area of signage per
lot than normally allowed for a B-1 zone
Variances from City of Bozeman engineering standards for right of way geometric
and street design
Section 18.34.090.A - Site Plan Review Criteria
1. Conformance to and consistency with the City’s adopted growth policy.
The development proposal is in conformance with the various land use designations applicable
to the property as shown in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, Figure 6-2 (updated). The
complexity of the project means that it touches on many different goals and elements of the
growth policy. The application presented a response to the growth policy in the PUD
Application, Volume I, Review Criteria tab.
Section 6.1.1 of the growth policy describes six core ideas which direct land use and
development in Bozeman. These are: Centers, Neighborhoods, Sense of Place, Integration of
Action, Natural Amenities, and Urban Density. The core ideas are carried throughout the
goals and objectives of the growth policy.
Some of the specific goals met by the application which area related to compliance with
the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan include the following:
· Goal 4.9.1 Community Design–Create a community composed of neighborhoods
designed for human scale and compatibility in which services and amenities are
94
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-9-
convenient, visually pleasing, and properly integrated and designed to encourage
walking, cycling, and mass transit use.
· Goal 4.9.2 Neighborhood Design – New neighborhoods shall be pedestrian-oriented,
contain a variety of housing types and densities, contain parks and other public
spaces, and have a commercial center and defined boundaries.
· Goal 5.7.1 Housing–Promote an adequate supply of safe housing that is diverse in
type, density, and location, with a special emphasis on maintaining neighborhood
character and stability.
· Goal 6.6.1 Create a sense of place that varies throughout the City, efficiently provide
public and private basic service sand facilities in close proximity to where people live
and work, and minimize sprawl.
· Goal 6.6.2 Centers – Designate centers for commercial development rather than
corridors to encourage cohesive neighborhood development in conjunction with non-
motorized transportation options.
· Goal 8.14.2 Identify, protect, and enhance natural resources within the planning area,
and the important ecological functions these resources provide.
· Goal 10.8.3 Encourage transportation options that reduce resource consumption,
increase social interaction, support safe neighborhoods, and increase the ability of the
existing transportation facilities to accommodate a growing city.
Chapter 10 of the growth policy discusses transportation and the City has adopted the 2001
Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update. Both the chapter and the Update present an
emphasis on coordinated multi-modal transportation and encouragement for increased
efficiency in transportation. The project includes extensive pedestrian and bicycle facilities
interconnected with existing adjacent trails. The combination of uses and proposed residential
densities facilitates reduction in vehicle trips by providing options for local services accessible
by pedestrians and pass-by trips.
Chapter 4, Community Character, provides discussion and direction regarding the built,
social, and cultural character of the community. The PUD is consistent with goals and
objectives regarding support for infill development, diverse housing stock, adequate and
energy efficient street lighting, neighborhood focal points, development of building design
guidelines, provision of street trees, encouragement for preservation of existing mature
vegetation and use of native plant species. Goal 4.9.8, Historic Preservation, encourages the
protection of historically and culturally significant resources. Implementation policies 5 and 6
for this goal encourage the combination of historic preservation and economic development to
conserve integrity of properties in the best possible condition, and the use of incentives to
encourage restoration of historically significant buildings to original design and/or materials.
Chapter 5, Housing, not only describes existing housing inventory and future needs but also
95
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-10-
sets aspirations for the characteristics of that housing. Goal and associated objectives mirror
many of the items identified in Chapter 4 for broad ranges of housing types in proximity to
services, diverse neighborhoods, and infill development. It further encourages development of
energy efficient housing and development of infill and affordable housing.
The development does represent a significant change in intensity and variety in type of land
use from the uses present in the recent past. The project will result in multiple large buildings
with a scale more in keeping with the existing mill buildings than the low intensity residential
and industrial uses which have typified the use of much of the site. Compatibility of new
development with existing neighborhoods is an issue identified in several chapters of the
growth policy. The growth policy does not require, nor suggest, that change within previously
developed areas may not occur. Rather, it describes desired end conditions to be achieved
while recognizing, and remaining compatible with, adjacent land uses. As noted above, the
types of uses proposed within the project are in conformance with the future land use map.
The definition of compatible development and compatible land use are provided in Chapter
14, Glossary of Terms in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, and Chapter 18.90, BMC.
Although the project is a considerable intensification it has provided transitions in scale and
intensity of use at the edges adjacent to existing development to the east and south. Existing
development to the north and west are separated by a major street, Bridger Drive, and are
primarily non-residential in nature and have a lesser need for transitions. Therefore, after
consideration of all the matters addressed by the growth policy the proposed development
appears to conform to the growth policy.
2. Conformance to this title, including the cessation of any current violations.
The final plan shall comply with the standards identified and referenced in the Bozeman
Municipal Code as modified by approved deviations. The applicant is advised that unmet code
provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does
not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the
Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. The existing mill buildings, Volmer slaughterhouse
complex, or stock yard complex are not currently served by municipal water or sewer nor by
urban standard streets. This is not technically a violation of the standards of Title 18 since the
area’s development predated the adoption of modern standards. However, the lack of
municipal utilities has restricted development in the past. The proposed development will
provide all municipal and private utilities. This will create a more safe and functional area for
development and use.
Identified non-conformities in the application to development standards are either the subject
of deviations or required revisions to the final documents. Several procedural steps will be
required to finally complete the zoning review process.
96
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-11-
a. Per Section 18.74.030.D, the applicant must submit twelve (12) copies of a Concurrent
Construction Plan that addresses all aspects of this section to the Planning Department for
DRC review and Planning Director approval before concurrent construction may be
approved.
b. Per Section 18.36.060, the applicant must submit seven (7) copies a Final PUD Plan
within one (1) year of preliminary approval containing all of the conditions, corrections
and modifications to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. The full plan
shall be provided in PDF.
c. The applicant shall submit with the application for Final Plan review and approval, a
written narrative stating how all of the conditions of preliminary plan approval have been
satisfactorily addressed, and shall include a digital copy (PDF) of the entire Final Plan
submittal. This narrative shall be in sufficient detail to direct the reviewer to the
appropriate plat, plan, sheet, note, covenant, etc. in the submittal.
The following requirements are standards of the Unified Development Ordinance and the
preliminary plan drawings and text shall be revised so that the following shall be addressed
with the final PUD plan submittal:
Story Mill Neighborhood PUD Plan Code Provisions:
a) A qualified landscape professional shall either document that the current watercourse
setback planting plan meets the requirements of Section 18.42.100 of the Bozeman
Municipal Code or a watercourse setback planting plan shall be prepared by a qualified
landscape professional and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department
prior to the commencement of development or site preparation. The plan shall include a
schedule for planting and landscaping as outlined for Zone 1 and Zone 2 outlined in
Section 18.42.100 of the Bozeman Municipal Code.
b) Per 18.42.170, the design and location of any trash enclosure is subject to review and
approval by the City Sanitation Department, and must be shown on the final site plan for
the phase.
c) Per 18.44.100, sight vision triangles must be correctly depicted on each final site plan.
d) Per 18.52.060, a comprehensive sign plan is required for all commercial centers consisting
of two or more tenant spaces on a lot and shall be designed in accordance with
§18.52.070, BMC. The sign plan in the Development Manual shall be enhanced to specify
how the owner will allocate signage within each lot if there is more than one tenant space.
e) Per 18.36.060.A, BMC the applicant must submit seven (7) copies of a Final PUD Plan
within one (1) year of preliminary approval containing all of the conditions, corrections
and modifications to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Office.
97
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-12-
f) Per 18.64.100, a Building Permit for the first phase must be obtained prior to the work,
and must be obtained within one (1) year of Final Site Plan approval. Building Permits
will not be issued until the Final Site Plan is approved. Minor site surface preparation and
normal maintenance shall be allowed prior to submittal and approval of the Final Site
Plan, providing that such activity does not include excavation for foundations or the
removal of mature, healthy vegetation, and NO CONCRETE MAY BE POURED
UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT IS OBTAINED.
g) Concurrent construction has been sought and is recommended for approval. No work may
begin until all of the terms of Title 18, BMC regarding concurrent construction have been
satisfied.
h) The applicant shall submit with the application for Final Site Plan review and approval, a
written narrative stating how each of the conditions of preliminary site plan approval has
been satisfactorily addressed.
i) Any existing signs on the project site must come into compliance with Chapter 18.52,
BMC.
j) Development of future lots shall require a comprehensive sign plan allocating sign area to
individual tenants.
k) Reciprocal easements or other necessary means of coordinating individual and common
ownerships in Blocks 1 and 2 shall be provided.
l) All non-conforming signs in a phase shall be removed prior to final site plan for that
phase.
m) The Development Manual shall reflect the agreement between Applicant’s representatives
and the DRB for the DRB to review all buildings within the PUD which meet the numeric
DRB review thresholds.
3. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances and regulations.
The application has been found to be in general compliance with all other applicable law,
ordinances, and regulations, and the applicant is required to provide copies of all applicable
permits prior to Final Site Plan approval. The application includes a request for multiple
deviations as allowed under Section 18.36.030.D, BMC. A listing is provided above under
criteria 2. Not all deviations were approved, see the Order section of this findings of fact. The
application materials must be modified to demonstrate compliance with the grant on non-
grant of deviations prior to the award of final PUD plan approval.
The PUD application, Volume II, Tab Development Plans for Phases I & II contains the
detailed site plans for those phases. Development of phases 3-10 will require further review
and shall be required to demonstrate compliance with applicable laws, ordinances, and
regulations at that time. The Design Review Board requested and applicants agreed that the
DRB will conduct a zoning review for each site plan which meets the threshold criteria of
18.34.040.C, BMC. A condition to enforce this request has been developed. Normally the
98
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-13-
DRB would only review those site plans located within the Entryway Corridor or
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay districts.
The landowners simultaneously sought a subdivision approval for the property. Matters
pertaining to the subdivision will be reviewed through that process and are not discussed here.
Compliance with the relevant subdivision standards shall be required. Plans and specifications
for utilities will be provided and reviewed by the Engineering Division subsequent to any
approval action by the City Commission. A subdivision is required to also comply with any
applicable zoning standards such as lot widths or sizes. The PUD has requested numerous
deviations which affect subdivision layout and design. The final plat for any phase must
conform to the PUD approval.
4. Relationship of site plan elements to conditions both on and off the property.
With the proposed conditions outlined for the DRC and the DRB, the elements of the Story
Mill Neighborhood PUD plan including the land use patterns, circulation, and open space are
arranged in an appropriate manner and will be compatible with the conditions both on and off
the property. The project has largely avoided impacts on wetlands, watercourses, and wildlife
habitat through building placement. Transitions in scale and massing at the edges of the
development have been provided.
The application is a more urban style development than typical in Bozeman, especially within
the commercial areas of the project. Reduced setbacks, structured parking, and alternative
landscaping are all proposed. The Development Manual, PUD Application, Volume I, Tab
Development Manual, describes the special standards proposed to provide a balanced and
integrated project. Connectivity to existing streets and trails will provided as development
occurs.
A portion of the site is located within the Story Mill Historic District. Section 6 of the
Development Manual describes Historic and Cultural Resource Guidelines. Further
development of this section of the Development Manual was found to be necessary to fully
harmonize the Development Manual and the standards of Chapter 18.28, BMC. Revisions
elsewhere in the Development Manual are also required. Steps to accomplish this
harmonization are established in the Order. The purpose of the revisions is to first, ensure that
any future development be well advised of applicable regulations early in the design process,
and second, to facilitate review and rational relationships with existing applicable design
standards. A revised and updated cultural resource inventory and development manual has
been provided and will be used as part of the final PUD plan.
The development does represent a significant change in intensity and variety in type of land
use from the uses present in the recent past. The project will result in multiple large buildings
99
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-14-
with a scale more in keeping with the existing mill buildings than the low intensity residential
and industrial uses which have typified the use of much of the site. Portions of the site
originally developed in the early 1880’s as an industrial site and remained in active use until
recently. Other agricultural industrial uses included stockyards and meat packing facilities.
Residential uses have long been present either as lodging for mill workers or developed later
in the area as individual residences. The area has remained an area of considerable mixed uses
with nearby blacksmith shop, ice distributor, auto repair, offices, fuel sales, warehousing, and
other industrial uses as well as extensive residential development and a golf course. The
railroad tracks which originally served the area have almost all been removed and are not
immediately obvious to the eye. The predominant remnant is the railroad bed which has been
converted to a trail along Story Mill Road and paralleling L street until it connects with N.
Wallace Avenue.
There are two significant residential developments in the near vicinity. Homes along Hillside
Lane and Bridger Drive to the east are on larger lots and a variety of single and multi-story
designs. Some are within the City and others are not yet annexed. Heavy vegetation is present
along Hillside Lane which is a gravel road. Originally developed as part of the primary access
to Bridger Canyon, it now serves primarily as a local road to adjacent development. North of
Bridger Drive the Bridger Creek Golf Course and associated residences are a blend of single
and attached homes again in a blending of single and multiple-story styles. To the east are
existing county residences lining the northern edge of Bridger Drive. The Legends
development east of Story Mill Road is now under construction with primarily townhomes
constructed at this time and some detached homes now underway. Residences north of
Bridger Drive and west of Story Mill Rd are separated from the Story Mill Neighborhood
development by the street and a variety of industrial and office structures.
5. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking
conditions.
The project intends to provide a high degree of internal trip capture with many local services
being readily available to residents and surrounding residents, significant trail and sidewalk
interconnectivity to other areas of Bozeman. Applicants expressed a desire for transit service
although a route has not yet been established. None the less, a considerable amount of
additional vehicle traffic will be created. This was addressed in the subdivision application and
conditions of approval were crafted to address the issue through that review procedure.
The PUD proposed considerable proportions of shared parking and underground structured
parking. Deviations for parking quantity and configuration were requested. See PUD
Application, Volume I, Tab H both maps and tables. The total parking to be provided is
discussed in PUD Application, Volume I, Tab 1L, pages 22-47. The majority of parking
reduction is proposed for the commercial area with the redevelopment of the existing mill
100
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-15-
buildings, see PUD Application, Volume I, Tab H map page 6.
Reduced setbacks along all streets have been proposed in all commercial and industrial
development areas and some residential areas, see PUD Application, Volume I, Tab H. The
redevelopment of the Mill buildings on Blocks 3 and 4 are bisected by the addition of Mill
Spur Avenue. This local “festival” street was proposed to have very small, if not zero foot,
front yard setbacks and a more pedestrian orientation. The urban style setbacks and building
placement give a different character to the streets.
A considerable number of homes are already present in the near vicinity and up Bridger
Canyon. Typically, a mixed use development will seek initial development of residential to
establish a customer base before beginning construction of the commercial structures. Due to
the presence of the existing residential development, Story Mill proposed to commence
commercial development in its second phase with renovation and replacement of existing
structures in the mill complex.
6. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress, egress and circulation.
Pedestrian circulation is provided throughout the Story Mill Neighborhood PUD with
sidewalks along streets or within open space areas, and a trail system through the project. See
PUD Application, Volume 1, Tab Parks and Open Space Plan, for a depiction of the trail
system, and Volume I, Tab L, pages PUD 100-107b (beginning on page 50 of Tab L) for
sidewalk system and streets. The PUD plan includes interior streets with access off of
Bridger Drive, Story Mill Road, and Griffin Drive. All lots are provided with vehicular access
from local streets. The trail system provides both recreational and transportation functions. A
number of boardwalks were proposed to lessen impacts on wetlands. As suggested by the
WRB, in order to minimize impacts on wetlands some trails were suggested to be removed as
they are redundant for the purpose of circulation. Conditions relating to the character and
alignment of the trail system are included in the Order for the subdivision application findings
of fact.
Story Mill Road is proposed to be developed to an urban collector standard with boulevard
sidewalk, have limited access, and vegetated medians. This is a significant change from the
current gravel two lane standard. Many of the local streets proposed will be provided
privately with public access easements. Due to the extended approval period requested a
condition has been developed to ensure that streets are provided in a timely manner. Local
streets are more narrow than typical with a variable character. See PUD Application, Volume
I, Tab IL, sections 9-11.
The Montana Department of Transportation was preparing an environmental review for
possible rebuilding of North Rouse/Bridger Drive. The documents were not available for
101
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-16-
public review at the time of the City Commission hearing. Upon completion of the
environmental review MDOT will decide how to proceed. It is expected that rebuilding will
include widening of the current two lane section and addition of pedestrian and bicycle
facilities in at least some portion of the roadway. The addition of a boulevard trail along
Bridger Drive across the frontage of the Phase 5 is a probable component of any MDOT
project. If MDOT does not construct the trail in a timely manner it will be necessary for the
developer to install. Currently two traffic signals are in the process of being installed at the
intersections of North Rouse with Griffin Drive and Oak Street.
A traffic study was prepared and submitted as part of the subdivision application, see
Subdivision Application, Volume III, Tab 12 Streets, Roads and Alleys. The traffic study
indicates that level of service standards will continue to be met over the development period
of the project. Monitoring of changed traffic conditions will be required with each phase. If
level of service standards fail to be met then the necessary corrective measures will be
required. Conditions relating to the function of streets are included in the Order for the
subdivision findings of fact.
The orientation of buildings has a significant effect on the character of the street. The City
Commission has identified having the front of buildings oriented to the street rather than away
from the street as a significant element in the physical appearance of the community. As a
PUD is intended to provide higher quality design and support for community objectives, the
Commission directed that Millrace Street from Monad Street to Columbia Avenue be
converted to an alley to ensure proper orientation of buildings to Bridger Drive. Some
specific direction for characteristics of the residences along Bridger Drive on Block 20 was
also given.
7. Landscaping, including the enhancement of buildings, the appearance of vehicular
use, open space and pedestrian areas, and the preservation or replacement of
natural vegetation.
Applicant proposed an alternative landscaping system in lieu of the typical performance points
provided by Section 18.48.060, BMC. Staff found the alternative reasonable given the
character of the development, the requested deviations for landscaping, and the proposed
means of landscaping. The proposed alternative was in Section 2M of the Development
Manual to be found in PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Development Manual. The original
proposal suggested only to use the alternative compliance on certain lots in the development.
Staff suggested a condition to revise the proposal to apply the alternative compliance on all
lots subject to a requirement for a formal landscaping plan. This was considered to be a more
predictable, uniform, and cohesive approach.
Numerous deviations relating to landscaping were requested as listed above. These are
102
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-17-
necessitated by the more urban character of the development with lesser width of yards and so
forth. Staff supported most of these deviations as part of the overall superior outcome
provided by the project. Staff did not support those deviations which would not require
screening of surface parking lots on Blocks 4 and 25 from adjacent rights of way. The
Commission determined that the revisions to the deviations as suggested by Staff was
appropriate. Conditions relating to the character of the landscaping are included in the Order
section of these findings.
8. Open space.
The proposal provides a significant amount of open space through the provision of setbacks
for watercourses and the avoidance of existing wetlands. The application also depicts public
parks and other private open spaces. The primary character of the open spaces and parks is
informal and not oriented at intensive organized activities. The total open spaces comprise
more than half of the total development acreage. See PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Parks
& Open Space Plan.
A deviation was requested to enable the 150 square feet per dwelling required by Section
18.50.020.C, BMC to be aggregated within the overall project boundaries rather than
provided on each lot. Deviations for alternative yards were also requested. These are
discussed in Criterion 10 below. The applicant proposed a coordinated parks plan to satisfy
the requirements of Chapter 18.50. The final parks plan shall be provided with the final PUD
plan. A waiver of right to protest a parks maintenance district shall be provided to allow for
future City maintenance of the public parks. In order to minimize impacts on wetlands some
trails should be relocated or removed as they are redundant for the purpose of circulation.
Conditions relating to the character of the open spaces and parks are included in the Order
section of the Subdivision findings of fact.
9. Building location and height.
The applicant requested deviations to standards in the Bozeman Municipal Code for Sections
18.16.060, 18.18.060, and 18.20.060, Building Height; to allow a maximum building height
of 75 feet for a flat roof pitch for some buildings. See PUD Application, Volume I, Tab H for
description of heights for individual buildings. The revised cultural resources inventory
provided with the Subdivision Application, Volume II, Tab 7 indicates that the existing Mill
elevator is 110 feet in height and the brick multi-story mill building is 88 feet in height.
Deviations were also requested to enable additional height for solar and wind power
generation equipment. See PUD Application, Volume I, Tab H for maps and tables with
detailed locations and height. The deviations are primarily constrained to the general vicinity
of the existing mill buildings which provide a context and precedent for the taller structures.
There has been an analysis of viewsheds and massing of proposed buildings. See PUD
103
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-18-
Application, Volume I, Tab 3 Viewsheds, Tab L, and Tab Development Manual, aerial
renderings. Larger buildings have been sited in a manner that preserves views to the historic
mill and do not intrude on existing residential land owners. The additional height for roof
mounted equipment has been integrated with the rest of the development proposal and
appears reasonable. Conditions relating to building height are included in the Order.
The large metal sided grain elevator located to the south of the main mill building is a
significant and character defining built feature in the project. Although an individual site plan
has not been provided for this portion of the project, the updated cultural resources inventory
indicates that due to structural and environmental factors the building may be removed in the
future. The expressed intent is to reconstruct a building of similar mass and form slightly
further to the south. The existing elevator is a lawful non-conforming use. The lawful non-
conforming status for exceeding the building height limit would typically be lost upon removal
of the elevator per 18.60.050, BMC. Applicants have called out in the application their desire
for approval, through the PUD, for the ability to reconstruct the elevator. A condition to
require the reconstruction to maintain the essential form and location of the elevator has been
developed.
10. Setbacks.
Deviations have been requested for setbacks in all but one of the zoning districts, Residential
Suburban, present on the site. See PUD Application, Volume I, Tab H. The deviations sought
either encourage the more urban form of the development such as on Block 3 or because of
an alternative lotting arrangement such as on Block 2. A deviation was requested for the
entryway setback along Bridger Drive. Deviations have been requested to allow parking to
encroach into surface and subsurface setbacks.
The requested deviations to setbacks were found to generally be reasonable given the overall
character of the proposed development. The deviations for setback encroachments for shared
parking structures is a more formal manner of sanctioning a commonly accepted practice
often addressed through an easement. The deviation does not conflict with the regulations and
avoids any future confusion about intent in the approval. Staff did not support deviations for
surface parking to enable parking lots to the property line. Required screening for parking
must be provided. So long as the screening is provided a yard reduction may be allowed to
the extent enabled by the screening mechanism. Screening of parking lots is discussed in
Section 18.48.050.C.2.a, BMC. The requirement for screening, although located in the
landscaping section, does not mandate the use of vegetation as the screen. Therefore, the
required screening could be an appropriately located and sized fence or wall as well as
landscaping.
104
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-19-
Minor adjustments should be made to deviations for building location so that rights of way are
not encroached upon by structural elements of new buildings. The existing structures of the
Mill itself may require a 0 foot setback as the ability to move the street or buildings is limited.
Conditions relating to setbacks are included in the Order.
11. Lighting.
The project will provide subdivision lighting in accordance with Section 18.42.150.C, BMC.
An alternative lighting plan, including fixture standards, was proposed. See Subdivision
Application, Volume III, Tab 18. The integrated lighting plan appears to meet the intent and
purpose of the City’s lighting regulations. A variety of lighting types is included in the plan to
provide lighting not only for public streets but also building sites, trails, and parks. PUD
Application, Volume I, Tab Development Manual, section 2K describes the implementation of
the lighting plan on individual sites.
The alternative standard proposed includes shorter pole heights and closer spacing. Height
and spacing are directly related in lighting. The alternative standard includes a variety of
coordinated fixtures with similar style. A suspended light is included over the festival street
Mill Spur Avenue. A deviation for lighting was been requested. The deviation allows two
lights to not be 100% full cutoff. One light is an upwash for architectural and landscaping
highlights. The other is a pole mounted light with a slight band above the fixture which emits
a small amount of light also for purposes of architectural highlights and vegetation accents.
See lighting plan luminaire M3 and M9. Luminaire M3 is the primary street light on the local
streets. Luminaire M8 is a pathway light with the light source up and under the emitting
surface of the fixture. The lighting plan includes maps of the location of proposed lighting
fixtures and types.
12. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities.
The project will provide utilities in accordance with the Bozeman Municipal Code and
recently adopted updated facilities plans. The design reports for utilities shall be submitted to
the Engineering Division for review prior to construction of each phase.
The project proposed private stormwater utility which will provide some additional
complexities in design and installation. This is further discussed in item 13 below. Plans and
specifications for each type of infrastructure shall be reviewed by the Engineering Division
prior to construction. The application requested concurrent construction of buildings and
infrastructure for Phases 1 and 2 of the development. See PUD Application, Volume 1, Tab
1G. Applicant indicated a willingness to conform to the City’s requirements for concurrent
construction.
The project requires some large off-site expansions of water and sewer infrastructure. The
105
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-20-
facility plan contemplates the necessary expansions. Applicants have made request for some
of the larger items to be included on the applicable impact fee capital improvement program.
If the Commission includes the items on the CIP it would make impact fee credits available
for non-project related elements of the work.
Private utilities, such as power and telecommunications, are provided during the subdivision
review process. For further discussion of these items please see the subdivision staff report
and findings of fact.
13. Site surface drainage and storm water control.
Storm water detention areas have been shown on the plan. The design report for storm water
control was been submitted to the Engineering Division for review. An integrated storm water
control design is part of the development design. See PUD Application, Volume I, Tab 1L,
section 16. The developed portion of the site has a high percentage of impervious cover due
to existing and proposed buildings and streets. Storm water quantities have been reduced with
alternative street designs which reduce impervious area. The capture and treatment of storm
water prior to discharge has been incorporated into open spaces and is depicted in the open
space plan. See PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Parks and Open Space Plan, individual
designs. As part of the subdivision some conditions of approval have been developed to
ensure that stormwater facilities do not conflict with other utilities and can be located in the
future.
14. Loading and unloading areas.
A deviation was requested to not provide a full size loading dock as required by Section
18.42.140, BMC. The dock would be required for the redevelopment of the existing flour
warehouse and mill building on Block 4 as the combined size would be in excess of 15,000
square feet. The individual tenants are anticipated to be less than 15,000 square feet each.
Staff supported the deviation with some restrictions on hours of operation for loading and
unloading activities. Hours of operation are important due to the noise factor of large vehicles
and backing warning devices in close proximity to existing residential development. Access to
site tenants will be provided through a proposed parking lot or Mill Spur Avenue. Conditions
relating to loading are included in the Order.
15. Grading.
The site is mostly mild in slope with a significant hillside on the east. Elevation change is
primarily associated with water features such as creek banks or wetlands. The areas of
greatest change in grade are preserved as open spaces/parks. Plans and specifications for
utilities, roads and storm water control will address grading of developed areas and be
submitted to the Engineering Department for review. Significant cuts or fills have largely been
avoided except for the residential structures at the toe of the Story Hills.
106
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-21-
16. Signage.
The application did not include a request for an individual sign. The application did include an
overall sign proposal. The location of commercial signage is shown in the final pages of the
Development Manual and Section 4 of the Development Manual, page 94, describes the
character of signage to be allowed within the development. No pole signs are to be allowed
although monument signs are permitted. The following signage deviations have been
requested. First, an allowance for sandwich board signs in the commercial area. Second, a
greater area and dimension for projecting signs. Third, an increase in allowed signage area
within the B-1 district. See PUD Application, Volume I, Tab H.
The sandwich board sign is typically used in a heavily pedestrian environment. The applicants
have proposed a development with a visually active street and a pedestrian orientation in
design and land use configuration. The sandwich board sign deviation seems reasonable in
this circumstance. Placement of sandwich board signs can pose a hazard if not done properly.
The City has an existing program to manage sandwich board signs in the downtown area. Any
approval for sandwich board signs should also include requirements to follow the existing
program to address matters of public safety and liability.
The second and third deviations go together. The B-1 district is normally occupied by smaller
buildings with one or a few tenants. A lesser quantity of signage, 80 square feet, is therefore
adequate to serve those needs. Applicants have requested deviations for a larger quantity of
signage, up to 250 square feet per lot, within the B-1 district. The proposed use of those lots
is for multi-tenant occupancy. Due to the physical layout suggested for the commercial areas
there will not be room for monument or poles signs. Pole signs are prohibited by Section 4B
of the Development Manual, PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Development Manual.
Signage will be primarily building mounted. The proposed deviation for larger projecting
signs, up to 50 square feet, will act to off set the lack of a free standing sign and provide
larger areas for presentation of business identification and creative graphics. Signage is
measured by enclosing the sign within a simple geometric shape such as an oval or rectangle.
An unusual sign may have empty areas within its enclosing shape which are not part of the
sign but count towards its total area. The Development Manual encourages unusual signs.
The larger projecting signs may require special anchoring in the building to take wind loading.
Such items must be addressed during the necessary sign permitting process. Conditions
relating to signs are included in the Order.
17. Screening.
The majority of the development is residential and will not require specific screening.
However, there are several parking lots in the development along Bridger Drive and Hillside
107
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-22-
Lane that will screening. The addition of screening affects requested deviations as described
under Criterion 10 above. A deviation was requested to not screen rooftop mechanical
equipment. This is to allow for solar and wind power generation. Screening is likely to
interfere with the function of this equipment. Therefore the deviation to not screen solar or
wind power generation equipment is granted. Screening of other mechanical equipment must
still be provided. Conditions relating to screening are included in the Order.
18. Overlay district provisions.
This development lies within two different overlay districts, the N. Rouse/Bridger Drive
Entryway Overlay District and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The two
districts do not overlap each other. The entryway is along the Bridger Drive frontage. The
Conservation Overlay applies to the area of the Story Mill Historic District which primarily
includes the mill complex, stockyards, and slaughterhouse complex. The review for these two
overlay districts is presented below.
19. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties.
Public comment both written and verbal was received during the public hearing processes.
The comments were provided to and considered by the Commission. Public comment was
received during the Planning Board public hearing on the subdivision. The minutes of the
hearing have been included with the recommendation of the Planning Board regarding the
subdivision.
The Cultural Resource Inventory identified three historic sites outside of the existing Story
Mil Historic District as well as several structures within the district which have become
eligible for historic status since the original nomination for the historic district. Not all
structures can be reused or protected in their current locations given the proposed
development and some have been heavily altered over the years. However, some of the
structures do show potential for preservation especially those identified as 24GA1774 and
24GA1773c. During development of mitigation plans, rehabilitation and reuse of the
structures within the project boundaries should be strongly considered. Revision and updating
of the Story Mill Historic District will become necessary due to the considerable changes to
occur in the area if the development is approved.
20. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation or
other means of addressing requirements of this title, whether the lots are either: a.
Configured so that the sale of individual lots will not alter the approved
configuration or use of the property or cause the development to become
nonconforming; or b. The subject of reciprocal and perpetual easements or other
agreements to which the City is a party so that the sale of individual lots will not
cause one or more elements of the development to become nonconforming.
108
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-23-
Easements and other coordinating instruments are required for interrelated lots. In the Story
Mill Neighborhood development these are primarily related to parking and other circulation
needs. Conditions relating to this subject are included in the Order.
21. Compliance With Title 17, Chapter 2, BMC (Workforce Housing)
The effective date of the ordinance occurred prior to the application for subdivision review
being found sufficient for review. Therefore, the application is subject to the provisions of the
new ordinance. The standards of Chapter 17.02, BMC would typically require the Story Mill
Neighborhood project to provide 17 dwellings subject to the affordability provisions of the
chapter. Satisfaction of these requirements can be integrated with the requirements for RSLs.
Of these 17 dwellings, six are required to be detached homes. The remaining 11 can be either
attached or detached homes so long as they meet the affordability criteria. The workforce
housing requirement is distinct from the requirement of Section 18.42.180, BMC for
restricted size lots, although the two may be coordinated and mutually reinforcing.
Applicants requested to be considered for an individualized program as provided for in
Section 17.02.040.E.3, BMC. Provision of affordable housing is also a means of satisfying
certain requirements for a Planned Unit Development. The details are contained in the PUD
application, Volume I, Tab Affordable Housing. The applicant had offered up to 120
affordable dwellings contingent on a public/private partnership for funding. A Conditional Use
Permit, as described in Section 18.34.010 and 18.34.100, may require special conditions in
order to mitigate negative effects or to be acceptable in a particular location and
circumstances.
The Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board (CAHAB) considered the individualized
program on November 5th. Comments from the CAHAB were provided to the City
Commission. The requested individualized program required the creation of a tax increment
finance (TIF) district in order to achieve the desired outcome. The action to create a TIF is
separate from the review of the subdivision in both time and process. Therefore a condition
was recommended to address different possible outcomes of the TIF review.
CAHAB raised several concerns in their comments. They did not support the individualized
program as submitted. They expressed concern about timing and distribution of the
construction of the homes. They questioned the appropriateness of the extensive cost support
needed to make the homes more affordable and whether a different approach would be a more
effective use of resources. A greater degree of specificity in the individualized program was
also found to be necessary.
CAHAB recommended some specific revisions occur to the individualized program. The
recommendations were shown as option d under Condition of Approval 26 in the Staff report.
109
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-24-
An additional number of affordable dwellings (28) in excess of the typical number required
(17) for a development of this acreage [for a total of 45] was recommended in mitigation of
the removal of the existing manufactured home court which has provided affordable housing
in the past several decades and in furtherance of growth policy goal 5.7.1 and others.
Staff identified a concern regarding the CAHAB recommendation for all the workforce units
to occur within the first 5 phases. Although the CAHAB recommended approach would bring
homes to the user sooner, it would also restrict the distribution of the homes throughout the
development. Distribution has been identified as a desirable attribute in workforce housing as
described in Chapter 17.02, BMC. An alternative approach was suggested to require at least
the minimum number (17 homes) to occur in the first five phases with the remaining 28 homes
requested by CAHAB to be distributed amongst all the phases. An alternative language option
addressing Staff’s concern was provided in condition 26d(v)(1) of the Staff report prepared
for the Commission.
Section 17.02.040.E.2.e, BMC requires that construction of 80% of workforce housing units
occur in each phase prior to commencement of an additional phase of development. This
standard was identified as being potentially problematic for the Story Mill Neighborhood
subdivision which intends to construct roughly a phase per year. Several of the phases will
require extensive site review through zoning standards before beginning construction of large
mixed use buildings which will incorporate some of the housing. This may make moving
through the project in a timely manner very difficult. Deed restrictions will be placed with
each lot to ensure that ultimate construction will incorporate the necessary workforce
dwelling units. Staff suggested that the Commission allow the individualized program to also
address the matter of timing and that a revised schedule to ensure timely construction be
developed prior to approval of a Final PUD plan. The Commission could require their
approval of this element of the Final PUD plan to ensure that it complies with the intent and
purpose of Chapter 17.02, BMC.
The Commission considered the issue and discussed the impacts of the proposed PUD, the
purposes and minimum requirements of Chapter 17.02, the purpose of a PUD, and the
amount of special consideration being requested by the landowners through deviations. The
Commission identified that, as described in Sections 18.02.050, 18.02.070 and 18.64.010,
BMC, and Section 76-2-309, MCA, the printed standards of the City ordinances are
minimums and the public interest may require minimum standards to be exceeded.
The Commission also considered the relative merits of relying upon the proposed
individualized plan which required an as yet unapproved or applied for urban renewal district
to succeed. They noted there are many interested parties and complications in establishing an
urban renewal district. They also recognized the difficulty in identifying a dependable revenue
110
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-25-
stream from an unformed urban renewal district at the time of PUD review and that
conditions can not be imposed after the fact of approval.
The Commission concluded that in order to have clearly defined code compliance and
mitigation which was known at the point in time of approval and appropriately matched to the
impacts and circumstances identified through the materials provided by the applicant, the
input received during the public review process, and the purposes of the various laws and
ordinances the approval of the individualized program as presented with the application was
not in the public’s best interest. They further concluded that the appropriate requirement was
that the development provide a total of 3% of constructed dwellings in the project, but not
fewer than 34 dwellings, subject to the affordability and other requirements of Chapter 17.02,
BMC. The Commission also recognized that some flexibility should be provided in satisfying
the requirement for workforce housing and agreed that an individualized plan which satisfied
all requirements of Chapter 17.02 could be used.
Section 18.34.100 - City Commission Consideration and Findings for Conditional Use
Permits
In addition to the site plan review criteria outlined above, the City Commission must, in
approving a conditional use permit, also find favorably for the following criteria:
1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and topography to
accommodate such use, and all yards, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading and
landscaping are adequate to properly relate such use with the land and uses in the
vicinity.
Other than as noted in the conditions of approval, the site is generally adequate in size and
topography to accommodate the potential uses and related site improvements. Yards have
been placed and uses configured to reduce impact on adjacent development.
2. That the proposed use will have no material adverse effect upon the abutting
property.
Story Mill Neighborhood is a large multi-owner coordinated development. It is bounded by
significant hill to the east, an arterial street to the north and west, industrial users to the west,
and low density residential to the south and north-east. The closest proximity residential is to
the north-east. This area of the project is to be primarily detached homes adjacent to the
existing development. The transition will avoid most effects related to massing and placement
of buildings. The development will be extending municipal services which will mitigate
demands for water and sewer and other health and safety matters. The section of Hillside
Lane passing through the project will be upgraded to a paved street from its current gravel
condition and municipal utilities extended to the eastern boundary for future extension to the
east. The most significant impact identified is the visual impact of larger buildings to the west
of the existing low density residential development along Hillside Lane and Bridger Drive.
111
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-26-
Considerable existing mature vegetation exists on the adjacent site to provide a visual breakup
of building massing and western views in the area are the less significant. Off-site impacts will
be mitigated under other review criteria and conditions relating to mitigation of impacts are
included in the Order.
Phasing requirements will ensure that the initial work, including paving of Story Mill Road
and Hillside Lane to access existing development, will occur early in the process. The
conditions of approval require completion of a phase’s infrastructure work before subsequent
phase is undertaken. This will minimize disruption to adjacent owners.
3. That any additional conditions stated in the approval are deemed necessary to
protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Such conditions may include, but
are not limited to:
a. Regulation of use. Uses will largely be consistent with the underlying zoning.
b. Special yards, spaces and buffers. No need for special requirements has been
identified. A vegetative buffer along the NE edge of Block 1 is included with the first
phase.
c. Special fences, solid fences and walls. None identified as needed beyond the character
defined in Section 2N of the Development Manual, PUD Application, Volume I, Tab
Development Manual. A fence should be placed along the Story Mill Spur trail along
Block 14 to demarcate the boundary.
d. Surfacing of parking areas. No special conditions are recommended addressing
surfacing of parking areas.
e. Requiring street, service road or alley dedications and improvements or appropriate
bonds. All public streets, lanes and alleys will be dedicated or provided as easements
and shall be improved to an approved standard. Additional requirements are provided
in the subdivision review. A waiver of right to protest creation of SIDs to benefit
future users of the development shall be provided for major infrastructure elements.
f. Regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress. Conditions of approval have
been developed under the subdivision review to address this issue.
g. Regulation of signs. A common signage plan with deviations from signage standards
was proposed. See the discussion under site plan criterion 16. Existing non-
conforming signage must come into compliance with Chapter 18.52, BMC.
112
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-27-
h. Requiring maintenance of the grounds. No conditions addressing maintenance were
found necessary. The proposed covenants address this matter
i. Regulation of noise, vibrations and odors. Idling and backing of delivery vehicles can
generate noise which is disruptive to adjacent residences. Conditions addressing noise
relating to the timing of loading and unloading of trucks is contained in the Order.
j. Regulation of hours for certain activities. No additional conditions are recommended
addressing regulation of hours for certain activities other than loading and unloading.
k. Time period within which the proposed use shall be developed The applicant must
submit the Final Site Plan within 1 year of City Commission approval. An extended
approval period for the plat was requested as part of the subdivision approval. See the
subdivision review for further discussion.
The developer has requested an extended approval period for the initial preliminary
plat and final PUD plan due to the extensive size and complexity of the project.
Anticipated development period is ten years with one phase occurring roughly each
year. The typical approval period for a multi-phase subdivision is three years with
opportunity for up to two year extension. This limitation represents a concern for the
possibility that a project will “hang” unmoving for a considerable period of time and
then begin again. Standards for development change due to legislative and legal
actions, changing knowledge, and community concerns. The request for additional
review time raises the possibility of conflict between current standards, future needs
for public safety, and changing developer desires.
Several conditions of approval were developed to provide the City with additional
surety that the development will proceed as represented over the extended period of
time. First, easements are required with the first phase for all public parks and streets.
These are the “bones” of any development and by establishing them legally it provides
a much greater level of surety that locations and alignments will be respected over
time. Second, a subdivision condition regarding the number of phases under
development at any given time has been established so that development proceeds at
an orderly pace and approach. Third, in order to ensure either the timely completion
of the PUD, its active development, or its termination a condition regarding the timing
of approval has been developed.
l. Duration of use. Conditional use permits run with the land, subject to application and
adherence to all special conditions of approval. A condition addressing potential
113
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-28-
termination of the PUD if development is not timely has been developed and is
contained in the Order.
m. Requiring the dedication of access rights. It is a code provision that all rights of way
or access easements be dedicated. Additional right of way will be required for Bridger
Drive and Story Mill Road as well as the local streets to be provided with the
subdivision.
n. Other such conditions as will make possible the development of the City in an orderly
and efficient manner. Any additional conditions stated in the Order are deemed
necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. The lots in Block 20
have frontage on two streets. In order to protect and enhance the character of the
entryway into Bozeman it is important that a “front” yard function and appearance be
provided oriented to Bridger Drive. This is discussed under Site Plan Criterion 6.
The proposed development was offered as a US Green Building Council’s Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND)
project. This was represented as a significant method to satisfying the goals and
objectives of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan and the review criteria of Title 18,
Unified Development Ordinance, BMC. The standards for LEED-ND certification
have been cited as a reason to request deviations from typical City of Bozeman
development standards. Therefore, it is important that since the City has relied upon
these representations in reviewing and approving the project that the project be
completed in conformance with LEED-ND standards as described in PUD
Application, Volume I, Tab Development Manual, section 5 and Tab 1J LEED for
Neighborhood Development.
Section 18.36.090 Planned Unit Development Design Objectives and Criteria
These review criteria are applicable to portions of the project based upon the proposed land
uses and zoning of different sections of the project as outlined in the criteria. In addition to
the review criteria outlined for site plan and conditional use permit review, the City
Commission shall, in approving a planned unit development, find favorably as follows:
All Development
1. Does the development comply with all City design standards, requirements and
specifications for the following services: water supply, trails/walks/bike ways, sanitary
supply, irrigation companies, fire protection, electricity, flood hazard areas, natural
gas, telephone, storm drainage, cable television, and streets?
The development generally complies with city design standards. A requested deviation for a
ditch easement width was denied as the ditch is actively in use. The easement was approved to
114
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-29-
be offset. Applicants have proposed alternative street standards to reduce storm drainage. A
storm water management system to capture and reuse water is proposed. Extensive trails and
bicycle facilities are proposed. Construction will correspond with adopted City standards.
2. Does the project preserve or replace existing natural vegetation?
The site has been actively developed for many years and much of the natural vegetation has
been removed. Most of the remaining natural vegetation is along the East Gallatin River and
Bozeman Creek boundaries and associated wetlands. The application generally avoids those
areas except for bridges and existing streets. The site layout seeks to preserve mature existing
trees in phase 5 and 6. Utilization of native species is included in the project’s landscaping
standards, see PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Design Manual, Sections 2M, 2R, and 2S.
Applicants further propose to remediate damaged wetlands on site by removing fill and trash
and restoring appropriate vegetation while controlling noxious weeds which are prevalent on
the site.
3. Are the elements of the site plan (e.g., buildings, circulation, open space and
landscaping, etc.) designed and arranged to produce an efficient, functionally organized
and cohesive planned unit development?
With both vehicular and pedestrian connectivity, the elements of the site plan are designed to
produce an efficient, functionally organized and cohesive planned unit development.
4. Does the design and arrangement of elements of the site plan (e.g. building
construction, orientation, and placement; transportation networks; selection and
placement of landscape materials; and/or use of renewable energy sources; etc.)
contribute to the overall reduction of energy use by the project?
The availability of internal pedestrian circulation created by sidewalks, pathways, and the trail
system contribute to the overall reduction of energy use by the project. The internal system
also connects with and extends external trail and bicycle systems which will facilitate others in
the area to use these types of travel. The application included a requested deviation to
facilitate development of on-site renewable electric power through solar and wind. A
commercial node included to provide services to project residents and other existing users in
the area. This has the potential to reduce total vehicle miles traveled and corresponding
reductions in energy consumption.
5. Are the elements of the site plan (e.g. buildings, circulation, open space and
landscaping, etc.) designed and arranged to maximize the privacy by the residents of
the project?
Within the PUD, the residential areas are generally designed for some level of privacy, with
streets and open space corridors providing separation. Multiple parks and open spaces are
provided which provide space for personal enjoyment.
115
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-30-
6. Park Land. Does the design and arrangement of buildings and open space areas
contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of the site configuration, and has the area of
park land or open space been provided for each proposed dwelling as required by
§18.50.020, BMC?
This project has provided a coordinated park plan for all phases. See PUD Application
Volume I, Tab Parks & Open Space Plan and Subdivision Application, Volume III, Tab 16 .
The parks are oriented to existing natural features, linear pathways, and urban style plazas.
Adequate area has been provided to satisfy the minimum requirements for dedicated parks.
Additional open space has been provided through large watercourse setbacks.
7. Performance. All PUDs shall earn at least twenty performance points.
The application shows in PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Review Criteria, page 34 a
calculation of how it has satisfied the required performance points. The open space with
public access is adequate to satisfy the required points.
8. Is the development being properly integrated into development and circulation
patterns of adjacent and nearby neighborhoods so that this development will not
become an isolated “pad” to adjoining development?
The design of the PUD provides integrated circulation patterns with connections to all
adjacent streets. The proposed pedestrian plan within the PUD will provide open access for all
neighborhoods to enjoy the open space areas and trail system.
Residential Development – Only applicable to residentially zoned areas
1. On a net acreage basis, is the average residential density in the project (calculated for
residential portion of the site only) consistent with the development densities set forth
in the land use guidelines of the Bozeman growth policy?
Yes, PUD application, Volume I, Tab Development Manual towards the end has a unit
density chart. Section 6.2.2 of the growth policy describes future land use requirements. One
portion of that discussion is related to residential density as shown on page 6-17. No specific
minimum standard was established although the effect of increasing density on land use
demand is described.
The residential development density is established through the City’s zoning standards. The
residential areas of the project are primarily zoned as R-4, the City’s highest density
residential zoning district. The typical maximum allowed density in R-4 based solely upon the
amount of land area required per dwelling is slightly over 32 dwellings per net acre. The
application has requested deviations for lot area to allow density in excess of 32 dwellings per
net acre on Blocks 7, 8, 9, 13, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, and 30. Net density averaged over the
entire residential area of the development was presented as 29 dwellings per acre. The higher
116
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-31-
density represents a transfer of density within the net developable residentially zoned land
within the development. There are also dwellings shown within future buildings in the
commercial and industrial areas. There is no maximum dwelling density established within the
non-residential areas. This has the functional effect of reducing the density within residential
areas below the mathematical 29 dwellings per acre.
2. Does the project provide for private outdoor areas (e.g., private yards, patios and
balconies, etc.) for use by the residents and employees of the project which are
sufficient in size and have adequate light, sun, ventilation, privacy and convenient
access to the household or commercial units they are intended to serve?
The project provides for a variety of outdoor areas, with both private yards, balconies, roof
gardens, and public spaces as formal and informal parks.
3. Does the project provide for outdoor areas for use by persons living and working in
the development for active or passive recreational activities?
The project provides outdoor areas that include a variety of linear and other parks, with areas
for active and passive recreation, as well as pedestrian trail(s). Meadow Park provides the
area most conducive to structured activities and has both vegetated and hard surface areas.
4. If the project is proposing a residential density bonus as described below, does it
include a variety of housing types and styles designed to address community wide issues
of affordability and diversity of housing stock?
A residential density bonus is not proposed above the overall density allowed within the
zoning on the site. This project has proposed a variety of housing types to date, including
single household, townhouse, and multi household on 120 lots plus 15 non-residential lots.
See Subdivision Application, Volume I, Tab Development Review App and Preliminary Plat
Checklist. The first two phases proposed at this time will include single household,
townhouse, and condominium mixed use types of residences.
5. Is the overall project designed to enhance the natural environment, conserve energy
and to provide efficient public services and facilities?
The overall project is designed to enhance the natural environment, conserve energy and to
provide efficient public services and facilities. Application has been made as a LEED-ND
project as described in the PUD Application, Volume I, Tab 1J. LEED-ND requires a
significant commitment to energy conservation and protection of the environment.
6. Residential Density Bonus.
Not applicable.
7. Limited Commercial.
117
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-32-
Not applicable.
8. Does the overall PUD recognize and, to the maximum extent possible, preserve and
promote the unique character of neighborhoods in the surrounding area?
Yes. The diverse nature of the surrounding area results in adjacent “neighborhoods” of low
intensity industrial uses such as cold storage and shops to the west, medium intensity
industrial/office north of Bridger Drive, larger lot residential development to the east with a
typical lot average size of one acre, urban density residences and golf course along Story Mill
Road north of Bridger Drive. The existing Mill complex, Volmer slaughterhouse complex and
stockyard complex are distinctive from the surrounding in type and intensity of use, scale and
materials of buildings.
The PUD has provided various buffering/transitions to adjacent areas to reduce impacts from
intensification of development. Examples are reductions in density in proximity to existing
residential uses, vegetative buffering, preservation of open spaces and natural features such as
wetlands and slopes. This helps preserve the unique character of adjacent neighborhoods.
Given the 106.7 acre infill site and existing historic development pattern the PUD supports
and preserves the unique character of adjacent neighborhoods. See also discussion under
Commercial Development Criterion 5.
Commercial Development – Only applicable to commercially zoned areas
1. If the project contains any use intended to provide adult amusement or
entertainment, does it meet the requirements for adult businesses?
No adult businesses have been proposed. Any future proposals will require separate zoning
review. Adult businesses are limited to M-1 and M-2 zoning and have special review
standards which apply. Unless the special review standards were changed and the allowed
zoning districts revised adult businesses could not located within the Story Mill Neighborhood
project.
2. Is the project contiguous to an arterial street, and has adequate but controlled access
been provided?
Yes, access along North Rouse/Bridger Drive has been provided at defined local and collector
street intersections.
3. Is the project on at least two acres of land?
Yes, the site is over 106 acres in size.
4. If the project contains two or more significant uses (for instance, retail, office,
residential, hotel/motel and recreation), do the uses relate to each other in terms of
118
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-33-
location within the PUD, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, architectural design,
utilization of common open space and facilities, etc.?
Yes, See PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Development Manual for a description of the
design character which will address these issues.
5. Is it compatible with and does it reflect the unique character of the surrounding
area?
Yes, the proposed development has clustered the most intensive development away from
existing adjacent residences. The architectural character proposed carries forward the
industrial history of the site. The most visually prominent buildings on the site, the Mill
complex will be renovated, although some buildings will be replaced. See PUD Application,
Volume I, Tab Development Manual and Subdivision Application, Volume II, Tab Historical
Features, as update on October 15, 2007. The proposed uses expand the long existing role of
residential development on the site and continue to provide opportunity for non-residential
uses. The PUD layout respects the watercourses on the site and minimizes wetland impacts.
When completed the development will be more intensive than previously existed and will have
a different built character. Compatible and Compatible Development are defined in Chapter
18.80, BMC. The project with mitigation of impact as proposed and the conditions of
approval will meet the requirements to be found compatible.
6. Is there direct vehicular and pedestrian access between on-site parking areas and
adjacent existing or future off-site parking areas which contain more than ten spaces?
Yes. Some of the proposed parking is within below ground structures. Access to these
parking areas is necessarily limited. Where surface parking is proposed it has been
appropriately connected.
7. Does the project encourage infill, or does the project otherwise demonstrate
compliance with the land use guidelines of the Bozeman growth policy?
Yes, see the discussion under Site Plan Review Criteria number one. The entire site is an infill
development and is surrounded by existing development on approximately 75% of the
perimeter of the development.
8. Does the project provide for outdoor recreational areas (such as additional
landscaped areas, open spaces, trails or picnic areas) for the use and enjoyment of those
living in, working in or visiting the development?
Yes, see the discussion above on parks, open spaces, and trails.
Industrial – Only applicable to industrially zoned areas
119
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-34-
1. Is the project located adjacent to an arterial or collector street that provides
adequate access to the site?
The site has access via project constructed local streets to North Rouse Avenue/Bridger
Drive, an arterial street, and Story Mill/L Street, a collector street.
2. Is the project developed such that the least intense uses shall be located along the
arterial streets, where visibility to the public is likely? More intense uses such as heavy
industrial uses and warehousing activities will be located away from the arterial streets,
buffered by the other uses.
The industrial components of this project are located on Blocks 10 and 11 and are away from
arterial streets.
3. Does the project utilize a landscaping theme that will tie adjacent uses or projects
together?
Yes, see PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Development Manual, section 2M.
4. Is the project being developed on land substantially surrounded by property
approved for development or developed property with existing services and utilities
already available?
Portions of the property are already served with municipal water and sewer. All of the site lies
within the City’s service area and lines may be extended or already exist in portions of the
site. The entire site is within the City at this time and receives all of the City’s general
government services.
5. Does the project provide for outdoor recreational areas (e.g., additional landscaped
areas, open space, trails or picnic areas) for the use and enjoyment of those working in
or visiting the development?
Yes, see the discussion above on parks, open spaces, and trails.
Chapter 18.30 Entryway Overlay District - DESIGN OBJECTIVES PLAN CRITERIA
Review under these criteria was for Blocks 1, 2, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, and 26 in general and for
Phase 1 in detail. The primary area for this review was limited to the entryway corridor area
along Bridger Drive. The majority of the overall PUD site is not within the overlay corridor.
The Development Manual is organized according to the same pattern as the Design
Objectives Plan (DOP) and includes the same topics and order. Some additional elements
have been included. For example, in Section 2H the standard DOP elements were expanded
by items 2H7 through 2H10. Review for the Phase 5 - 7 components will be provided with a
future application. The standard thresholds for Entryway Overlay review in Chapters 18.30
and 18.34, BMC apply.
120
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-35-
1. Neighborhood Design (pages 9-14 of the Design Objectives Plan):
A. Green Space - The existing watercourses, setbacks and wetlands are being preserved
as green spaces. The stormwater detention facilities are located within the green
space. The Bridger Drive setback will be landscaped to Design Objectives Plan
standards. A deviation was approved to reduce the typical 25 foot setback at the SW
corner of Story Mill Road and Bridger Drive. A landscaped common open space is
provided at the SE intersection of Story Mill Rd and Bridger Drive.
B. Auto Connections – Accesses are limited in location. Local streets make the
connections to Bridger Drive. Interior streets connect within the development and
provide a fine grade connectivity. Underground parking garages span several of the
lots in mutual support of the above ground development. There are few at grade
parking areas. The alignment of Hillside Lane is moving to the south and Mill Spur
Ave is providing north-south circulation between Blocks 1 and 2.
C. Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections - Sidewalks will connect to regional trails.
Sidewalks are provided along all internal street frontages. The trails have been
integrated with the sidewalks through the parks and open space plan. The planned
pedestrian/bicycle facility along Bridger Drive will be provided either by the State
during rebuilding of Rouse/Bridger or with Phase 5 whichever comes first.
D. Street Character - The primary character along Bridger Drive will be residential in
character. Existing development along that frontage has been actively developed as
residential uses for over three decades. Bridger Drive is a planned principal arterial. A
pedestrian trail is planned along the street. There are numerous large evergreen trees
adjacent to the right of way which are intended to be preserved. Building character is
described in the Development Manual Sections 1F, 1L, 1M, and 3M. A condition
requiring coordination of fencing adjacent to Bridger Drive and architectural character
as the “front” of the home has been developed. Block 1 has townhomes facing onto
Story Mill Rd. The homes have an orientation to the street and materials reminiscent
of the existing Story Mill. Street trees are provided along all public frontages.
2. Site Design (pages 15-36 of the Design Objectives Plan):
A. Natural Features - The existing watercourses, setbacks and wetlands are being
preserved as green spaces. The majority of the Story Hill to the east is being set aside
as a park and will remain a highly visible open space.
B. Views - Buildings should not significantly obstruct views. The Mill buildings are the
tallest elements on the site with several structures between 88-110 feet high. The
tallest new proposed buildings are 75 feet in height and will allow the Mill to remain
as the visual focus of the development. A series of viewshed illustrations are shown in
the Development Manual.
C. Cultural Resources – An updated Cultural Resource Inventory was provided on
October 15, 2007. A final draft is required as part of the final PUD plan. There is a
121
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-36-
portion of the site located within the Story Mill Historic District, including the main
mill buildings, slaughterhouse, and stock yard complex. Some of the structures will
be removed, some renovated, as described in PUD Application, Volume I, Tab
Development Manual, section 6. Some required revisions and inclusion of updated
information is required in the Conditions of Approval section. The historic resources
are located outside of the entryway corridor and will be more completely addressed in
the review section for historic preservation.
D. Topography – Site work is planned to protect topographic assets. Also see
discussion under site plan criteria.
E. Site Drainage – Storm drains are piped, with the stormwater detention facilities
located in the green space. Efforts have been made to reduce surface run off such as
the use of permeable paving for Mill Spur Avenue. This subject has been addressed in
the subdivision review.
F. Building Placement – The buildings in this PUD are an urban style close proximity
arrangement. Larger buildings are grouped, mostly in proximity to the primary Mill
complex. Reduced setbacks have been requested to allow buildings placed in near
proximity to streets and sidewalks. The large building in the SW corner of the
intersection of Story Mill Rd and Bridger Drive has been requested to be placed
within 10 feet of the Bridger Drive right of way. This will provide a strong statement
at the corner. The NW corner of the intersection also has a building located in
proximity to the street but it is a single story with a false front. The townhomes along
Story Mill Rd and Hillside Lane are placed in close proximity to the street to present a
common façade with breaks between townhome groups. In Sector E of Phase 1 a
townhome cluster is proposed as a deviation to allow a larger grouping than normally
permitted. Placement of homes on Block 1 is arranged to minimize the proximity to
adjacent existing dwellings.
G. Outdoor Public Spaces – Numerous public plazas and parks were provided in the
overall design which will facilitate public interaction and provide spaces for
community activities. The public park along the East Gallatin River bisects the
development and is the primary natural feature/open space on the project.
H. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Systems – Sidewalks will connect to regional
trails. The key pedestrian systems will be continued with bridges over watercourses
enabling convenient access to all parts of the development. Sidewalks or their
equivalent are provided along all internal street frontages. A trail along Bridger Drive
will be provided either by the development or by MDOT when Rouse/Bridger Drive is
rebuilt. See discussion above.
I. Internal Automobile Circulation Systems – A hierarchy of streets and alleys has
been provided. Access points for larger buildings have been coordinated.
J. Parking Lots – The parking for most large buildings includes some underground
parking which will minimize the visibility of the car. A deviation was sought to not
122
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-37-
screen the surface parking on Block 26 and 4. This deviation was not approved and
conditions of approval have been imposed to require screening.
K. Site Lighting – An alternate lighting design has been proposed. It appears to meet
the intent and purpose of the City’s lighting requirements. Some upward or unshielded
light is proposed for design purposes.
L. Utilities and Service Areas – Service areas are oriented away from the major streets
and integrated into the building design.
M. Landscape Design – An alternate landscaping proposal has been made for certain
lots, see PUD Application, Tab Development Manual, section 2M. Staff
recommended that its application be expanded and that it replace the performance
standards of Section 18.48.060, BMC throughout the project. The requested
deviations for yard setbacks would have made the provision of adequate landscaping
points difficult if not impossible. The alternative approach in 2M was approved.
N. Buffers – Landscaped buffers are provided and must be enhanced to buffer
incompatible uses.
3. Building Design (pages 37-48 of the Design Objectives Plan):
A. Building & Topography – No specific buildings are proposed on Blocks 20 and 25
at this time. The area of Blocks 1 and 2 is generally flat and unrestricted.
B. Building Character - The proposed buildings reflects the regional urban character
and the architectural history of the Story Mill. There are no buildings designed yet for
Blocks 20 and 25. The design character is contained in Chapter 3 of the Development
Manual .
C. Primary Building Entrance - The primary building entrances face towards Hillside
Lane and Story Mill Rd. The lots along Block 20 have frontage along both Bridger
Drive and Millrace Street. It is important that neither street be ignored by the adjacent
architecture. A condition of approval has been developed to require “double frontage”
design.
D. Street Level Interest - Materials and details must be used as shown on the elevation
study of the buildings and as described in the Development Manual to provide street
level interest.
E. Building Mass & Scale- The mass and scale is variable with a range from detached
homes to townhomes to substantial multi-use buildings. As discussed in review
criteria above the mass and scale is proportional to existing site development or has
been appropriately transitioned to adjacent less intensive uses.
F. Roof Form- The primary roof form is flat with variable projections for enclosure of
mechanical equipment and access ways.
G. Building Materials- See PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Development Manual,
Sections 3 and 6. A diversity of materials is acceptable, however industrial type
materials such as brick, wood, metal, and concrete are most evocative of the historical
123
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-38-
development of the Story Mill and other existing structures. It is not required that
materials duplicate those used in existing historic structures but modern
interpretations of those materials are encouraged.
H. Building Complex - This PUD is divided into 7 areas which are subject to a common
design standard while recognizing distinct character for each area. See the PUD
Application, Volume I, Tab Development Manual .
I. Service Canopies- Not applicable. The policy is specific to gas station canopy design
and none are proposed.
J. Color- The guidelines recommend natural tones to blend in and reduce perceived
scale. The primary building elements are in stone, wood, and earth tones with bolder
colors in the signage.
K. Utilities & Mechanical Equipment- The Bozeman Municipal Code and the Design
Objectives Plan require all mechanical equipment to be screened from view.
Deviations have been requested to not screen solar and wind electrical generation
equipment. Staff is supportive of this deviation. All other equipment must be
screened.
4. Sign Design (pages 49-56 of the Design Objectives Plan):
A. Sign Context & Position – A comprehensive sign plan is provided in Section 4 of the
Development Manual. Only Blocks 25 and 26 are likely to contain substantive
signage.
B. Sign Type – No pole signs are permitted. A diversity of sign types is described. Two
deviations were requested for additional signage within the B-1 zoned areas and to
exceed the normally allowed size and dimensions of projecting signs. Analysis of this
issue is under Criterion 16 of the site plan review section.
C. Sign Materials – White backgrounds are not appropriate.
D. Sign Lighting – Internal illumination is discouraged.
E. Sign Content - All signs will comply with the Bozeman Municipal Code.
F. Wall Murals – none proposed at this time but public art is encouraged..
5. Corridor Specific Guidelines:
North Rouse/Bridger Drive Corridor (pages 86-91 of the Design Objectives Plan)
1. Bridger Drive east of the Story Mill Road intersection, should be relatively
narrow in keeping with the rural arterial road character.
The proposed development intends to preserve the majority of existing mature trees along
the Bridger Drive right of way and in several parks or open spaces. The Department of
Transportation has not yet determined the final character of Bridger Drive to result from
the likely rebuilding of the street.
124
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-39-
2. A pedestrian and bicycle boulevard trail shall be provided.
The boulevard trail called for in the DOP shall be installed either by the developer or by
MDOT with the rebuild of Bridger Drive.
3. Build upon the “industrial style” architecture that exists along Rouse.
Coordinate Sections 3B and 3G of the Development Manual to explicitly tie to the
requirements of the Design Objectives Plan for North Rouse/Bridger Drive on pages 89
and 90.
4. Build upon the “rural and mountain style” architecture that exists along Bridger
Drive.
Coordinate Sections 3B and 3G of the Development Manual to explicitly tie to the
requirements of the Design Objectives Plan for North Rouse/Bridger Drive on pages 89
and 90.
5. Reduce the visual impact of industrial operations.
There are no industrially zoned lots within the project which are overlaid by the corridor.
6. The following streetscape elements would be appropriate in this corridor:
The suggested elements, with the exception of the shelter, are included in the proposed
development.
Chapter 18.28 Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Criteria
Section 18.28.050 “Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness” - This section only
applies to the portion of the Story Mill Neighborhood located within the Story Mill Historic
District or specifically brought within the review criteria by a condition of approval for the
PUD.
The specific conditions identified in the review at this time are primarily for the Tin Shed,
Miller’s Carriage House, Flour Warehouse, and Mill as depicted on the site plans included
with the PUD application. These buildings are part of the site plan/COAs for which approval
is sought. Some general conditions to help coordinate documents and provide mitigation of
impacts are also suggested.
As noted in Section 18.28.050.A, BMC below, work done in compliance with the terms of a
Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) must comply with certain standards. The City of
Bozeman has developed locally adopted guidelines to further explain and help decision
makers, landowners, and interested parties apply the Secretary of Interior’s standards. The
nature of the guidelines and their application require some interpretation and judgment. When
full compliance is not able to be achieved, mitigation of impacts may be required to off-set an
125
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-40-
impact. Mitigation may take many forms including, but not limited to, design changes, use of
materials, documentation of a site, providing information about the site to future users, and
other options. Evaluation of impact includes the historic significance, site location, and effect
of non-historical elements, as well as the structure and architecture.
A. All work performed in completion of an approved Certificate of Appropriateness
shall be in conformance with the most recent edition of the Secretary of Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Published 1995),
published by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource
Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services, Washington, D.C.
(available for review at the Department of Planning).
After consideration of a request by the applicant at the public hearing, the City Commission
concluded that the portion of the Secretary of the Interior standards applicable to the review
of the historic elements of the Story Mill Neighborhood PUD are those standards categorized
as Rehabilitation.
Phase 1 – The Garden (Parks Property) COA
The proposed movement of the existing Story Mill Carriage House (c. 1892),
recognized as a contributing building in the original Northern Pacific/Story Mill
Historic District, causes an adverse effect to the building due to the change in location
and orientation which alters it’s historic context and physical relationship with other
Mill buildings and therefore, does not abide by the Secretary of Interior Standards.
The impact is recognized to be able to be mitigated and physical integrity of the
structure is to be preserved. Mitigation of the adverse effect is conditioned as a
combination of historic signage and documentation of the structure and site.
Additional information is also required to ensure that the proposed treatment of the
structure following its relocation abides by the Standards. If the building is moved,
the exterior configuration and fabric (color, materials, etc.) should be maintained in
their historic appearance and the structure should have no exterior additions.
Phase 2 – The Mill, Tin Shed COA
The Flat Storage Warehouse (c. 1950) was not included in the original Northern
Pacific/Story Mill Historic District as a contributing structure because it was not fifty
years of age at the time of the 1996 nomination. However, the Cultural Resource
Inventory conducted by the applicant does recommend the addition of the building to
the district as a contributing building due to its close affiliation and proximity to the
historic site.
126
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-41-
The building was proposed to be entirely removed and replaced. The replacement
building shares some of the locational and physical characteristics of the Tin Shed
which helps preserve the physical relationship between the Mill buildings. The
proposed deconstruction of the existing Flat Storage Warehouse causes an adverse
effect to the building as it will cease to exist and therefore, does not abide by the
Secretary of Interior Standards. Mitigation of the adverse effect is conditioned as
standardized historic documentation and salvaging of materials, preferably for reuse
within the site to retain as much of the relationship as possible. The salvage and reuse
of material is consistent with the standards of LEED.
Phase 2 – The Mill, Main Mill Building COA
This particular COA project includes alterations to the East Warehouse (c.1883), the
Mill Building (pre-1904), the Boiler Room/Administration/Laboratory Building (pre-
1904), the Flour Warehouse Building (1912) and the Mill Rail Yard (c. 1883-1943).
Because of the applicant’s interest in possibly obtaining Federal Tax Incentives with
the project, the proposal was delivered to the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) for their determination of whether or not the project meets the Secretary of
Interior Standards. SHPO determined that several components of the project do not
abide by the Standards and therefore was not eligible for historic preservation tax
credits.
Staff took SHPO’s comments under advisement and after conducting its own review
elaborated the architectural issues below. It is Staff’s intent that the recommended
conditions of approval will help the proposal better conform to the Secretary of
Interior Standards. Where Standards are not met mitigation is proposed. Alternative
means of approaching specific issues may also be explored and when a superior
option, in the judgment of the City, is identified it should be utilized. The buildings
affected by this COA are some of the most characteristic of the historic district and
provide the origin of the name of the historic district and the proposed PUD.
Applicants asserted that the COA application as presented recognized the fact that the
zoning on the property has changed to community commercial and storefronts are
necessary for businesses to succeed in these spaces. They asserted the application is
more appropriately described as an adaptive re-use project utilizing a majority of the
site’s historic structures as opposed to a preservation project where the site will once
again be utilized as a flour mill. Mitigation of the adverse effect is conditioned as a
combination of historic signage and interpretive information. Applicants asserted that
documentation, distinguishing between what is old and what is new, and preserving
two structurally supporting walls of the East Warehouse facility and turning the
remainder of that space into a pleasing outdoor public plaza area will serve as
127
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-42-
mitigation of any loss of historic fabric. Historic signage and interpretive information
and public education will serve to preserve the historic information important to the
entire Story Mill area and persons will be educated by the historic information and
signage placed throughout the site.
B. Architectural appearance design guidelines used to consider the appropriateness
and compatibility of proposed alterations with original design features of subject
structures or properties, and with neighboring structures and properties, shall focus
upon the following:
(NOTE: DISCUSSION BELOW FOR CRITERIA B IS ONLY FOR THE MILL
BUILDING COA AS THE PROPOSED TIN SHED WILL REPLACE THE EXISTING
FLAT WAREHOUSE ENTIRELY)
1. Height;
Overall, the heights of the structures remain unaltered. The non-historic metal-clad
addition on the east elevation of the Mill Building is proposed to be replaced by a glass
tower that approximately sits at the same height as the historic brick portion of the Mill
Building. The COA application as presented asserted that the new glass tower needs to
remain as proposed to provide fire department access to the roof and allow room for the
elevator override. Recognizing the importance of addressing life safety standards, Staff
recommended a condition that the glass tower be compatible with both the adaptive reuse
of the building and the historic structure, but is clearly distinguishable from that which is
old/historic. This may require revised materials with greater transparency of glass and
structural forms, e.g. steel framing, which are industrial in character. Those portions of
the tower which may need to protrude above the current height of the building shall be
minimized to the extent possible given functional requirements.
2. Proportions of doors and windows;
The enlarged openings and new openings proposed on the west elevation of the Flour
Warehouse are an item of extensive concern. The openings, in both size and number, are
part of the character defining features of the Flour Warehouse. It is important that the
character defining features of a historic building are retained with rehabilitation. If
changed openings are too expansive for the primary elevation (easily viewed from the
public right of way) it can substantially alter both the appearance and historical integrity of
the structure. Large openings should be proposed on the secondary elevations (south and
east), as long as they are subtly differentiated from the original so they are not mistaken as
historic/original.
It was recommended with the conditions of approval, that all of the existing door entries
on the west and north elevations of the Flour Warehouse should respect the historic
128
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-43-
proportion of void to wall. The doors proposed in the original entries shall primarily be a
traditional material (wood, metal, etc). A primarily glass door is not appropriate. All of
the new openings shall substantially decrease in glazing area from that depicted in the
COA drawings. It is acceptable to consider expanding an opening as part of the
reuse/rehabilitation of the site. However, additional glazing area should be modest and
grouped with the entrance. For example, many traditional store fronts have glazing for
product display but have a lower wooden or brick panel for the first 2-3 feet above
ground. The simple canopies/awnings proposed shall also be a traditional industrial
material (wood, metal, etc) ) and shall be distinguishable from what is old/historic. For
example, a fabric awning is not appropriate because it is more commercial in style than
industrial. After consideration, the City Commission concluded that the alterations to the
western façade of the Flour Warehouse were acceptable as presented.
The new window openings proposed on the south elevation of the Mill Building shall be
distinguishable from the original window openings. Staff recommended a condition that
the new openings use a straight/flat lintel rather than an arched form. Modified openings
shall preserve the arched lintel form to recall the location and size of the original opening.
After consideration of application materials, staff comments, and applicant comments the
Commission modified the conditions of approval.
3. Relationship of building masses and spaces;
The mass of the proposed replacement stair/elevator tower on the Mill Building is
appropriate occurring to the east. The proposal of a Festival Street in the location of the
abandoned Mill Rail Yard spur track reintroduces traffic in the space to the east (front) of
the Flour Warehouse and the Mill Building. Because of this fact, the importance of
protecting the character-defining features of those primary elevations was emphasized in
the staff review.
4. Roof shape;
The greatest change of roof shape is to the Flour Warehouse Building, with the proposed
mechanical equipment screening. The character of a historical roof should be preserved.
The addition of features such as skylights or solar panels should not be installed in a
manner such that they will interrupt the plane of the historic roof. Staff is recommending
the applicant to investigate possibilities of lowering the proposed metal panels for
mechanical screening on the Flour Mill Warehouse, so that they are not visible from the
public right of way. At a minimum, while rooftop additions may be allowed to be taller
than the existing cornice height, the rooftop additions shall not physically break the line of
the original cornice and shall be set substantially behind the front plane of the building.
5. Scale;
129
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-44-
Overall, the scales of the structures remain unaltered. The existing metal-clad addition on
the east elevation of the Mill Building was proposed to be replaced by a glass tower (see
review comments under item 7 above) that sits roughly at the same height of the historic
brick portion of the Mill Building. Staff recommended the tower to be more subordinate
in height and scale to the Mill Building by minimizing those portions which may be higher
than the current Mill Building roofline.
6. Directional expression;
The primary elevations of the Flour Warehouse and Mill Building shall remain largely
unaltered so that the character-defining features are highlighted. With the reintroduction
of traffic in the front of these buildings, it is appropriate to highlight the original entries of
the buildings as primary, with clear distinctions made between what is old and what is
new.
7. Architectural details;
The architecture proposed should build upon the industrial style of architecture that exists
in and around the Story Mill Historic District. Materials, such as wood cladding,
corrugated steel metal, concrete or brick, should be emphasized. Expansive areas of glass
shall be avoided. New construction should distinguish itself from original features, while
also complementing the historic form and scale of the buildings.
The proposed glass tower on the east elevation of the Mill Building is not consistent in
character with the industrial nature of the existing buildings. However, it is easily
distinguishable from the original/historic architecture. Staff recommended a condition that
the tower use a greater percentage of metal in its surface area or that the steel skeleton
structure of the tower addition be visible through the glass shell of the building to enhance
the industrial nature of the new building. The glass used in the tower shall be non-
reflective and transparent.
The new steel and glass vestibule on the ground floor of west elevation of the Mill
Building is not in character with historic fabric and nature of the building. However, it
covers a new/non-historic door opening in an existing historic building. The vestibule
attempts to clearly distinguish between what is old and what is new. The new opening
needs to be different than the original/historic entrances. A vestibule on a historic
building’s primary elevation should be interior to the building’s walls. If the exterior
vestibule is necessary because an interior vestibule would create even more undesirable
impacts to the interior of the building, the materials should reflect the industrial character
of the site and minimize visual impact. Any glass used to construct an exterior vestibule
needs to be non-reflective and transparent so as to not cover up the historic brick
130
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-45-
structure behind it. Materials should be coordinated between the vestibule and the
proposed east stair/elevator tower.
8. Concealment of non-period appurtenances, such as mechanical equipment;
Staff recommended the applicant to investigate possibilities of lowering the proposed
metal panels for mechanical screening on the Flour Mill Warehouse, so that they are not
visible from the public right of way. At a minimum, while rooftop additions may be
allowed to be taller than the existing cornice height, the rooftop additions shall not
physically break the line of the original cornice and shall be set substantially behind the
front plane of the building.
9. Materials and color scheme.
As conditioned, the Final Site Plan materials shall include a materials and color palette for
all new construction on the Mill, which will be reviewed by ADR Staff prior to final site
plan approval.
C. Contemporary, nonperiod and innovative design of new structures and additions to
existing structures shall be encouraged when such new construction or additions do not
destroy significant historical, cultural or architectural structures, or their components,
and when such design is compatible with the foregoing elements of the structure and
the surrounding structures.
Contemporary and new additions are discussed above in further detail.
D. When applying the standards of subsections A-C, the review authority shall be
guided by the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
which are hereby incorporated by this reference. When reviewing a contemporary,
non-period, or innovative design of new structures, or addition to existing structure, the
review authority shall be guided by the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District to determine whether the proposal is compatible with
any existing or surrounding structures.
The Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation & the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District were referenced during ADR Staff’s architectural review of the three COA
applications. It is recommended that the applicant reference several components of the
Design Guidelines in their Development Manual’s Chapter 6 (Historic & Cultural Resource
Guidelines). The Development Manual shall prominently call out that individual site
development lying within the area of the Story Mill Historic District is subject to the
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings and the Design Guidelines for
131
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-46-
Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
As these standards are nationally established and have been utilized for decades it is not
expected that they will materially change over the life of the project. While excessive detail
can be repetitive and burdensome, if items are of great importance they should be given
emphasis. The components of utmost importance include the following. The items for
inclusion in the Development Manual are the chapter title and policy. The guidelines
associated are provided here to illustrate the type of issues to be addressed by each standard.
Chapter 1: B. Historic Building Materials
Policy: Primary historic building materials should be preserved in place whenever
feasible and should not be covered or subjected to harsh cleaning treatments.
Guideline 1: Preserve original building materials. Masonry features that define the
overall historic character, as wall, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should
be preserved.
Guideline 5: Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-in,
consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material. Avoid the removal of damaged
materials that can be repaired.
Guideline 6: Repoint mortar joints where there is evidence of deterioration. Duplicate
the old mortar in strength, composition, color and texture. Avoid using mortar with a
high Portland cement content, which will be substantially harder than the original.
Duplicate the mortar joints in width and profile.
Guideline 7: Use the gentlest means possible to clean the surface of a structure.
Harsh cleaning methods, such as sandblasting, can damage historic materials,
changing their appearance. Such procedures are inappropriate. If cleaning is
appropriate, a low pressure water wash is preferred.
Guideline 9: Do not use synthetic materials, such as aluminum or vinyl siding or
panelized brick, as replacements for primary building materials.
Guideline 10: Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate.
Guideline 11: Consider removing later covering materials that have not achieved
historic significance. Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original,
underlying material. If a house has a stucco finish, removing the covering may be
difficult, and may not be desirable. Test the stucco to assure that the original material
underneath will not be damaged.
Chapter 1: C. Individual Building Features/Windows
Policy: The character-defining features of an historic window and its distinct materials
and placement should be preserved.
Guideline 2: Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a
building wall. Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining façade
132
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-47-
is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening.
Guideline 3: Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to
receive a larger window is inappropriate.
Guideline 4: Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a primary
façade(s).
Chapter 1: C. Individual Building Features/Doors
Policy: The character defining-features of a historic door and its distinct materials and
placement should be preserved.
Guideline 9: Preserve the decorative and functional features of a primary entrance.
Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway (such as the door,
door frame, transoms, etc). Avoid changing the position and function of original front
doors and primary entrances.
Guideline 10: Maintain the historic proportion of a significant door.
Guideline 12: When replacing a door, use materials that appear similar to that of the
original.
Chapter 1: C. Individual Building Features/Roofs
Policy: The character of a historical roof should be preserved.
Guideline 17: Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. The
addition of features such as skylights or solar panels should not be installed in a
manner such that they will interrupt the plane of the historic roof.
Guideline 18: When planning a rooftop addition, it should not interrupt the original
cornice and ridgeline.
Chapter 1: D. Rehabilitation of Historic Commercial Properties/Additions
Guideline 11: An addition should be compatible in scale, materials and character with
the main building. An addition should relate to the building in mass, scale and form.
It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure.
Chapter 1: G. Adaptive Re-Use
Policy: Converting a building to a new use that is different from that which its design
reflects is considered to be “adaptive re-use.” A good adaptive re-use retains the
historic character of the building while accommodating its new function.
Guideline 1: Seek uses that are compatible with the historic character of the building.
Avoid altering porches and original windows and doors.
Chapter 1: H. Historic Additions
Policy: Some early additions may have taken on historic significance of their own.
133
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-48-
One constructed in a manner that was compatible with the original building and that is
associated with the period of significance may merit preservation in its own right.
Chapter 2: H. Materials
Guideline 1: Use building materials that appear architecturally similar to those used
traditionally in the area. The use of highly reflective materials is discouraged.
Guideline 2: The use of masonry that appears similar in character to that seen
historically is appropriate.
Chapter 2: I. Architectural Character
Policy: New construction should distinguish itself from historic structures.
A. Conformance with other applicable development standards of this title.
Based on the requirements outlined in Chapter 18.34 of the Bozeman Unified
Development Ordinance, ADR Staff provided comments incorporated in the “Site
Plan Review Criteria.”
ORDER
After considering all matters of record presented at the public hearing, the Bozeman City
Commission found that the proposed PUD would comply with the City of Bozeman Growth Policy,
and the requirements of the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance if code requirements
were met and certain conditions were imposed. The evidence, as stated or referenced in the Findings
of Fact, justifies the imposition of the conditions ordered herein to ensure that the final PUD plan
complies with all applicable regulations and all required criteria.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Preliminary Plan for the Story Mill
Neighborhood Planned Unit Development be approved, subject to the following conditions:
Story Mill Neighborhood Overall PUD Plan Conditions:
1) The duration of the requested 10 year approval period for the PUD shall begin on the date the
Final PUD plan is signed by the Director of Planning and Community Development. For any
134
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-49-
phases not having been subject to a final plat after the passage of the ten year period the PUD
approval shall expire, unless a request for an extension of the design guidelines/standards for not
more than five additional years shall be made in writing and approved by the City as described in
Section 18.36.070, BMC. If the design guidelines/standards are extended then the approval period
shall continue but will again terminate in the same manner at the end of the extended period. This
process may be continued until the entire project is complete or a request for extension fails to be
made in a timely manner. If the request for extension fails to be submitted in a timely manner
the termination of the PUD approval shall occur without need for any further action by the
City of Bozeman.
2) The right to a use and occupancy permit within the PUD shall be contingent upon the fulfillment
of all general and special conditions imposed by the conditional use permit procedure.
3) All of the special conditions of PUD approval shall constitute restrictions running with the land
use, shall apply and be adhered to by the owner of the land, successors or assigns, shall be binding
upon the owner of the land, his successors or assigns, shall be consented to in writing, and shall
be recorded as such with the County Clerk and Recorder’s Office by the property owner prior to
the City approval of the final PUD plan.
4) Applicant shall provide and file with the County Clerk and Recorder's office executed Waivers of
Right to Protest Creation of SIDs for the following:
a) Street improvements including paving, curb/gutter, sidewalk and storm drainage facilities for
the following streets:
i) Bridger Drive.
ii) Story Mill Road
iii) L Street
iv) Local streets within all phases of the subdivision
b) Signalization Improvements for the following intersections:
i) Story Mill Rd and Bridger Drive
ii) Griffin Drive and Bridger Drive/Rouse Avenue
iii) Bryant Street and Rouse Avenue
iv) Bond Street and Rouse Avenue
c) Trunk Sewer and Water mains to serve the property.
The documents filed shall specify that in the event an S.I.D. is not utilized for the completion of
these improvements, the developer agrees to participate in an alternate financing method for the
completion of said improvements on a fair share, proportionate basis as determined by square
footage of property, taxable valuation of the property, traffic contribution from the development
or a combination thereof.
5) That the applicant execute at the Gallatin County Clerk & Recorder’s Office a waiver of right-to-
protest creation of S.I.D.’s for a City-wide Park Maintenance District, which would provide a
135
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-50-
mechanism for the fair and equitable assessment of maintenance costs for City parks.
6) The boundaries of private lots adjacent to open spaces shall be clearly delineated. The final site
plan shall describe how the delineation will be provided. More than one marking option may be
utilized.
7) Concurrent construction of infrastructure and buildings is approved for Phases 1&2 (as
geographically depicted) only, as requested in the Subdivision Application Volume 3, Tab 20 and
PUD application Volume 1, Tab G. Emergency and landowner access to Hillside Lane must be
provided at all times.
8) Millrace Street from Monad Street to Columbia Avenue shall be converted to an alley. The alley
shall be of adequate width to accommodate any public utilities. The Development manual shall
contain design standards so that homes constructed on Block 20 shall present a front architecture
to Bridger Drive. Development standards shall address fenestration, doors, porches, fencing,
garage orientation and other items needed to establish the required Development character. This
shall include having a true front presentation towards Bridger Drive with porches, front doors,
and coordinated 4’ tall (maximum) fencing with gates/openings and walkway connections
providing access to the streetscape and sidewalk system. Fencing is not required for the open
space area located mid-block. Fencing shall be installed simultaneously for all lots and prior to
occupancy of the first home on Block 20.
9) The PUD in its entirety is approved under the regulations currently in place in accordance with
Section 18.34.070, BMC. If the applicant proposes a Major Change to the PUD as defined in
18.36.040.C.4, BMC, by either increasing or decreasing in intensity or number of homes, then the
revised plan shall conform with any updated regulations in place at the time the request for change
is deemed adequate for review, except where a specific deviation was approved either initially or
with the Major Change. This condition does not restrict or limit the application of updated
engineering, building, or other life safety codes or standards.
10) Landowners have proposed the PUD to be completed as a project subject to the US Green
Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood
Development (LEED-ND) rating system, see PUD application Volume 1, Tab J. Applicant has
stated their intention of utilizing LEED-ND to both satisfy the purposes of a PUD as stated in
Section 18.36.010, BMC and as an inducement to the City to approve the project and provide a
benefit to justify the multiple deviations requested with the project. Failure to develop the project
subject to the LEED requirements shall be considered a Major Change as described in Section
18.36.040.C.4.b, BMC and will require re-review of the project and may alter the conditions of
approval and the deviations granted.
11) The parking description tables in PUD application Volume I, Tab 1 Section L shall be corrected
to reflect parking requirements for development and any awarded deviations.
12) The applicant shall submit with the application for PUD final site plan review and approval, a
written narrative stating how each of the conditions of preliminary PUD approval has been
satisfactorily addressed, and shall include a digital copy (PDF) of the entire Final PUD submittal.
136
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-51-
This narrative shall in sufficient detail to direct the reviewer to the appropriate plat, plan, sheet,
note, covenant, etc. in the submittal.
13) Buildings to be constructed shall retain the general massing, especially those shown as base and
pedestal in form, portrayed in the PUD Application, Volume 1, Development Manual Appendix,
subsection 4 - Height Setback and Floor Area Limitations, when individual site plans are
submitted.
14) A full historic resources/cultural resources mitigation plan shall be provided at the time of
submittal of the PUD final site plan for the first two phases and shall be provided concurrent with
the preliminary site plans for phase 3 and beyond. Part of the mitigation plan could include
renovation of buildings not currently listed as contributing due to age.
15) The development manual has little reference to the Secretary of the Interior standards for historic
preservation. They are applicable to this project and need to be referenced. References to terms
such as rehabilitation must correspond to the usage of the Secretary of the Interior standards.
16) The Development Manual sections 2V and 6 shall be coordinated to encourage education
regarding the historic development of the site and to recognize the railroad presence and
importance and its importance. For example, interpretive signs regarding the Story Mill spur trail
being an old railroad bed and its ties throughout site.
a) A comprehensive sign plan shall be submitted with the Final PUD plan for overall
coordination of signage format and design and general locations throughout the PUD.
Signage shall be address each major location and/or category of structures or time period
identified in the cultural resource inventory. Each final site plan or final plat if no final site
plan will be needed within a phase shall show locations and detailed content of the signage to
be placed within each phase or site.
b) Signage for cultural interpretation and explanation shall be visually distinct from that relating
to LEED development and shall be of materials and manufacture that is durable.
c) Sign content accuracy shall be verified with the state historic preservation office or Bozeman
historic preservation officer.
17) Changes to the Story Mill granary and other contributing buildings as identified in the updated
Cultural Resource Inventory as amended by conditions of approval shall be the subject of a
specific individual Certificate of Appropriateness review by the City Commission.
18) Any structure removed from the Story Mill Historic District shall be documented to Level 2
utilizing the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) and the Historic American Engineering
Record (HAER) standards.
19) Tree species along roadways shall be diversified to have not more than 70% of a single species
along the length of a street. A species choice capable of tolerating street salts well shall be
provided along Bridger Drive.
20) The applicant has requested multiple deviations as part of the PUD, see PUD Application,
Volume 1, Tab H. Except as modified in the conditions of approval for the PUD and related
137
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-52-
subdivision the deviations are approved as requested. The PUD final site plan shall contain maps,
tables and text describing the deviations applicable per lot in the same manner as the original
submittal. Deviations shall retain the same numbering in the final site plan as in the original
application.
a) Deviation 8, 18.16.040 Residential Lot Width – The restrictions in the Development Manual
Section 3M3 for larger lot size minimums and restricted locations must be included in the final
PUD materials.
b) Deviations 9-12, 18.16.050, Residential Yard Setbacks reduction – Any door, eave or other
projecting element of the building which crosses a property line shall require a right-of-way
encroachment permit from the Engineering Division. Rear yard setbacks adjacent to wetlands
shall maintain the necessary transitional planting to comply with Development Manual
standards 2M and 2R.
c) Deviations 16-18, 18.18.050, BMC Commercial Yards Setbacks reduction - Any door, eave
or other projecting element of the building which crosses a property line shall require a right-
of-way encroachment permit from the Engineering Division. Shared elements such as parking
facilities shall require reciprocal easements to allow crossing of the property lines.
d) Deviation 19, 18.18.050.A.2, Commercial Front Yard reduction to encroach in the required
yard for parking. The requested setback to zero feet is not approved. Sufficient space must be
retained to provide for parking lot screening from adjacent streets and lots. Exact distance
allowed for encroachment will be determined by the efficiency of the screening. Screening of
parking needs to be exceptional and likely include some berming.
e) Deviation 24, 18.20.20, Industrial Authorized Uses – The requested deviations to allow more
than 50% of total building gross square footage to be used as residential is acceptable only if
the building ground floor area, exclusive of parking, is not less than 75% non-residential uses.
f) Deviation 26, 18.20.050.a.1.A, Industrial Yard – Any door, eave or other projecting element
of the building which crosses a property line shall require a right-of-way encroachment permit
from the Engineering Division.
g) Deviations 28, 50 & 54, 18.30.060.B Entryway Corridor Setback Standards and
18.38.060.C.2 Special Yard Setbacks – Requested relaxation to yard setbacks along Bridger
Drive. Approval of this deviation also requires the same deviation to additional Sections
18.38.060.C.2 Special Yard Setback for Arterials, and 18.16.050.A.1.a Residential Yards,
BMC. The deviation request for a 20 foot building setback for Block 20 Lots 1-16 and a 10
foot building setback for Block 25, Lot 1 is approved. The requested zero foot setback for
parking is not approved. Sufficient space must be retained to provide for parking lot screening
from adjacent streets and lots. Exact distance permitted for the allowed encroachment will be
determined by the efficiency of the screening. Screening of parking needs to be exceptional
and will likely include some berming. The placement of any parking lot lights shall be to the
interior of the parking lot and not on the north edge.
138
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-53-
h) Deviation 29 – The deviation request for additional height as shown in the detailed table is
approved. The additional height allowance for solar and wind power generation is in addition
to the specified larger building heights and solar equipment may be not more than an
additional 8 feet higher and wind generation equipment may not be more than an additional 15
feet higher.
i) Deviation 32 – The deviation is denied. The full easement width shall be provided but may be
offset.
j) Deviation 33 – The deviation to 18.42.140 Loading Berth is approved, however the tenants
shall coordinate loading and delivery times and delivery shall not be permitted between 10pm
and 6am. The conflict with Development Manual 3P7 shall be corrected.
k) Deviation 34 – This deviation shall be coordinated with the revisions to yard setback
deviations 9, 10, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 26 and 28, and relevant sections of the Development
Manual shall be adjusted as needed.
l) Deviations 37& 38 – These deviations are denied because they have been rendered irrelevant
by Condition of Approval 21k which applies the landscaping alternate means of compliance as
allowed by the PUD in Section 2M of the Development Manual to the entire development.
m) Deviation 40 – Sandwich board signs are allowed as an additional accessory use. Prior to
placement of any sandwich board sign an encroachment permit must be obtained from the
City utilizing the same procedures as are applicable to Main Street
n) Deviation 41 – The requested deviation to allow 250 square feet of signage per lot in the B-1
district is approved only for those lots with more than one commercial or office use tenant.
o) Deviation 46 – The alternative lighting plan is acceptable as allowed by Section
18.42.150.B.2, BMC, however the luminaries must be adjusted when installed to ensure they
comply with the full cutoff standard.
p) A deviation is granted from Section 18.42.150.D.7, BMC to allow a fixture to not restrict all
light to a plane below the lowest point of the light emitting element. See Subdivision
Application, Volume III, Tab 18, Fixtures M3, M4 and M9.
q) The necessary deviations from Sections 18.44.050 ROW, 18.44.060, and 18.44.080 sidewalks
are approved to allow the private non-City Standard streets as depicted in PUD Application,
Volume 1, Section L with the deviations from City standards shown in PUD Application
Volume 1, Tab 4 and modified by conditions of approval.
r) Deviation 49 – An additional deviation to Section 18.38.050.F, BMC is approved to not
require screening of certain rooftop mechanical equipment (solar and wind electrical
generators). All other roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened as required by
Section 18.38.050.
s) Deviation 55 – Two additional deviations from Section 18.52.060.A.3 are approved in
conjunction with Deviation 41 to allow increased size and dimensions of projecting signs as
139
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-54-
described in Section 4M1. Project signs larger than 12 square feet shall include a structural
evaluation for wind loading which shall be submitted at the same time as the sign permit.
t) Deviation 48 – An additional deviation is granted from Section 18.16.050.A.4 in conjunction
with Deviations 11 and 12 to allow a zero foot garage entrance setback for lots where lots
and building dimensions coincide.
u) A deviation is approved from Section 18.46.010.D to allow stacked parking for a use other
than a townhouse or detached home. The stacked parking shown for the underground parking
provided for the Tin Shed component shall be assigned to an individual tenant and
Development Manual section 2J shall be revised so that it specifies that stacked spaces must
in all circumstances be assigned to an individual user.
v) The requested deviation to encroach in a watercourse setback for Wetland 10 (as depicted in
the Subdivision Application, Volume II, Tab 1, Sheet WETL 404-6) so that the setback
boundary is the edge of the wetland is acceptable only if the unpermitted fill within the
wetland and south of Griffin Drive be removed and the wetland rehabilitated, and a hydrologic
connection be established under Griffin Drive to allow the wetland to flow to the north.
w) A deviation to Section 18.42.180.C, BMC for Block 1, Lot 5 and Block 20, Lot 1 to allow an
RSL lot in excess of 5,000 square feet is approved. However, the buildings constructed on
such lots shall not exceed the size which would have been allowed had the lots not exceeded
the normal size limit.
x) Deviation 54 – An additional deviation is approved from Section 18.48.050.C, BMC to not
provide parking lot landscaping on Blocks 25 and 4. The requested zero foot setback for
parking is not approved. Sufficient space must be retained to provide for parking lot screening
from adjacent streets and lots. Exact distance permitted for the allowed encroachment will be
determined by the efficiency of the screening. Screening of parking needs to be exceptional
and will likely include some berming. The placement of any parking lot lights shall be to the
interior of the parking lot and not on the north edge.
y) All deviations are part of the Planned Unit Development and are subject to the same
termination provisions as the overall PUD as described in Chapter 18.36, BMC. Failure
to perform and complete development of the project may result in formerly approved
deviations or other approvals “timing out” for uncompleted phases. Deviations may be
continued for undeveloped phases in the same manner as seeking an extension of design
guidelines approval.
21) PUD Application, Volume 1, Tab Development Manual. Except as modified in this condition the
Development manual is approved as requested. The PUD final site plan shall contain maps, tables
and text describing the Development standards and incorporating these revisions in the same
manner as the original submittal.
a) The Development manual shall be reviewed and any inconsistent numbering shall be
corrected.
140
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-55-
b) Introduction, Article 7 – The Development manual may only be amended with COB approval
for sections affecting PUD approval or compliance with ordinance provisions. If the applicant
chooses to limit City of Bozeman approval to sections required for approval they shall
propose a list of sections for City concurrence as part of the final PUD plan. If all edits to the
manual require City of Bozeman approval then the list of sections is not required.
c) Neighborhood Districts Summary, p. 24.
i) p. 25 The Story Mill - The industrial/traditional character of the existing buildings shall be
noted here – emphasis on a material selection that is traditional and industrial in nature for
all new construction shall be noted – abiding by national historic preservation standards
shall be noted for proposed rehabilitation/preservation.
ii) P. 25 East Gallatin – No discussion of materials/colors provided as was done in other
districts
iii) P. 26 Mill Spur – Architecture to encourage respect of the spur trail present to the east.
d) Section 1G1 – Include reference to removal of historic structures as described in Section 6
and Cultural Resource Inventory.
e) Section 2B – Include in this section discussion of protecting views of the Mill buildings as
provided in the section on viewsheds.
f) Section 2C3 – Provide clarification of “when preservation is not possible” such as giving
examples that would qualify or remove the phrase.
g) Section 2H – The section shall be modified to encourage covered or enclosed bicycle parking
and storage in addition to typical surface bicycle racks.
h) Section 2J – Stacking of parking spaces which are not individually owned shall be limited to
circumstances where parking within the stacked spaces is allocated directly to individual
tenants and the stalls have signage identifying the controlling party.
i) Section 2M – The manual shall be revised to state who decides or by what criteria a plant
species qualifies as a “native” species.
j) Section 2N – Modify discussion regarding fence height to advise that no fence in excess of 4
feet in height is allowed adjacent to any linear park. SMARC may not grant a variance to this
code requirement. A requirement for a coordinated fence meeting the standards of 18.42.130
and the Development Manual to be placed along the Story Mill Spur Trail to demarcate the
boundary and restrict unapproved access to wetlands shall be added to the section.
k) Section 2M6 – The special landscaping standards from the Development Manual section
currently numbered 2M6 shall be applied across the entire development for all sites which
require site plan review per Section 18.34.060.A and shall replace required compliance with
Section 18.48.060, BMC.
l) Section 2M6 – Examples of the types of item which may be used to provide “Outdoor
recreation facilities installed within residential lots” as a means of satisfying landscaping
141
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-56-
requirements shall be provided. The provision of outdoor recreation facilities shall be noted to
be applicable only to lots subject to site plan review by the City of Bozeman.
m) Section 2R3 – The width requirement for the wetland management transition plantings needs
to be more clearly specified.
n) Section 3B – Coordinate with Section 3G to explicitly tie to the requirements of the Design
Objectives Plan for North Rouse/Bridger Drive on pages 89 and 90.
o) Section 3K – The section shall be revised to require that plant materials for screening of
equipment must be evergreen plants.
p) Section 3M1 – SMARC is to be responsible to enforce this item, print out full working of the
acronym FHAA
q) Section 3P7 – This section regarding the loading dock requirement cites UDO compliance
however, a deviation has been sought to not meet UDO requirement. The conflict in the text
must be corrected. Reference to limited hours of operation for loading shall be included.
r) Section 3R – Lot coverage with parking garage pedestal and tower – verify that lot coverage
deviation already mentioned is adequate.
s) Section 4A or 4B – A reference needs to be added so that the use of portable signs/sandwich
boards is included.
t) Section 4D1-2 – Metric measure is acceptable but also include English measure for lighting
illumination.
u) Section 4M – The stated size of a blade/projecting sign of 50 square feet exceeds that allowed
by Chapter 18.52. If a deviation is granted to allow such a sign and alternative dimensions any
corresponding restrictions shall also be included in this section.
v) Section 6 – Historic and Cultural Resource Guidelines
i) Include reference to areas within the Story Mill Historic District as being subject to
review for a Certificate of Appropriateness per Chapter 18.28, BMC for compliance with
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with
Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings
and the Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District, especially Chapter 5, section A., pp. 79-80. The Secretary of the Interior
Standards for Rehabilitation have been determined to be those to be applied to the Story
Mill Neighborhood project. The City has adopted local standards in support of the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Some specific items of the local
standards shall be referenced in order to provide interested parties early knowledge of
standards of particular concern to the City. Each COA shall be reviewed on its own merits
in relationship to the City’s adopted standards, historic character and nature of affected
structures, and the overall PUD. Specific components to be referenced directly in the
Development Manual are:
(1) Chapter 1: B. Historic Building Materials
142
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-57-
(a) Policy: Primary historic building materials should be preserved in place whenever
feasible and should not be covered or subjected to harsh cleaning treatments.
(2) Chapter 1: C. Individual Building Features/Windows
(a) Policy: The character-defining features of an historic window and its distinct
materials and placement should be preserved.
(3) Chapter 1: C. Individual Building Features/Doors
(a) Policy: The character defining-features of a historic door and its distinct materials
and placement should be preserved.
(4) Chapter 1: C. Individual Building Features/Roofs
(a) Policy: The character of a historical roof should be preserved.
(5) Chapter 1: G. Adaptive Re-Use
(a) Policy: Converting a building to a new use that is different from that which its
design reflects is considered to be “adaptive re-use.” A good adaptive re-use
retains the historic character of the building while accommodating its new
function.
(6) Chapter 1: H. Historic Additions
(a) Policy: Some early additions may have taken on historic significance of their own.
One constructed in a manner that was compatible with the original building and
that is associated with the period of significance may merit preservation in its own
right.
(7) Chapter 2: H. Materials
(a) Policy. Building materials of new structures and additions to existing structures
should contribute to the visual continuity of the neighborhood. They should
appear similar to those seen traditionally to establish a sense of visual continuity.
(8) Chapter 2: I. Architectural Character
(a) Policy: New construction should distinguish itself from historic structures.
(9) Chapter 3: B. Building Mass and Scale
(a) Policy: While new buildings and additions are anticipated that may be larger than
many of the earlier structures, this new construction should not be so dramatically
greater in scale than the established context that the visual continuity of the
neighborhood would be compromised
w) The Appendices for the Development Manual which show density by lot, massing models
with summary statistics, and aerial views of the project shall be revised as needed to address
changes between requested and approved deviations.
22) The Cultural Resource Inventory (CRI) as revised, updated and received by the City on October
15, 2007 shall be revised per any comments of the City. The amended CRI shall then, as the most
current and comprehensive information available, be the location specific information which will
form the basis for individual Certificate of Appropriateness reviews.
143
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-58-
a) After approval of development within Phase 8 and prior to approval of development for Phase
9, an amendment to the Story Mill Historic District shall be formally submitted through a new
nomination to incorporate all changes in the district to date and to supersede the existing
district nomination.
23) The Community Resource Inventory is recognized as being preliminary in scope (page 107).
Historic Preservation Treatment Plans shall be submitted as part of each individual COA
preliminary plans.
24) As offered in the submittal, a letter of approval from the Story Mill Architectural Review
Committee approving the overall design of any building within the development shall be provided
to the City of Bozeman at the time that application is made to the City for any building permit for
a new or renovated structure.
25) The PUD Application, Volume II, Tab Development Program, detail sheets shall be amended to
include a listing by lot of the applicable zoning designation.
26) Workforce Housing – A minimum of 3% of the total dwellings, not fewer than 34 dwelling units,
shall meet the requirements of Chapter 17.02, BMC within the project. The applicant may
propose an individualized plan for how to provide those dwellings. The final PUD plan shall
include a description of location, dwelling type, and all other necessary materials to satisfy the
requirements of Chapter 17.02, BMC. The description of the unit’s type and location shall be
coordinated between the plats and planned unit development. The location for workforce housing
units are to be designated on the final plat for each phase. Final plats for each phase shall include
appropriate deed restrictions on individual lots to ensure that ultimate development of the lots will
include the applicable number of price restricted homes.
Phase 1 (The Garden) Site Plan Specific Conditions:
1) Access easements shall be provided across Sections A&E for access to adjacent single household
lots.
2) Section A trees are too close to the storm water lines on the north and shall be reconfigured to
decrease likelihood of root damage to stormwater facilities.
3) The coordinated hedge shown on Sheet L200 shall be provided along the NE boundary between
the proposed residences and existing development. A design consistent with Section 2N of the
Design Manual shall be submitted with the final site plan. Installation of the hedge and associated
irrigation shall be done all at once and shall be completed prior to the first certificate of
occupancy for a detached home on Block 1.
4) The narrative in this application shall be revised in the following manner: (a) the citation of
Section 18.30 shall be changed to Section 18.28.
5) Because an adverse effect is occurring to the existing Story Mill Carriage House from the
proposed relocation, the following mitigation shall be provided. The information required in items
144
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-59-
a and b shall be provided prior to Final Site Plan approval and physical installation of item b shall
occur prior to occupancy of the Tin Shed building:
a) Historic documentation of the Story Mill Carriage House, at HABS/HAER level 2, shall be
submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development (including drawings
and photographs).
b) One (1) interpretive sign shall be placed in front of the building that explains the building’s
history (construction date, use, affiliation with the Head Miller’s House, etc) and its original
location (in affiliation with the original location of Hillside Lane). The proposed location and
design of the sign shall be shown on a site plan/schematic plan that is submitted to the
Department of Planning and Community Development. Sign content will be approved with
the final site plan.
6) A site plan that shows both the existing and proposed location of the Story Mill Carriage House
shall be submitted to the Department of Planning with the final site plan application.
7) Any exterior changes proposed to the Story Mill Carriage House following its relocations shall be
portrayed in scaled building elevations.
8) The applicant shall provide the Department of Planning the proposed movement method of the
Story Mill Carriage House.
9) A materials board/color palette for the new construction that includes actual material samples and
color chips shall be submitted for review and approval by the Department of Planning prior to
final COA approval. The materials/color palette shall be presented on a board no larger than 24”
x36” and contain all the primary materials to be utilized on the building including
window/storefront frames and doors (entry, garage, and service). All final building elevations
shall be keyed to the color palette to delineate where each individual building material and color is
specified.
Phase 2 (Story Mill – Tin Shed) Site Plan Specific Conditions:
1) Sheet C300-1 shows a 1 inch water stub to serve the entire building. This seems unlikely to be
adequate for both homes and nonresidential uses for the new Tin Shed. Developer shall
coordinate with the Water Department regarding stub locations and sizing.
2) The northern parking area in the Mill Building site shall be developed concurrently with this work
and shall be available for use at the time a certificate of occupancy is granted for the new “tin
shed” building.
3) The narrative in this application shall be revised in the following manner: (a) the citation of
Section 18.30 shall be changed to Section 18.28.
4) Because an adverse effect is occurring to the existing Flat Storage Warehouse from the proposed
deconstruction, the following mitigation shall occur prior to Final Site Plan approval:
a) Historic documentation of the building, at HABS/HAER level 2, shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning (including drawings and photographs).
b) Documentation showing the applicant’s attempt to salvage the materials of the existing
building shall be submitted to the Department of Planning. Documentation shall describe how
145
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-60-
the materials will be removed from the building, aggregated, stored, and the intended use of
the reclaimed materials. The LEED reclaimed materials documentation format may be
utilized.
5) A site plan that shows both the existing location of the Flat Storage Warehouse and the proposed
location of the new Tin Shed shall be submitted to the Department of Planning with the final site
plan application.
6) The applicant shall provide the Department of Planning and Community Development a written
description of the proposed steps in the deconstruction and reconstruction process of the Flat
Storage Warehouse.
7) A materials board/color palette for the new construction that includes actual material samples and
color chips shall be submitted for review and approval by the Department of Planning prior to
final COA approval. The materials/color palette shall be presented on a board no larger than 24”
x36” and contain all the primary materials to be utilized on the building including
window/storefront frames and doors (entry, garage, and service). All final building elevations
shall be keyed to the color palette to delineate where each individual building material and color is
specified.
Phase 2 (Story Mill – Mill Building/East Warehouse/Flour Warehouse) Site Plan Specific
Conditions:
1) Architectural Design Review Staff shall review and approve revisions required to comply with the
following conditions prior to approval of the final site plan.
2) The NE center curb along Hillside lane is too wide and allows backing into the public right of way
as shown, which is not permitted. The northern most 3 parking stalls shall be removed and the
space utilized for covered bike parking. If necessary the requested parking deviation for Phase 3
shall be adjusted to enable a further reduction in the physically provided parking
3) The narrative in this application shall be revised in the following manner: (a) the citation of
Section 18.30 shall be changed to Section 18.28 and (b) the removal of “both” so that it is clear
the Northern Pacific/Story Mill Historic District is indeed one district.
4) A site plan that shows both the location of all existing buildings and the location of all new
construction/additions shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community
Development with the final site plan.
5) Details of the proposed treatment and changes to the interior spaces of the Mill Building, Flour
Warehouse and Boiler Room shall be submitted to the Department of Planning. Information shall
include the items that will be removed, salvaged, placed on educational display, etc. Additionally,
a description of the intended final treatment of floors, walls and ceilings shall be included with the
building permit for interior renovations of each portion of the building.
6) Larger (not larger than 8x10 inches) and more detailed photographs of the buildings proposed to
be altered shall be submitted to the Department of Planning. The photographs shall clearly show
the existing condition of each elevation to be altered.
146
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-61-
7) A more gentle cleaning method than sand-blasting (with sand) shall be proposed and all the notes
of “sandblasting” brick shall be removed.
8) To correctly correlate with the Development Manual, Chapter 6 shall be revised so that the north,
east and south walls of the East Warehouse are proposed as structurally stabilized/preserved.
9) The stair/elevator tower on the east elevation shall be subordinate to the Mill Building. This may
be achieved by minimizing height protrusions above the cornice level of the Mill Building to the
minimum necessary to meet life safety needs, utilization of materials with an industrial character,
and distinguishing the new addition from the main building.
10) The canopies/awnings proposed shall be a traditional industrial material (wood, metal, etc). A
fabric awning is not appropriate because it is more commercial in style than industrial.
11) The new window openings proposed on the south elevation of the Mill Building shall be
distinguishable from the original window openings. The new openings use a straight/flat lintel
rather than an arched form. Modified openings shall preserve the arched lintel form to recall the
location and size of the original opening.
12) The new steel and glass vestibule on the ground floor of the west elevation of the Mill Building is
not in character with the building. The vestibule shall clearly distinguish between what is old and
what is new. The new opening needs to be different than the original/historic entrances. A
vestibule on a historic building’s primary elevation should be interior to the building’s walls. If the
exterior vestibule is necessary because an interior vestibule would create even more undesirable
impacts to the interior of the building, the materials shall reflect the industrial character of the site
and minimize visual impact. Any glass used to construct an exterior vestibule shall be non-
reflective and transparent so as to not cover up the historic brick structure behind it. It is
recommended to coordinate materials between the vestibule and the proposed east stair/elevator
tower.
13) The applicant shall investigate possibilities of lowering the proposed metal panels for mechanical
screening on the Flour Mill Warehouse, so that they are not visible from the public right of way.
At a minimum, the rooftop additions shall not interrupt the original cornice and ridgeline and be
set substantially behind the front plane
14) New construction should distinguish itself from original features, while also complementing the
historic form and scale of the buildings.
This City Commission order may be appealed by bringing an action in the Eighteenth District
Court of Gallatin County, within six months after the adoption of these Findings by the City
Commission, by following the procedures of Section 27-2-209, M.C.A. The preliminary approval of
this Planned Unit Development shall be effective for one year from the date of adoption of these
147
The Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact and Order
#Z-07159
-62-
Findings by the City Commission. At the end of this period the City Commission may, at the written
request of the landowner, extend its approval as provided for in Title 18, BMC.
DATED this 7th day of April, 2008.
BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION
______________________________
KAAREN JACOBSON, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ _________________________________
STACY ULMEN PAUL J. LUWE
City Clerk City Attorney
148