HomeMy WebLinkAbout1 Spring Creek Memo and Staff Report Commission Memorandum
co.M
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM Doug Riley, Associate Planner and Dave Skelton, Senior Planner
Tim McHarg, Director, Planning and Community Development
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Spring Creek Village MaSub Pre-Application Plan Review#P-10015 and
Concept P.U.D. Plan Review #Z-10290
MEETING DATE: Monday, January 3, 2011
RECOMMENDATION: City Commission acknowledge receipt of the Subdivision Pre-application
Plan and Concept PUD Plan Review applications, provide comment and direction, and assist the
applicant with identifying major issues with the proposal prior to making a formal application for
Preliminary Subdivision Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan review.
PRINCIPAL DISCUSSION ITEMS: Based on the preliminary comments provided by the D.R.C.,
D.R.B., Planning Board and local review agencies, the Planning Office has identified five (5) principal
points for consideration and discussion with this development proposal:
1. Does the proposal meet the intent (Section 18.19.010) of the UMU District? Does the proposal
"...encourage vertical mixed-use development with high density"? (See page 4 of staff report).
2. Are the required residential components being met and what constitutes a residential component?
(See page 4-5 of staff report).
3. Does the proposed phasing and amenities associated with each phase make sense? (See page 5 of
staff report).
4. Is the proposed design and layout recognizing the surrounding streets and larger community?
(See page 6 of staff report).
5. Does the proposal appear to benefit the City as a whole and warrant the number of requested
deviations and the granting of PUD approval (in which the PUD provisions are intended to result
in a superior UMU project)? (See page 7 of staff report).
BACKGROUND: C &H Engineering and Surveying, Inc., on behalf of Spring Creek Village, LLC,
has scheduled an"informal review"before the City Commission as part of a Subdivision Pre-application
Plan Review and Concept PUD Plan Review for the "Spring Creek Village Subdivision", a 31.1-acre
urban mixed-use subdivision situated along the north side of US Highway 191/West Main Street, and
west of Ferguson Avenue.
Report compiled on December 16, 2010
Attached please find the Subdivision Pre-application Plan and Concept P.U.D. Plan applications to
subdivide 31.1 f acres of undeveloped vacant land into a five-phased, ninety-five (95) lot urban mixed-
use commercial, professional office, and residential planned unit development. Included with the
applications are the applicant's request for multiple relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance
of the Bozeman Municipal Code as outlined in the attached D.R.B. staff report and D.R.C.
memorandum. Also included in the City Commission packets are the initial agency review comments
on the proposal received by the Planning Office as of the date of this memorandum, as well as minutes
of the applicant's meeting with Design Review Board (D.R.B.) and Planning Board.
The purpose of the subdivision pre-application plan review and concept P.U.D. review is to evaluate the
proposal and to familiarize the applicant with the goals and objectives of the community's Bozeman
2020 Community Plan, Unified Development Ordinance, regulations and ordinances, and to discuss the
proposed subdivision as it relates to these matters. Comments and advice provided by the advisory and
decision-making bodies will assist the applicant with identifying major issues with the proposal prior to
making a formal application for preliminary plat and preliminary P.U.D. plan review before the
Planning Board and City Commission.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None determined at this time. Based upon the direction provided by the
Commission, City Staff will continue to work with the applicant to revise the project to address the
identified issues.
ALTERNATIVES: Other items of concern regarding the proposed development should be identified
and discussed by the City Commission.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time.
Attachments: Planning Staff s Summary Review and DRB Staff Report
Agency Comments
DRB Minutes of November 10, 2010
Planning Board Minutes of December 7, 2010
Chapter 18.19—Urban Mixed Use District Regulations
Applicant's Subdivision Pre-Application and Concept P.U.D. Plan Applications
Applicant's Response to Staff s Summary Review dated December 3, 2010
Report compiled on December 16, 2010
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT #Z-10290
SPRING CREEK VILLAGE CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT #P-10015
DEVELOPMENT AND MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRE-APPLICATION
Item: Applications #Z-10290 and #P-10015 — Concept Planned Unit
Development and Major Subdivision Pre-application review for
advice and comment in preparation of the preliminary plan/plat
applications for the Spring Creek Village Project.
Applicant/Owner: Spring Creek Village,L.L.C.
101 East Main Street, Suite D
Bozeman, MT 59715
Representatives: C & H Engineering and Surveying, Inc.
1091 Stoneridge Drive
Bozeman,MT 59718.
Date/time: Before the Planning Board on Tuesday, December 7, 2010, at 7:00
p.m. in the City Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North
Rouse Avenue,Bozeman, MT; and
Before the Bozeman City Commission on Monday,January 3, 2010, at
6:00 p.m. in the City Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121
North Rouse Avenue,Bozeman, MT.
Report by: Dave Skelton,Senior Planner
Doug Riley,Associate Planner
Recommendation: Review and provide advice and comments to the applicant.
PLANNING BOARD: Review and provide advice and comments to the applicant regarding the
development proposal for their consideration in the preparation of the formal Preliminary
Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat applications. The Planning Board is
"technically" charged with providing review and comments on the Subdivision Pre-Application.
However, as most of the typical subdivision items are tied to the Planned Unit Development
review and the identified relaxations, the Planning Board should review and provide comment on
both the Subdivision Pre-Application and Concept PUD materials. This review does not
require formal action by the Planning Board. The comments (minutes) from the Planning
Board meeting will be forwarded to the City Commission and applicant.
CITY COMMISSION: Review and provide advice and comments to the applicant g arding the
development proposal for their consideration in the preparation of the formal Preliminary
Planned Unit Development and Prelminary Plat applications This review does not require
formal action by the City Commission. The comments (minutes) from the City Commission
meeting will be forwarded to the applicant (along with all other review agency comments)
following the Commission meeting. Following City Commission review, staff will also work
with the applicant in an effort to address the issues identified during this stage of the
review.
Note: Following this "pre-review", the next required application/submittal (stage of
review) triggers formal public noticing, public hearings and approval entitlement
considerations.
PROPERTY LOCATION
The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Huffine Lane and Ferguson Avenue
(south of the Ridge Athletic Facility). The subject property is zoned UMU (Urban Mixed Use
District) and is located within the Class I West Main Street Entryway Corridor.
BACKGROUND AND PROPOSAL
In 2006 the applicant submitted a proposed text amendment for the creation of a new UMU
(Urban Mixed Use) zoning district which was eventually adopted by the City. In 2008 the City
approved the applicant's request to rezone the 31.028 acre site from B-P (Business Park District)
to the new UMU District. Earlier this year the applicant submitted an informal application for
this project in which both the Planning Board and City Commission provided comments.
The applicant has now made the application for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan
Review concurrent with Major Subdivision Pre-Application Review for the purpose of obtaining
additional review agency, Planning Board and City Commission comments in order to assist
them in the preparation of the formal preliminary plan and plat submittals.
The proposal consists of a mixed use development containing approximately 95 subdivision lots
proposed in five phases (see the applicant's "Development Plan" located in Tab 3 of the
applicant's binders). The proposal includes a number of requested relaxations to the Unified
Development Ordinance in both the UMU District standards and subdivision standards as
indentified in Tab 3 of the applicant's binders and the attached staff report to the Design Review
Board (DRB).
ZONING DESIGNATION&LAND USES
The subject property is zoned UMU (Urban Mixed Use District). The intent of the UMU District
is to establish areas within Bozeman that are mixed-use in character, and to set forth certain
minimum standards for development within those areas which encourage vertical mixed-use
development with high density. The purpose in having an urban mixed-use district is to provide
options for a variety of employment, retail and community service opportunities within the
community, with incorporated opportunity for some residential uses, while providing
predictability to landowners and residents in uses and standards. There is a rebuttable
presumption that the uses set forth for each district will be compatible both within the individual
9Z- 10290&P-10015 Spring Creek Village Preapp Staff Report 2 of 8
districts and to adjoining zoning districts when the standards of the Bozeman Municipal Code are
met and any applicable conditions of approval have been satisfied. Additional requirements for
development apply within overlay districts.
As previously noted, this property is located within the Class I West Main Street Entryway
Corridor and therefore is subject to design review.
The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property:
North: Across Fallon Street: The Ridge Athletic Club; zoned B-P (Business Park
District)
Cottonwood Condominiums; zoned R-O (Residential Office District).
South: Across Huffine Lane: Mix of uses; (Trailer Park, Residential, Consignment
Store, Mini-Warehousing) -un-annexed and under County jurisdiction.
East: Across Ferguson Avenue; Valley Commons Business Park (Casey's Corner
and Big Sky Western Bank) -zoned B-P (Business Park District).
West: Across Resort Drive; Vacant; zoned B-P (Business Park District).
ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION
Community Commercial Mixed Use: Activities within the Community Commercial Mixed Use
category are the basic employment and services necessary for a vibrant community.
Establishments located within these categories draw from the community as a whole for their
employee and customer base and are sized accordingly. A broad range of functions including
retail, education, professional and personal services, offices, residences, and general service
activities typify this designation...The Community Commercial Mixed Use category is
distributed at two different scales to serve different purposes. Large Community Commercial
Mixed Use areas are significant in size and are activity centers for an area of several square miles
surrounding them. These are intended to service the larger community as well as adjacent
neighborhoods and are typically distributed on a one mile radius. Smaller Community
Commercial areas are usually in the 10- 15 acre size range and are intended to provide primarily
local service to an area of approximately one-half mile radius. These commercial centers support
and help give identity to individual neighborhoods by providing a visible and distinctive focal
point. They should typically be located on one or two quadrants of intersections of arterials
and/or collectors. Although a broad range of uses may be appropriate in both types of locations
the size and scale is to be smaller within the local service placements. Mixed use areas should be
developed in an integrated, pedestrian friendly manner and should not be overly dominated by
any single land use. Higher intensity employment and residential uses are encouraged in the core
of the area or adjacent to significant streets and intersections. As needed, building height
transitions should be provided to be compatible with adjacent development.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Based on the previous informal reviews, the comments provided by the Design Review Board
(copy of minutes attached), staff and other review agencies, there appear to be five (5) key
#Z- 10290 &P-10015 Spring Creek Village Preapp Staff Report 3 of 8
questions or areas of discussion as follows: (along with any others the Planning Board and City
Commission may want to emphasize)
It should be noted that these 5 areas of discussion are focused on the major concerns with
the project. It does not mean that these concerns cannot be addressed or that there are
no other positive aspects to the proposal.
1. Does the proposal meet the intent(Section 18.19.010) of the UMU District?
Issues:
a. Does the proposal"....encourage vertical mixed-use development with high density"?
Staff Comment: The UMU District requires a minimum building height of three (3)
stories and 32 feet. The applicant is proposing a relaxation to allow one and two story
buildings with a minimum building height of 25 feet. In addition, there appear (especially
in the first phase) to be a number of single story, single use, buildings depicted. Overall,
the proposed development appears to be more "suburban" in density and intensity rather
than"urban".
b. Does the proposal "Foster the development of vertically oriented mixed-uses, in contrast
to single use development distributed along high vehicle capacity roadways"?
Staff Comment: Similar to the comment provided above. The UMU District was
specifically designed to incorporate mixed uses in an urban design. The mixing of uses is
what distinguishes this zoning differently than a standalone commercial (B-2) district. In
addition, the Community Commercial Growth Policy designation indicates that "mixed
use areas should be developed in an integrated, pedestrian friendly manner and should
not be overly dominated by any single land use".
c. Does the proposal "Encourage efficient land use by facilitating compact, high-density,
multi-story development and minimizing the amount of land that is needed for surface
parking"?
Staff Comment: - The requested relaxation to building height may be contrary to this
UMU intent statement and the proposed design presents a considerable amount of surface
parking along Huffine Lane which is contrary to the Design Objectives Plan for entryway
corridors.
2. Are the required residential components being met?
Issues:
a. Section 18.90.020.D.5. requires that "residential uses shall be provided in all mixed-use
developments, and shall occupy not less than 20%of the total gross building floor area of
the district. "
4Z- 10290&P-10015 Spring Creek Village Preapp Staff Report 4 of 8
Staff Comment: It is staffs position that the 20% residential requirement of the UMU
District is generally required within each phase of development. The applicant contends
that the requirement is for the overall project. It is staff s contention that if no
development occurs after phase 1, (which the applicant has not represented a guarantee of
residential development in Phase 1), the intent of the UMU district is not being met.
b. Residential parkland dedication and open space requirements?
Staff Comment: Subdivision and zoning requirements dictate that dedicated parkland and
other residential open space be provided to serve the residential population. The applicant
has proposed that the "linear" areas along Resort Drive, Fallon Street and Ferguson
Avenue be credited for parkland dedication. The Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
(RPAB) and staff have commented on the undesirability and allowance of these areas as
dedicated parkland (primarily since these strips function as transportation corridors and
code states "corridors for transportation pathways shall not be used to satisfy park land
dedication requirements."). The RPAB also provided several recommended alternatives
including off-site dedication or cash-in-lieu. Additionally, there is no open space amenity
provided within the interior of the project until the fourth phase of the development. As
part of an active and pedestrian oriented streetscape, pocket park and plaza features
should be incorporated into the design of each phase.
c. Affordable Housing?
Staff Comment: The applicant has indicated that "no workforce housing units are
proposed within this development" and has requested a waiver to this requirement. The
Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board (CAHAB) discussed this request at
their meeting on November 9, 2010 and indicated to the applicant that they would need to
provide documentation demonstrating that none of the workforce housing alternatives
(e.g. on-site, off-site, cash-in-lieu, etc.) listed in Title 17 could be provided for the project
in order for CAHAB to formally consider their request. Note: any modifications to
compliance with Title 17 must be requested during the next step (Preliminary Plan/Plat
Review) for CAHAB's and the City Commission's formal consideration.
3. Do the proposed phasing and amenities associated with each phase make sense?
Issues:
a. Required mix of uses being proposed in phase 1?
Staff Comment: Phase 1 appears to be primarily commercial in nature with residential
and associated residential components (e.g. parkland and open space) proposed in later
phases. The applicant's Phase 1 Development Plan and Plan Sheet S2.3 (tab 4 of the
applicant's Concept PUD binder) lists a lodge, bank, restaurants, and grocery store as
possible first phase uses.
#Z- 10290&P-10015 Spring Creek Village Preapp Staff Report 5 of 8
b. Section 18.36.070.E. (Open Space Provisions for Phased PUD Developments) states that
"ff a project is to be built in phases, each phase shall include an appropriate share of the
proposed recreational, open space, affordable housing and other site and building
amenities of the entire development used to meet the requirements of Section
18.36.090.E.2 (Design Objectives and PUD Review Criteria). The appropriate share of
the amenities for each phase shall be determined for each specific project at the time of
preliminary approval and shall not be based solely upon a proportional or equal share
,for the entire site. Requirements may be made for off-site improvements on a particular
phased project."
Staff Comment: As the linear areas along streets cannot be counted as dedicated
parkland, and the other identified private open space areas appear to contain stormwater
facilities, there is very limited parkland and other open space areas proposed in Phases 1,
2 or 3. It is not until Phase 4 that the Central Square area is proposed. Achieving PUD
performance points credit for the earlier phases may be problematic based on the current
design/phasing plan. The DRB commented rather extensively on the phasing and
amenities for each phase of the project as well (see attached DRB minutes). Therefore,
pocket park and plaza features should be incorporated into the design of each phase to
activate and enhance the pedestrian oriented streetscape and to achieve the required PUD
performance points.
4. Is the proposed design and layout recognizing the surrounding streets and larger
community?
Issues:
a. The proposed urban mixed use development is situated in the West Main Street entryway
overlay district and therefore requires review by the Design Review Board (DRB) against
the Bozeman Design Objective Plan.
Staff Comment: Both the Administrative Design Review (ADR) Staff and DRB
reviewed the proposal against the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan and cited a number
of site and building design disciplines that require further attention in order to address the
policies and criteria for entryway corridors. Attached are the comments and advice
provided in the ADR staff report and minutes of the DRB meeting of November 10, 2010
where the design criteria was discussed with the applicant.
b. Presentation of the development onto the public streetscape and Huffine/West Main
Street entryway corridor.
Staff Comment: The DRB noted a concern with the ability of the development proposal
to be interconnected with the West Main Street entryway corridor and the greater
community as a whole. Instead the development seemed exclusive within its own context
as a commercial neighborhood. The perception was that the proposal instituted barriers
(e.g. perimeter fencing, perimeter parking, perimeter refuse areas, and hidden square)
instead of connecting with developments and the streets in proximity to it. It was
#Z- 10290&P-10015 Spring Creek Village Preapp Staff Report 6 of 8
recommended that a level of transparency in the design was necessary to welcome people
and patrons to the site, eliminate the perimeter fence, reduce the amount of parking
fronting Huffine Lane, and eliminate refuse and service areas from facing onto the
community. Additional buildings should be placed at the edge of the West Main Street
entryway corridor to reduce the impact of the corridor being dominated by off-street
parking.
c. The proposal to develop a private driveway in-lieu of a public or private street to function
as the main street for the development limits the ability to guarantee effective and save
circulation between vehicles,pedestrians and bicycles.
Staff Comment: The DRB, Bozeman Recreation and Parks Advisory Board (RPAB),
Gallatin Valley Land Trust (GVLT), and Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board
(BABAB) all expressed concern regarding perpendicular parking and the placement of a
bicycle lane behind parking spaces. Placement of a bicycle lane between the sidewalk
and parking spaces, as well as angled parking was recommended. A hierarchy of public
spaces, circulation, parking, open space and pedestrian furniture is necessary along the
private main street to convey a sense that recognizes the level of use and to attract
intensive pedestrian use.
d. Building orientation and placement of commercial uses limit the ability to address the
rear of the buildings.
Staff Comment: The information provided in the application is limited with regard to
how the design addressed the orientation of commercial uses and the need for
service/refuse areas, storage, delivery of merchandise and goods, and loading/unloading
areas. Refuse areas should be in proximity to the commercial buildings instead of being
placed along the entryway corridor and both refuse and service areas should be
incorporated into the design of buildings and properly screened. It generally appears that
the project does not address the entryway corridor in any meaningful way based on the
interior orientation of the proposed site design.
5. Does the proposal appear to benefit the City as a whole and warrant the number of
requested deviations and the granting of PUD approval (in which the PUD provisions
are intended to result in a superior UMU project)?
Issues:
a. In terms of the improvement and protection of the public health, safety and welfare, it is
the intent of the Ordinance to promote the City's pursuit of community objectives as
outlined in Chapter 18.36 (Planned Unit Development) of the Unified Development
Ordinance.
Staff Comment: The PUD provisions are intended to result in a superior product (versus
if it was simply constructed to minimum zoning standards). The benefit to the City's
public health, safety and welfare is generally determined after evaluating the overall
#Z- 10290&P-10015 Spring Creek Village Preapp Staff Report 7 of 8
project impacts to the City. Based on the number of concerns expressed by the various
review agencies, a positive overall impact determination may be hard to make at this
point, especially if the project does not build out as proposed in the submitted phasing
plan.
b. The UMU District already contains a number of built-in relaxations (e.g. no minimum lot
sizes, no minimum lot widths, no minimum yards, extensive permitted uses, etc.) from
most zoning districts.
Staff Comment: Staff is concerned about the fact that the applicant is requesting a
significant number of relaxations for a zoning district which they initially proposed that
could already be considered very flexible. In addition, since the applicant is proposing to
review future development applications as "sketch plans" (which do not require public
hearings or City Commission review), unless there are very detailed, clear and
enforceable development guidelines that are created and adopted as part of the PUD
approval, the City will face a lot of uncertainty on what may be constructed in the future.
Attachments: DRB Staff Report
DRB Minutes of 11/20/10
DRC Memorandums
RPAB Comments
BABAB Comments
GVLT Comments
Chapter 18.19 - Urban Mixed-Use District Regulations
Applicant's submittal materials (Concept PUD and Subdivision Pre-App Binders)
Report Sent To: Ileana Indreland, Michael W. Delaney 101 E. Main Street Suite D
Bozeman,MT 59715
C & H Engineering& Surveying, 1091 Stoneridge Drive, Bozeman, MT
59718
Bitnar Architects, 502 S. Grand Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715
Jami Morris, 2440 Etta Place, Bozeman, MT 59718
#Z- 10290&P-10015 Spring Creek Village Preapp Staff Report 8 of 8
SPRING CREEK VILLAGE CONCEPT P.U.D. ZONING FILE A'O. Z-10290
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
ITEM: ZONING APPLICATION NO. Z-10290 - - - AN APPLICATION FOR
CONCEPT P.U.D. PLAN REVIEW FOR AN URBAN MIXED USE
COMMERCIAL/PROFESSIONAL OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL/RETAIL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON APPROXIMATELY 31.1t
ACRES OF LAND LOCATED NORTH OF HUFFINE LANE/US
HIGHWAY 191 AND WEST OF FERGUSON AVENUE, ZONED "UMU",
URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT.
APPLICANT/ SPRING CREEK VILLAGE,I.L.C.
OWNER: 101 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE D
BOZEMAN,MT 59715
REPRESENTATIVE: C& H ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, INC.
1091 STONERIDGE DRIVE
BOZEMAN,MT 59715
DATE/TIME: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2010, AT 5:30 P.M., IN THE
CONFERENCE ROOM, ALFRED M. STIFF PROFESSIONAL
BUILDING,20 EAST OLIVE STREET,BOZEMAN, MONTANA
REPORT BY: DAVE SKELTON
SENIOR PLANNER
Proiect Description:
The subject property is legally described as being Lot 5, Minor Subdivision No. 295, Spring Creek
Village Resort located in the SW '/4 of Section 10, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin
County, Montana, and is further identified as property situated north of Huffine Lane/US Highway
191, west of Ferguson Avenue, and south of Fallon Street. The site is approximately 31.028 acres in
size and is more commonly referred to as being situated west of Valley Commons Business Park
Subdivision and south of The Ridge Athletic Club. Please refer to the vicinity map and exhibits
provided in the applicant's submittal.
Proposal:
The applicant, Spring Creek Village, L.L.C., has made application for Concept P.U.D. Plan Review of
a mixed use commercial, professional office and residential planned unit development consisting of
approximately 95 subdivision lots zoned "UMU" (Urban Mixed Use District). The proposal is also
Spring Creek Village Resort Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 1
undergoing concurrent review of a pre-application subdivision plan review of the site as a major
subdivision.
The five-phased Urban Mixed-Use planned unit development is located in the West Main Street
entryway corridor overlay district and is bound on the south by the principal arterial street, Huffine
Lane/US Highway No. 191. The Valley Commons Business Park Subdivision is situated to the east
and The Ridge Athletic Club complex and Cottonwood Condominiums is immediately to the north.
The placement of mixed land uses within the development focuses on a mix of professional offices,
retail services and hotel/conference facility on the east one-third and a mixed of retail service and
commercial uses on the west two-thirds.
The "UMU" (Urban Mixed-Use District), is intended to establish areas within Bozeman that are
mixed-use in character, and to set forth certain minimum standards for development within those areas
which encourage vertical mixed-use development with high density. The purpose in having an urban
mixed-use district is to provide options for a variety of employment, retail and community service
opportunities within the community, with incorporated opportunity for some residential uses, while
providing predictability to landowners and residents in uses and standards. There is a rebuttable
presumption that the uses set forth for each district will be compatible both within the individual
districts and to adjoining zoning districts when the standards of the Bozeman Municipal Code are met
and any applicable conditions of approval have been satisfied. Additional requirements for
development apply within overlay districts.
Chanter 18.36—PIanned Unit Development:
The intent of the planned unit development concept is to promote maximum flexibility and innovation
in the development of land and the design of development projects within the city. As a result, the
developer has requested multiple relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance with this
application for P.U.D. review. With regard to the improvement and protection of the public health,
safety and welfare, it shall be the intent of the Ordinance to promote the city's pursuit of community
objectives as outlined in Chapter 18.36 of the Unified Development Ordinance. The purpose of the
Concept P.U.D. Plan Review is for discussion of the applicant's proposal with the designated review
committees in order to identify any requirements and applicable standards and policies, as well as
offering the applicant the opportunity to identify major problems that may exist and identify solutions
prior to snaking formal application.
Relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance:
The following relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance have been identified with the
application for subdivision pre-application plan review and P.U.D. concept plan review_
1. Section 18.19.020.A "Authorizes Uses" to allow golf course and driving range as a
principle permitted use.
2. Section 18.19.020.D.4 "Mixed Uses Required and Limited" to allow two condominium
buildings to be proposed with 100% residential uses in-lieu of the UMU requirement that
the ground level gross building areas shall be at least 75%non-residential in use.
3. Section 19.050.B "Maximum Setback" to set buildings to orient towards interior private
streets with similar design and character on all street fronts in-lieu of the UMU
Spring Creek Village Resort Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan RevieNi, 2
requirement that buildings shall be oriented to the adjacent street. Al least 50% of the total
building frontage, which is oriented to the street, shall be placed within IOfeet of any
minimum required separation from the property line.
4. Section 18.19.060.A "Minimum Building Height" to allow one and two story buildings
also proposed with design and fenestration to coordinate with the taller buildings within
the development and to allow a minimum building height of 25 feet in-lieu of the UMU
requirement that the minimum building height is three stories and 32 feet.
5. Section 18.42.020.0 "Neighborhood Center Frontage" to allow the development of
subdivision lots at the four corners of the proposed parkland in-lieu of the neighborhood
center having frontage along 100% of its perimeter on public or private streets or roads.
6. Section 18.42.030.0 "Double/Through and Reverse Frontage" to allow lots to be
designed with private street adjacency on multiple sides in-lieu of the requirement to avoid
the development of double/through frontage and reverse frontage lots.
7. Section 18.42.040.B "Block Length" to allow block lengths to be less than 300 feet in
length.
8. Section 18.42.040.0 "Block Width" to allow block widths to be less than 200 feet in
width.
9. 18.44.020.A.2 "Private Streets" to allow private streets to be developed with a drive aisle
width of 27 feet from back-of-curb to back-of-curb to back-of-curb in lieu of a loeaI
private street with City standard 60 feet of right-of-way, or the standard back-of-curb to
back-of-curb width of 31, 33 or 35 feet.
10. 18.44.060.D "Level of Service" to waive the requirement of a minimum acceptable Level
of Service (LOC) of"C"at an unsignalized intersection.
11. 18.44.090.B "Drive Access From Improved Public Street, Approved Private Street or
Alley Required" to provide the primary lot access and frontage from a 26-foot wide drive
aisle in-lieu of providing legal and physical access via twenty-five of frontage on a public
or approved private street, public or approved privates street and an improved alley, or
improved alley and greenway corridor or trail corridor with access.
12. Section 15.50.050 "Location" to provide parkland on land that is not suitable to and
supportive of activities and not in a configuration that provides a large block area.
City of Bozeman Design Objectives Plan (DOP)
The site in question is located in the West Main Street entryway overlay district and therefore requires
the Design Review Board to evaluate the proposal against the City of Bozeman Design Objectives Plan
(DOP). As a result, the Planning Staff offers the following recommendations and comments on the
proposed layout for consideration by the Design Review Board (DRB):
1. Entryway Corridor,Design Objectives Plan: For All Properties:
Neighborhood Design Guidelines
a. See the Design Objectives Plan(DOP) for Entryway Corridors at pages specified.
b. Page 11 — Enhance high quality green space when it exits in key locations. Of the
five access points into the development at least one principal access point for each street
should position areas of green space in addition to the yard setback that signify a key
access point into the development. This should include the access points from Ferguson
Avenue and Resort Drive.
Spring Creek Village Resort Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 3
c. Page 11 - Organize uses to maximize natural assets of the site. When stormwater
detention facility is to be provided, position it in green space and design it to be an
amenity. The stormwater ponds for the site are generally isolated along the street
frontage of Fallon Street and not integrated into the site as an amenity or asset.
a. Page 13 - Provide convenient pedestrian and bikeway connections among abutting
properties. The plan as submitted provides multiple internal pedestrian connections to
and among abutting properties. The 4' wide bicycle lane within the private streets and
positioned directly behind the perpendicular parking spaces is of concern. The
proposed meandering pathway along Huffine Lane has been removed as proposed with
the informal review. The Trails plan in the 2007 Parks, Recreation, Opens Space and
Trails Plan (PROST) shows a need for a north/south trail along the ditch/watercourse
along the western side of the property. The watercourse proposed with the informal
has been eliminated in-lieu of the trail.
d. Page 13 - Provide a waiting zone at major pedestrian crossings. This may occur as
a small plaza that adjoins the sidewalk corner. Small pedestrian plazas should be
provided at the Huffine Lane and Ferguson Avenue/Resort Drive intersections. The
physical constraints at the intersection of Huffine Lane and Ferguson Avenue as a result
of the existing ditch should be addressed with phase one of the development.
e. Page 14—Street Character. The use of a coordinated set of street furnishings is
encouraged. The site should utilize a coordinated set of furnishings for the
development. The proposed amenities should be of high quality and have a strong
urban character that emphasizes regional traditions. Cutsheets of all furnishings shall
be submitted with the formal application as part of the Development Manual.
f. Page 14—Street Character. The use of a coordinated landscape design shall be
used along the street edge to establish a single identity for the area and to buffer
the view of cars into the parking areas. Use plant materials that are similar to
those on adjacent properties. The plans show very little landscaping other than trees
along the public frontages of the project and no additional landscaping to buffer the
parking on site. The formal application will need to provide a high quality coordinated
plan for the public frontages with significant landscape planting clusters and other
strategies to buffer the parking on site. Architectural screening in combination with
other landscaping including Iow screen walls is recommended for the parking lot
screening. See exhibit on this page for the anticipated character.
g. Page 17and 18—Preserve and enhance existing significant natural resources in the
area. Preserve and/or enhance existing drainage ways. A building shall be
positioned to enhance significant natural features that exist on a site. The revised
plans from the informal review suggest removal of the watercourse corridor and mature
vegetation created by the Maynard-Border Ditch. If it is not the intent to embrace the
watercourse corridor a pedestrian corridor should continue in this area and deliver a
conscious connection with Huffine Lane while avoiding crossings through parking lots.
h. Page 21—Incorporate drainage systems as a part of the site amenities and
landscape design. The storm system should be designed so that it is incorporated into
the site landscaping as naturalized amenities or integrated into urban plazas or other
hardscaped features as an amenity.
i. Page 21—Parking areas should be designed to minimize stormwater runoff. The
applicant should consider Low Impact Development principles in the parking lot areas.
Bioswales within the parking areas should be considered.
Spring Creek Village Resort Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 4
j. Page 22—Where it is to be used, design a detention pond as a site amenity.
Retention/detention facilities should be incorporated into the site design as an amenity.
See exhibit on page 22.
k. Page 23 - Policy for Building Placement. Buildings should be sited to respect
development patterns that are identified in the design objectives for the area, such
as the orientation of the structures to the street, alignment of building fronts and
setbacks, relationship to neighboring properties, as well as the location of buildings
at major intersections. See this entire section for further guidance along with the
exhibit on page 68 for the West Main Street Corridor. The plan as submitted is not in
general conformance with these guidelines.
k Page 23—Where two or more buildings will be located in a major site
development, arrange them in a cluster to define outdoor spaces. The buildings
proposed in phase four and at the center of the site are clustered around a large outdoor
space, "The Square at Spring Creek Village" that generally achieves this guideline.
However, the proceeding phases offer no developed outdoor spaces. The areas between
buildings in these areas are not developed with outdoor spaces, but with simple
pedestrian ways that may not be positive spaces if the buildings are constructed at 2-3
stories as required in the UMU District. Enhancing the principal street intersections
with smaller plazas and courtyards would be appropriate within the context of this
neighborhood.
in. Page 23 - Where a major intersection occurs, provide a building anchor at the
corner. Define the corner with a strong building presence. Enhance the corner
with a pedestrian friendly entrance plaza. While large anchor tenants may not be
possible with this development, the major corners of the site should encourage a strong
building presence that respects the orientation of structures to the street corners. No
corners have a pedestrian friendly plaza entrance to the buildings in those areas.
n. Page 23—Organize the public edges of a site to provide visual interest to
pedestrians. Large parking areas and large detention facilities do not provide visual
interest to pedestrians. Buildings should be placed along the street edges as envisioned
in the UMU District and Design Objectives. The proposal suggests that in-lieu of
placing the orientation of structures to the street and recognizing the relationship to
neighboring properties along the entryway corridor, to orient the buildings inward
towards a private, exclusive commercial neighborhood.
o. Page 23—Locate a building entry near the sidewalk edge with an entry plaza and
landscape, when feasible. No building entrances appear along the exterior street edges
of this project.
p. Page 24 — Provide an outdoor public space on a major site development. As this
development must address the need for additional open space above what is required
with parkland, yard setbacks and parking lot landscape the need for public spaces that
include plazas, covered arcades and seating areas should be included in the initial
phases of the planned unit development.
q. Page 24 - Develop an outdoor public space as a focal point for the site. The
proposed large plaza area within the development is a focal point for the site. Other
outdoor spaces and plazas should be provided to connect the other buildings on site.
Smaller pockets of plaza spaces would be anticipated throughout the site to connect
uses and buildings.
Spring Creek Village Resort Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 5
r. Page 27—Clearly define a key pedestrian entrance into a major site development
with distinctive landscape elements. The two principal pedestrian entrances to the site
along the north-south and east-west axis should be further defined with distinctive
landscape elements.
s. Page 28—Within a development, convey the hierarchy of internal street and
driveways in the streetscape design. As with the key pedestrian entrances to the site,
the proposal does not convey a hierarchy of internal driveways. The primary drive
aisles and circulation routes should have a character and level of landscaping that
conveys them as the"principal streets." Drive aisles which access smaller parking areas
and service areas should be clearly subordinate to the primary routes.
t. Page 29—Identify a key entry point into a major site development with special
landscape design elements. As stated previously, the three, if not four primary
vehicular entrances into the site are not defined with special landscape design elements.
u. Page 29—Minimize the width of internal roadways when feasible. The site
development contains extensive drives to support circulation, deliveries, parking, and
ingress and egress. All drive aisles on site shall be minimized.
v. Page 31—Minimize the negative visual impacts of cars parked on site. The current
design encourages the negative visual impacts of cars parked on site by locating the
parking and circulations areas between the buildings and public ways and by not
providing any screening for the parking on site that is visible from the primary public
streets. Screening shall be provided between the parking areas and public ways (highly
landscaped berms, clustered intensive planting beds, low decorative walls, architectural
screens, evergreen hedge, combinations thereof, etc.). Buildings should be provided
along the major frontages of the project and at the major project corners.
w. Page 31—Minimize the negative visual impacts of cars parked on site. Parking
should be internalized and divided into smaller lots to reduce the visual impact.
Landscape buffers that separate parking lots should be 15' minimum width with a
sidewalk and 12' minimum width without a sidewalk(see exhibit on page 23).
x. Page 33 — Orient service entrances, waste disposal areas and other similar uses
toward service lanes and away from major streets. The application does not identify
or discuss how they plan to provide service and loading/unloading areas for the future
tenants. Disposal areas are generally positioned to abut the West Main Street entryway
corridor and other perimeter streets and are situated at maximum distance from the
tenants they will service. Instead these areas should be situated in close proximity to
buildings for convenience and properly incorporated into the building design.
y. Page 33 — Position service areas to minimize conflicts with other abutting uses.
The use of an alley system to locate service areas for this development is not proposed
with this application. The operation and functions of typical community commercial
retail uses call for the need to provide appropriate service areas in proximity to
buildings for the delivery and pickup of goods and merchandise. This calls for a
redesign of the parking areas that allows for the ability to provide such service areas.
z. Page 35—Landscape buffers should be provided. Screening shall be provided
between the parking areas and public ways (highly landscaped berms, clustered
intensive planting beds, low decorative walls, architectural screens, evergreen hedge,
combinations thereof, etc.). The amount of landscape screening for the parking areas
currently depicted between the parking and the public streets is insufficient.
Spring Creek village Resort Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 6
aa. Page 37 — Building Design Guidelines — Buildings in the commercial entryway
corridors should convey a high quality of design, in terms of their materials and details,
as well as through a consistent organization of forms and elements. The application
offers a general perspective of their urban mixed-use development concept, but does not
communicate how they intend to implement a high quality of design or the design
disciplines that will be used to address the guidelines discussed on pages 39-48 of the
City of Bozeman Design Objectives Plan.
bb. Page 39 — Innovative new designs that draw upon regional design traditions are
preferred. Buildings in the entryway corridors should convey a high quality of design,
in terms of their materials and details, as well as through a consistent organization of
forms and elements. Buildings should reflect the design traditions of the region, in
terms of building and roof forms, and appear to be in scale with those seen traditionally.
The "classicism" architecture proposed by the applicant suggests some of the traditions
of the region, yet leave the detail and treatment of scale, massing, pedestrian scale, use
of materials, etc., unanswered. A detailed development manual addressing these
disciplines will need to be addressed with the formal application.
cc. Page 42 — Policy for Building Mass and Scale. A building should appear to have a
"human scale". In general, this can be accomplished by using familiar forms and
elements that can be interpreted in human dimensions. Again the formal
application will need to discuss how they intent to employ design criteria that appears to
have a human scale.
dd. Page 42 — Divide a building into modules that express dimensions of structures
seen traditionally. As large scale retail uses are not anticipated with this development,
both vertical and horizontal articulation should be easily addressed and outlined in a
detailed development manual with the formal application. Change in building height
and horizontal articulation of the fagades and store fronts will need to be discussed in
detail and illustrated accordingly.
ee. Page 42 — Buildings shall employ all of the following design techniques: change in
material or color, change in height of a wall plane or building module, change in
roof form, and arrangement of windows and other facade articulation. These
design techniques will need to be discussed in detail as part of the development manual
and design theme for the planned unit development.
ff. Page 44 - Use building materials that help establish a human scale. It is
recommended that with the building designs that the use of brick in standard modules is
appropriate, while avoiding the use of large surfaces of panelized products or
featureless materials, or large surfaces that lacks articulation.
gg. Page 46 — Use traditional buildings materials for primary wall surfaces. A
minimum of 75% of the surface area of a wall (excluding glass) that is visible from a
public way shall be composed of the materials listed on page 46 of the Design
Objectives Plan.
hh. Page 47 — Coordinate design features among sets of buildings in a single
development. The Development Manual will need to identify how similar rooflines,
materials, window and fenestration arrangements, sign location and other architectural
details are used to coordinate the theme for the development.
2. Entryway Corridor,Design Objectives Plan: West Main:
a. See pages 63-68 of the DOP.
Spring Creek Village Resort Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 7
b. The vision for development of the W. Main Corridor is that it have a strip of green
(50'setback), landscaped open space along the roadway and then, an edge of buildings
generally defining the inside edge of the greensward.
c. Building shall present facades to the public walk that are visually interesting. They may
include display cases, storefronts, public art and other decorative features that provide
visual interest and establish a sense of human scale.
d. The goal is to encourage more buildings to be constructed to the minimum setback.
Parking should be primarily located to the interior of the property.
e. Internal driveway systems should permit circulation between properties without
returning to the highway.
f. Page 68—See illustration.
Encl: Applicant's submittal materials
May 2007 color vicinity aerial map
Sent To: Ileana Indreland, Michael W. Delaney 101 E. Main Street Suite D Bozeman, MT 59715
C & H Engineering & Surveying, 1091 Stoneridge Drive, Bozeman, MT 59718
Bitnar Architects, 502 S. Grand Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715
Jami Morris, 2440 Etta Place, Bozeman, MT 59718
Spring Creek Village Resort Subdivision P.U.D.—Concept Plan Review 8
i CITY OF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M.Stiff Professional Building phone 406-582-2260
20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263
P.O.Box 1230 planning@bozeman.net
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 www•bozeman.net
MEMORANDUM
TO: DEVEOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
FROM: DAVE SKELTON,SENIOR PLANNER
DATE: NOVEMBER 10, 2010
RE: SPRING CREEK VILLAGE CONCEPT PUD REVIEW#Z-10290
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Planning Office has reviewed the Concept PUD Review for the Spring Creek Village Subdivision to
develop an Urban Mixed-Use development on 3 1+ acres along the south side of Huffine Lane; and as a
result offer the following comments for consideration. The following comments relate to Planning
issues set forth in the Planned Unit Development section of the Bozeman Municipal Code. Other issues
identified by Planning Staff are design related and as identified in the Design Objectives Plan. These
issues are generally not under the purview of the DRC and will be resolved through staff, the Design
Review Board and the City Commission. Please note that comments are based on the materials
submitted by the applicant and that there may be other issues that arise should the applicant choose to
proceed with formal review:
Chapter 18.36 - Planned Unit Developments
a. 18.36.070 Phasing of Planned Unit Developments —for phased developments the application for
PUD Plan Review will need to identify which of the two procedures they intend to follow and
describe how the master plan and development guidelines will guide the development of each
phase.
b. 18.36.070.D "Phased Planned Unit Development Submittal Requirements" - the formal
application will need to follow the submittal requirements for a master plan and development
guidelines. Make sure to review the information required with the submittal and provide the
necessary graphics and illustrations to support the written narrative. In addition to the items
listed in 18.36.070.D.2 guidelines discussing some of the common elements of the development
theme should be provided (i.e., streetscape furniture, light standards, crosswalk treatment, etc.).
Detailed landscape and architectural guidelines that illustrate the level of high quality design
sought with planned unit developments.
c. The Master Landscape Plan will need to be prepared by a qualified landscape individual or
landscape architect and at a scale that is clearly readable and easy to review for each phase of the
development. Examples of a master landscape plan are available for review in the Planning
Office upon request. This also applies to the Development Manual in terms of architectural
guidelines for the urban inixed-use proposal.
community zonin subdivision annexatio historic neighborhood urban GIs
planning 9 review n preservation planning design
d. 18.36.070.D "Open Space Provisions for Phased PUD Developments" — the formal application
will need to discuss how each phase will include an appropriate share of the proposed
recreational, open space, affordable housing and other site and building amenities of the entire
development used to meet the requirements of 18.36.090.E.2
e. The planned unit development design objectives and criteria in 18.36.090.E should be reviewed
carefully. Criteria one requires compliance with the City's Design Guidelines in the Design
Objectives Plan. The development's site layout as proposed is not in conformance with many of
the objectives and guidelines within the Design Objectives Plan.
f. 18.36.090.E.2.a "All Development" — the formal application will need to discuss how the
planned unit development complies with the objectives and criteria of the mandatory "All
Development" group. As this is an Urban Mixed-Use planned unit development with both a
commercial and residential components the objectives and criteria of the "Residential" and
Commercial group also apply to the submittal requirements.
g. Criteria seven of 18.36.090.E.2.a(7) "Performance" — requires all planned unit developments
earn at least twenty performance points based on the performance options available in this
section. The formal application will need to clearly outline how said performance points are
being achieved and should be supported by the necessary exhibits.
h. The architectural and landscape guidelines contained in the project's Development Manual
should be make a part of the property owner's/homeowner's association documents and should
be part of the draft copy of the covenants, restrictions, and articles of incorporation that will be
submitted to Planning Department with the formal application.
i. A complete concept PUD plan review application shall be submitted to the Planning Department
within one calendar year of the date the Planning Department dates, signs and places concept
PUD plan review application comments in the outgoing mail.
Other comments:
Additional Title 18 Code Provisions
a. Section 18.42.080.H requires specific design for surface retention/detention facilities in
landscaped areas. The section requires a natural curvilinear shape with 75 surface coverage of
live vegetation, natural/ native plantings, and boulders in order to naturalize the facilities and
integrate them into the site as an amenity.
b. Section 18.46.040.E requires dedicated bicycle parking areas, a bike rack detail must be noted on
the formal application. The bike racks shall be a model as recommended in the Greater Bozeman
Area Transportation Plan.
c. Section 18.42.170 requires a photometric lighting plan for all on-site Iighting including wall-
mounted lights on the building must be included in the site plan submittal. A manufacturer's cut
sheet of the lighting fixtures is a helpful addendum to the site plan.
d. Section 18.42.170 discusses trash enclosures. Temporary storage of garbage, refuse and other
waste materials shall be provided for every use, other than single-household dwellings, duplexes,
individually owned town house or condo units, in every zoning district, except where a property
is entirely surrounded by screen walls or buildings unless alternative provisions are made to keep
trash containers inside the garage in which case an explanation of how trash is dealt with shall be
provided in the written narrative accompanying your final site plan. The size of the trash
receptacle shall be appropriately sized for the use and approved by the City Sanitation
Department. Accommodations for recyclables must also be considered. All receptacles shall be
Page 2
located inside of an approved trash enclosure. A copy of the site plan, indicating the location of
the trash enclosure, dimensions of the receptacle and enclosure and details of the materials used,
shall be sent to and approved by the City Sanitation Division (phone: 582-3238) prior to site plan
approval. (e.g. written approval from local waste services for the removal of solid waste and/or
provisions for screening of collection areas shall be provided with the final site plan).
e. Section 18.42.140 provides the requirements for off-street loading berths. Two berths will be
required for this use. All provisions in this section shall be addressed in a formal application.
f. Tree protection measures shall be instituted for all Iandscaping proposed to be retained on site.
Coordination with City Forester Ryon Stover will be required.
g. Per 18.52.070 a Comprehensive Signage Plan is required for all multitenant buildings. The plan
shall address size, location,materials, lighting, and design approval authority.
Note: The comments and advice contained in this DRC memorandum are intended to assist the
applicant in preparing the concept PUD preliminary plan application based on the limited
information submitted as part of the concept PUD submittal. However, further comments and/or
recommendations on matters not discussed during the concept PUD plan review may arise based
on the information and supplemental data provided with the formal application and applicable
comments provided by local and state agencies.
Page 3
CITY OF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M.Stiff Professional Building phone A06-582-2260
;;;.. 20 East Olive Street fax 406-582-2263
P.O. Box 1230
planning@bozeman.net
Bozeman, Montana 59 77 1-1 230 www.bozeman.net
MEMORANDUM
-------------------------------------------------------____---------------------------------------------------------------
TO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
FROM: DOUG RILEY,ASSOCIATE PLANNER
RE: SPRING CREEK VILLAGE MAJOR SUBDIVISION
PRE-APPLICATION PLAN REVIEW#P-10015
DATE: NOVEMBER 10,2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development has considered the
subdivision pre-application plan review for the Spring Creek Village Major Subdivision; submitted in
conjunction with the Spring Creek Village Concept PUD, and as a result, offers the following
comments for consideration: (Note: Additional comments from the City Commission, Planning Board,
and other review agencies will be forthcoming as this application, and the Concept PUD application,
proceed through the review process)
1. No waivers to the supplemental information under 18.78.060, BMC are granted with this pre-application
plan review. While a waiver was requested to Section 18.78.060.T (Affordable Housing) as part of the
subdivision pre-application submittal, a fonnal exemption request must still be filed at the time of the
preliminary plat submittal under the terms of Section 17.02.040.F (Waiver) of the B.M.C. which states
that "A developer may request a waiver from the requirements of this chapter. A waiver request must be
submitted to the Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board simultaneously with application for
preliminary plat subdivision review. The CAHAB will make a recommendation to the City Commission
on each waiver request, which will make a final decision."
Note: The CAHAB will be discussing the subdivision pre-application waiver request at their meeting on
November 9, 2010 to provide initial feedback on the waiver request.
2. The following relaxations to the Unified Development Ordinance, specifically related to the Subdivision
standards of the B.M.C, have been identified with the application for subdivision pre-application plan
review:
• Section 18.42.020.0 "Neighborhood Center Frontage" to allow the development of
subdivision lots at the four corners of the proposed parkland in-lieu of the neighborhood
center having frontage along 100% of its perimeter on public or private streets or roads.
community zonin subdivision annexotio historic neighborhood urban GIS
planning 9 review n preservation planning design
• Section 18.42.030.0 "Double/Through and Reverse Frontage" to allow lots to be
designed with private street adjacency on multiple sides in-lieu of the requirement to avoid
the development of double/through frontage and reverse frontage lots.
• Section 18.42.040.B "Block Length" to allow block lengths to be less than 300 feet in
length.
• Section 18.42.040.0 "Block Width" to allow block widths to be less than 200 feet in width.
• Section 18.44.020.A.2 "Private Streets" to allow private streets to be developed with a
drive aisle width of 27 feet from back-of-curb to back-of-curb in lieu of a local private street
with City standard 60 feet of right-of-way, or the standard back-of-curb to back-of-curb
width of 31, 33 or 35 feet.
• Section 18.44.060.D "Level of Service" to waive the requirement of a minimum acceptable
Level of Service (LOC) of"C" at an unsignalized intersection.
• Section 18.44.090.11 "Drive Access From Improved Public Street, Approved Private
Street or Alley Required" to provide the primary lot access and frontage from a 26-foot
wide drive aisle in-lieu of providing legal and physical access via twenty-five of frontage on
a public or approved private street, public or approved privates street and an improved alley,
or improved alley and greenway corridor or trail corridor with access.
• Section 18.50.050 "Location" to provide parkland on land that is not suitable to and
supportive of activities and not in a configuration that provides a large block area.
Note: As this project (subdivision) is being processed in conjunction with/as a Planned Unit
Development,under the terms of Section 18.66.070.F these "modifications" shall be
submitted,processed and reviewed as deviations (as opposed to variances) as part of the
Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan Review along with the other identified PUD
relaxations.
3. A parkland master plan is required to be submitted with the formal preliminary plat application in
accordance with the terms of Section 18.78.060.P. The proposed dedicated parkland (as "Linear
Park' under Section 18.50.070) along the street frontages will be reviewed by the Recreation and
Parks Advisory Board (RPAB) and City Commission as part of the pre-application plan review and
will require formal approval by the City Commission as part of the preliminary plat review for
meeting the dedicated parkland requirements for the subdivision. (Note: As of the writing of this
memorandum, the RPAB has not provided official comment on the proposal and these comments
will be provided to the applicant as they become available). The pathways proposed along Resort
Drive, Fallon Street and Ferguson Avenue are classified as "Transportation Pathways" under the
terms of Section 18.44.110 and Subsection 1. indicates that "Corridors for transportation pathways
shall not be used to satisfy park land dedication requirements". The parkland master plan shall
address the proposed maintenance measures for all dedicated parkland areas.
4. Section 18.36.070.E. (Open Space Provisions for Phased PUD Developments) indicates that "...the
appropriate share of the amenities for each phase shall be determined.for each specific project at
the time of preliminary approval and shot not be based solely upon a proportional or equal share
.for the entire site." Any phasing plan shall clearly delineate when and how much of each area is
proposed to be constructed with each phase. The provision of open space and parkland as part of
Phase 1 development will be required in a location and amount as recommended by the RPAB and
ultimately determined by the City Commission.
5. Calculations shall be provided for the proposed residential uses in each phase as part of the
preliminary plat application to meet the residential "Use Standards" of Section 18.19.020 D. for
determining subdivision parkland dedication requirements.
Page 2
6. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROST) plan calls for a shared use path along the frontage
of Huffine Lane for this property and a north/south trail corridor along the Maynard Border Ditch.
Proposals for the provision of these features shall be made as part of the preliminary plat submittal
and required park master plan.
7. Written comments from the ditch company responsible for the Maynard Border Ditch shall be
provided with the preliminary plat application regarding easement adequacy, improvements,
maintenance responsibility, etc.
8. Proposed subdivision storm water facilities must be constructed and contained on an individual lot as
a common area(s) owned and maintained by the property owner's association. Generally, areas
containing detention/retention ponds are not credited towards satisfying the residential open space
requirements of Section 18.50.020.E.
9. Water rights, or cash-in-lieu thereof, as calculated by the City Engineer, will be due with the final
plat.
10. A copy of the draft covenants and property owner's association documents will need to be included
with the preliminary plat application to address the maintenance and upkeep of all common areas,
boulevards,boulevard landscaping, etc.
11. Consistent with Section 18.44.120 (Public Transportation) the applicant shall work with the local
transit agency to consider a transit stop or stops within or adjacent to the proposed development.
STANDARD CODE PROVISIONS
The preliminary plat shall comply with the standards identified and referenced in the Unified
Development Ordinance. 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 deviation or other
relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. The following
requirements are standards of the Unified Development Ordinance and shall be addressed with the
preliminary plat application:
1. All preliminary plat requirements, as outlined in UDO Section 18.78, shall be provided with the
preliminary plat submittal.
2. Section 18.78.050.H requires that any noxious weeds be identified and mapped by a person with
experience in weed management and knowledgeable in weed identification. A noxious weed
management and revegetation plan, approved by the County Weed Control District, shall be
submitted with the preliminary plat.
3. Section 18.78.060.M requires that the preliminary plat application be accompanied by a written
statement from all relevant utility companies indicating that service can be provided to the proposed
lots.
4. Section 18.42.080.H provides the specific landscaping requirements for retention/detention
stormwater facilities provided as part of the overall subdivision development.
5. Utility easements shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.42.060. The required 10-foot
front yard easement is required for all lots unless written confirmation is submitted with the
Page 3
preliminary plat from ALL utility companies providing service indicating that front yard easements
are not needed.
6. Per Section 18.42,120, if mail delivery will not be to each individual lot within the development, the
developer shall provide an off-street area for mail delivery within the development in cooperation
with the USPS. It shall not be the responsibility of the City to maintain or plow any mail delivery
area constructed within a City right-of-way.
7. Per Section 18.50.090, executed waivers of right to protest the creation of special improvement
districts (SIDS) for a park maintenance district will be required to be filed and of record with the
Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder, unless that was completed already with the annexation or
previous minor subdivision.
8. A draft copy of the covenants, restrictions, and articles of incorporation for the creation of a
homeowners' association shall be submitted with the preliminary plat application for review and
approval by the Planning Department and shall contain, but not be limited to, provisions for
assessment, maintenance, repair and upkeep of private streets, common open space areas, public
parkland/open space corridors, mail delivery areas, stormwater facilities, public trails, snow removal,
and other areas common to the association pursuant to Chapter 18.72 of the Bozeman Unified
Development Ordinance.
9. A complete preliminary plat application shall be submitted to the Planning Department within one
calendar year of the date the Planning Department dates, signs and places pre-application comments
in the outgoing mail.
Note: The comments and advice contained in this DRC memorandum are intended to assist the
applicant in preparing the subdivision preliminary plat application based on the limited
information submitted as part of the subdivision pre-application submittal. However, further
comments and/or recommendations on matters not discussed during the pre-application review
may arise based on the information and supplemental data provided with the formal application
and applicable comments provided by local and state agencies.
Page 4
BO2�, THE CITY OF BOZEMAN
U�r 9,Z 20 E. OLIVE - P.O. BOX 1230
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59771-1 230
9�l pp �Q ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
y?j�CO �0 PHONE: (406) 582-2280 - FAX: (406) 582-2263
November 9, 2010
To: Development Review Committee
From: Bob Murray, Project Engineer PV
Re: Spring Creek Village Resort MaSub Pre-App -#P-10015
The following comments should be incorporated into the preliminary plat application for this
subdivision:
1. Typical sections for the streets should be provided with the preliminary plat application.
2. A traffic impact analysis should be provided with the preliminary plat submittal.
3. The preliminary plat application should include a preliminary stormwater plan.
4. No direct access will be allowed onto Ferguson or Huffine from the lots fronting on them.
5. The internal water mains for the subdivision should be fed from at least two separate offsite
trunk mains for all phases.
6. A secondary access will be required for each phase of the subdivision.
7. The sidewalks for the underlying subdivision are beyond the three year time frame for
installation. They will all need to be installed with the first phase of this subdivision unless
otherwise approved by the City Commission.
8. The designated bike lane that is shown between the 90 degree parking and the driving lane
should be removed unless otherwise approved by the City Commission.
9. This property was included in the Valley West Sewer SID. The total average daily flow
allocated to the property was 48,282 gpd. Future development of the property shall be
limited to this discharge until such time as the new trunk sewer main to serve the property is
installed as shown in the Wastewater Facility Plan.
10. Initial traffic analysis letter comments:
a. The traffic counts along Huffine will need to be verified.
b. Warrants must be met in order to install the 4-way stop at Resort Drive and Spring
Creek Village Drive.
HOME OF MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
GATEWAY TO YELLOWSTONE PARK
C. We feel it makes more sense for Resort to be stop controlled rather than Fallon at
their intersection.
d. Is Ravalli or Fallon proposed to be stop controlled at their intersection?
e. There are some concerns with the installation of a multi-lane 4-way stop. This will
need to be further evaluated in future phases.
f. The changes to Valley Commons likely will not be looked upon favorably by the
Commission since some were previously implemented and removed.
g. If a deceleration lane on Huffine is warranted, it will need to be installed with this
project unless it is not allowed by MDT,or otherwise approved by the Commission.
11, All water and sewer main extensions that are not within public right of way must be within
30' wide public water and sewer main easements. All weather access shall be provided to
any manholes that are not installed under street or parking areas.
12. All of the requirements of 18.74.030.D must be met to allow for concurrent construction.
13. The street name Spring Creek Village Resort would require arelaxation from 18.44.040 to be
approved.
14. As development of the individual lots proceeds, any water services that are not used
(domestic or fire) must be abandoned at the main.
cc: ERF
Project File
Doug Riley
From: Sandy Dodge [sdodge@bridgeband.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:26 PM
To: Dave Skelton; Doug Riley
Subject: Spring Creek Village
Hi Doug& Dave,
Here is a summary of our position from our last discussion:
• Linear Perimeter Park-As there are no interior streets,but rather interconnected linear parking lots,
the perimeter trail is essential for safe bike travel. Bike travel inside the development would be
dangerous. A perimeter bike/ped sidewalk or trail should be required for reasons of safe transportation.
o The Parks Department generally recommends against accepting parkland this narrow for
maintenance reasons.
o Planning generally recommends accepting linear parks only in instances where it sen es to
preserve a natural corridor; this does not qualify.
o The UDO (18.44.110i) states that a transportation pathway shall not satisfy dedication
requirement.
For these reasons we feel that a 10' shared use path should be developed around the perimeter of the
project but that it should not count toward the parkland dedication requirement.
• Central Park/Square—We recognize the appropriateness of maintaining private ownership of the
Square,particularly in a primarily commercial development. This could satisfy the community center
requirement if its permanence was guaranteed, and public access was assured.
• Putting Course/Driving Range- A driving range in such a small area seems to be a bad idea. Unless
whiffle balls are used,the amount of netting needed to contain the balls safely would be an eyesore.
Perhaps some other green, recreation type commercial enterprise could be developed.
1
Alternatives - If the community center requirement is satisfied in the Central Park/Square and given that
the perimeter trail unacceptable as parkland, we propose the following alternatives to meet the dedication
requirement:
• Develop a 2.4 acre park where the driving range is proposed
• Acquire a nearby location to develop a park and do an offsite dedication
• Cash-in-lieu
Please feel free to pass this along to the bike board, we are interested in their input.
Sandy Dodge
Bozeman Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
sdodP-eCa bridgeband.coin
587-2989
2
Dave Skelton
From: John Vandelinder
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 11:44 AM
To: Doug Riley; Bob Murray
Cc: Dave Skelton
Subject: Spring Creek Village
At the bike board (BABAS) meeting last night the bike lanes behind the parking spaces was discussed. Because it was
not on the agenda the board could not take action on it. During discussion it was unanimous that this was not a desired
bike facility. Some even thought it was dangerous. They would support angle parking that you would have to back in to
with bike lanes. They couldn't find that the shared use path that CTEP is installing to the east was being continued in
front of this development. They thought that the developer was trying to get away from installing the path by putting
bike lanes within the development. They want the path.
John Van Delinder
Street,Sign and Signal,Vehicle Maintenance, Forestry Superintendent
City of Bozeman MT
406-582-3200
iandelinder@bozeman.net
i
Doug Riley
From: Dave Skelton
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 9:25 AM
To: Doug Riley
Subject: FW: Spring Creek Village Resort - Delaney
Attachments: Spring Creek Villa ge_Vicinity_GVLTmap.jpg
FYI
From: Ted Lange [mailto:Ted@gvlt.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 4:36 PM
To: Dave Skelton; sdodge@mcn.net
Cc: chadebailey@hotmail.com; Bill Cochran; Penelope Pierce
Subject: RE: Spring Creek Village Resort - Delaney
Dave,
There is definitely an argument to be made for a straight shared use path since it's transportation as much (or
more than recreational), and a straight trail gets you where you're going. But as with my answer to your
second question, the bottom line is that it's got to be considered in the context of the full proposal.
The question of Maynard Boarder Ditch and whether there should be other trails in Spring Creek Village really
depends to a large extent on what this whole thing ends up looking like and especially how the parkland issues
get resolved. There's also the question of how it ties in to trails to the north (see attached map):
There is a marginal and uninspiring trail along the ditch, through the subdivision north of Fallon, and
several years ago my notes show this trail was proposed to continue (thin dashed line on attached
map) along the ditch through the "Cottonwood Condos" north of Pallisade to Babcock. On the other
side of Babcock, you connect to the very extensive Valley West Trails.
r The attached map also shows shared use paths (thick dashed lines) that were approved (I thought)
some years ago on Ravalli and Pallisade. But on the 2009 NAIP aerial photo I used for this map I see
some of the facility on Ravalli has been built and it looks like it's just a sidewalk — but impossible to tell
without going out there and looking at it.
Because Valley West has created a major N-S trail corridor and that corridor is likely to extend down to
Palisade, I think there's a strong argument for providing a decent N-S connection down to the Huffine
shared use path — which is obviously a hugely significant E-W connection. HOWEVER, maybe the best
way to do that would be to extend the existing shared use path on Ferguson up to Babcock and then
take it along the S side of Babcock between Ferguson and Resort. But the problem with this approach
is that we're gambling we can get that approved some time in the future.
The bottom line for Spring Creek Village is that at the very least there needs to be a good bike/ped
connection from the E-W Huffine shared use path, N to whatever parkland ends up being created.
Whether the Huffine shared use path should be meandering or not seems to depend to some extent on
the overall open space and parkland layout of the development. Though I don't think it's a terrible
thing it it's straight. People have complained to me a few times about meandering shared use paths,
but I've also heard people get very upset at proposals for shared use paths that don't meander...
Some thoughts for tomorrow's meeting...
Ted
Ted Lange, Community Trails Program
Gallatin Valley land Trust
i
406-587-8404 ted@gvlt.org - www.gvlt.org
SOUiGOUO11 C-ci, 'C,ri/I'C�ei'i'i %;i (•C+�E{; flClliiFUC; bG;1C,iI0ri I�IrE%,)ed
GVt i is woIkirig nn o n;CjUi piojc c 'ic !r,-,ID c N, uSE l S0181; On(� EfijUVt`,iF I'llOI"C le I?;C'E: ? ;C,UI C`l.'C311 C tEFI
v,crier r quality.
www.gvlt.org/sourdough canvon.html
From: Dave Skelton [mailto:dskelton@BOZEMAN.NET]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 3:31 PM
To: Ted Lange; sdodge@mcn.net
Subject: Spring Cree Village Resort
Ted, at this Friday's RPAB subdivision committee meeting on Spring Creek Village Resort I need to know the preferred
design of the shared use path that shows up on the PROST Trails Map along Huffine in terms of meandering or straight.
During the informal six months ago Delaney showed it as meandering pathway, now it's just a straight shot with this
recent application. Apparently, he says he prefers a straight shot so he has more room for berming, etc. Just need your
opinion, the bike board is discussing it tonight. He is also proposing to eliminate the Maynard Boarder Ditch and just
have a linear trail connection from Huffine to Fowler Street. Your thoughts on that one would also be good.
Sandy, I am trying to identify all of the relaxations that they are asking for as it relates to parkland, neighborhood center,
park location, and residential density. As they have not provided us with any residential dwelling unit numbers with this
concept plan yet we are going to try to calculate the minimum amount required and work backwards for required
parkland to share with you on Friday. Here's the relaxations that are parkland related so far:
1. 18.42.020.0 "Neighborhood Center Frontage" to allow subdivision lots at the four corners of the proposed
neighborhood center.
2. 18.50.040 "Location" to locate parkland on land not suitable to and supportive of activities and in a
configuration other that a large block area.
Technically there could be another one if he chooses to propose private parkland in-lieu of dedicated parkland or cash
in-lieu of parkland. However, right now he seems to the think the perimeter parkland in the front yards and along the
public streets is even possible.
See you Friday,
Dave
All City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of
Montana' s
Constitution (Art . II, Sect . 9) and may be considered a "public record"
per Sect . 2-6-202
and Sect. 2-6-401 , Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender
and receiver,
and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be
retained pursuant to the
City' s record retention policies . Emails that contain confidential
information related to
individual privacy may be protected from disclosure under law.
2
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY,NOVEMBER 10, 2010
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Pentecost called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:42 p.m. in the
upstairs conference room of the Alfred Stiff Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street,
Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Mark Hufstetler David Skelton, Senior Planner
Scott Bechtle Tim McHarg, Planning Director
Randy Wall Doug Riley, Associate Planner
Michael Pentecost Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Walter Banziger
Visitors Present
Jami Morris
Michael Delaney
Ileana Indreland
Tony Renslow
Karl Larsen
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27,2010
MOTION: Mr. Hufstetler moved, Mr. Bechtle seconded, to approve the minutes of October 27,
2010 as presented. The motion carried 4-0.
ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Spring Creek Village Resort Concept PUD#Z-10290 (Skelton)
Northwest of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Ferguson Avenue
* A Concept Planned Unit Development Application to allow the UMU(Urban
Mixed Use District)development of 31.0275 acres to occur in phases governed
by development guidelines.
Chairperson Pentecost stated the DRB would be reviewing the proposal to allow the development to
occur in phases. Planner Skelton clarified the Board would also be reviewing the proposal with regard to
design and the Design Objectives Plan for Entryway Corridors. He added no motion would be necessary
and all recommendations and advice would be forwarded to the City Commission.
Jami Morris,Michael Delaney,Ileana Indreland,Tony Renslow,and Karl Larsen joined the DRB. Senior
Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report noting the application was similar to the PUD process
that Bozeman Gateway had gone through. He stated Staff had identified items that had been discussed at
the DRC meetings so that when the formal application was submitted a recommendation could be made.
He stated he had not provided the previous informal review comments as the same items would apply;he
1
Design Review Board Minutes—November 10,2010
added there had been some revisions from the informal application with the concept submittal. He stated
the applicant was proposing a five phase mixed use development with the initial please being located
along Ferguson Avenue. He stated he had provided the Board with examples of how the pedestrian and
vehicular movement would work throughout the site. Following PUD approval,in lieu of a site plan the
applicant would like to do sketch plans. Ms. Morris responded Planner Skelton was correct but there
might be sketch plans submitted for future phases.
Planner Skelton stated he had tried to break the proposal down into five components. He stated the ditch
was really the only natural feature on the site; the watercourse continued north to the Valley West
Subdivision pond feature. He stated the Board might want to discuss what amenity would be included
near the water feature on the site;he added he thought the applicant wanted to leave an open waterway
amenity instead of piping the ditch. He stated the public edge of Huffrne Lane needed to be better
recognized and noted the site would be the other half of the west gateway into Bozeman. He stated there
were some points of discussion regarding pedestrian and vehicular movement; a shared use path was
called for in the PROST Plan along Huffrne Lane. He stated the applicant was proposing to install a
bicycle pathway between the drive aisle and the proposed perpendicular parking though the DRC,RPAB,
and GVLT had concerns with the proposed design.
Planner Skelton stated the Bicycle Advisory Board felt that there were adequate bicycle pathways
exclusive of any proposed in the drive aisle. He stated the UMU residential component requirements
would need to be met and the applicant had proposed phase 4 of the development be entirely residential
though there had been some discussion regarding counting the proposed lodge and upper Ievel residential
units toward those requirements. He stated the applicant was proposing a square public plaza on the
interior of the site and Staff was concerned that there was no open space or plaza areas proposed with
phase 1 of the development. He stated the proposal was somewhat traditional in that the layout was a
type of grid system and Staff had suggested creating a hierarchy with the circulation system;the entrance
points should be more emphasized to celebrate the entryways into the development. He stated there
should be a stronger emphasis on plazas and open space areas along the proposed main street. He
suggested wider landscape islands along the promenade and the core of the UMU. He stated there were
expansion lots proposed with the development to allow the opportunity for someone to purchase an
adjacent site if the original wasn't large enough; he stated those could be dealt with through the
Subdivision Exemption review process. He stated Staff was concerned with the creation of a third
storefront to offer a third side to each of the buildings. He stated Staff was concerned with the perimeter
parking as proposed. He stated the presence of the proposed parking lots along Huffrne Lane countered
the spirit of the Design Objectives Plan,but Staff anticipated extensive landscaping in those areas. He
suggested Staff did not want to see a retaining wall on the site and added it would be beneficial to shift
block one to the south along Huffne to prevent the parking lot from being a dominant feature along
Huffrne Lane; a half block offset had been suggested by Staff.
Planner Skelton stated one of the key concerns of Staff was the identification or treatment of proposed
service areas. He stated the proposed locations of the refuse areas was a concern of Staff as both service
and refuse areas needed to be tied into the structures. He stated there had been some concerns from the
Fire Department and Solid Waste Department regarding vehicular turning radiuses. He stated it was
healthy for the community and the development that the proposal contained three anchor sites. He
reiterated that pedestrian facilities and landscaping should be included at key intersections. He stated a
concept plan did not typically have a lot of building design information but design would be discussed in
more detail in the Preliminary Plan submittal; Staff would need to see a lot more detail regarding building
design. He stated the burden was on the applicant to provide good material and design and there was a lot
2
Design Review Board Minutes-November 10,2010
of remaining work to do on the development manual. He stated the West Main Street Entryway Corridor
had been discussed and there would need to be a conscience effort made by the anchor tenants to provide
a good presentation to the Entryway Corridor. He stated the intent of the UMU District was to encourage
a mix of uses including industrial,commercial,and residential aspects. He stated the applicant had
expressed concern regarding following the minimum requirements of the UMU District as well as the
Design Objectives Plan and had requested relaxations to those requirements. He emphasized that when
the Commission created the UMU District,flexibility for the developer had been one of their goals and a
lot of flexibility was already built into the UMU District regulations. He stated the site would be a test,
but because it would be the first development of that nature the first phase of the development would be
critical.
Michael Delaney introduced his wife Ileana hidreland and stated he would Iike to provide some
background on the site;they'd owned the property since 1987 and had gone through many iterations of
what they would like to see developed on the site. He stated Staff and their consultant,Dan Burden, had
created the UMU District and the property was rezoned in 2008. He stated an extensive design process
had been undertaken while examples had been provided to them on similar developments that worked and
those that had not worked. He stated every item proposed had been intentionally included and were based
on real developments that instituted the same feature or design. He stated the proposed block length was
200 plus feet as it would be the heart of the development; the plaza area would be utilized for ice skating,
concerts, and a variety of other things year round. He stated all roads would need to lead to the heart of
the development and those roads would need to be emphasized;you have to be something to somebody,
failing which you are nothing to nobody. He stated the rear of the buildings would appear to be the front
of the buildings and would all be beautiful. He stated the two major north-south connections would be
alleyways where 90%of all the deliveries would be made to establishments. The trash receptacles had
been proposed to be located on the perimeter of the site to prevent odors as there would be a lot of bars
and restaurants on the site. He stated the site had been designed for pedestrians and would include
multiple midblock crossings and vehicles would be secondary; he added the bicycle paths could be
eliminated per the Bicycle Advisory Board recommendation. He stated the buildings had been oriented to
shelter pedestrians from the onslaught of 25,000 cars per day on Huffine Lane. A biking/walking linear
park system had been proposed for the perimeter of the site that would include sheltered areas,recreation
areas, and a see-thru fence that would set the development apart. He stated he agreed with all of Staffs
aspects but had requested a relaxation to allow one story structures with a minimum of 25 feet in height.
He stated the proposal would create a safe and intimate environment. He stated the most important
ingredient was the assurance that each building would be individually owned; the project had been based
on ownership, individuality,and safety. He stated everything proposed could be proven to have worked
and he would be happy to provide examples of that;he added if mistakes were made in phase 1,they
could be improved in phase 2 so that every phase would be better and more desirable for the community
at large. He stated an important ingredient would be where the sun would be hitting the site and they had
done a study to provide the maximum light exposure; the expansion lots were there to provide three sides
of glass on each adjacent structure though if one owner bought both adjacent structures they could absorb
the expansion lot. He stated he hoped the site would grow like Main Street to the west from the east; their
money would be put into the first two phases.
Mr. Hufstetler stated he was concerned with the traffic flow and circulation through the site. He surmised
it would be roughly 800 feet to the heart of the site and asked how the applicant would respond to the idea
that someone would be driving through an 800 foot long parking lot. Mr.Delaney responded that until
Mr. Hufstetler had seen the arrangement,he would not know how well it would work; the more
convenient the experience of arriving and departing would enhance the shopping experience. He stated
Design Review Board Minutes—November 10,2010 3
he did not want a sea of parking and everything had been designed around safety and a natural orientation
grid pattern that would promote traffic calming as well as the institution of raised crosswalks. He stated
they had not earmarked any big box tenants to be located on the site but had instead intended small
businesses to occupy the site. Mr. Hufstetler stated he sensed that the only dedicated bike lanes would be
around the perimeter of the property. Mr. Delaney responded there would also be bike lanes on the north-
south connections. Mr. Hufstetler stated it would be difficult to keep bicyclists off of the sidewalks. He
stated he had noticed the outlined lots were close to a standard dimension and if different types and scales
of development were to be encouraged, a less symmetrical lot plan might be necessary. Mr. Delaney
responded they had and would consider less symmetrical lots sizes,but in reality, the first 50-60 feet of
the retail spaces would be most critical for the businesses;he added that the expansion lots had also been
instituted to allow for the installation of elevators between buildings. Ms. Indreland added that some
buildings would be pushed back further on the lot and there would be an outlined vocabulary in the
design. Mr. Hufstetler asked if the applicant intended to encourage a residential component outside of the
proposed condo project in phase 4. Mr. Delaney responded that condo site did not have as much utility as
the commercial portions of the site and had been earmarked as residential development; the more eyes on
the main street,the safer the development. He stated he did not want to force the buyer to build a
condominium but rather to encourage residential development. Ms. Indreland added that the narrow
widths of the lots would encourage second or subsequent stories to be developed. Mr.Hufstetler asked if
the applicant could be encouraged to relocate the street system to lessen the grid system. Mr.Delaney
responded that moving the block would disrupt the artery through the development;there would be dead
spaces instead of a core pedestrian connection. Mr.Hufsetler suggested the artery could be less straight
and square while being more flexible. Mr. Delaney responded that the curvilinear street they had
originally considered had caused more issues. Ms. Indreland responded the straight,linear main street
worked and has withstood the test of time. Mr. Delaney responded Mr. Hufsetler's experience was
different than everyone else's but the linear concept was designed for the lowest common denominator.
Mr.Hufsetler asked if,as the developer,Mr.Delaney saw the amenities that would be developed
throughout the site such as light posts,etc. Mr.Delaney responded all the amenities would be geared
toward the pedestrian and it would be impossible to make the development ugly or they would be all over
the buyer's ass;all the designs would be reviewed prior to the sale of the site. Mr.Hufstetler stated he got
a sense they were trying to isolate the development from all of the streets around it and did they think it
was a good thing. Mr.Delaney responded they wanted to emphasize the site was a place all its own and it
would be interconnected to the adjacent City as well as a feeling of warmth and friendliness. Ms.
Indreland stated they want to keep a connection to the original use of the property as a horse farm with
designs of that nature to give a sense of place. Mr. Delaney added that the interconnectivity of the future
medical campus as well as the Ridge development would be improved by the development. Mr.
Hufstetler asked how far in feet it was between the lots fronting the proposed main street and how it
would compare to the width of Main Street. Mr. Delaney responded the width of the street would be
about the same.
Mr. Bechtle asked about the design of the proposed fencing around the perimeter of the property. Mr.
Renslow responded it would be like the split rail fence depicted on the first page of the submittal
materials. Mr.Bechtle asked if a golf course was a permitted use on the site. Planner Skelton responded
golf courses were typically a Conditional Use. Mr.Bechtle asked if a relaxation was being requested to
allow the golf course as a principal use instead of a conditional use. Planner Skelton responded Mr.
Bechtle was correct. Mr.Delaney explained that the golf course would not be a typical golf course and
would include a driving range,bar,restaurant,etc. Mr.Bechtle asked where the fronts of the buildings
were proposed in phase 1 of the development. Mr.Delaney responded the buildings would front the main
street through the development. Mr. Bechtle asked if other roads were arteries. Mr. Delaney responded
Design Review Board Minutes—November 10,2010 4
that whichever roads went to the park were the arteries; the hierarchy would be achieved by landscaping,
lighting,etc. Mr.Bechtle asked about the applicant's thinking in making the trash receptacles the focal
points of the perimeter of the site. Mr. Delany responded they had been located in those areas as it would
be easier for a truck to come and pick them up;he added they would be enclosed. Mr. Bechtle asked if
half of the frontage along Huffine would have parking. Mr. Delaney responded the parking would occupy
roughly half of that frontage. Planner Skelton added that there was only a fifty foot setback along the
Highway right of way. Mr.Bechtle stated he was confused as the DOP stated that the buildings should be
right up on the green edge and asked if the setback was a requested relaxation. Mr.Delaney responded it
was one of the requested relaxations. Mr. Bechtle asked if the lodge would be raised in elevation. Mr.
Delaney responded it would be raised two feet higher and setback a little bit more to provide an intimate
lodge experience and a sense of separation. Mr.Bechtle stated that mixed use language did not seem to
mean mixed use within the same structure. Mr. Delaney responded that part of the debate was which uses
to include in which locations. Mr. Bechtle asked if residential would be allowed on the ground floor. Mr.
Delaney responded that no residential would be allowed on the main floor except the lodge use,but phase
4 of the development would be completely residential.
Chairperson Pentecost asked if in the UMU residential was required on each lot, block,building,or what.
Planner Skelton responded the residential component was required to be dispersed evenly through each
phase to achieve the 20%of the gross area of each phase of development. Chairperson Pentecost asked if
the DRB would have to interpret a gray area with regard to the institution of residential elements on the
site. Planner Skelton responded there would be a gray area and Mr. Delaney would need to provide a
superior design to meet the requirement if the residential component could not be achieved in any one
phase. Mr.Delaney added he did not agree with the 20%requirement for each phase as opposed to the
entire development but they were still attempting to comply with those requirements.
Mr. Banziger asked if any sustainability initiatives had been included in the development. Mr. Delaney
responded the#1 arrangement for sustainability was to build a walkable development and to reduce the
carbon footprint;thousands of people live in the area of the site and an urban mixed use village would
reduce the footprint of the development allowing multiple things to be done in one trip. He stated all the
buildings would be heavily insulated and would have wells at their disposable for air conditioning and
heating purposes. Mr. Banziger asked that with the amount of parking and hard surfaces were heat
affects,drainage, and green spaces being addressed. Mr.Delaney responded that in the City most streets
cambered to the gutter,theirs would camber into the center of the street which would include basins to
collect street runoff; all roof drains would connect to French drains throughout the development. Mr.
Banziger stated the heat affect had not been addressed. Mr.Delaney responded there would be less
asphalt in the development and all the roofs would be as efficient as possible and would Iikely be white in
color. Mr.Banziger asked Mr. Delaney how he had incorporated the ideas from California into the
proposal given the differences in climate such as snow. Mr. Delaney responded some of the parking lot
might have to be used temporarily for snow storage if there was a huge snow event,but the snow would
be removed as necessary throughout the site;he added the shady side of the building might have heated
sidewalks to help mitigate the ice.
Mr. Hufstetler stated he appreciated the amount of effort and academic thought that had been put into the
proposal. He stated his biggest concern with regard to the proposed layout was the rigidity of the plan;
the property was not rectilinear and contained a strongly curved element so that the proposed
configuration seemed to shoehorn the structures onto the site. He stated he thought it would do the plan
well to break out of the grid system mold and vary lot sizes as well as provide visual interest to the
streetscapes; it would make it more appealing for him to visit the site. He stated he had some concern
Design Review Board Minutes—November 10,2010 5
about the length of the proposed streets; for something like this to be successful they would need to be
pulled into the site and more open, visible gateway would point a person to the street instead of inducing
someone to go around the street. He stated another issue of concern was that the parking was not
screened from Huffine Lane and the entrances to the site were not emphasized. He stated he shared
Staffs concerns regarding the narrow expansion lots possibly being used as alleys. He stated he was
concerned with how the project would be staged over time; 3%open space was proposed with the first
phase of the development while more would not be seen until nearly the end of the project. He stated he
was also concerned about the availability of residential development in the first phases of the construction
and suggested integration of the residential components within each phase of construction. He stated the
project had the potential to be very successful, or the potential not to be successful.
Mr.Wall stated he appreciated all the work that had been put into the project. He stated he thought it
looked like the applicant wanted to do the right thing. He stated he understood what the applicant was
trying to accomplish but he was concerned that he could not see where the design guidelines were being
exceeded to allow the requested relaxations. He stated he was concerned with building locations,
pedestrian&bike circulation,outdoor public spaces,natural vegetation,and the Entryway Corridor
requirements. He read some excerpts from the DOP regarding continuity,edge of buildings, and
landscaping. He stressed bringing the buildings forward and shielding the parking from Huffine Lane,
but he could not think of any place else that had a fence around its perimeter; the development would be
distinctly different than the surrounding developments. He suggested he saw a traditional linear grid,Iot
and block subdivision and did not see any of the opportunities for amenities. He stated he agreed with the
Bicycle Advisory Board that no bike lanes should be included on the main artery streets. He stated the
items of concern all tied together and were connected to the requirements of the Design Objectives Plan
which gave Bozeman a higher quality of life. He stated he wasn't sure about the ditch and how it would
be treated on the site. Mr.Delaney stated there were very few examples of buildings along an Entryway
Corridor being set close to the street and those buildings did not have a viable retail component; he added
the vast majority of the frontage of Smith's on both sides is parking lot.Mr.Wall stated another of his big
concerns was waiting until phase 4 before there were significant parkland or open space areas.
Mr. Bechtle stated he agreed with Staff recommendations and thought Staff had done a great job
identifying those concerns. He stated there were some similarities in attempting to create a space and the
requirements of the DOP;he added there was an opportunity to create a great internal space without
turning the back of the development to Huffine Lane. He suggested pulling one of the buildings back
toward Huffine might also provide the opportunity to provide light to the grouping of buildings while
creating the sense of place in the earlier phases. He stated he thought it would be dangerous to have bikes
right behind cars and suggested a wider sidewalk could be instituted that would allow for both bikes and
pedestrians. He stated he saw the UMU District as a commercial layered,pedestrian friendly
development with residential units on the second levels such as live-work structures would provide. He
suggested he wished phase 1 was combined with phase 2 to allow for developed public gathering areas.
He stated it seemed like downtown worked because they made a straight edge without holes and he
wondered if the breaks in the proposed structures would work. He suggested investigating moving the
service and trash areas to be better integrated into the buildings instead of being placed on the perimeter
of the site. He stated he did not know how he felt about the fence. He stated he was concerned with the
phasing of the proposal as phase 1 did not stand very well on its own. He stated he thought it was great
how much thought the applicant had put into the proposal. He stated there was an opportunity to create
the third anchor of the development along Resort Drive to keep an edge on the corner and address Huffine
Lane. Mr.Delaney asked if the primary east-west main artery should be curvilinear or if a straight block
would make them feel more safe. Mr. Bechtle responded he did not mind the proposed organization if
Design Review Board Minutes—November 10,2010 6
there some way to guide a person to the center of the development. Mr. Delaney responded phases 1 and
2 could be combined. Mr.Bechtle responded he still thought pulling a building forward and opening up
either end would define the heart of the development.
Mr. Banziger stated he concurred with many of the Board's comments, particularly Mr. Bechtle's. He
stated it was obvious a lot of thought and research had been put into the proposal. He stated he agreed
with Staff's comments and recommendations. He stated he had struggled with the residential quality
though he recognized the strong commercial qualities in the proposal. He stated he did not see a lot of
places that would accommodate pedestrians. He stated he did not see play spaces or recreational areas
that would support a family residential quality. He stated he thought the sustainability issues had been
addressed but he did not see how the snow removal plan would work without boulevard space between
the roadway and sidewalks. Mr.Delaney responded the snow could be thrown into the greenway as it
was not utilized during the winter. Mr. Banziger responded many people still used those areas but they
could be utilized for snow storage areas if they didn't block pedestrians. He stated he was not seeing
where there were bike parking facilities as well as their paths through the site. He stated that he had
started thinking about the design and it seemed to be a proposal instituting barriers instead of connecting
to the developments around it; he suggested he was not sure it was the right move not to be
interconnected to the larger community. He suggested a transparent border needed to be instituted that
would invite people into the site;the perimeter fence would indicate that the community was gated. He
stated if the square was hidden,he did not see how it would be an invitation for people to come to the site.
He suggested the service areas should not be faced toward the community. He stated he thought the
proposal had a lot of good concepts such as the park in a central area and suggested smaller versions of
that could be scattered throughout the development.
Chairperson Pentecost stated he concurred with previous DRB comments. He stated he agreed that the
trash containment locations should be investigated. He stated he loved the idea of eyes on the street,but
he was not seeing the residential component throughout the development. He stated he was strongly
supportive of the residential component being instituted throughout the site. He stated he thought the bike
circulation through the site also needed looked at. He stated he agreed with Mr. Banziger that the fence
seemed to detour people from the site instead of drawing them onto the site. He stated he agreed with Mr.
Banziger that there should be visibility of the plaza from Huffine Lane. He stated the building orientation
would be a challenge with regard to how the rear of the structures would be addressed. He stated he was
supportive of a shorter block length and width. He stated there was a strong case for solar energy if the
building height was 25 feet as requested. He stated the DOP indicated the green space should be
developed as construction occurred. He suggested developing certain future building areas as park spaces
progressively while removing the previous parks and moving the parkland forward.
Mr. Banziger added he did not have a problem with the proposed rectilinear layout. Mr.Hufsetler added
he would choose neither the curvilinear or rectilinear layout if he had the choice but instead organic
evolution of the design.
ITEM 4. PUBLIC COMMENT—(15—20 minutes)
{Limited to any public matter,within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board,not on
this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.)
Seeing no general public comment forthcoming, Chairperson Pentecost closed the public comment portion
of the meeting.
Design Review Board Minutes—November 10,2010 7
ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Michael Pentecost, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board
Design Review Board Minutes—November 10,2010 8
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7,2010
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
President Henyon called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:56 p.m. in the
Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and
directed the secretary to take attendance.
Members Present: Staff Present:
Bill Quinn Tim McHarg, Planning Director
Trever McSpadden David Skelton, Senior Planner
Ed Sypinski Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Chris Budeski
Erik Henyon,President
Members Absent: Guests Present:
Brian Caldwell Michael Delaney
Jeff Krauss Tony Renslow
Eugene Graf Jami Morris
Jodi Leone
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT
{Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and
not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.)
Seeing no general public comment forthcoming, President Henyon closed the public comment
portion of the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 2010
MOTION: Mr. Budeski moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to approve the minutes of November
16, 2010 as presented. The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being, President Henyon, Mr.
McSpadden, Mr. Budeski, Mr. Quinn, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Pre-Application #P-10015—(Spring Creek Village Resort MaSub) A Major
Subdivision Pre-Application in conjunction with a Concept Planned Unit
Development Review requested by the owner and applicant, Spring Creek Village,
LLC, and representative, C&H Engineering and Surveying,requesting the
subdivision of 31.0275 acres into 95 lots for(UMU) Urban Mixed Use District
development and 11 park/open space lots for property legally described as Minor
Subdivision#295, Lot 5, Spring Creek Village Resort, Gallatin County, Montana
and generally located northwest of the intersection of Huffine Lane and Ferguson
Avenue. (Skelton)
1
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of December 7,2010.
Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report noting that the proposal was for a
development of significant magnitude and scale with much background and history that may be
part of the agenda discussion for the evening;he noted Staff and Mr. Delaney had been working
on the development of this site for nearly a decade. He stated this would be the first UMU
project in the community and because the application was for concept PUD plan review and
subdivision pre-application plan review, that no fonnal motion necessary. That the purpose of
the Planning Board considering the proposal was to provide comment and advise to assist the
applicant with preparing a formal application for consideration by the Planning Board and City
Commission. He stated the two applications would run concurrently with each other during the
review process and would give the Planning Board the opportunity to provide points of
discussion for areas of concern. He stated that the Planning Office has included comments in the
packet provided by local advisory bodies and that those agencies would also be involved in the
subdivision review of the Preliminary Plat; he noted that the proposal was also being considered
as a subdivision PUD to consider requested relaxations of the Unified Development Ordinance
and those aspects of the development that would influence the subdivision requirements. He
stated there were two different review disciplines involved with considering the proposal and that
part of the difficulty in preparing findings for comment and consideration was that staff s review
was based strictly on the information provided;there was limited discussion and detail provided
in much of the application as is necessary in the early stages of the PUD and subdivision review.
He suggested the Board provide recommendations on each of the five points of discussion
referenced in the Staff Report and any additional concerns they may have and suggested the
Board review them one at a time and allow time for the applicant to respond to the comments.
He stated if the Board thought a point of discussion had been missed they could indicate the need
to discuss the issue further.
Planner Skelton stated the UMU designation was established in 2006. He stated that the property
had been zoned BP instead of B-2 in an effort to avoid stereotype strip commercial development
west of Ferguson and instead encourage the development of a campus like setting with an
emphasis on open space and a green edge along the Entryway Corridor; it has been suggested that
the market appeared to not promote that type of development and the UMU had developed out of
that realization. He stated Staff's responsibility was to ensure the spirit of the UMU district was
carried through with the development of the site. He stated the requirements for this site were
identical to that set forth for other properties within the West Main Entryway Corridor regarding
the Bozeman design objectives plan. He stated he had included extensive minutes fiom the
Design Review Board meeting indicating the need for revisions to the proposal to achieve the
UMU spirit and polices of the design objectives plan for entryway corridors. He stated there is
difficulty in reviewing a proposal of this scale, and having a greater sense of seeing the bigger
picture along this corridor; when the proposal involves a mix of ninety- five commercial,
professional office and residential lots; with the project be a long term,multi-phased project. He
stated there were limited physical features and mature vegetation on the property which included
the Maynard Border ditch that would be continued as an amenity. He stated phase one of the
project was situated at the eastern edge of the property and the intersection of Ferguson Avenue
and Huffine Lane would be important with regard to the project's presentation to the community.
He stated a development theme would be implemented with the initial phase and carried through
2
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of December 7, 2010.
the last four phases of the development, and needed to ensure that the initial phase reflected the
intent of the community's first UMU district.
Planner Skelton noted that the Board would need to evaluate the proposal and provide
recommendations and advise to the applicant to assist with preparing fonnal applications. He
noted that there have been a number of discussions between Staff and the applicant, and with the
DRC and DRB; that further clarified by the applicant's proposal. He suggested the Board
include any items they thought Staff had missed and he would entertain any questions the Board
needed answered.
President Henyon opened the item for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, the public
comment period was closed.
President Henyon asked Planner Skelton to discuss the resort designation of the property and its
affect on the proposal. Planner Skelton responded it would be best for the applicant to address
the resort status of the property as the resort designation is not part of the
Michael Delaney, owner, addressed the Planning Board. He stated he and his wife had owned
the property for 20 plus years and had been discussing changing the zoning of the property from
B-P. He stated the change had been proposed and Staff had been supportive of the UMU district.
He stated first and foremost, their application was designed based on real places and living
examples that were included in the proposal; the design had proven itself to work and those
designs that hadn't worked had been eliminated. He stated it had always been their intention to
create something that people would tell their friends about using designs that had been around foi-
1 1 O's of years. He stated there were as many ways to design the project as there were cloud
designs in the sky. He stated he appreciated comments and recommendations,but had
intentionally designed the site. He stated the design was not so urban as to be overreaching to
downtown Bozeman; downtown should be the real urban center. He stated urban mixed use
could be heavy or light mixed use and that is why they were requesting relaxations to the height
requirements. He stated the southern edge of site primarily faced Huffine Lane and buildings too
tall on the southern edge would block the sun and shade a large portion of the site. He stated
there was a variety of interpretations of Urban Mixed Use and suggested the light to moderate
definition of the district be considered.
President Henyon asked Mr. Delaney to address the resort designation. Mr. Delaney responded
that the State of Montana had approved an application to designate the property as a resort—15
years earlier. He stated if recreational amenities were included on the site, the State allowed the
owner of the property to designate the property as a resort which allowed the property to not be
affected by the quota system regarding liquor licenses. He stated the first of the state
requirements had been met by the construction of the athletic club, the 25 room hotel would be
next for construction, and one of the last requirements would be to build a restaurant that would
seat 100 people.
Mr. Budeski asked if the 25 foot height request was to the peak of a building and if sloped or flat
roofs would be included. Mr. Delaney responded it would be a combination of both roof forms;
3
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of December 7, 2010.
at least half of the buildings would be a flat roof. He stated they envisioned most of the retailers
to have the presence of a 25 foot front; there would be grandness to it with 18-20 foot tall
ceilings that could incorporate a second floor or mezzanine.
President Henyon stated the applicant had mentioned examples and asked for Mr. Delaney to
share some of the working examples. Mr. Delaney cited examples of dynanicism and suggested
the parking at the Crossroads Building had been suggested by Mr. Burden as a good example
with most units being taller than one story. He stated in Scottsville there was a true mixed use
example in a previously urban, strip center area. He stated a number of positive developments
were in Palm Beach and West Palm Beach Florida which they copied some aspects of while
removing other aspects. He stated there had been some developments that were not working;
some because of their location, some because of their design, and some because they had tried to
bite off too much at once in the development of the property. He stated they wanted to go small
instead of gross to focus on the internal main street development. He stated they wanted to start
on the first phase of development with the majority of the spaces filled;they'd already filled all
but two spaces.
President Henyon then deferred to staff s presentation.
Planner Skelton clarified that the reasoning for having to consider two applications that included
the need for a Concept PUD review besides the subdivision pre-application, which is not always
necessary with subdivisions,was required due to the number of relaxations to the UDO requested
with the proposal.
Planner Skelton stated the first point of discussion was whether or not the proposal met the intent
of the UMU District. He stated Staff noted that many of the buildings depicted on the site plan
suggested that they were one story structures; restaurant, grocery story, and the bank and that the
application will need to clarify in the formal application what kind of the distribution there would
be with multi-story structures as required with the UMU district; including the requested
relaxation for building height that may not meet the intent of the UMU District. He directed the
Board to a rendering of proposed phase 1 of the development. He stated there had been
discussion of what would be the residential component and how it would be dispersed, and noted
the locations of the lodge and restaurants;how would mechanical equipment be incorporated
with the design if residential units were proposed on a second or third story. He stated Staff was
concerned with achieving the vertical intensification of the uses as intended with the UMU
district.
Mr. Sypinski asked if each phase would be reviewed separately with regard to the intensification
of vertical use. Planner Skelton responded it was a good question and noted he thought the key
would be how phase 1 was developed and how the initial phase met the spirit of the UMU; Staff
would rather see flexibility in future phases on the development.
Mr. Budeski stated he thought there needed to be a transitional development as there were all
lower profile buildings along the corridor; he stated a five story building on the corner of
Ferguson and Huffine would look out of place and he agreed with the applicant that the 25 foot
4
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of December 7,2010.
height should be allowed as a transition to the taller structures. Planner Skelton responded Staff
did not disagree with that concept, but the building at the corner would be important on how the
transition from one-story buildings to two and three story buildings was implemented.
President Henyon stated that the UMU District referred to the designation as a whole district;
when he read the language it included the whole district not just individual phases. Planner
Skelton responded President Henyon's concerns would be discussed with the next discussion
item. President Henyon stated he liked the idea of a one story building along Huffine Lane;he
recalled discussion of a town center location that could be seen from Huffine Lane. He added the
applicant had pretty much written the district and had included the minimum height requirement
of 32 feet. Planner Skelton responded Staff had not anticipated all the buildings would be three
to four stories though they thought phase 1 should establish the type of development preferred
with this UMU district.
Mr. Delaney addressed the Planning Board stating the minimum of 32 feet had not been
suggested by the applicant and the plan had indicated a mix of 1, 2, and 3 story buildings. He
stated the height variation is what made main streets wonderful; a monochromatic flat look
would become uninteresting. He stated he felt a 25 foot building was a very large building and
cited the Owenhouse Building on Huffine Lane was 18 feet tall. He stated very few cars would
be seen from Huffine Lane but the majority of the buildings would be seen. He stated his spaces
had been designed for individual owners and should include the flexibility for the merchants to
determine how tall their building should be. He stated the most expensive part of phase 1 of the
development would be the lodge; if a restaurant bar was included the height would be in excess
of 32 feet. He stated the far western portion of the lot would accommodate a restaurant that
would also likely be taller than 32 feet. He stated the proposed grocery store might only be 25
feet tall but they did not know that yet. He stated he felt the application complied with all the
requirements as laid out in the UDO.
Mr. Quinn asked if Mr. Delaney intended to make the lodge condominiums. Mr. Delaney
responded the lodge would be daily rented,weekly rented, or as long as they wanted to stay as
well as could be purchased.
Mr. Budeski asked if phase 1 could encroach into phase 2. Mr. Delaney responded they did not
anticipate phase 1 encroaching into phase 2,but they may need to develop part of phase 2 to
accommodate overflow parking. He stated the design of the parking facility had mimicked the
777 building.
President Henyon stated there had been considerable discussion regarding a dire need in the City
for a conference center and asked if Mr. Delaney had considered a conference center with
business spaces for lease or purchase; he suggested a conference center would allow more
traction in the state and could be a lucrative spot for a conference center. Mr. Delaney responded
the same thought had been presented in the past to provide for a performing arts center which had
been relocated to downtown Bozeman. He added the most obvious space for a conference center
was near rooms; along Baxter Lane near all the existing hotels and I-90; they were looking more
toward a performing arts center that could double as a conference center or meeting center.
5
City of Bozeman Plaraiing Board Minutes of December 7,2010.
Planning Skelton stated the height issue was more than height, but intensification of use as well.
He stated it was Staffs interpretation that the residential component would need to be met for
each phase of the development and they had discussed the lodge as a residential component but it
would need to be clear how the residential component requirements would be met with the
construction of the lodge in the first phase. He stated the UDO required dedicated parkland
through the subdivision and PUD provisions to serve the residential components of the
development. He stated the RPAB and GVLT had considered the proposal and had
recommended a reasonably sized area be included for both organized and unorganized activities
instead of the linear parks;typically a parkland requirement or cash in lieu would not be required
with a commercial subdivision unless a residential component is to be provided, keeping in mind
that the UMU district is more than just a commercial subdivision. He stated the RPAB had been
concerned regarding the use of the plaza area and the level of use that would be made available to
the general public; he stated the requirement for dedicated parkland was found in two separate
chapters within the UDO. He stated the applicant was requesting a waiver from Workforce
Housing requirements and would need to bring documentation before the advisory board that he
would not be able to meet the provisions set forth for workforce housing before the board would
support the waiver.
Mr. Sypinski stated the Board had recommended putting the Workforce Housing ordinance on
hiatus and asked how it would affect the proposal. Planner Skelton responded there had been
consideration of putting the ordinance on hold;however, currently it is still a requirement of the
UDO and will need to be fornially addressed. Director McHarg responded the item was up for
discussion by the Commission and Staff was awaiting the decision, at the discretion of the
Mayor, for placing the item on an agenda; until that time the ordinance is still in full force and
affect. Planner Skelton stated there had also been discussion regarding the first floor having a
percentage of commercial development; the applicant would need to address the residential
component with phase 1.
Mr. Budeski stated he viewed the site as a community that would not likely have families with
young children so he could see the trail on the perimeter as a passive recreational area. He stated
the detention basins seemed like the biggest wastes of land as those areas could be used for active
recreational areas. He stated the detention area on Fallon Street could be used as an active
recreational area as well; he suggested the area should be allowed to be parkland. Planner
Skelton stated the key to that would be if that would work in that location given the soil,
percolation rates, etc. Mr. Budeski responded that in Durston Meadow Condos there was a park
component with a detention basin.
President Henyon stated he 100%guaranteed that the perimeter trail system will be used as a
park due to the proximity of the athletic center.
Mr. Delaney stated he concurred with President Henyon regarding the use of the perimeter trail
system. He stated he felt the lodge would meet the residential component requirements for
phases 1-3 which had been done intentionally to allow someone to have retail on the ground
6
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of December 7,2010.
floor, an office on the second floor, and a residential unit on the third floor. He stated he
concurred with Mr. Budeski regarding the parkland dedication and added he was shocked at the
refusal of the RPAB to allow the linear park to be included. He stated the majority of the linear
park was along Huffine Lane and could not be used as a contribution either open space or Iinear
park. He stated if both linear parks were added the minimum mandates in any residential zone
would be exceeded. He stated they had gone to the CAHAB meeting with their attorney and they
did not think they were subject to those requirements as it was pertinent to residential lots instead
of commercial lots. Mr. Quinn added Mr. Delaney would run into difficulties with regard to the
residential requirements as this was the first development in the UMU zoning district and was the
first time the City had"skinned the cat". Mr. Delaney responded UMU was 80 %commercial
zoning. Mr. Quinn responded the district did not say it was strictly commercial. Mr. Quinn
asked if the 20%residential requirement was in square feet. Mr. Delaney responded the entire
lodge would be the 20%requirement for phases 1-3. Mr. Quinn asked if the required
commercial and residential percentages were for square footage. Mr. Delaney responded the
requirement was for square footage.
Mr. Sypinski clarified the 20%was based on the gross building square footage and asked if the
20% would be met with the construction of the lodge in phase 1. Mr. Delaney responded that
they will have complied with the residential component requirements in the first phase of the
development.
Director McHarg suggested the Board way in on what was defined as a residential use; the
language could be interpreted in many different ways—at what point is a hotel, extended stay
lodge, or fractional ownership a residential use. Mr. Budeski stated he was going to ask the same
question. Mr. Delaney responded the lodge units would be individually owned and would have
to have a homeowners association; he added there was no ruling or definition and one should not
be defined after the application has been submitted. Director McHarg stated he disagreed and
suggested that weighing in on the issue was appropriate. Mr. Delaney responded that as a point
of law, if it isn't what is represented as a definition the court will decide for the widest
interpretation.
Mr. Budeski stated it was unknown what percentage of the units would be owned or rented out
full time. Mr. McHarg responded that if the issues were not clear and a lot of relaxations were
being requested, it might behoove the Board and Staff to modify the language of the ordinance.
Mr. Budeski asked if extended stay lodging was allowed within the UMU District. Director
McHarg responded it was a principal use within the district and it was the residential language
that he had concerns with due to the lack of a list of allowable residential uses. Planner Skelton
suggested the Board discuss the residential component requirements.
President Henyon suggested a short break be taken and suggested the remaining items could be
opened and continued to the next meeting of the Planning Board.
President Henyon stated if the residential unit had its own individual utilities on a separate meter
it would be a separate residential use. Director McHarg stated he had asked the question as it
was different scenario if it was a nightly rental in an existing development; the Board may feel it
7
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of December 7,2010.
appropriate to say whether or not the nightly rental met the residential intent as a lot of resort
areas would struggle in case the rooms weren't rented for one reason or another and people in
those units would be the most important issue. President Henyon asked Mr. Delaney how many
mixed use developments successfully included residential units. Mr. Delaney responded in most
of the developments in Florida there were strong residential components that worked well; it had
been defined what a residential dwelling unit was in the UDO. He read the definition of a
dwelling and added that the duration of a dwelling was typically longer than 30 days and may
exist in many configurations. He stated a variance may have to applied for unless it as referred to
an apartment building; he suggested the UMU should allow the flexibility of the lodge to allow
that use.
Mr. Quinn stated he would be in favor of getting development going in the area but he didn't
think that trying to squeeze a lodge and hotel will work with the rules as written.
Mr. Budeski asked if the relaxation could be requested through the PUD process. Director
McHarg responded the relaxation could be requested but the new zoning district should be as
well written as possible to avoid a stack of relaxations that would be more difficult for the
Planning Office to administer and to provide more clarity to the developer.
President Henyon stated some flexibility should be considered and learned from so the code
could be modified to reflect a working ordinance. Director McHarg responded that avoiding the
PUD process would be beneficial to the community in general. Mr. Delaney stated that the
importance of defining the residential component was paramount as one little problem could
cease the project during development. Mr. McSpadden added that one of the things the applicant
was tasked with as showing that the project and its components would provide a significant
community benefit; some of those typical pitfalls could be avoided. Director McHarg added the
amount of relief requested should be balanced by the amount of public benefit.
President Henyon stated additional data would need to be provided regarding the residential
component of the proposal and suggested the real question was what was going to be considered
residential. He stated he agreed with the applicant that the zoning district was primarily
commercial and suggested if the UMU was seen as commercial, the residential component
should not include Affordable Housing requirements. Director McHarg responded that if the
ordinance was put on hiatus, the requirements would not be pertinent to the proposal and
summarized the rest of the speaking points.
President Henyon asked the Board's opinion on the proposed parkland. Mr. Quinn suggested
picking up height and linear park.
Director McHarg suggested discussing the height relaxation and suggested the Board consider
the big picture and the site as a district with differences between phase 1 and phase 5; phase 1
would be allowed to defer some of the requirements to future phases. He suggested it would be
possible to defer some of those items to allow the developer to catch up in future phases.
Mr. Budeski stated he would like to see transitional heights with lower buildings in the first
8
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of December 7,2010.
phases transitioning to taller heights in the future phases. He stated he supported the idea of
allowing the linear trails as parkland dedication and open space as the applicant had suggested he
would be including pocket parks as well.
Mr. McSpadden stated he agreed with Mr. Budeski with regard to the proposed building heights;
lie liked the individual lot set up. He stated Director McHarg had hit on his concerns regarding
the timing of the development but there was likely an administrative process in place to address
the phasing. He stated the applicant had users of the site in mind already and he saw no reason to
read the building height to the letter. He stated he agreed that the linear parks should be counted
toward open space requirements.
Mr. Sypinski stated he concurred with Mr. Budeski and Mr. McSpadden though the phasing was
a concern; he was not comfortable with the requested relaxations and he thought there was
something wrong with the language as written. He stated the Board was attempting to answer
questions they did not have enough information to answer. He stated the development was not
residential in his mind and it would be similar to the Big Sky Resort.
Mr. Quinn stated he had no problem with the proposed building height as Mr. Budeski had
suggested. He stated the height could be conditional and suggested the UMU designation terms
could be resolved up front. He stated he was alright with the linear park being counted toward
open space requirements. He stated he did not think a lodge was a residential use and added he
did not know if the 20%was the right percentage.
President Henyon stated he felt there was sufficient park proposed with the application and was
supportive of counting the linear park as part of the requirements. He stated the UMU District
should be amended to reduce the number of relaxations that would be requested.
Director McHarg asked for clarification of how the phasing of the amenities would be completed.
Mr. Delaney responded that phasing was anticipated and stated the code did not allow the use of
the linear park unless a variance could be obtained. He stated phase 1 would have the most open
space and each phase of open space would be completed with the phases of the development.
President Henyon clarified that it would be 10-15 years until the perimeter linear park would be
completed. Mr. Delaney responded he hoped it wouldn't be 10-15 years but instead a more
optimistic 3-5 years; he suggested the balance of the linear park could be completed after phase 3
of the development. Mr. Budeski suggested building the golf course next.
Mr. McSpadden asked if the applicant would be opposed to the possibility of conditions of
approval tied to phases of the proposal such as the balance of the linear park being completed
after phase 3 of the development or any similar conditions of approval. Mr. Delaney responded
he would be supportive of a condition for the balance of the linear trail completion after phase 3
of the development. Mr. McSpadden asked if Mr. Delaney was aware of encumbrances to the
property in the future because of the conditions of approval; he added it was possible that PUD
approval might not allow sketch plan review instead of site plan review. Mr. Delaney responded
that he had not found the Planning Department to be unreasonable after PUD approval.
9
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of December 7,2010.
Mr. Budeski stated the best laid plans would probably change; what was proposed had a high
potential of changing and he thought the Board needed to keep that in mind. Mr. Delaney
responded people had been living in societies of reactivity instead of proactivity in America. Mr.
Budeski stated he would like to see the Board give specific direction for concept instead of
phasing of the development.
Mr. Quinn stated he was in favor of the proposed phasing of the project.
Mr. Sypinski stated he agreed with Mr. McSpadden that the conditions of approval for the formal
application should include language to address the phased completion of improvements to the
site. Mr. Delaney responded all perimeter boundaries would be landscaped with a lawn and a
buttress around it; they couldn't afford the negativity of leaving the site uncompleted.
President Henyon asked if there had been any discussion of bonding the site improvements. Mr.
Delaney responded the site as a whole could only be bonded at $50,000,but each phase could be
bonded if those improvements could not be completed in a reasonable period of time.
Planner Skelton stated the Design Review Board had played a big part in discussion itein#4
regarding the entryway corridor and the design objective plan, how the proposal presented itself
to the community and how it embraced the West Main Street entryway corridor. He stated the
DRB had expressed concerns that the proposal would not be interconnected with the Entryway
Corridor or the community. He stated that a number of advisory bodies had expressed concern
with the perpendicular parking and the potential conflicts between bicycle/vehicular/pedestrian
circulations; the hierarchy of the site with regard to the layout, open space,plazas and public
areas was in question as well considering the proposed uses. He stated recornmendations
included incorporation of the refuse and service areas into the design instead of along the
perimeter of the site and fronting onto the West Main Street entryway corridor. He stated the
pocket parks and public spaces along the main street of the development were not depicted and
more detail regarding landscaping and furniture features would be required with the formal
submittal. He stated there was a lot of concern regarding the lack of amenities in exchange for
approval of the requested relaxations. He stated the DRB had suggested creating a sense of
transparency along the entryway corridor and inviting people to experience the development by
opening the public entries off of West Main Street into the development. The DRB also
recommended bringing more buildings to the edge of the development along the entryway
corridor so it was not dominated by off-street parking. He stated the majority of the advisory
bodies were uncomfortable with the bike lanes as proposed and the applicant had suggested the
removal of the scored bike bath; BABB had suggested relocating the bike paths between the
sidewalk and the parking area and recommended angled parking instead. He stated Staff felt
there was a concern that the proposal had not indicated the superior design expected when this
number of relaxations were granted and when the UMU already had built-in relaxations to the
UDO to allow for flexibility and maximum build out of the site. He suggested a conscious look
at the UMU language should be taken as opposed to granting a great number of relaxations, and
instead considering amendments to the UMU district if the current district does not encourage its
true intent and purpose of urban mixed uses.
10
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of December 7,2010.
Mr. Delaney presented an aerial photo of Carmel California to provide a working example of the
proposed parking layout. He described that the layout would provide the pedestrian a greater
elevation and a feeling of greater safety. He stated he agreed that the bike lanes behind the
parking would be eliminated but bike lanes in front of the parking would work no better; he
added angle parking would not work on the site. He stated he knew the parking as proposed
worked as pedestrians would be superior, which was their goal. He stated the
north/south/east/west directional planning gave people a sense of safety because they knew where
they were going. He stated only two small lanes were included along Huffine Lane and was not a
sea of parking such as the mall has. He added Huffine Lane was approximately eight feet higher
in elevation so the amenities would not be visible; the fence would be included for the purpose of
defined, safe space and had been a careful consideration in the design of the proposal. He stated
the more activity generated on the sidewalk,the safer the development. He stated he felt the
relaxations as proposed were appropriate and no zoning district could accommodate a project of
this size without relaxations.
Mr. Budeski stated Mr. Delaney had addressed some of Staff,s concerns in his letter submitted
prior to the meeting. Mr. Delaney responded he had made a mistake in his letter and was
convinced that the perimeter fencing should be included to provide for public safety; there would
be a major portal looking right into the plaza area.
Mr. McSpadden asked if there were specific design standards being addressed. Planner Skelton
responded that the Design Objectives Plan had specific design standards and he did not think the
proposal addressed many of the Entryway Corridor criteria as did the DRB.
Mr. Quinn stated he agreed with Planner Skelton regarding the presentation of the rear of the
proposed buildings and those service areas.
Mr. Budeski stated he agreed with Planner Skelton regarding the guidelines of the Design
Objectives Plan and the sites presentation to the Entryway Corridor;he stated the plan did not
address those items in detail. Mr. Delaney responded the deliveries would occur on each of those
north/south streets would be included to provide deliveries to each business and the semis could
park in those locations while there would still be enough room for a vehicle to pass.
ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS
No items were forthcoming.
ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT
Seeing there was no further business before the Planning Board, President Henyon adjourned the
meeting at 11:13 p.m.
11
City of Bozeman Plamung Board Minutes of December 7,2010.
Erik Henyon, President Tim McHarg, Planning Director
Planning Board Planning& Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman
12
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of December 7,2010.
CHAPTER 18.19
URBAN MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICT
18.19.010 INTENT AND PURPOSE OF URBAN MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICT.
The intent and purposes of the Urban Mixed-Use("UMU'}district is to establish areas within Bozeman that
are mixed-use in character,and to set forth certain minimum standards for development within those areas
which encourage vertical mixed-use development with high density. The purpose in having an urban
mixed-use district is to provide options for a variety of employment, retail and community service
opportunities within the community, with incorporated opportunity for some residential uses, while
providing predictability to landowners and residents in uses and standards. There is a rebuttable
presumption that the uses set forth for each district will be compatible both within the individual districts
and to adjoining zoning districts when the standards of Title 18 are met and any applicable conditions of
approval have been satisfied. Additional requirements for development apply within overlay districts.
A. It is the further the intent of this district to:
1. Allow a mixture of complimentary land uses which encourages mixed-uses on individual
floors including, but not limited to, retail, offices, commercial services, restaurants, bars,
hotels, recreation and civic uses,and housing, to create economic and social vitality and to
encourage the linking of trips;
2. Foster the development of vertically oriented mixed-uses, in contrast to single use
development distributed along high vehicle capacity roadways;
3. Encourage development that exhibits the physical design characteristics of vibrant, urban,
pedestrian-oriented, storefront-style shopping streets with pedestrian amenities;
4. Develop commercial and mixed-use areas that are safe, comfortable, and attractive to
pedestrians;
5. Provide flexibility in the siting and design of new developments and redevelopment to
anticipate changes in the marketplace;
6. Reinforce the principle of streets as public places that encourage pedestrian and bicycle
travel, and on-street parking;
7. Provide roadway and pedestrian connections to residential areas;
S. Provide transitions between high-traffic streets and adjacent residential neighborhoods;
9. Encourage efficient land use by facilitating compact,high-density,multi-story development
and minimizing the amount of land that is needed for surface parking;
10. Facilitate development(land use mix,density and design)that supports public transit,where
applicable;
11. Provide appropriate locations and design standards for automobile and truck-dependent
uses;
12. Maintain mobility along traffic corridors while supporting the creation of"places"or centers
which will create lasting and enduring,long-term value to the community;
13. Emphasize the need to serve the adjacent,local neighborhood and also the greater Bozeman
area as well;
14. Minimize parking lots through-shared uses of mixed-uses-,
15. Create central urban gathering places such as community squares or plazas; and
Ordinances #1681 and 1709: Effective August 3 and 15, 2007 page 19-1
16. Facilitate designs of each mixed-use to help ensure long-term financial viability of each
mixed-use;
17. Allow for urban oriented recreational activities consistent with the standards and intent of
the district; and
18. To encourage and support the use of sustainable building practices.
B. To accomplish the intent of the district, the UMU district should ideally be located at the
intersections of major traffic corridors,that is at the intersections of two arterials,or less frequently,
an arterial and a collector street. The major intersections should have or be planned to have a stop
light or other active traffic control. While placement at major intersections is a necessary
precondition, not all major intersections should have the UMU district adjacent to them.
Additionally,placement of this district should be adjacent or near to dense residential development
to enhance walking and bicycle use.
18.19.020 AUTHORIZED USES.
A. Uses in the Urban Mixed-Use district are depicted in the table below. Principal uses are indicated
with a"P,"conditional uses are indicated with a"C,"accessory uses are indicated with an"A,"and
uses which are not permitted within the district are indicated by a ...... A particular proposed
development or use may fall under more than one listed category with different review processes.
In such cases, the more stringent review process shall apply.
B. The uses listed are deliberately broad and some are given special definitions in Chapter 18.80,BMC.
The intent of this method is to provide general guidance for uses while allowing the unique needs
and circumstances of each proposal to be specifically addressed through the review process.Some
uses are the subject of special regulations contained in Chapter 18.40,BMC.
C. Additional uses for telecommunications are established in Chapter 18.54,BMC.
D. Mixed Uses Required And Limited.
1. Development shall include a mix of uses.
2. Uses shall be grouped as commercial, industrial,•offices, institutional, and residential. A
combination of at least two different groups of uses shall be provided within each site plan.
3. No use group shall exceed 70% of the total gross building floor area in the entire site
development,multiple buildings may be shown on a single site plan as allowed in Chapter
18.34.
4. The ground level gross building area shall be at least 75%non-residential in use.
5. Residential uses shall be provided in all mixed-use developments,and shall occupy not less
than 20% of the total gross building floor area of the district.
6. For the purposes of calculating the percentage of a use within the site development the
gross square foot floor area of building for each use shall be utilized.
TABLE 19-1
TABLE OF COMMERCIAL USES AUTHORIZED USES
Ambulance Service p
Apartments and Apartment Buildings' (as defined in this Title) p
Arts and Entertainment Center (as defined in this Title) p
Assisted Living/Elderly Care Facilities p
Ordinances #1681 and 1709: Effective August 3 and 15, 2007 page 19-2
TABLE OF COMMERCIAL USES AUTHORIZED USES
Automobile Fuel Sales or. Repair (as defined in this Title) C
Automobile Parking Lot or Garage (public or private) P
Automobile Washing Establishment C
Banks and Other Financial Institutions P
Business,Technical or Vocational School p
Bus Terminals C
Community Centers P
Convenience Uses C
Convenience Use Restaurant P
Essential Services (Type II) C
Extended-Stay Lodgings P
Health and Exercise Establishments P
Hospitals P
Hotel or Motel P
Laboratories,Research and Diagnostic p
Laundry, Dry Cleaning P
Light Goods Repair (as defined in this Title) P
Lodging Houses P
Manufacturing (light and completely indoors) P
Mortuary
C
Museum P
Medical and Dental Clinics P
Meeting Hall P
Offices (as defined in this Title) P
Other Buildings&Structures (typically accessory to permitted uses) A
Parking Facilities P
Personal and Convenience Services (as defined in this Title) P
Pet Grooming Shop 1,
Printing Offices and Publishing Establishments C
Private Club, Fratemity, Sorority or Lodge P
Public Buildings P
Refuse and Recycling Containers A
Research Laboratories P
Restaurants 1,
Retail Uses (as defined in this Title) P*
Ordinances #1681 and 1709: Effective August 3 and 15, 2007 page 19-3
TABLE OF COMMERCIAL USES AUTHORIZED USES
Retail (large scale) C
Sales of Alcohol for On-Premise Consumption—No gaming allowed C;
Sign Paint Shops (not including neon sign fabrication) C
Upholstery Shops (excluding onsite upholstery service for cars, boats,
trailers, trucks and other motorized vehicles requiring overnight storage) l�
Veterinary Clinic P
Wholesale Distributors With On-Premise Retail Outlets (providing
warehousing is limited to commodities which are sold on the premises) P
Wholesale Establishments (ones that use samples, but do not stock on
premises) P
Any Use, Except Adult Businesses and Casinos Approved as Part of a
Planned Unit Development Subject to the Provisions of Chapter 18.36, C
BMC
Notes*Excluding adult business, and large scale retail, as they are defined
in Chapter 18.80,BMC May be subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.02,BMC.
19.19.030 LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA.
A. In the UMU district,the entire lot,exclusive of the required yards and parking,may be occupied by
the principal and accessory buildings. This title provides opportunities for parking requirements to
be met by shared and off-site parking, as allowed by Chapter 18.46,BMC.
B. In the UMU district, the footprint of individual buildings shall not exceed 45,000 square feet.
C. Minimum floor area requirements for each dwelling in all districts shall be that area required by the
City's adopted International Building Code.
D. All development shall provide a minimum floor area ratio of not less than 0.75. "Floor area ratio"is
the ratio attained by dividing the gross square feet of building by gross land area of the lot(s) being
developed. A site plan for development may show future phases of buildings to be used to
demonstrate compliance with the minimum floor area ratio standard.
18.19.040 LOT AREA AND WIDTH.
A. All newly created lots shall have a minimum area adequate to provide for required yards and parking.
In the UMU district there is no minimum size for newly created lots.
B. There is no minimum width for newly created lots within the UMU district.
18.19.050 YARDS.
A. Minimum Yards.No minimum yards are required for the mixed-use district.Easements for utilities
or other special standards may require buildings to be placed back from lot lines.
B. Maximum Setback. Buildings shall be oriented to the adjacent street. At least 50% of the total
building frontage,which is oriented to the street, shall be placed within 10 feet of any minimum
required separation from the property line.
C. Special Yard Requirements.All yards shall be subject to the provisions of§18.30.060 Design Criteria
and Development Standards in Entryway Corridors,518.38.060 Yard and Height Encroachments,
Ordinances#1681 and 1709: Effective August 3 and 15, 2007 page 19-4
I-imitations and Exceptions,§18.42.100 Watercourse Setback,§18.44.100 Street Vision Triangle,and
§18.48.100 General Maintenance,BMC,when applicable.
18.19.060 BUILDING HEIGHT.
A. Minimum building height is three stories and 32 feet.To comply with this standard the space being
claimed as a story must be capable of being occupied for human use and have a floor area of not less
than 50% of the ground level story.
B. Maximum building height,except as allowed under§18.19.060.C,BMC for the UMU district shall
be 55 feet.
C. Maximum building height may be increased by up to but not more than an additional 25 feet when
structured parking is provided per§18.19.070.E.2,BMC and when determined to be in compliance
with the review criteria of§18.34.090,BMC.
1819.070 SPECIAL STANDARDS.
A. A UMU district is anticipated to generally be not less than 20 acres in area. The City Commission
may approve a lesser area of not less than 10 acres upon finding;that a smaller area will still provide
for adequate transition between adjacent districts,provide a reasonable community setting for the
intensity of the district,and that a smaller area will not constitute spot zoning.
B. The district shall be surrounded by perimeter streets unless precluded by topography.
C. All development within the Urban Mixed-Use district, regardless of location within the City, shall
conform to Chapters 1 through 4 of the Design Objectives Plan established in Chapter 18.30.In the
event of a conflict between the Design Objectives Plan and the standards of this chapter the
standards of this chapter shall govern.
D. Landscaping requirements shall be the same as the portion of the B-3 district outside the defined
core area as shown in §18.48.060,Table 48-1,BMC.
E. Special Parking Standards.
1. Maximum Surface Parking.
a. In order to achieve the intent of the district and achieve efficiency in the use of land,
surface parking provided for the sole use of an individual development shall not
exceed 100%of the minimum parking requirement for the subject land use(s)based
upon the requirements of Chapter 18.46,BMC. The UMU district may utilize the
parking reductions authorized in§18.46.040.B.3.a,BMC. In determining the 100%
requirement all qualifying reductions shall be included.
b. Exemptions to 518.19.070.D.1.a,BMC to allow unstructured surface parking up to
100% of the minimum parking requirement exclusive of reductions may be
approved through the development review process for developments that provide
shared parking to other development,valet parking spaces,parking for off-site users
for which an hourly or other regular rent is paid, or similarly managed parking
facilities.
2. Structured Parking Incentive. A floor area bonus of one square foot may be granted for
each square foot of area of parking provided within a building.Additional height of building
is allowed to accommodate this additional building area per §18.19.060, BMC.
3. Bicycle Parking. Covered bicycle parking shall be provided.The covered spaces shall be at
least one-half of the total minimum bicycle parking. The minimum number of covered
spaces shall be the greater of either 10 bicycle parking spaces or 5% of motor vehicle
parking provided on-site.
Ordinances#1681 and 1709: Effective August 3 and 15, 2007 page 19-5
E. Building Standards.
1. Transitions.Where the UMU district is adjacent to another zoning district,those buildings
greater than three stories and located within 50 feet of another zoning district,notincluding
width of streets,shall have a stepped facade on the side facing the other district.The portion
of the facade in excess of three stories shall be stepped back not less than 25%of the height
of the initial three stories. Where applicable, cornices (e.g., building tops, or first-story
cornices) shall be aligned to generally match the height(s) of those on adjacent buildings.
2. Floor-to-Floor Heights and Floor Area of Ground-floor Space.
a. All commercial floor space provided on the ground floor of a mixed-use building
shall have a minimum floor-to-ceiling height of 12 feet.
b. All commercial floor space provided on the ground floor of a mixed-use building
shall contain the following minimum floor area:
(1) At least 800 square feet or 25 percent of the lot area (whichever is greater)
on lots with street frontage of less than 50 feet; or
(2) At least 20 percent of the lot area on lots with 50 feet of street frontage or
more.
3. In the UMU district buildings shall provide transparency along at least 50%percent of the
linear length of the building's facade.This maybe achieved with windows,displays,building
lobbies,building entrances,display windows,or windows affording views into retail,office,
or lobby spaces. This requirement shall apply to both frontages of a building located on a
corner lot.
a. The bottom edge of any window or product display window used to satisfy the
transparency standard of this paragraph may not be more than 4 feet above the
adjacent sidewalk.
b. Product display windows used to satisfy these requirements shall have a minimum
height of four feet and be internally lighted.
4. Street-level openings on parking structures shall be limited to those necessary for retail store
entrances, vehicle entrance and exit lanes, and pedestrian entrances to stairs and elevator
lobbies. Parking structures adjacent to streets shall have architectural detailing such as,but
not limited to, standard size masonry units such as brick, divided openings to give the
appearance of windows, and other techniques to provide an interesting and human scaled
appearance on the story adjacent to the sidewalk.Parking areas may not be used to meet the
frontage requirement of Section 18.19.050.B,BMC.
5. Buildings shall be articulated with modules,architectural detailing,individual floors visually
expressed in the facade, and rhythm and pattern of openings and surfaces to be human
scale.
F. Lighting. All building entrances, pathways, and other pedestrian areas shall be lit with pedestrian-
scale lighting (e.g., wall mounted, sidewalk lamps, bollards, landscaping lighting, er cetera).
Alternative lighting meeting the intent of the design guidelines and other criteria of this title,may be
approved through site development review.
G. Natural Surveillance. The proposed site layout, building, and landscape design promote natural
surveillance of the area by employees,visitors,and residents. Physical features and activities should
be oriented and designed in ways that maximize the ability to see throughout the site. For example,
window placement, the use of front porches or stoops, use of low or see-through walls, and
appropriate use of landscaping and lighting can promote natural surveillance. Sight-obscuring
Ordinances #1681 and 1709: Effective August 3 and 15, 2007 page 19-6
shrubs and walls should be avoided,except as necessary for buffering between commercial uses and
lower density residential districts, and then shall be minimized.
R Public Spaces.The UMU district is urban in nature.Public parks and recreational areas are likewise
expected to be urban in nature. This will include elements such as plazas or other hardscaping,
landscaping with planters, furniture, developed recreation facilities such as basketball and tennis
courts or indoor recreation facilities, and be more concentrated in size and development than
anticipated in a less urban setting.Public spaces shall be designed to facilitate at least three distinct
types of activities to encourage consistent human presence and activity. The requirements of this
section shall give direction in the development of park plans and the application of the standards of
Chapter 18.50, BMC.
1. Public spaces shall be designed to:
a. Facilitate social interaction between and within groups;
b. Provide safe, pleasant, clean and convenient sitting spaces adaptable to changing
weather conditions;
C. Be attractive to multiple age groups,
d. Provide for multiple types of activities without conflicting;
e. Support organized activities;
f. Be visually distinctive and interesting.-
9- Interconnect with other public and private spaces; and
h. Prioritize use by persons.
Ordinances #1 681 and 1709: Effective August 3 and 15, 2007 page 19-7
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS
December 3, 2010
Tim McHarg, Planning Directory
Dave Skelton, Senior Planner
Doug Riley, Associate Planner
RE: Pre-application #P-10015 and #Z-10290
(Spring Creek Village Resort Major Sub— SCVR)
Dear Tim, Dave and Doug,
Thank you for the written "update" and "agenda".
First—we agree that the planning board should limit their discussions specifically
to the five (5) key questions on areas of discussion.
Suggestion: We think it would be wise to discuss each point individually from a
planner's perspective and the applicant's verbal perspective then question/answer
with the Board. Then move on to the next point to discuss. Great idea—
The following are our thoughts which we would like the Planning Staff to
formalize via written text to the Planning Board. These are specifically areas
where the "staff'may have misinterpreted our submittal.
1. a. Encourage vertical mixed use development with high density.
Staff comment is not correct: You state "in addition, there appear(especially in
the first phase) to be a number of single story, single use, buildings depicted.
Overall the proposed development appears to be more "suburban" in density and
intensity rather than "urban".
Applicant's comments: This is an incorrect observation. We show building
blocks within our first phase. We show a two (2) to three story lodge on 50% of
the first phase which will include not less than 25 one bedroom condo
residential/lodge units —plus may include a ground floor restaurant/bar and retail
uses.
1
"s
i
I
101 East Main Street r Bozeman, Montana 59715 r (406)586-3132 r Fax(4.06)586-8692
I
s
Additionally across our private street we show three (3) separate buildings, Each
building we propose to be a minimum of 25' high or taller. At this writing we
know at least two (2) of the buildings will be two (2) plus stories of uses. We have
not designed any buildings to be a single story. It is our opinion that Phase I will
be very dense and very urban in both its uses and its looks —not"suburban" as you
indicate.
i
i
2. a. Staff comments we feel the staff comment is incorrect—
Applicant comments: We plan to build at least 25 one bedroom/lodge/residential
condominium units within our two to three story Lodge. These condos can be
purchased by individual users and/or investors and put into a"rental lodge pool".
The net result will be that we will exceed our 20% residential use/construction
requirements for Phases I, II and III with the development of these 25 units in
phase one.
f
2 b. Residential Parkland dedication j
i
Applicants Comments: We do not think our project should be subject to any
parkland dedication requirements. We base this opinion on the fact that the UMU
(Urban Mixed Use)_district is-a commercial zone--it-is-not primarily a residential
zone.
History: When our attorney prepared the UMU zoning guidelines, we never
thought our City Planners would try and "force" a residential zone and
subsequently a parkland dedication on this UMU district.
Our reasoning follows:
1. UMU is a commercial zone. Commercial zones are not subject to parkland
dedicated requirements.
2. Lot sizes: The Spring Creek Village UMU preliminary subdivision plan
j clearly shows that no individual commercial UMU lot will be larger than
five acres in size. In fact, ninety(90) percent of our UMU lots will be less
than 5,000 square feet.
T
f
f
I
i
i
Delaney & Company ♦ (406)586-3132
i
i
2c. Affordable Housing
Applicants Response: All commercial lots developed within any UMU district are
clearly exempt from the CAHAB requirements.
#17,02.030 applicability: clearly and precisely limits CAHAB requirements only
to "residential lots". The Spring Creek Village major subdivision will have no
residential lots. Additionally, our final subdivision will not have any commercial
UMU lots in excess of five (5) acres in size or gross project area.
3a. Applicants Response: The first phase will have twenty-five (25) residential
one bedroom condos within the lodge. This makes the first phase truly UMU
3b. Applicants Response: If our proposed linear park cannot be counted as
parkland, then it surely can be counted as "open space".
Phase One will include one (1) plaza area and/or a pocket park. Each subsequent
Phase, two and three, will also have small plazas and/or parket parks.
4b. We will eliminate the exterior"fencing". We will concentrate on creating
visual openings or portals from West Main Street to directly view the central
square. We will move garbage areas to other areas away from Huffine Lane. We
will landscape along West Main Street to screen our few rows of parking with trees
and berms. We believe that our proposed two (2) rows of parking along Huffine
Lane are very minor indeed. This parking will almost seem invisible to drivers
along Huffine Lane at 50 mph once our burms and landscaping is completed.
4c. Applicant Comment: Our private street and parking design
' p p g is based upon a
proven model development and used for over thirty (30)years in Carmel,
California. This proven design has guaranteed effective and safe circulation
between vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. The opening statement to the contrary
i by staff is simply not true. Our design is supported by fact and use and guarantees
the highest degree of provable safety to pedestrians.
Additionally, we will be eliminating our bicycle lanes running east/west and
around our square. Angled parking will not work in our design.
Our Huffine Lane Corridor will be dominated by a series of beautiful and unique
E
buildings primarily. The next thing the passing motorist along Huffine Lane will
observe will be the abundant and beautiful landscaping and large trees. The last 3
thing a motorist might notice will be a few cars parked on our small two (2) lane
i
Delaney & Company ♦ (406)586-3132 €
e
lot located between buildings and the 50 foot setback of lush landscaping.
Comments made that this "corridor would be dominated by off street parking" is
really stretching the true facts.
4d. Applicants Comments: All future designs will re-locate service/refuse areas
and more clearly show snow storage loading/unloading areas. The entryways
corridor on the SCVR.will in fact become the most architecturally pleasing and
interesting development ever created on Huffine Lane.
5b. Applicant's comments: The SCVR as proposed will in fact need a number of
"relaxations" from this UMU zoning district. In the big picture, these few
relaxations are relatively minor given the size, complexity and uniqueness of this
proposal. Ultimately, the Planning Board and the City Commission will cast their
votes towards the positive development future we propose as SCVR or cast their
votes in the other direction.
Please try and respond to our"applicant's comments" prior to the Planning Board
meeting so we can discuss your opinions.
Very truly yours,
Michael W. Delaney
i
a
1
I
i
i 1
i
i
I
i
i
I
Delaney & Company ♦ (406)586-3]32