HomeMy WebLinkAbout29 - 05-07-2007_Story Mill Neighborhood Subdivision Pre-Applicatio_29
Commission Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Story Mill Major Subdivision Pre-application and PUD Concept Plan, #P-
07015 & #Z-07056
MEETING DATE: Monday, May 7, 2007 at 6:00 PM.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission consider the pre-application and concept
plan and offer comment and direction.
BACKGROUND: Blue Sky Development, Inc. and Wake Up, Inc. have made application
subdivision pre-application and PUD concept plan review. The project is a complex mixed use infill
and redevelopment of approximately 90 acres in the northeast quadrant of Bozeman. The project is
on the east of Rouse/Bridger Drive and is bounded on the south by Bryant Street and the edge of
the Story Hills on the east.
The Story Mill area is an eclectic mix of uses with a long history of development. The Story
Mill was the largest industrial employer in early Bozeman history and remained an active mill into
the late 1960’s. The mill property has been used for a variety of things since the milling ended but its
full potential has not been utilized. Lack of municipal sewer has been a long standing limitation on
the intensity of uses possible at the site. Municipal services can be extended to serve the entire
property. Other uses in the area include the stockyards and associated slaughterhouse, now out of
use, abandoned rail lines, residences, and a variety of industrial uses to the northwest.
The application depicts a blend of different housing types, substantial open spaces, and
intensive development in some areas of the site. Lower intensity areas transition to existing adjacent
residential development and are interspersed with existing wetlands on the site. Many portions of the
project area have previously been developed and some of that development will be changed by this
project.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Applicants are requesting input on deviations and length of approval.
Several of the identified deviations may be removed depending on how housing ownership is
structured, e.g. shared land area or individual lots.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The development, if carried forward, will require significant infrastructure
investments. These will be the primary responsibility of the development group. Services to future
residents will generate expenses and taxes will generate additional revenue. The City has identified
some of the necessary street elements as being impact fee credit eligible.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
360
CONTACT: Please email Chris Saunders at csaunders@bozeman.net if you have any questions
prior to the public meeting.
APPROVED BY: Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
Attachments: Memo to Commission April 2, 2007
Memo to the DRC from Planning Staff, dated April 11, 2007
Memo to the DRC from Engineering Staff, dated April 11, 2007
Memo to the DRB from Planning Staff, dated March 28, 2007
DRB Minutes
Staff memo to Planning Board
Planning Board Minutes
CAHAB comments
Applicant’s original submittal
Applicant’s deviation maps
Applicant’s draft affordable housing proposal
Report compiled on May 2, 2007
361
planning • zoning • subdivision review • annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration • neighborhood
coordination
CITY OF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building
20 East Olive Street
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230
phone 406-582-2260
fax 406-582-2263
planning@bozeman.net
www.bozeman.net
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bozeman City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders, Assistant Director
RE: Story Mill Major Subdivision Pre-application and PUD Concept Plan, #P-07015 &
#Z-07056
DATE: May 7, 2007
Hyalite Engineers and GBD Architects on behalf of Blue Sky Development and Wake Up Inc. has
submitted a Subdivision Preapplication for the subdivision of 106 acres into 166 total lots for detached
single-household lots, attached single-household lots, multi-household lots, commercial lots and industrial
lots as well as open spaces and parks. A total of 1200 dwelling units and approximately 160,000 square feet
of non-residential development is proposed on property located around the intersection of Griffin Drive
and Story Mill Road. The property is annexed or has been approved for annexation with zoning
designations of B-1 (Neighborhood Business District), B-2 (Community Business District), M-1 ( Light
Manufacturing District), PLI (Public Lands and Institutions District), R-2 (Residential Two-Household,
Medium Density District) and R-4 (Residential High Density District). The project would develop in
phases over a 10 year period of time.
The proposed development is in general compliance with the uses approved with the mix of zoning. The
applicants have noted a desire for several deviations from ordinance standards. The deviations relate to the
proposed urban character of the development and are listed in Tab 3 of the application. Staff has identified
several additional items which are shown in yellow on the attached DRC comments. A number of the
deviations relate to design choices which have not yet been finalized. A final list will be provided with the
formal preliminary PUD plan or subdivision plat. A set of maps has been attached showing the proposed
deviations by block. The deviations primarily focus on a more urban character, e.g. setbacks and height, and
configuration of townhomes with shared areas but individual lots.
The applicants are seeking concurrent construction for early phases of the project to facilitate extension of
major utilities and rehabilitation of the mill buildings. The requirements of concurrent construction appear
to be able to be met. Staff would like to evaluate the extent of concurrent construction by phase since there
is such a difference of circumstances across the project.
The applicants have proposed to provide affordable housing as described in the attached affordable housing
plan. An urban renewal district is suggested as an integral element of that approach. The applicants are
currently subject only to the RSL requirements of Section 18.42.180. The additional affordable housing is a
voluntary effort. The comments by CAHAB are attached.
362
Page 2
The normal approval period for a phased major subdivision is three years. The applicants are exploring
options to enable a longer approval period. Section 18.06.040.D.6 on page 06-7, which parallels state law
provisions, allows a longer approval when future development is secured with an improvements agreement
and appropriate guarantees. Staff has had some internal discussion of phasing control, financial guarantees
and other security mechanisms which would provide protection to the public, future purchasers, and current
owners. Applicants are concerned that since the project is very interconnected, future changes in the
regulatory environment could negatively impact the ability to carry out the project. A Planned Unit
Development does enable a longer initial approval period of five years with the ability to renew the approval
for five year increments. Careful definition of project elements between the subdivision and PUD may
enable surety in project development to be provided through the PUD and reduce need for long term
extensions of a preliminary plat approval.
MAILED TO
GoBuild Inc., 6730 Tawny Brown Lane, Bozeman MT 59718
Blue Sky Development Inc, 6730 Tawny Brown Lane, Bozeman MT 59718
Hyalite Engineers, 2066 Stadium Drive, Ste 203, Bozeman MT 59715
363
planning • zoning • subdivision review • annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration • neighborhood
coordination
CITY OF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building
20 East Olive Street
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230
phone 406-582-2260
fax 406-582-2263
planning@bozeman.net
www.bozeman.net MEMORANDUM
TO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
FROM: CHRIS SAUNDERS
RE: STORY MILL NEIGHBORHOOD P-07015 AND Z-07056
DATE: APRIL 11, 2007
The City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development has reviewed the
applicant’s request for subdivision and planned unit development of 106± acres of land and as a result
recommend the following comments:
The Story Mill Neighborhood project is complex and touches on many different aspects of the land use
and development standards. The following items are identified as areas of concern. Many of these items
serve as reminders rather than noting specifically identified needed corrections. Many of these items
may become unnecessary depending on how final design is proposed. Although the list is lengthy is
does not represent an insurmountable barrier.
Yellow represents revisions or additions to the deviations; pink represents especially high priority items; blue is cross-
departmental; green is probable project specific conditions.
Standards
Section Subject Detail
18.06.040.D.6 Duration of
Preliminary Plat
Approval
Explain why the plat should be approved for more than 3 years and
what combinations of security will provide protection to the public
interests and future buyers
18.16.020 Allowed Uses Request to allow 4 plex in the R-2 district on Block 1
18.16.020 Authorized Uses Townhomes throughout the project will require the deviations for
Block 2 if they are truly to be on individual lots
18.16.050.A.4 garage entrances Garage entrances must be setback 20 feet from property line on street
18.20.020 Industrial Allowed
Uses
Deviation to Footnote 7 required to allow residential area in excess
of 50% building area as residential use
18.28 Historic
Preservation
Elements of the project will be required to respond to the criteria for
historic preservation
18.30.050 Certificate of
Appropriateness
A COAs will be required for the individual homes along Bridger
18.30.060.B.2/
18.38.060.C
Special Standards/
Special Yards
Bridger Drive has a 25 foot setback, deviation from this section
required for Block 25
18.38. Special Setbacks Story Mill residential front yard setback is 20 feet
18.38.010 Area Requirements Verify that this section does not this impede aggregating private open
space or shared parking
364
Page 2
18.38.030.D Use of Lands Concurrent construction requirements for infrastructure installation –
Needs to be addressed in detail with preliminary plat
18.38.030.D.1.a Municipal
Infrastructure
Reuse of the slaughterhouse should provide municipal water and
sewer rather than special exception, avoiding degradation of water
quality in the East Gallatin is crucial
18.38.050 Accessory Buildings Applies to ADU detached or similar buildings
18.38.060.A Yard Encroachments These items also encroach into yard, correlate with yard relaxation
setbacks, ensure they do not project into the street ROW
18.38.060.B Zero Lot Line If this section is used to create the 4 plex units on Block 1 then a
deviation from the 8 foot exterior side yard is required.
18.38.060.D Accessory
Structures and
Equipment
Applies to mechanical equipment and need to keep all equipment
within the allowed height deviation unless specifically exempted
18.38.080.A Clean Up of
Property
Property clean up required before final plat or occupancy, how does
this affect the existing wetland fill and junk across multiple phases.
18.40.030.B Accessory Dwelling
Units
Are ADUs intended to be allowed on the single-home lots in Blocks
1 and 14-20? If so additional deviations may be required for lot area,
lot width. Compliance with 18.38.050.E will be required. Any lots
intended for ADU or specifically prohibited should be identified with
plat.
18.40.090 Condominiums Provide the necessary documentation with explanations about how to
add future phases, will there be one or more owners associations,
identify which sections to which the City will be a party
18.40.100 Portable Buildings These seem out of place with the project, consider prohibiting them
by covenant
18.40.110 Home Based
Businesses
Specify the intent – follow code or go beyond with allowed home
business, impacts on ADA accessibility and commercial IBC rating
will change design standards
18.40.150 Outdoor Sales Relationship of commercial areas, sidewalk access, goods display –
maintain adequate circulation
18.40.180 Large Scale Retail Intent to limit within the B-2 area?, Large Scale Retail seems
inconsistent potentially with LEED
18.40.210 Community Center Are they intended, if so where, parking access and circulation need to
be provided
18.42.030 Double Frontage Needs building envelopes on Hillside, Story Mill, Bridger to ensure
adequate size, location of garage entrance vs. main house location
and adequate setbacks, deviations for parking stacking are unlikely to
be supported.
18.42.030 Blocks With zero setbacks how are vision triangles to be addressed?
18.42.030.A Lots Irregularly shaped lots, regularize boundaries where feasible in
Blocks 6, 15, 18, 21, & Block15 L11
365
Page 3
18.42.030.A Lots Need means to permanently and visibly delineate the lot boundaries
next to the open spaces
18.42.030.B Lot Block 7 seems to cut off the end of the spur trail, carry the park to
and make connection with Story Mill w/o leaving undevelopable
parcel separated
18.42.030.E Lot – Width Affects setbacks, second front yard requirements and ability to have
a buildable area, ex. Blk 15 L11. Remove or reconfigure Blk 15,
L11.
18.42.030.F Lot – 3:1 ratio Block 6 fails, needs deviation
18.42.040 B-D Block – length &
width
Blocks 4&5 combined are too long, possible topo exemption or ask
for deviation to avoid pedestrian ROW accessing the hill
18.42.050 Utilities Need to be coordinating with private utilities for access to an urban
environment.
18.42.060 Easements Where will the utilities go? Bozeman can not grant a deviation to the
state law requirement to provide easements for utility access. The
zero setbacks seem to set up conflicts, adjustments to requested
deviations may be needed
18.42.060 Easements Need letters from providers agreeing to utility locations, conflicts
between utility easements and setbacks need to be avoided
18.42.060 Easements Crossing of spur trail, easements are required from MRL and/or BN
unless the land is acquired by City
18.42.060.B Easements The ditch on Block 5 is still active and therefore requires an
easement for maintenance
18.42.060.E Easements Trail locations and easements need to be off of the private lots on
Blocks 4, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18
18.42.070 Water and Sewer
Systems
How will services be extended to enable future connection by
adjacent users, e.g. Paradise Vista
18.42.080 Drainage IBC requirements for drainage away, how does this coordinate with
zero setback, ADA access to business interiors
18.42.080.H Drainage Section H is a new section, ensure that relevant areas are identified
and addressed
18.42.100 Watercourse
Setback
Block 10, Lots 6&7 move lot boundary out of 100 yr flood boundary
18.42.100 Watercourse
Setbacks
For any lots that have area within watercourse setback how will
owners be informed of the restrictions of the setback? Consider
moving lot boundaries out of the setback
18.42.100 Watercourse setback The setback on Block 18 appears incorrectly depicted but may reflect
wetlands present.
18.42.100.B.6 Watercourse
Setback
A planting plan is required to be submitted with the preliminary plat
and plan. Incorporate the amount of mature vegetation where
possible
366
Page 4
18.42.130 Fences Walls &
Hedges
Design Guidelines need to carefully address fencing, esp. along
Bridger Dr and open space/parks
18.42.140 Loading Loading docks required for businesses of certain size, Mill
redevelopment appears to trigger this
18.42.150 Lighting Lighted bollards are required at trail crossings. Bollard should be
coordinated throughout the site. If bollards not provided then a
deviation is needed
18.42.170 Trash Enclosures Placement of trash containers must be located to facilitate access by
trucks, location by phase will be required
18.42.180 Affordable Housing Where are the required Restricted Size Lots going? How is this being
coordinated with the affordable housing plan?
18.42.180 Affordable Housing If RSLs are the smaller lots where deviations are granted for lot size
this will reduce the allowed size of the home. To retain maximum
building volume would require an additional deviation.
18.42.180 Affordable Housing RSLs may be provided by aggregated land for multi-household
development. This must be specifically approved by commission.
18.44.010 Streets General The townhomes on Block 12 are at the end of a long drive which
does not have a turn around. This may need to connect through to the
M-1 area or have a turn around added for fire trucks
18.44.010.A Street standards Relationship to undivided land – Is there a need to leave connection
points to Paradise Vista and Barnard
18.44.010.G Streets General Half streets are not allowed, adjust phase lines to reflect full width
streets.
18.44.010.J Streets General -
Bridges
Dock bridges – Do they need to meet the H-20 standard
18.44 Level of Services The project will need to satisfy level of service standards for
transportation and will need to coordinate off-site improvements with
MDT
18.44.020 Public and Private
Street
Dock bridges – Who will maintain and who has review and approval
jurisdiction,
18.44.020 Public & Private
Streets
Which streets will be publicly maintained vs privately maintained.
What tools are in place for City standards to be met if private
maintenance stops
18.44.020 Public & Private
Streets
Streets will be dedicated when? Single time by easement or with
each phase?
18.44.030 Intersections Verify the intersection of Ceretana and Bryant has 150 foot offset or
seek appropriate deviation
18.44.050 Street Standards Variable street standards, Need specific PUD approval for each
alternate standard
18.44.050 Street and Road
Standards
Cure the gore along Story Mill Rd by Block 7, acquire or smooth
alignment
367
Page 5
18.44.050 Street and Road
standards
Road Sections E and G are missing the bicycle components. Either
on street lanes are needed or shared bike/ped paths. Story Mill is a
collector street
18.44.060 Street Improvement
Standards
Street Section N – Why have the linear park as a separate tract, just
leave it in the street width and have on street parking
18.44.090 Access Drive access width appears to exceed standard on townhomes on
Block 2, interacts with 18.46 access standards, may need deviation
for access width
18.44.090.E&F Access Shared accesses throughout the project require appropriate legal
instruments to establish
18.44.100 Vision Triangles With zero setbacks how are vision triangles to be addressed?
Deviation required to encroach.
18.44.110 Transportation trails All local street sidewalks, Story Mill trail, Bridger Trail, and Griffin
trail are transportation trails
18.44.120 Public
Transportation
The proposed bus stop, shelter style and placement need to be
coordinated with the Streamline bus operations
18.46. Parking On street parking shown on master plan may conflict with lot access.
Check number of stalls counted
18.46.010.D Parking - General
Provisions
To count as additional on-site stacked parking requires 20 feet
between garage door and street ROW
18.46.010.D Parking Stacking and drive separation for townhomes needs to be addressed
18.46.010.E Parking Relaxation to allow parking in yards when yard setbacks are relaxed?
18.46.020 Stall, Aisle, and
Driveway Design
The northern townhomes on Block 7 do not appear to have any
access to them. Where is the parking going and how do you get to the
homes.
18.46.020.D Stall, aisle and
driveway
Backing requirements, deviation may be required to back into ROW
on Monad Street, Columbian Ave, Hillside Ln from
commercial/mixed uses
18.48.050.A Landscaping Additional deviation to not landscape yards where setbacks reduced
to 0’
18.48.050.C Landscaping Parking lot landscaping, none is shown for above ground parking, If
none is truly required then additional deviation is required
18.48.050.E&F Landscaping Landscaping of blvds and medians is required
18.48.050.J Landscaping Required use of trees conflicts with 0’ setback, deviation required
18.48.060.A Landscaping points New deviation to allow 15 rather than 23 points on each site, 23
unattainable with reduced setbacks. Claim common spaces and roof
landscaping
18.50.020.A Park Area Density known, give parks per policy plus additional area for missing
park frontage
368
Page 6
18.50.020.C Park Area Private open space transferred to common areas, deviation already
requested
18.50.060 Frontage Need deviation for parks with less than 100% frontage and less than
50%, may affect cash-in-lieu requirements
18.50.070 Linear Parks May claim credit for cost of linear recreational trails if standards in
this section are met
18.52.070 Comprehensive Sign
Plan
Common signage plan is needed for each block at least, desired to
have some common plan for entire development
18.50.070 Linear Parks Trail alignments need adequate width and separation from buildings
to allow required easement widths.
18.50.070 Linear Parks Trail/sidewalk along Block 19 should be consolidated rather than
paralleling each other. The consolidated walk shall have an oversized
width not less than 8 feet wide
18.50.070 Linear Parks The trail from block 11 to the Mill Spur Trail should interconnect
with the streets and avoid the wetlands where possible.
18.50.080 Park Development Wells made available from existing development to irrigate parks.
Connection between multiple parks may be needed to be serviced
from existing wells. How many wells are available? Can they be
relocated?
18.50.100.G Waiver of Required
Park Dedication
Park Bank with phase 1 – call out specifically in application for
preliminary plat and plan. Need to specifically call out this provision
to set up the “park bank” for future phases.
18.50.110 Recreation Pathways An easement should be provided across Phase X – OS 1 and Phase X
– OS 9 to enable a future trail to parallel the Sourdough Creek and
connect to Phase IX – OS 1. The trail does not need to be connected
at this time. Easement placement needs to comply with 18.42.100.
18.52.060 Signs Permitted w
Permit
Sign area in B-1 limited to 80 square feet. If more desired then
deviation required.
18.52.060 Signs Permitted w
Permit
Provide plan for project ID signs with preliminary plat and plan,
location and look
18.52.090 Multi-tenant
Complexes
No pole signs will be allowed in the project.
18.74.030 Completion of
Improvements
Concurrent Construction, how will lighting be handled, Sequencing
of phasing and limitations on building permits by phase depending
on infrastructure availability
18.74.050 Acceptance of
Improvements
What standards are required for bridges and private roads prior to
acceptance
18.74.080 Acceptable
Securities
Cash or other financial security for current phase, possibly another
type for future phases. Relates to duration of approval for plat, time
limit with restriction on development of phases and certain
easements up front
18.80.3070 Townhouse
definition
Townhomes now require own lot, affects area requirement per
dwelling and deviations
369
Page 7
Deviations
Deviation # Section Block/Lot Question
All Renumber the deviations so each item currently
identified with a bullet has a unique number.
Be specific in what is being requested.
New See the items marked in yellow above.
11 18.16.0050 Block 1, Lots 5-8 Questionable to support – Ask for front yard
deviation instead and leave the separation from
the adjacent lots
6 18.16.040.A Various If the intent is to allow the common spaces to
count toward the total area per dwelling please
so specify
9 18.16.040 Block 16, Lot 8 This lot may need to be added to the list of
affected lots
New 18.16.040.B Block 1&2 Lot width for end town homes for corner side
yards in R-2, required setback is 15 feet
13 & 14 18.16.060 Various Mechanical equipment on roof must be within
the allowed height
New 18.18.040.B Block 6 Lot width is not 100 ft and shape is irregular
21 18.18.050 Block 27, Lot 1 Means to reference rear yard?
22 18.18.060 Block 5, lot 1 Needs deviation for height to recreate the
granary building, allowed nonconformity
terminates upon removal
22 & 23 18.18.060 Various Mechanical equipment on roof must be within
the allowed height
19 18.30.060 Block 25, 20 25 foot setback from arterial street required
New 18.18.050.A.4 Blocks 3-6, 25-30 Garage entrances need to be setback 20 feet
from ROW line
16 & 18 18.42.030.F &
18.18.040
Block 6 This block needs these two deviations as well
Review Criteria
The project as a whole will be subject to Bozeman Municipal Code, especially titles 13 and 18, Title 76 Part 3 MCA,
Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, Water, Sewer, and Transportation facility plans,
City of Bozeman adopted standards for infrastructure, Federal Clean Water Act,
Formal submittal for the PUD will be reviewed against the criteria for Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit
Development, and Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District as well as the applicable specific standards. Individual site
developments within the PUD will also be reviewed against the standards of 18.28.050 and18.30.060, these two standards are
mutually exclusive and do not overlap. Deviations affecting buildings and uses are typically PUD actions.
The major subdivision will be reviewed against the applicable specific standards in Title 18, BMC and within other sources
of standards applied by the City. Deviations to standards affecting the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act and
development within rights of way are typically deviations to subdivision standards.
General Questions and Issues
Buyer Awareness Maps or other means of communicating lot specific
restrictions to buyers needs to be developed, part of
Chapter 18.72 submittal
Block 24 Lots misnumbered
Deviations index Need GIS file with attribute table identifying
deviations by lot
Lot Design The lots on the plat don’t seem to match those for the
master plan on blocks 1 & 2 on side yards
18.06 Preliminary plat The number of lots may not increase between
preliminary and final plat. Many labeled townhomes
are not show on individual lots. If these are to be
370
Page 8
townhomes then the lots must be shown and
appropriate deviations must be approved. This also
affects the plat phasing issue.
18.16.050 Yard deviations If the deviations for yard encroachments are granted,
will there be a proposal to require building to the
relaxed standard or only allowed to be built that
closely?
18.16.020/18.80.3070 Residential Uses Townhomes are defined as having their own lots. They
are indicated on lots that do not show individual lots
for each home. Affects multiple deviations
18.36.030 Deviations Deviations need specificity, relaxation to X% or X feet
18.44.040 Street Names Historical ties of street names should be clearly linked
in submittal text and form part of the presentation of
the site history
18.50.020 Park Area Phase 1, PL 1 is not acceptable as parkland
371
April 10, 2007
To: Development Review Committee
From: Bob Murray, Project Engineer
Re: Story Mill neighborhood MaSub Pre-App - #P-07015
The following comments should be incorporated into the preliminary plat application for this subdivision:
1. Typical sections for the streets and alleys should be provided with the preliminary plat application. Any
streets that are non-standard will be required to be privately owned and maintained. The majority of the
sections as shown will be private.
2. A traffic impact analysis will be required for the project. All improvements necessary to mitigate any
identified level of service problems will be required with each phase of the subdivision.
3. The preliminary plat application should include a preliminary stormwater plan. This must include any
reuse infrastructure if that is to be used.
4. No direct access will be allowed onto Bridger Drive or Story Mill Road from the lots adjacent to them.
5. Road geometry should meet the criteria in the COB design standards unless a deviation can be justified.
Some of the intersections do not appear to meet the standards as shown.
6. The south half of Bridger Drive will need to be constructed along the frontage of the subdivision unless
it is included in the MDT project. The total right of way dedication required for Bridger is 60’ (one half
a principal arterial standard). Offsite improvements for Bridger will be dictated by the traffic impact
analysis.
7. Project phasing shall be clearly defined including installation of infrastructure. All phases must have an
approved secondary access provided.
8. Temporary cul-de-sacs must be provided at the end of any dead end street longer than one lot deep that is
created by phasing.
9. Downstream sewer capacities will need to be analyzed for each phase of the subdivision and offsite
improvements constructed as necessary.
10. Hydraulic analysis for the water system will need to be provided for each phase to assure adequate
pressure and fire flow can be provided. At a minimum, the master planned 10” main in Story Mill South
of the 18” needs to be installed rather than 8” as shown.
11. The required right of way dedication for Story Mill is 90’. It will be required to be improved to a
collector standard along the entire frontage of the subdivision. At a minimum, it will also be required to
be paved to a county road standard from the southern edge of the subdivision to existing asphalt north of
372
Front Street.
12. Details of how the relocation of the existing water main from Lyman Creek Reservoir will be
accomplished should be included with the preliminary plat submittal package.
13. The traffic impact analysis will need to assess whether or not a local street standard will be sufficient for
Griffin Drive or if a larger standard will be needed. This could effect the amount of right of way needed.
14. All proposed private utilities to serve the subdivision are now required to be shown on the public
infrastructure plans and specifications.
15. 30’ wide utility easements are required for any water and sewer mains that are not within public right of
way. Access roads must be provided to all manholes.
16. The 100-year floodplains must be delineated for the streams that are within the subdivision boundary.
All locations where flooding limits encroach onto proposed lots shall be noted on the final plat along
with minimum floor elevation for the structures to be constructed on the effected lots.
17. Floodplain development permits will be required for all stream crossings of utilities, streets, and
pedestrian facilities; or for any other construction within the limits of the 100 year floodplain.
18. All of the information required by 18.44.090.H to justify the requested deviations from the access
standards should be submitted with the preliminary plat.
19. Due to the upcoming TMDL that is going to be established on the East Gallatin and tributaries, on site
sewage disposal for the slaughter house will not be supported by staff.
20. Public access easements must be provided for any pedestrian facilities located outside of the dedicated
right of way.
21. All bridges are the jurisdiction of the County Road and Bridge Department, or will be private if the
County does not take jurisdiction.
cc: ERF
Project File
373
planning • zoning • subdivision review • annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration • neighborhood
coordination
CITY OF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building
20 East Olive Street
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230
phone 406-582-2260
fax 406-582-2263
planning@bozeman.net
www.bozeman.net MEMORANDUM
TO: DRB
FROM: CHRIS SAUNDERS
RE: Z-07056 STORY MILL NEIGHBORHOOD CONCEPT PUD
DATE: MARCH 19, 2007
Property Location
The proposed PUD involves MULTIPLE properties. The first is legally described as Lot 2 of Certificate of
Survey No. 203 and a portion of Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey No. 1557 located in the NWV4, SEV4 of
Section 18, T2S, R6E, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatm County, Montana. The zoning designation for this
property is R-2 (Residential Two-Household, Medium Density District). The second property is legally
described as the south portion of Tract 1, COS 2047, located in the E½ of Section 18, T2S, R6E, PMM,
Gallatin County, Montana. This property has a zoning designation of R-3 (Residential Medium Density
District) and R-O (Residential Office). Both properties are designated as "Residential" on the Future Land
Use Map of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. Please refer to the following vicinity map:
374
Page 2
Proposal
A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application has been submitted that would allow a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for a previously approved 80-lot major subdivision. The preliminary plat for this
subdivision was approved by the City Commission on July 24, 2006. The applicants are now preparing the
final plat application, and it is expected that the final plat will be submitted within the next few months.
The applicants are seeking PUD approval so they can undertake concurrent construction, as allowed by
Section 18.74.030.D. Concurrent construction allows the issuance of building permits, and the construction
of buildings, at the same time infrastructure improvements such as streets, water and sewer are being
installed. Occupancy permits for structures are not issued until the required improvements are completed
and accepted by the City. In addition to the concurrent construction, the applicants are seeking the
following infrastructure related PUD relaxations:
1. To not install the required temporary intersection improvements at the intersection of Highland and
Kagy Boulevards, and instead leave this intersection in its current state until the intersection meets warrants
for installation of a traffic signal.
2. To allow the developer to provide a financial guarantee for improvements to East Main Street and
Highland Boulevard based on plans submitted to MDOT instead of plans approved by MDOT.
The developer will be providing open space to meet their PUD performance point requirement. The
additional open space they will be providing consists of 3.7 acres in the Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Plan
planning area. These 3.7 acres will be protected via deed restriction or conservation easement, and will have
a public trail easement running north-south through the property.
The application will also result in a slight modification to the adopted Bozeman Deaconess Health Services
Subarea Plan. Twelve development rights will be transferred out of the Bozeman Creek corridor and into
the BDHS Subarea Plan area; twelve new lots have been added to the BDHS Subarea Plan in locations
previously proposed as open space.
Staff Recommendation
Planning staff supports this proposal. The City's Engineering Department has some concerns related to
requested relaxation #2 described above, but is generally supportive of the rest of the proposal. This
proposal was placed on the DRB's consent agenda because it applies to a previously approved major
subdivision; nothing about the design of the subdivision will change as a result of this application. Also, all
of the issues are related to infrastructure requirements which are issues the DRB does not address.
Staff recommends that you approve this application on your consent agenda, and forward a
recommendation of conditional approval to the City Commission.
1. Introduction:
a. Today, we are looking for advice and comment from the DRB on a Concept PUD Application for
redevelopment of the old Weissman Steel Site.
b. The 3-acre property is located at 1237 North Rouse Avenue, northwest of the
intersection of North Rouse Avenue and East Oak Street.
c. The redevelopment would include:
i. the reuse and rehabilitation of the existing structures on the site li. the construction of a new building and
ui. the development of common parking and open space. iv. The proposed uses for the site include a
gymnastics studio, general retail, office, light manufacturing, and possibly a restaurant(s). v. This proposal is
also undergoing a concurrent pre-application subdivision plan review for five lots.
d. The property is zoned M-l (Light Manufacturing District); and is designated as "Industrial" m the 2020
Plan.
2. Relaxations
a. Relaxations: the following relaxations from the Unified Development Ordinance
have been identified with the application:
• 18.20.040 "Lot Area and Width" for lot width of Lots 1 & 3;
18.20.50 "Yards" for the setbacks on North Montana Avenue;
18.30.060.B "Setback, Parking, Building, and Landscape Standards" for the setbacks on Rouse and Oak;
375
Page 3
18.44.100 "Street Vision Triangles" for encroachments into the North Rouse Avenue & East Oak Street
"street vision triangle" and the North Montana Avenue & East Oak Street "street vision triangle;"
18.42.030.A "Dimensions and Orientation" for Lot 1 to have a flag shape;
18.20.020 "Authorized Uses" to allow a restaurant serving alcoholic beverages AND to possibly allow retail
uses (listed as a CUP in the M-l zone)
3. Staff Discussion
a. Performance Points: With a PUD, Section 18.36.090.E requires at least 20 performance points for the
subject property. Points can be met using any combination of on-site and off-site open space or affordable
housing options. The Preliminary PUD must specify how the performance points are being met.
Staff recommends that the applicants discuss potential off-site open space options with Ron Dingman from
the Parks Department and with Gary Vodehnal of Gallatin Valley Land Trust (GVLT) and potential off-site
affordable housing options with Caren Roberty of Human Resource Development Council (HRDC).
b. Pedestrian & Bicycle Circulation: Because the pedestrian circulation system will aid in producing an
efficient, functionally organized, and cohesive PUD, consideration should be given to stronger connections
between areas of open space, through the parking lot, as well as connections with public areas.
Planning Staff recommends additional pedestrian connections to the exterior sidewalks (on East Oak Street
and North Rouse Avenue) to allow pedestrians more options than vehicles. Staff also recommends
additional entrances to better address the streetscapes. Pedestrian crossings should be included within the
parking lot and should be constructed with stamped and pigmented concrete or asphalt. Also, landscaping
should be used to better define the pedestrian corridors within the parking lot. Bicycle racks are required
and should be placed near key building entrances or open spaces.
c. Landscaping-: At the concept level, the application does not delineate in detail the amount of landscape
features that are intended. Overall, the landscape plan should provide at least 15 performance points. The
preservation of mature trees can count toward required points; however. City Forester, Ryan Stover, has
serious concerns regarding the health of the existing mature vegetation along Rouse due to the proximity of
the trees to one another, the overhead power lines, and the underground water line. In all aspects of the
development proposal, emphasis on common landscape furniture and landscape features should be noted.
Public Streetscane: Due to the nroximity of the buildmo-s to the public sidewalks, standard boulevard trees
would be difficult to grow in certain areas. Some type of landscaping should be located in the boulevards,
such as a mix of shrubs, small trees, and grasses.
Off-street Parking Lot — In addition to the required interior parking lot landscape, parking areas that adjoin
the public streetscape should contain meandering low-profile berms and foliage, as well as landscape
features designed in clustered arrangements of seasonal types and color.
Public Outdoor Areas and Plazas — The common open space and plazas should generate a common theme
through the development.
d. Lighting: As with landscape features and furniture, lighting of open space and major entrances into the
development should implement a common theme that supports the concept of the commercial/industrial
PUD. Off-street parking lots should be properly illuminated but not become an intrusive element along the
entryway corridor during the evening hours.
e. Parking: Off-street parking calculations are conceptual at this stage of the process. The applicants propose
131 parking spaces toward the interior of the site. Parking will be further evaluated with the next stage of
the development process. All building uses and square footages should be included in a parking chart as part
of the Preliminary PUD submittal.
t Signage: Because this project contains multiple tenants, the Preliminary PUD should include a
comprehensive signage plan which will be required in accordance with Section 18.52.070. Signs should be an
integral part of the overall architectural design and should be part of the Development Manual. A common
signage program that specifies location, size, lighting, materials, and unified graphic design for both shared
and individual signs should be expected.
g. Public Areas and Plazas: Consideration should be given to identifying a general theme for the central
public outdoor plaza area(s) with landscape furniture and features, as well as lighting. Accenting key
pedestrian crossings and connections is an important element of these public areas. Landscape features,
376
Page 4
outdoor furniture, lighting, seating areas, and outdoor vendor areas should also be integral elements of these
areas.
h. Building Design: The property is located in the North Rouse Avenue, East Oak Street, and the 1-90
Entryway Overlay Districts; therefore, a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) is required with the PUD and
any subsequent exterior modifications. The applicants should review the development proposal against
relevant sections of the Design Objectives Plan. Said guidelines should be applied using a "sliding scale"
approach with the attitude of the greater the degree of change proposed, the greater and more elaborate the
degree of review. In this case, the design expectations must be applied with the intent of achieving high
quality design that reflects the local community character, climate, history, and natural environment.
Variety in architectural design with dramatic architectural forms is encouraged; however, not at the cost of
losing a unified theme. The guidelines should develop a vocabulary of acceptable materials, treatment and
use of materials, patterns, fenestration, scale and directional expression. Use of fenestration treatment,
proportions, and emphasis of main entrances should be included.
i. Protective Covenants and Architectural / Landscape Guidelines: The ability of the mixed-use planned
unit development to ensure compatibility with, and sensitivity to, the immediate environment of the site will
fall substantially on the aptitude of the applicant to prepare a Development Manual, which will implement
the architectural and landscape guidelines for the project. Consideration must be given to scale, mass,
neighborhood identity, landscape, orientation of buildings, use of materials, color palette, and specific
architectural character-giving features that will define the architectural parameters of the planned unit
development. Provisions for the maintenance and upkeep of open space, public areas, trail system,
streetscape, ponds, and other related areas should be clearly outlined.
377
Design Review Board Minutes – March 28, 2007 1
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2007
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Livingston called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. and directed the secretary to
record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Christopher Livingston Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Michael Pentecost Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Bill Rea
Walter Banziger
Elissa Zavora
Joe Batcheller
Visitors Present
Jake Scott
Tammy Hauer
Monte Hauer
Shawn O’Connell
Clint Pedrazzi
Katryn Mitchell
Chaucer Silverson
Jamie Morris
Craig Mendenhall
Cory Ravnaas
Katherine Schultz
Joby Sabol
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 2007.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to approve the minutes of
March 14, 2007 as presented. The motion carried 6-0.
ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW
1. JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV #Z-07033 (Bristor)
140 East Main Street
* A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness and
Deviations to allow the construction of an addition and remodel of the
existing structure.
Tammy Hauer and Jake Scott joined the DRB. Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders
presented the Staff Report on Associate Planner Allyson Bristor’s behalf noting the second
paragraph on page12 should be stricken as it did not pertain to the proposal.
Mr. Scott stated there were two conditions in the Staff Report that he would like to address; the
aluminum frame was a concern for Staff as it was too reflective and bright so the applicant
378
Design Review Board Minutes – March 28, 2007 2
would be using black or colored metal instead with the glazing itself having a filter that would
make in non-reflective, and the other of Staff’s concerns was the color of the Ariscraft product
which would be the same color material with a different texture.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the applicant would be using real brick and the reason they
would be using it. Mr. Scott responded that they would be using the thin brick and the reason
was due to the setback and seismic requirements from the U.D.O. and the Building Code,
respectively. He added it was the applicant’s intent to build-out the sides of the building to
provide relief, shadowing, and break up the facades of the structure. Vice Chairperson Pentecost
asked the applicant to address condition #4 from the Staff Report. Mr. Scott explained that the
garage doors would only be used by the residents and the required parking would be provided.
Mr. Rea asked if the original building was under the proposal. Mr. Scott responded that it was.
Mr. Rea asked what the DRB was reviewing. Assistant Director Saunders responded the DRB
would be reviewing the building from the glass tower to the back of the structure. Mr. Rea asked
if the framing of the structure would match the storefront. Ms. Hauer explained which frames
would match and which would differ as compared to the glazing. Mr. Rea asked if the mullion
materials would be a different color. Mr. Scott responded they would be using different colors
with the same style to separate the historic structure from the addition. Mr. Rea asked if this
would be an informal review. Assistant Director Saunders responded this would be a formal
review with a formal recommendation to the City Commission for the new addition.
Mr. Batcheller asked why the project had been proposed in two parts. Ms. Hauer responded that
the approved restoration had been too intrusive into the operation of their business and the
addition could be occupied while the remodeling to the existing building occurred.
Mr. Rea asked the applicant to explain what materials would be used in one site on the proposal.
Mr. Scott explained the proposed materials and added that the dimensions were inaccurate in one
location.
Chairperson Livingston asked if the front façade would have Ariscraft material as well. Ms.
Hauer responded that it would and told the DRB what colors they were proposing. Chairperson
Livingston asked if there would be a green roof. Mr. Scott responded there would be.
Mr. Banziger asked if the coloration of the material would be different in one location than in
another. Mr. Scott responded it would have spandrel glass in one location and the rest would be
glazing; adding that the brick in those locations had been depicted incorrectly. Chairperson
Livingston added that in one location there would be an aluminum panel (wall section A5, where
the floor deck entered).
Mr. Rea stated he was relieved that the applicant was not using E.F.I.S., he had no problem with
the mullion changing from one color to another, and he applauded the tower feature in the
middle; adding that he thought it would be controversial. He stated he applauded the applicant
for the sun shading and the green roof, but was disappointed not to see the applicant take those
efforts further. He stated he agreed with Staff conditions and suggested the project was very
clever.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and was only
disappointed that the brick from the original structure would not be kept. He stated he thought
379
Design Review Board Minutes – March 28, 2007 3
they had done a good job and he was in support of the project.
Ms. Zavora stated she was supportive of the proposal with Staff conditions.
Mr. Batcheller stated he supported the proposal and he liked to see more modern buildings
instituted in the downtown area. He added that he thought it might be a controversial building.
Mr. Banziger stated he liked the transition from the north to the south building and added that the
separation of the historic aspects of the building had been very well done. He stated he
supported the proposal with Staff conditions.
Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed with previous DRB comments, but he was concerned
that the proportion of the Ariscraft material was the same proportion as a concrete block; adding
that CMU block was not a good material to be present on Main Street due to its mass. He
suggested the use of something more horizontal than vertical as it would give the proposal a
more modern, horizontal presence and he would hate to have people think the applicant had used
concrete block.
MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Batcheller seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval
for to the City Commission with Staff conditions. The motion carried 6-0.
Mr. Rea stated he agreed with Chairperson Livingston’s comment regarding the use of the
Ariscraft material and added that another, more sophisticated material could be used. Mr. Scott
responded that he would look into it and had no problem using another material or modifying the
proposed material to have less mass.
2. Story Mill Neighborhood PUD Concept Plan #Z-07056 (Saunders)
North and south of Griffin Drive, east and west of Story Mill Road
* A Planned Unit Development Concept Plan to allow the development of
~106.651 acres for a combination of B-1 (Neighborhood Business
District) , B-2 (Community Business District) , R-S (Residential Suburban
District), R-2 (Residential Two-Household, Medium Density District), and
R-4 (Residential High Density District) development.
Craig Mendenhall, Cory Ravnaas, and Katherine Schultz joined the DRB. Assistant Planning
Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report noting that the Stockyard had joined the
proposal in response to Chairperson Livingston asking if the proposal had grown from the last
time the DRB had seen it. Assistant Director Saunders stated the project would contain
approximately 106 acres; adding that it would be the single largest development ever to come
through the City of Bozeman review process. He stated there were a lot of relaxations being
requested due to the urban nature of the proposal and site restraints. He stated the biggest visual
impact would be the building heights; adding that they would be nearly doubling. He stated
there would be 20 PUD points required to be met by the proposal and the applicant had been
discussing point requirement options with Staff. He stated there was a lot of mature landscaping
that would be preserved. He stated the signage plan had not been addressed, but would be upon
Final PUD submittal. He stated there would be a lot of opportunities for plaza and open space
areas. He added that there would be stacked reviews for the proposal including; Site Plan,
Certificate of Appropriateness, and Conditional Use Permit.
380
Design Review Board Minutes – March 28, 2007 4
Mr. Mendenhall stated the applicant was excited to present the newly developed plans that would
now include the Stockyard and 1,200 dwelling units. He stated there would be 1.4 million
square feet of housing, 160,000 square feet of commercial space, and ~45 acres of open space.
Ms. Zavora asked the difference between the green colors depicting open space areas. Mr.
Mendenhall responded it was depicting the differences between open space areas and delineated
wetland areas that would be preserved. He stated a linear park would branch from the
watercourse setback and there would be park nodes along the trail. He stated there was a nearly
50/50 split between open space and construction areas. He stated there would be roughly five
miles of trails that would extend to other locations beyond their site with a 1 ½ mile loop around
the site itself. He stated the applicant was attempting to have the proposal a pilot for LEED
certified projects; he defined some of the potential strategies the applicant was considering
including; the institution of wind energy solutions, solar paneling, an on-site treatment plant,
rainwater harvesting, or solar hot water systems. He stated the applicant would be attending a
charette on green buildings the next Monday and invited the DRB to attend. Ms. Schultz added
that LEED was encouraging the applicant more height with more density and less urban sprawl.
Mr. Ravnaas added that the project would not be getting the largest amount of LEED points due
to the lower density of their proposal. Mr. Mendenhall directed the DRB to the overall street
layout of the proposal. Mr. Batcheller asked what the depicted bronze areas would be. Mr.
Mendenhall responded they would be dock-like bridges. Planner Saunders responded that the
County regulated and maintained all bridges and if the proposal contained a true bridge, the
proposal might have difficulties with the County Road Office.
Mr. Mendenhall noted the applicant had broken the proposal into seven areas they referred to as
districts that would be completed in 10 phases, and informed the DRB that the first “district” of
the project would be in the NE corner of the proposal and would be phase 1 of the development.
He stated the applicant’s purpose was to create an “edge” on Story Mill Road and Hillside Lane
with the institution of stoops to promote pedestrian activity. He stated the buffer there would be
more focused on building scale rather than vegetation. He cited an example depicting a possible
town home design that would work well as a transitional element on the site. Ms. Schultz added
that phase one would contain 23 residences.
Mr. Mendenhall stated that district two of the proposal would support the mill style of the
structures in that location. He directed the DRB to a color rendering of the mill structure that
would include office, retail, and residential elements within the mill itself. He stated one part of
the structure would be reinforced internally and reused as an outdoor plaza due to its dilapidated
condition.
Mr. Mendenhall stated that in district three of the proposal the applicant was attempting to create
activity along Volmer Street as it was primarily residential. Mr. Schultz added there would be
180 residential units along Volmer Street.
Mr. Mendenhall stated that in district four of the proposal the applicant was looking to blend the
site with the surrounding neighborhoods and to buffer the storage units to the north. Ms. Schultz
added that this district of the proposal would contain 130 dwelling units, 14,000 square feet of
retail, and 7,000 square feet of office space.
Mr. Mendenhall stated that in district five of the proposal the applicant was trying to organize the
home sites with space in between and a connection to the proposed trails. Ms. Schultz added that
it would contain 140 dwelling units.
381
Design Review Board Minutes – March 28, 2007 5
Mr. Mendenhall stated that district six (near the Boys & Girls Club) would contain a lot of the
proposed open space to provide for the creation of a multifunctional park that could work with
the Boys & Girls Club for scheduling of events. He stated the structures would be a little more
contemporary. Ms. Schultz added that there would be 300 dwelling units.
Mr. Mendenhall stated that district seven of the development would include the Stockyard
property and would be the most eclectic as it would contain the most varied uses. He added that
it would be most accessible to vehicular traffic, potentially reducing the amount of traffic on
Bozeman Avenue. He stated there would be ground level retail with offices on the second floor.
He added that the proposed building would be up to 75 feet high and they had provided a
maximum solar efficiency and a design dialog with the mill. Ms. Schultz added that there would
be 40,000 square feet of retail, 20,000 square feet of office space, and 60 dwelling units. Mr.
Mendenhall stated the Stockyard would need to respond to the mill and the open space areas
proposed in that location. He stated structured parking would be used to provide the maximum
amount of open space available.
Assistant Director Saunders stated that the review process for PUD’s had been discussed by he
and Mr. Ravnaas to determine the best way the proposal should be reviewed. Ms. Zavora asked
if it would be a proposed 10-year build out. Mr. Ravnaas responded it was estimated at a 10 year
build out.
Mr. Batcheller asked if the applicant intended to enhance any of the wetlands. Mr. Mendenhall
responded that was the applicant’s intention; adding that the wetlands would be cleaned out and
water would be filtered through them. Mr. Batcheller stated the proposed buffer for Bridger
Drive seemed out of place and asked the applicant to explain. Mr. Mendenhall responded the
applicant liked the trees and swale along Bridger Drive so they had decided to tuck single-family
lots into the trees to help transition the site to higher structures. Mr. Batcheller asked if the only
large park area would be near the Boys & Girls Club. Mr. Mendenhall responded there would be
other two acre parks that could provide the opportunity for soccer fields or other similar
activities. Mr. Batcheller asked the estimated start date for phase one of the proposal. Mr.
Ravnaas responded they would like to break ground in September if possible.
Mr. Banziger asked for the density, height, and massing of the buildings in blocks 27-29. Mr.
Mendenhall responded the proposed density was a reflection of the traffic in that location and
would provide for commercial and retail functions; adding that the commercial and retail
functions would need supported by the proposed residential structures. Mr. Banziger asked the
applicant to discuss the proposed height of the structures. Mr. Mendenhall responded there
would be six or seven story buildings that would not exceed 75 feet. Mr. Banziger stated the
proposal would have a small city feel. He asked how the proposal fit in with the existing taller
structures in the downtown area. Mr. Mendenhall stated the taller buildings would be designed
to step back on the upper levels to provide for a break in the massing of the structures. Mr.
Banziger asked if the applicant was still considering the 800 – 1,000 square foot size for the
proposed residential sites. Mr. Mendenhall responded they were. Mr. Banziger asked how the
public had responded to the proposal. Mr. Mendenhall responded he did not think the proposal
would have made it this far without great responses from the general public.
Mr. Rea asked if the commercial aspects of the development would contain short-term stay or
hotel facilities. Mr. Mendenhall responded the applicant had investigated those types of uses.
382
Design Review Board Minutes – March 28, 2007 6
Mr. Rea asked which phases would contain something of that nature. Mr. Ravnaas responded
those uses would be in phases 7 or 8 of the development. Mr. Rea asked if geothermal devices
would be instituted on the site. Mr. Mendenhall responded they had investigated cold
geothermal devices, but there might not be enough water available to support those techniques.
Mr. Rea asked if the ditch was still present. Mr. Mendenhall responded there was a ditch in that
location; Mr. Sabol added there were also water rights in that location, but the applicant did not
own them.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the level of the water table. Mr. Ravnaas responded the table
was 8-14 feet below the surface. Mr. Mendenhall added that they had to go below the frost line
for the construction of building foundations anyway, so underground parking would not be
difficult. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the design guidelines were specific or general.
Ms. Schultz responded that some items had been specifically addressed (such as tree removal)
and structures had been left more general as the applicant was seeking an eclectic design to the
site. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the applicant to discuss the design and build process for
the residential and then the commercial portions of the development with regard to whether or
not the DRB would be seeing architectural and design dictates. Mr. Mendenhall stated the
applicant was providing the DRB with conceptual ideas for massing and building aesthetics with
the use of hard data to support the proposal. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if GBD
Architects would be the designer architects for the proposal. Mr. Mendenhall responded they
would be the governing architects and other architects would also design specific sites to provide
for the eclectic nature of the proposal. Ms. Schultz added that GBD Architects would be part of
the design guideline process, but the final say would fall to the owner. Vice Chairperson
Pentecost asked the name of the street that connected to Rouse Avenue. Planner Saunders
responded it was Bryant Street. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if there would be a condition
in the design guidelines with language that all commercial and residential structures be LEED
certified. Ms. Schultz responded there would be language in the design guidelines, but it would
not be a requirement as there was currently no LEED standard specifically geared for residential
use.
Chairperson Livingston asked the amount to be reduced on the request for 150 square feet per
unit reduction to the required open space. Mr. Ravnaas responded the requested reduction would
be to almost zero in some cases as there was so much open space proposed within the project.
Mr. Saunders added that there were three open space requirements that must be met in the
proposal and green roofs would support a possible relaxation to those requirements. He added
that configured space of the open space was already required to be usable, private open space.
Chairperson Livingston asked if the proposal was subject to the park open space requirements
and what those requirements were. Planner Saunders responded they were subject to those
requirements and explained what they would be in relation to this proposal. Chairperson
Livingston asked for an example of the requested relaxation to allow no required yard setbacks.
Mr. Mendenhall responded there would be two areas; where retail would be on all four sides of
the building, and where open space would be located on all sides of the building. Chairperson
Livingston asked if there would be a maximum impervious coverage on some of those lots. Mr.
Mendenhall responded there would be a maximum allowable impervious coverage. Chairperson
Livingston asked if there had been a solar study done with regard to the heights of buildings and
their proximity to each other. Mr. Mendenhall responded that solar studies had been done and
some of the home sites could have more separation. Chairperson Livingston stated that adding
up height had indicated two different heights based on roof pitch. Mr. Mendenhall responded
that the preferred height would be the proposed 75 feet. Chairperson Livingston asked if the
383
Design Review Board Minutes – March 28, 2007 7
applicant thought people would see a stockade fence along the northern side of the site. Mr.
Mendenhall responded that the design guidelines would need to be adhered to and would dictate
the design and height of fences. Ms. Schultz added that the fence design would be a combination
of low vegetation and fencing. Chairperson Livingston asked that if in five years of no one
purchasing any lots, what would happen to the existing approved PUD. Mr. Ravnaas responded
that a new PUD would have to reviewed and approved. Planner Saunders concurred that there
was language in the UDO that required the review of the PUD again if there were any significant
modifications to the approved plan.
Chairperson Livingston asked what would happen if the LEED strategy was completely
abolished. Planner Saunders responded that the PUD would need to be reviewed again and
added that if the conditions of approval were not met, the city would be able to enforce those
conditions. Mr. Sabol concurred with Planner Saunders and added that a good example of that
would be the River Rock Subdivision in Belgrade. He stated he thought that the owner of the
property could not shift a predominantly residential development to a commercial or industrial
development as it would be contrary to the conditions of approval. Chairperson Livingston
stated that his point had been what would the risk be that the development did not work and
would there be a method by which to ensure that the development was constructed as approved.
Mr. Mendenhall responded that, relatively, the proposal would only take a small amount of time
even being estimated at build-out in ten years.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked for verification of the zoning. Planner Saunders reiterated
which zoning classifications were being requested and reviewed by the City Commission. Vice
Chairperson Pentecost asked if the proposal should be classified as a Mixed-Use zoning district.
Planner Saunders responded that the proposed mixed-use zoning designation had not been
approved by the City Commission as of yet and many aspects of the development would not fit
in well with the proposal.
Ms. Zavora asked the progression of the proposal’s phasing. Mr. Ravnaas responded the first
couple phases would be done from north to south along the east side of the proposal as the
infrastructure was completed. Ms. Zavora asked what it would take to get the density points up
to the LEED certification they were attempting. Mr. Mendenhall responded it would take three
times as much density and it would need to be instituted in height. Planner Saunders stated the
density downtown could be 200 units per acre as there was no minimum square footage required
per lot; there could not be such high densities in residential zoning districts as there was a
minimum square footage required per lot.
Mr. Batcheller asked if there had been any traffic projections done, with regard to internal trip
capture, within the 20 some odd blocks affected by this proposal. Mr. Ravnaas stated the
applicant had an idea about how much vehicular traffic would be generated and they had been
conservative in their traffic estimates. Planner Saunders added there had been traffic lights
approved and funded for Griffin Drive & Rouse Avenue and Oak Street & Rouse Avenue that
would assist in calming some of the traffic generated by this proposal. Mr. Batcheller stated he
was curious how much gridlocked traffic attempting to get out would be framed within the
proposal. Mr. Ravnaas responded that, hopefully, it would be traffic using their services instead
of crossing town.
Ms. Zavora asked if Story Mill Road would remain a dirt road. Mr. Ravnaas responded that it
would be paved. Planner Saunders added that options were being explored for some sort of
384
Design Review Board Minutes – March 28, 2007 8
bridge structure across the railroad tracks and creek. Chairperson Livingston suggested a method
that would cause the abandonment of L Street and asked if parking on the street would be
counted toward the parking calculations. Mr. Mendenhall stated only 25% of the parking on the
street would be counted.
Mr. Rea stated he was wildly in favor of the project and was very hopeful that it would happen.
He stated the Mill Spur Trail seemed like a strong connection as a bicycle path and it had not
been thoroughly discussed. Mr. Mendenhall responded they would provide an additional
easement for the trail to pass the bike lanes. Mr. Rea stated the clarity of the phases was very
important so that the development would be built out as planned. He stated he was more and
more bothered by the sustainable community discussion as everything in the proposal was
undecided. He stated there were easy and difficult LEED points to acquire and they should be
more focused on their LEED elements. He suggested he would like to see all the buildings Net
Zero certified instead of LEED certified as it would be one step higher in classification. Mr.
Mendenhall responded the highlighted areas were the LEED requirements that the owner had
wanted to see. Mr. Rea responded he wanted to hold the applicant to the LEED requirements.
He stated he thought the applicant had made progress in the area of road design and suggested
that everything north of the East Gallatin River was an obvious place to locate a Jeffersonian
Grid street design. He stated that he was concerned with the economic gutting of downtown as
there were many commercial spaces downtown that were available for lease and an economic
vacuum might be created. He stated he was fine with the proposal being seen once if all aspects
of the proposal were clearly depicted (i.e. landscaping, elevations, etc.) and added that the
applicant probably could not comply with every site being completely planned; he suggested the
DRB review the proposal in phases.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he supported previous DRB statements. He stated he would
be supportive of the requested heights of the taller buildings within the proposal as the grade
from Main Street was an 80 foot difference. He stated he was supportive of reviewing the
project in phases as that provided evidence of the proposed architecture as opposed to site plan
review. He suggested the current design guidelines did not seem extensive enough. He stated
the applicant had presented design forms on the renderings brought to the meeting, he
appreciated the diversity of those renderings, and it was something he really expected to see, but
GBD Architects would not be designing the whole development. He stated the presentation
tonight would not be the same from another architect. He stated he was in support of the
proposal as it could be made to work. He noted that some of the sites within the proposal were
in the Entryway Corridor and would be reviewed on a site plan basis under the requirements of
the U.D.O.
Ms. Zavora stated she agreed with previous DRB comments, but liked the proposed layout of the
streets. She stated she was concerned that the development would not be completed as designed
and approved; adding that she would prefer to review the proposal in phases.
Mr. Batcheller stated he did not have any problem with the proposal and he agreed with previous
DRB comments, but he was concerned with the generation of traffic. He suggested the applicant
look into an interchange at L Street. Planner Saunders responded there would be a 20 year lead
time and a $30,000,000.00 price tag on an interchange in that location. Mr. Batcheller stated that
he thought the development would encourage downtown to be more competitive.
Mr. Banziger stated he was supportive of the proposal and agreed with previous DRB comments.
385
Design Review Board Minutes – March 28, 2007 9
He stated he thought the DRB would need to see the development in phases due to the market
and other aspects of the development changing. He stated he was not concerned with the
proposed layout of the streets, but thought Jeffersonian Grid would work nicely as well. He
stated he would like to see a lot of the infrastructure installed in the first phases. He stated he
was surprised that the affordable rental LEED requirement had not been met. Mr. Mendenhall
responded that there would be affordable rentals instituted in the proposal. He suggested the
feeling of the development would create another city center and he did not know how that would
impact the community. Planner Saunders responded that the expectation is that Bozeman would
be a multi-core community.
Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed with previous DRB comments. He stated he thought
the proposal illustrated a good vision for the city as another version of what something away
from the center of town could be and the height request did not bother him. He stated that he
was concerned that the regulatory structure of the U.D.O. did not provide the opportunity for the
DRB to review the proposal as intimately as necessary. He stated some of the larger buildings
were things that the DRB typically got involved in and suggested the applicant bring the largest
structures (those meeting the criteria for DRB in Entryway Corridors) and those of historical
significance back to the DRB for review. Mr. Ravnaas stated he was not concerned with coming
back to the DRB for review, but was concerned that the future reviews would alter the overall
layout of the proposal. Chairperson Livingston responded it would be more of a guiding
document that would become a part of the competitive market. Mr. Rea stated that he did not
want to see the infrastructure of the proposal with the review of the phasing. Mr. Saunders stated
the DRB would want to see the successive iteration of detail that would be reviewed at Site Plan
submittal.
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.}
The owner of Gallatin Laundry, Shawn O’Connell, stated he was concerned with preserving the
historical presence of his building in downtown Bozeman and with JLF’s proposed alley access
from Bozeman Avenue as it would reduce entrance to the alley for his delivery vehicles (semi
trucks); adding that he was interested in improving the access for the future development and
growth of Gallatin Laundry. He stated they had entertained the removal of a wall on their
structure or the increase of the width of the alley to increase the accessibility to his business for
his employees. Chairperson Livingston suggested that Mr. O’Connell submit those comments in
writing so that review boards and commissions would receive the comments in their packets and
could examine them with the proposal. Assistant Director Saunders added that public comment
submitted by Wednesday would be included in packets, but Staff would appreciate receiving the
comments sooner to allow for time for any other City departmental review.
ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board
386
CITY OF BOZEMAN
planning • zoning • subdivision review • annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration • neighborhood
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building
20 East Olive Street
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230
phone 406-582-2260
fax 406-582-2263
planning@bozeman.net
www.bozeman.net
MEMORANDUM
TO: BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD
FROM: CHRIS SAUNDERS, ASSISSTANT DIRECTOR
RE: STORY MILL NEIGHBORHOOD MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRE-APPLICATION
PLAN REVIEW PLANNING FILE NO. P-07015
DATE: APRIL 11, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Sky Development and Wake Up Inc., represented by Hyalite Engineers, has made application for
subdivision pre-application plan review of the Story Mill Neighborhood Major Subdivision, Planning
File No. P-07015, a mixed density residential subdivision located around the intersection of Griffin
Drive and Story Mill Road.
The Mandeville Creek Major Subdivision is a multi-phase approximately 106-acre residential,
commercial, and industrial subdivision. The project is also choosing to utilize a Planned Unit
Development process to enable a broader blend of uses, more dense urban character development, and to
support an effort to provide a more ecologically friendly design. The plat indicates phasing lines, lot and
block configuration, and open space/parks. Applicant’s intend to request concurrent construction for
some of the phases of the development and may desire an extended preliminary plat approval period.
The project contains R-2 and R-4 residential zoning on the majority of the area. A small area of
approximately 5 acres of M-1 zoning is located on the SW corner of the development. A Commercial B-
1 and B-2 area primarily located along Story Mill Road is in the NE quadrant.
The site is currently all within the City or currently finalizing the annexation process. Annexation and
rezoning has already been approved by the City Commission. Mature vegetation exists in several places
throughout the project. The design has been matched to preserve the majority of the mature vegetation.
The application depicts the Sourdough Creek and E. Gallatin River which flow through the property.
There is also extensive wetlands area. The proposal largely avoids the wetlands with creative approaches
being suggested to minimize wetland impacts. Park layout includes a large active recreation area
adjacent to the Boys and Girls Club, trail corridors and smaller more urban type parks, and a large area
at the toe of Story Hills. The parks have been coordinated with the watercourse setbacks to protect
riparian areas and expand the useable recreational area.
The block layout responds to topographic features, limiting crossing of streams, connectivity for
vehicles and pedestrians, and circulation. Trails and pedestrian interconnections are provided along the
creek and at key block crossings. Streets are generally configured to correspond to previously approved
development to the east, north, and west, although the alignment of Graf Street will need to be adjusted.
coordination
387
Page 2
This matter will be on the Planning Board agenda for Tuesday, April 17, 2007 and the City Commission
agenda of Monday, May 7, 2007.
Included in your packet for the next meeting are staff’s general comments, as well as comments
provided by the Development Review Committee (D.R.C.) and other applicable review agencies. No
agency comments on this proposal have been received to date. Staff’s final written summary-review
comments for the applicant will not be prepared until the Planning Board and City Commission have
had the opportunity to offer their comments and advice on the matter.
The purpose of the Planning Board review is to consider compliance with the growth policy. The
Planning Board does not have a review role in the PUD related items so they have not been presented. If
you have any questions on the proposal or if staff can be of any assistance to you, don’t hesitate to
contact the Planning Office.
cc: Cory Ravnaas, Hyalite Engineers
Planning File No. P-07015
388
1
AGENDA
CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD,
COMMISSION MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL
411 EAST MAIN STREET
TUESDAY, APRIL 17TH, 2007
7:00 P.M.
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chair Pro Tempore Erik Henyon called the meeting to order at 7:04PM and directed the secretary to
record the attendance.
Members Present Members Absent
Erik Henyon, Chair Pro Temp JP Pomnichowski
Randy Carpenter Dave Jarrett
Brian Caldwell Caren Roberty
Ed Sypinski William Quinn
Steve Kirchhoff
Staff Present
Chris Saunders, Assistant Director
Kimberly Kenney-Lyden, Recording Secretary
Guests Present
Katryn Mitchell
Jami Morris
Craig Mendenhall
Cory Ravnaas
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES)
{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 none, he closed this
portion of the meeting
Seeing there was none, Erik Henyon closed this portion of the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF APRIL 3RD, 2007
Brian Caldwell moved to approve the minutes of April 3rd, 2007 as written. The motion was seconded by
Ed Sypinski and Randy Carpenter. All in favor, motion passed 5-0.
389
2
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Subdivision Pre-Application #P-07015 (Story Mill Neighborhood) - A Major
Subdivision Pre-Application on behalf of the owners, Blue Sky Development, and
applicant, GoBuild Inc.,, and representative, Hyalite Engineering and Bitnar Architects to
receive advice and direction to allow the development of a 166 lot major subdivision and
planned unit development consisting of 72 Single Household lots, 21 Townhouse lots, 28
Condominium lots, 10 Commercial lots, 3 Industrial lots, and 32 Park/ Recreation/ Open
Space lots on 106.621 gross acres of property. Legal description of property varies, please
see applicant submittal materials.(Saunders)
Staff Report
Assistant Director of Planning and Community Development Chris Saunders gave the detailed staff
report. He stated that the board is familiar with this project as they have already seen the Informal
Application and the Growth Policy Amendment for this applicant. Mr. Saunders noted there are several
different components to this subdivision process and the Zone Map Amendment had listed a wide variety
of uses for this area. He stated all previous applications for this project have been approved and no public
comment has been received to date.
Assistant Director Saunders commented the biggest issue for this proposal is traffic and the levels of
service. The applicant is proposing to do private streets in this subdivision. There is current discussion
regarding the connection of Cedar Street. There are existing water and sewer services to this area. He
added there is ample open space and park land. Mr. Saunders noted this project would allow the City to
make some trail connections. There aree a lot of water concerns on this property and these concerns affect
the layout and design of this subdivision. He closed by stating the applicant does not have a full phasing
plan as of yet.
Applicant Presentation
Cory Ravnaas from Hyalite Engineers opened by stating the Planning Board has heard from him on
previous occasions and to not repeat his previous presentation, he will be introducing Craig Mendenhall
from GBD Architects who will be conducting the applicant’s portion of this presentation.
Craig Mendenhall stated the property consists of 106 total acres and there is 50 acres green space on this
property. The Story Mill will be the focal point of this project and the cultural hub. There is also 13 acres
of wetlands and these wetlands are currently in bad shape. Their proposal will rehabilitate those wetlands.
Mr. Mendenhall noted they will have an extensive trail system and this project will include 1,200
dwelling units. They are trying to accomplish higher density on this site to equal 22 units per acre. This
will promote prime farmland outside of city limits.
Steve Kirchhoff asked the number of single family detached and single family attached homes there are in
the residential portion of project. Mr. Mendenhall responded these are all multiple family homes and
added there are only seven single family home lots in this project. He added there will be 10% of
affordable housing which will be dispersed throughout this site.
390
3
Mr. Mendenhall commented 118,000 square feet of community neighborhood commercial on this
property. They will limit the amount of pervious services on this site. He noted they are creating
pedestrian paths along the streets. They are trying to achieve LEED certification for these buildings.
They fully intend to document and tell the story of Nelson Story and the Story Mill district through the
design of this project. They will add canopies to the Story Mill itself. He noted they will be bringing in
some new buildings to complement the historic buildings in this area. This area will have seven districts
and are looking to achieve ‘community through interaction’ with their design. A way people can
constantly interact with each other and create street activity. Their plan is to create streets free from cul-
de-sacs. Mr. Mendenhall stated they are trying to create onsite energy, hide and buffer parking, promote
alleys where possible, and have higher vertical buildings of up to 75 feet. They plan to introduce some
dock like bridges across the wetlands.
Cory Ravnaas stated this project will be done in ten phases. They designed this project around the
buildings and broke this area up into thirty different blocks. This will take about ten years to build out this
entire project. He noted they only have 41 acres of net buildable property on this site. Mr. Ravnaas stated
they have 22 acres of ‘road right of way’. They want to get away from the typical standard of ‘bridge
design’, but because of the desire to preserve the wetlands, they had to come up with a better idea than the
standards.
Questions for Staff
Brian Caldwell stated there are 41 net buildable acres, obviously vertical construction is the viable way to
get density from this project and with a building that is 3 to 4 stories tall, accommodating the parking is
appropriate. He added this is a positive direction and needs to be encouraged. Mr. Caldwell noted his
biggest concern is the timing for subdivision review. He asked Chris Saunders if a project can be
approved for fifteen years if the ten years is not enough time to get this project completed. Mr. Saunders
noted there is no prohibition about extending the approval beyond a certain limit, only that it is approved
between the municipality and the developer. He noted the issue is how would one guarantee this would be
completed. He noted that a big part of this is that they do a good design in the first place, but most of it
revolves around zoning – if they follow up, the zoning aspects can be carried forward.
Mr. Caldwell stated he liked the pedestrian design that does not completely revolve around vehicles and
added this is a positive direction and needs to be encouraged. He noted that to make a financial
commitment on a project of this grand scale is paramount. It could be easier to agree to the construction
of all things just one time instead of having to approved a new phase once every three years.
Steve Kirchhoff asked the board if the current direction of this project makes sense and added that in his
opinion, it does. He noted that Brian Caldwell stressed how important timing is. Since this is a LEED
project, it is doubtful we will have a change in the land use philosophy over the next three years. It seems
the merits of the project, the multi modal forms of transportation are the aspects of this project he likes the
most. Commissioner Kirchhoff noted the five to seven story format is wonderful and great, but there
might be friction. He stated he does not anticipate they will have rave reviews from every member of the
community, but vertical construction is the direction we need to move to in accomplishing density within
city limits. He noted he dislikes the private streets, but stated it seems this projects needs it. Mr. Kirchhoff
noted the bridges are a great asset aesthetically and wished the applicant success in this large scale
process.
391
4
Mr. Carpenter asked the applicant to clarify how architecture drove the design of this neighborhood.
Mr. Ravnaas stated they started on the design over a year ago and they had to start with parking and
Ed Sypinski stated his concern with the view shed and noted five to seven stories seems a little too high.
He was concerned about the historic nature of this property and whether the mills and grain elevators can
be saved. He asked the applicant to address these issues.
Craig Mendenhall noted there are economic pressures in getting this done and they are all about adaptive
reusing. The LEED project requires certain amounts of densities to achieve points. They are really at the
low scale of density with 20-30 units per acre. This is why they stuck to the 5-7 story buildings, but are
interested in creating view corridors. He noted they are sensitive to where we are placing those buildings.
Cory Ravnaas stated the historic questions and answers will be included when they come forward with the
formal PUD. They rated the historic buildings on which buildings were the best to reuse and renovate and
stated there are two buildings that are in really bad shape. One building has a caved in roof and the grain
elevator building has environmental concerns along with building structure issues. He noted no one wants
to see either building taken down. Mr. Ravnass stated this will be a delicate matter and have not made any
final decisions as to what is planned for those buildings. Mr. Mendenhall noted they want to use the silos
for storage as they were originally intended.
Chris Saunders stated that area is not located within the conservation district, but it is located in the
national registry of historic districts.
Ed Sypinski stated he does like the proposed bridges, but noted he did not think Bozeman has ever used
that concept. He added it is a unique and distinctive advantage. There is concern for the 0 setbacks and
whether or not this proposal is truly pedestrian friendly because of that setback. Mr. Saunders responded
there is a two part elevated pedestrian pathway by the warehouses now. He noted his issue is to make sure
the proper utilities can be installed in a 0 setback, but it is an important element in the subdivision review
process. Mr. Saunders added concurrent construction is allowed in PUD projects. This can be used in
combination with financial security.
Ed Sypinski asked if there was a bus shelter in their proposal on private streets and asked if there was a
bus route to and from Story Mill. Mr. Saunders clarified the term ‘private streets’ is not about who can
traverse these streets, but who maintains these streets like an HOA. Mr. Sypinksi encouraged the
development to use multimodal forms of transportation. He will be in support of this project.
Randy Carpenter stated he felt the applicants are clearly going in the right direction. He was concerned
that density is going to be problematic on the transportation infrastructure and felt that there could be no
concise answer until a new traffic study is done. Until they can get an idea of what the impact is of 1,200
more dwelling units on top of the commercial that is planned and how that will impact traffic, he could
not comment on that issue. Mr. Carpenter noted he was also concerned about the timing of this and long
build-out. He stated the City of Bozeman could be at 60 thousand residents in ten years and truly felt this
project is needed. Mr. Carpenter asked the applicant to explain the ‘dock bridge’. Mr. Ravnaas replied the
bridges will have to meet the hydraulic requirements otherwise they will not get approved by the
engineering department. He noted that it is possible to construct them because the other option is to pull a
404 permit and fill the wetlands to build a road over and they would rather preserve the wetlands.
Mr. Carpenter asked the applicant if the underground parking will work there considering the ground
water issues. Mr. Ravnaas responded there is a stigma in building in areas with high ground water. He
noted they went to Portland and saw underground parking done properly and stated they just need to
design for it by having pumps and backward bathtubs. Randy Carpenter stated he hopes they can do it
because the mere presence of parked cars really changes a neighborhood.
392
5
existing historic structures. They had to design the buildings first, then draw the lot lines after that.
Randy Carpenter noted they mentioned the east/west orientation being a factor for an energy efficient
building and asked the applicant to explain that. Mr. Mendenhall noted this was for the taller buildings.
Mr. Carpenter asked him to explain why they keep using the term “LEED Pilot Project”. Mr. Mendenhall
responded this project could be the first LEED certified pilot project because they are only allowing 120
of these projects in the U.S. to be certified with this criteria and they would like to be out of that 120.
Randy Carpenter noted the setbacks are an issue just to accommodate the higher density. He stated people
do not want to be crowded into an area and understood this 0 setback to only be in the commercial street
areas. He asked if they were asking for 0 setbacks in the residential areas as well. Mr. Mendenhall replied
they are only asking for 0 setbacks in the residential area where the residential buildings are providing a
variety of uses. Mr. Carpenter stated the board is very much in support of this because this is the
direction we will need to be in ten to fifteen years. His only issue is the traffic and it could really hurt this
project if there is no articulation on how this will be clearly handled. Even with the deviations, Mr.
Carpenter stated they will need to clearly define how they will address the traffic.
Chair Pro Tempore Erik Henyon commented he only a problem with one of the sixteen deviations
requested. He asked for clarification on the deviation to reduce the 150 foot separation from Bridger
Drive. Cory Ravnaas stated this was the only way to provide an alternative, otherwise they would have to
install cul-de-sacs and that would defeat their goal of connectivity. Mr. Henyon stated he is satisfied with
the 0 setbacks because of the amount of green space and parkland in this area. He will not address his
concerns with easements and right of way as these issues will be addressed with City Planning. Mr.
Henyon commented that traffic is going to be an issue with this entire project and could be a sticking
point. He suggested that Wallace could be a one way street going south and Broadway be changed into a
one way going North. Mr. Ravnaas noted they were looking at that option. Mr. Saunders stated the City
can look at this, however he noted the difficulty with one way streets is that traffic seems to go faster.
Mr. Henyon stated he is in favor of predictability and in favor of extending the permitting process longer
than the three years. He noted he is concerned with hazardous materials and site clean up in this area and
asked the applicant how they are mitigating the clean up. Mr. Ravnaas responded the clean up is
extremely expensive. He noted there is a minimum of 6-12 months worth of cleanup. The trailer park will
be the biggest amount of clean up due to the fact they had their own sewer system. He noted they filled
their existing sewers with concrete. Mr. Ravnaas stated they have about a million dollars worth of clean
up.
Erik Henyon stated as long as the traffic can be mitigated, he is comfortable with their request for
building height. He noted those higher elevated buildings will be against the Story Hills and felt it would
not interfere with the view sheds of the residents living there. Mr. Henyon would prefer the bridges be
constructed in the ‘dock’ format so they can preserve the wetlands. These bridges work well in dry and
wet climates, however they freeze much faster. He closed by stating he will be looking forward to this
project and added the applicants have his full support.
ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS 393
6
Mr. Henyon stated the board received a letter from Bob Swinth regarding notification on the Allyson
Subdivision. He noted this project has been on the City’s agenda and in the planning process for several
years. Mr. Saunders stated phase one of that project was about six years ago. Mr. Caldwell stated public
noticing is mandated by state statute. Mr. Saunders noted the state statute for noticing is that you would
send the immediate adjoining persons within 200 feet these notices and publish it in the newspaper. The
Planning office goes beyond that because we also post the site.
Erik Henyon stated he will address his concerns and note that project was duelly noticed and added this
gentleman attended the public hearing and chose not to give public comment. Mr. Saunders stated this
project was on several agendas even in the pre-application process to the City Commission and was
televised. He closed by stating the City encourages public awareness and public participation.
Ed Sypinski stated the local neighborhood councils are doing a great job. He added he feels the public
needs to step up and take responsibility to get involved and create their own neighborhood councils.
Mr. Saunders responded the City is also working on adding to the list of outreach tools. The City is
working coordinating a map and connecting it to what is happening in the City by visually being able to
tell which projects are active and give you a point of reference. He noted they are looking at some new
software to connect all the links.
ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT
Ed Sypinski moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Brian Caldwell. All in favor. Meeting was
adjourned at 8:37PM
_________________________________ ________________________________
Erik Henyon, Chair Pro Tempore Chris Saunders, Assistant Director
Planning Board Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman
*City of Bozeman Planning Board meetings are open to all members of the public.
If you have a special need or disability, please contact our
ADA Coordinator, Ron Brey, at 582-2306 (voice) or 582-2301 (TDD).
394
GO-BUILD RECOMMENDATIONS
1. CAHAB appreciates Go-Build's housing suggestions and their goal to provide 10% affordable units
in the Story Mill Development. In past conversations with Go-Build the CAHAB thought Go-Build
would be governed by the workforce housing ordinance. Since recent conversations indicate that Go-
Build will file preliminary plat prior to the ordinance being adopted we recommend to the City
Commission that the 10% affordable units, as specified in the draft ordinance, be one of the housing
conditions of approving the PUD.
2. The CAHAB notes that in their current proposal Go-Build's housing affordability starts at 80% of
the AMI for a household of 4 and goes to120% of AMI. It should be noted that those income levels
are for workforce housing and are at the very upper end of affordability.
The CAHAB also has concerns that Go-Build’s calculation of dwelling prices for different income
levels may not match the City's affordable housing task force’s calculations of what would be
affordable for these income levels. The CAHAB recommends that the Commission require Go-Build
to follow the income guidelines, number and type of units per income levels, mortgage calculations,
housing prices, housing types, affordability period, and unit mix set forth in the draft ordinance.
Ideally, Go-Build would wait until the draft ordinance is adopted and follow it exclusively. In lieu,
deviations from the ordinance should result in lower prices and more single family detached units. Of
primary importance is that the household’s monthly payment will not exceed 30% of their gross
monthly income for principal, interest, taxes, insurance, and homeowner’s association dues (and
ground lease fee for land trust).
By removing the Bridger View Trailer Court, Go-Build is reducing the City's affordable housing stock
by approximately 100 units that served households with incomes below 80% of the AMI. The income
guidelines suggested by Go-build are all above 80% of the AMI; consequently, replacing affordable
units with higher priced units. The CAHAB asks that the City Commission set a percentage of the
units, for rent and/or for sale that are affordable to the below 80% income brackets of the people who
are being displaced.
The CAHAB also notes that Go-Build has not yet quantified how many of what types of affordable
dwellings, their size, and so forth. We understand that Go-Build is not at the stage to give affordable
housing specifics; however, it makes it difficult for CAHAB to be specifically supportive at this time.
3. A primary concern is Go-Build's construction cost of $200 to $240 per sq ft. The housing task force
found construction costs to be substantially lower. Although the CAHAB applauds the goals of green
building and LEEDs certification a compromise is needed if these building techniques increase the
construction price of housing to a degree where the majority of the units are unaffordable by City and
County residents. According to the 2005 census, the lowest priced home suggested by G0-Build
would not be affordable to 60% of Gallatin County's households.
Energy efficient construction is important, and we applaud Go-Build’s commitment. It is the CAHAB
understanding that significant energy efficiency can be achieved with only a slight increase in typical
construction costs (information from another community suggests it’s about 1–4%). This suggests that
most of Go-Build’s higher projected construction costs involve aesthetics or green materials rather
than energy efficiency measures that improve the long-term affordability of housing. We encourage
Go-Build to contact The National Center for Affordable Technology (NCAT) in Butte who can assist
395
you with lower energy cost construction techniques that do not substantially increase the cost of the
home.
4. CAHAB appreciates the two pages of public and private suggestions and encourages Go-Build to
work on any they feel are feasible. We have the following comments:
Urban Renewal District Tax Increment Financing—A good idea that the City has used and has been
considering for several areas in Bozeman. We encourage the City to pursue URD-TIF with
existing businesses as well as Go-Build and if this type of financing is used to have a task force to
prioritize areas and projects
The HUD Section 108 Program for economic development is a good tool and may be something
Go-Build wants to explore in conjunction with the City. CAHAB identified several difficulties with
using the 108 in Bozeman. Bozeman is not an entitlement City and we do not receive a CDBG
allocation. Consequently, the 108 program would involve the Department of Commerce pledging
part of the State's current and future CDBG funds to back the bonds. This has not previously been
done in Montana where CDBG funds are in high demand. In addition, CDBG funds need to benefit
primarily persons below 80% of the AMI which is a much lower income group than Go-Build has
indicated will live in the Story Mill Development.
Go-Build mentioned setting up a homeownership counseling program. The City already funds a
HUD certified homeownership counseling center and the CAHAB encourages Go-Build to reduce
their costs by using existing programs and services.
Go-Build's narrative incorporated mass transit. The CAHAB agrees that mass transit is important
for the Story Mill Development and several other current and pending dense developments;
however, new routes and busses are conditional upon transit funding.
Go-Build suggested creating a land trust. Land trusts are good mechanisms to make housing
affordable to persons whose income is less than 80% of the AMI. We encourage Go-Build to
explore this option for persons on the lower end of the homeownership income scale. It should be
noted that housing land trusts in a rapid growth community require ongoing administration and
constant reinvestment if the trust is to give a fair return to the owner while keeping the house
affordable.
Go-Build offers the following other mechanisms to reduce the cost of housing: bring in lenders
who have loan products that can provide lower interest rates; use lower cost quality amenities; and
reduce homeowner fees. These are all welcome strategies that we encourage Go-Build to explore.
All three suggestions are discussed in the draft housing ordinance.
In conclusion we urge the Commission to continue financing conversations with Go-Build and
encourage them to take their ideas to the level of feasibility study. However, in order for Go-Build to
do so they will need to know the City's affordable housing expectations. In their three reviews of Go-
Build's housing ideas the CAHAB has consistently referred them to the City's draft ordinance, housing
policies and strategies and working with CAHAB staff. If the Commission agrees these criteria are to
be Go-Build's affordable housing guides we ask the Commission to voice their concurrence.
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433