Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout_Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit DevelopmentReport compiled on November 13, 2007 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Andrew Epple, Planning Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT: Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Z-070159 MEETING DATE: Monday, December 3, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Story Mill Neighborhood PUD with conditions of approval as determined appropriate by the City Commission. BACKGROUND: The Story Mill Neighborhood (SMN) PUD is a large 10 phase in- fill/redevelopment project located in Bozeman’s northeast quadrant. The project is redeveloping an area which has been used for many years for a mix of industrial and residential uses. A related subdivision proposes 135 lots for approximately 1,200 homes and 180,000 square feet of non- residential uses. The Commission has previously seen a growth policy amendment, annexation, zone map amendment, subdivision pre-application and PUD concept plan relating to this project. The comments and concerns identified with these reviews have influenced the design presented with this application. The PUD application is very complex as it addresses multiple types of zoning, uses, and building character. The application includes many different deviations as explained in the Staff report. The applicant has requested concurrent construction for the first two phases of the project. Concurrent construction requires review as a PUD which is occurring. The review of this project includes almost all forms of review existing in the City, site plan, conditional use permit, planned unit development, and two forms of certificate of appropriateness. The staff report is organized to attempt to present this complex project is an easy to follow manner. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: A) The applicant has requested an extended approval period for the PUD plan of 10 years. Prior to any work beginning the Final PUD plan must be approved. This is a significant departure from past City practice. Staff has considered the request and as described in the staff report has recommended approval with several conditions. These include provision of easements to hold all streets and parks for all phases with the first final plat and restrictions on how many phases can be in development at once. Applicant has provided a very high level of design and specifications for all phases throughout the project. Staff considers this to be a unique case and requests that the Commission note in any approval action that the extended approval period is not intended to set a precedent for other projects. The extended approval period will also lock out changes from future development standard revisions for the period of the approval. If the preliminary approval 239 Report compiled on November 13, 2007 Commission Memorandum is not performed on the approval will become void. See conditions of approval #1 & 9 on pages 40 & 41 of the Staff report. B) Concurrent construction has been requested as part of the PUD. This has been limited to Phases 1 & 2 which are on Blocks 1-4 of the subdivision. Is the Commission willing to approve this request? C) Blocks 20 and 25 are double fronted lots along Bridger Drive. The character of such development has been a recent concern to the Commission. Condition of approval #8 requires certain design elements to present a “two front” design on buildings. See page 41 of the Staff report. D) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design has been a prominent focus in the design and presentation of this development. Condition of approval #10 requires that any move away from compliance with these standards will require re-approval of the development. See Staff Report page 41. E) Deviations from many parts of Title 18 have been requested as part of the PUD. Some Staff and others have supported and some have not been supported. The deviations are necessary to attain the type of design and intensity of use proposed in the project. See condition of approval #20 on pages 42-45 of the Staff report. F) The applicant has provided an extensive Development Manual setting standards for design and other characteristics of the development. Staff has suggested some revisions to the manual for a variety of clarification or corrections. The proposed revisions to section 6 are the topic of some disagreement between applicant and staff. See COA review criteria B beginning on page 33 of the Staff report, PUD condition of approval #21, and the COA conditions of approval for the Mill Building and Flour Warehouse beginning on page 51 of the Staff report. G) Certificate of Appropriateness requirements for the main Mill Building and Flour Warehouse. Staff has suggested some revisions to the elevations in order to comply with the required standards for COAs. Staff has considered alternative language suggested by the applicant and has made numerous revisions to the conditions of approval. The proposed elevation revisions are described in COA review criteria beginning on page 32 and especially beginning with criterion B on page 33 of the Staff report. The COA conditions of approval for the Mill Building and Flour Warehouse begin on page 51 of the Staff report. H) Workforce housing requirements are applicable to this project. It is the first subdivision subject to the new standards. The applicants have asked for an individualized program. For comments and review see page 10 of the Staff report. The individualized program relies upon the passage of a tax increment financing district. Because of the uncertainty of this and other future actions condition of approval #26 includes several different options to cover all possible future outcomes. The CAHAB has suggested a different approach and Staff has suggested some possible adjustments to the CAHAB proposal. Depending on the direction the Commission 240 Report compiled on November 13, 2007 Commission Memorandum wishes to take some of the possible options presented under condition of approval #26 will need to be stricken. FISCAL EFFECTS: All new development creates both new revenues and new expenses. The density of development proposed does allow for certain efficiencies in service provision. Applicants have stated their intention to pursue a tax increment financing district for the surrounding area. Depending on whether or not this is approved effects on revenues will be variable. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. CONTACT: Please contact Chris Saunders at csaunders@bozeman.net or 582-2260 if you have questions on this item. APPROVED BY: Chris Kukulski, City Manager Andrew Epple, Planning Director Attachments: Staff report Letter from Go-Build re workforce housing DRB minutes Public comment, agency comment, and responses by applicant Application materials 241 CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT # Z-07159 STORY MILL NEIGHBORHOOD CUP WITH DEVIATIONS PUD PRELIMINARY PLAN Item: Zoning Application #Z-07159 ⎯ An application for a Conditional Use Permit with deviations for the Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan to allow a mix of residential, commercial and industrial development. Owner/Applicant: Blue Sky Development, Inc., 6730 Tawny Brown Lane, Bozeman, MT 59718 Wake Up, Inc., 402 Bonner Ln., Bozeman, MT 59715 Representative: Hyalite Engineers 1111 Research Drive, Bozeman MT 59718. Date/Time: City Commission: Monday, December 3, 2007, 6 p.m., 311 West Main Street, Bozeman, Montana Report By: Chris Saunders Recommendation: Conditional Approval PROJECT LOCATION The property is generally bounded on the north and west by Bridger Drive and is focused around the intersection of Griffin Drive and Story Mill Road. The ~ 106.7 acre property is legally described as Certificate of Survey 2547 and Tract 18, Northeast Annexation, located in NW¼ of Section 5, and NE¼ of Section 6, Township 2 South, Range 6 East, and the SE¼ of Section 31 and the SW¼ of Section 32, Township 1 South, Range 6 East, P.M.M., Gallatin County, Montana. See PUD Application Volume 1, Tab 2. The property is zoned B-1, B-2, M-1 R-S, R-2 and R-4 and portions fall within the Neighborhood Conservation and North Rouse Avenue/Bridger Drive Entryway Overlay Districts. Please refer to the vicinity map on the following page. 242 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 2 PROPOSAL All references to either PUD or Subdivision application may be found on the DVDs included with the application material. Correct hardware must used to access the disks or they will not be able to be read. Application has been made for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with multiple deviations for the Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development (PUD) Preliminary Plan. The site is approximately 106.7 acres to be developed as a mixed use industrial, residential, and commercial development. This proposal would allow 135 lots for development and 32 park and open space lots. The initial phase of the PUD is located at the SE corner of the intersection of Story Mill Road and Bridger Drive. The PUD Application, Volume 1, Tab 2, Section IV gives an overview of the items requested for approval as part of the development review. The Design Review Board has reviewed an informal and a conceptual PUD plan at its November 8, 2006 and March 28, 2007 public meetings respectively. Numerous deviations have been requested to enable development of the project with a character more urban in design and configuration. Although there are many deviations, the complexity and size of the project means that no individual lot is affected by a majority of requested deviations. The list of initially requested deviations is contained in the PUD Application, Volume 1, Tab 4 and includes a list of deviations with a key to blocks and lots affected, maps showing the location of each deviation within the project, and tables by section, lot and block showing in aggregation the deviations which will be applicable to each lot. That information will not be reproduced in 243 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 3 this staff report but a listing of affected sections is provided. A detailed development manual describing the overall development and special standards within subsectors of the development is included in PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Development Manual. A map of the subsectors which is overlaid on the general plat of the development is presented on pages 22 and 23 of the Development Manual. The application as presented requires the following deviations: 18.06.040.D.6 Subdivision Application Approval Period – request a preliminary approval period for up to 10 years 18.16.020 Authorized Residential Uses – add recycling center 18.16.020 Authorized Residential Uses – attached dwellings more than normally allowed, Block 1 only 18.16.030 Residential Lot Coverage – several different relaxations with differing amounts depending on affected lots and underlying zoning district 18.16.040 Residential Lot Area – several different relaxations with differing amounts depending on affected lots and underlying zoning district 18.16.040 Residential Lot Width - several different relaxations with differing amounts depending on affected lots and underlying zoning district 18.16.050 Residential Front Yards - several different relaxations with differing amounts depending on affected lots, underlying zoning district, and adjacent street classification 18.16.050 Residential Rear Yard – allow encroachment for alternate lot configuration 18.16.050 Residential Side Yard – allow encroachment for alternate lot configuration and building orientation 18.16.050 Residential Garage yard – allow encroachment for alternate lot configuration 18.16.060 Residential Building Height - several different relaxations with differing amounts depending on affected lots and underlying zoning district, heights of up to 75 feet are requested 18.18.030.B B-1 District Building Footprint – increase allowed size 18.18.040 Commercial Lot Width – reduce allowed width 18.18.050 Commercial Front Yard – reduce minimum yard for buildings and parking 18.18.050 Commercial Rear Yard – reduce minimum yard for buildings and parking 18.18.050 Commercial Side Yard – reduce required yard for buildings and parking 18.18.060 Commercial Building Height - several different relaxations with differing amounts depending on affected lots and underlying zoning district with a maximum of 75 feet 18.20.020 Authorized Industrial Uses – allow a greater proportion of building area for residential uses than normally allowed and additional area for retail uses 18.20.050 Industrial Front Yard – reduce minimum yard for buildings and parking 18.20.060 Industrial Building Height – increased allowed building heights with a maximum of 75 feet 18.30.060 Entryway Corridor Setback – reduce width of corridor setback variably between 20 and 0 feet 18.36.060 – Duration of Planned Unit Development Approval - request a preliminary approval period for up to 10 years for all phases with first phase to comply with timing requirement. 18.38.050.F Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Screening – to allow solar and wind energy generation to not be screened 18.38.060.C Special Yard Setback – allow an arterial front yard of less than 25 feet in width 244 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 4 18.38.060.D Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Height – in addition to increases in overall building height the request would allow up to an additional 15 feet for solar/wind energy generation 18.42.030.A Lot Shape – allow some unusual shaped lots, some resulting from existing conditions 18.42.030.F Lot Depth – allow a lot depth to length ratio in excess of 3:1 18.42.040.B Block Length – allow a block length in excess of 400 feet 18.42.040.C Block Width – Allow a narrower width of block for defined areas to as little as 100 feet 18.42.040.D Right of Way for Pedestrians – Allow longer block lengths without pedestrian crossing points 18.42.060.D Ditch Easement Width – provide an off set easement for an irrigation facility 18.42.100.B Watercourse Setbacks – allow a setback paralleling a delineated wetland boundary 18.42.140 Loading Berth – to not require a formal loading dock 18.42.150 Lighting – provide an alternative lighting standard with differing heights, spacing, and shielding, allow light to project above the lowest part of the light emitting element. 18.42.180.C Restricted Size Lots – allow two RSL to exceed 5,000 square feet in area 18.44.050, 18.44.060, and 18.44.080 to provide non-standard privately maintained streets through a planned unit development 18.46.010.D Stacking of Off-Street Parking Spaces – allow stacking for other than detached homes, townhomes, duplexes 18.46.010.E Parking in Required Front and Side Yards – allow parking encroachments to facilitate shared parking 18.46.020 Backing Requirement – due to non-typical lot design allow a lesser backing distance to a property line 18.46.040 Number of Parking Spaces Required – allow a lesser number of parking stalls, reduction is variable depending on lot 18.48.050.A Yard Landscaping Required – coordinate landscaping requirements with requested lesser yard setbacks 18.48.050.C – Parking lot landscaping, to not require screening or internal landscaping 18.48.060 Landscape Performance Standards – provide an alternative landscaping program 18.50.020.C On-Site Open Space – allow aggregation of required open space into larger common areas 18.50.060 Park frontage to public streets on less than 100% of perimeter, amount of deviation varies by individual park 18.52.030 Prohibited Signs – to allow sandwich board signs along certain streets in commercially zoned areas 18.52.060.A Projecting Signs – allow projecting signs with a greater area and projection than specified in code 18.52.060.B Sign Area (B-1 only) – allow 170 square feet greater area of signage per lot than normally allowed for a B-1 zone Variances from City of Bozeman engineering standards for right of way geometric and street design Note that this proposal is also undergoing concurrent review for a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat to allow 135 lots for residential, industrial and commercial development and 32 lots for park or open space use. The subdivision and related relaxations will be evaluated by the DRC, the 245 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 5 Planning Board, and the City Commission. ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES The subject property has multiple zoning districts in place as shown on PUD Application Volume 1, Tab 4, Section 1L, subsection 5. Zoning on the property is B-1 (Neighborhood Business District), B-2 (Community Business District), M-1 (Light Manufacturing District), R-S (Residential Suburban District), R-2 (Residential Two-household, Medium Density District), and R-4 (Residential High Density District). The intent of the various zoning districts is described at the beginning of Chapters 18.16, 18.18, and 18.20, BMC. The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property: North: Industrial and agricultural. Unannexed, zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing District) and A-S (Agricultural Suburban District). Offices, manufactured homes, detached homes. Annexed and zoned R-MH (Residential Manufactured Home District) and R-S (Residential Suburban District) and M-1 (Light Manufacturing District). South: Not annexed, Gallatin County Bozeman Area Zoning District designations of R-S (Residential Suburban). Offices and warehousing, Annexed and zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing District). East: Not annexed, Gallatin County Bozeman Area Zoning District designations of R-S (Residential Suburban). Detached residences and agricultural land in the Story Hills area. West: Industrial, vacant land, City lower yards. Annexed and zoned, M-1 (Light Manufacturing District) and PLI (Public Lands and Institutions) ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION The property is currently designated as “Neighborhood Commercial”, “Community Commercial”, Residential”, “Industrial”, and “Parks, Open Space, & Recreation”. The majority of the property is planned as “Residential”. See the updated Figure 6-2, Future Land Use Map, on the Planning web site. Full descriptions of the designations are provided in Section 6.2.3 of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan beginning on page 6-20. • The Neighborhood Commercial designation is oriented to neighborhood services and proximity to significant residential densities to support pedestrian access, bicycle, and transit options. Neighborhood community identity is part of their function. • The Community Commercial designation provides areas for retail, education, health services, public administration and tourism for a multi-county region. These facilities should be located in proximity to significant transportation routes. It is appropriate that design guidelines be established to ensure compatibility with the remainder of the community. • Industrially designated lands are intended for more intensive uses which still are integrated as part of the community. Careful examination of compatibility with adjacent non-industrial uses is needed. 246 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 6 • The Residential land use designation focuses on urban density living quarters. Other supportive uses such as parks are also welcomed. Variable densities may satisfy the intent of this designation and blending of housing types is encouraged. Development should respect the unique character and natural features of a site. • Parks, Open Space, and Recreation is a designation for parks and open spaces. Areas with this designation may be formally developed or have a more naturalistic character. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INTENT AND REVIEW CRITERIA The intent of Chapter 18.36 “Planned Unit Development” is to promote maximum flexibility and innovation in the development of land and the design of development projects within the city. The applicant is proposing many relaxations from the city’s standards through the Planned Unit Development process and must therefore demonstrate a plan that will produce an environment, landscape quality and character superior to that produced under the existing standards. The application is extensive and detailed. Due to the size and complexity of the project a summary package of materials has been submitted in hard copy with full submittals provided on DVDs as PDF formatted files. Review of the application will require extensive use of the digital files. References to application materials in the review criteria are to the full application submittals provided digitally. Some items such as the Development Manual are also provided in hard copy in the Summary submittal. A table of contents for the PUD files is contained in the PUD application disk, Volume 1 folder. The review of this project is complex. Additional information from the applicant was received on October 15th. The suggested conditions have been revised based upon the further review of this information and advice from the DRB. REVIEW CRITERIA & FINDINGS The City of Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with deviations for the Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development (PUD) Preliminary Plan against the criteria set forth in Section 18.34.090, Section 18.34.100 and Chapter 18.36 of the Bozeman Municipal Code. The project is also located within the Entryway Overlay district and the Story Mill Historic District and is therefore subject to the requirements and criteria included in Chapters 18.28 and 18.30, BMC. The Design Objectives Plan and the Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District are incorporated by reference. Review criteria are cumulative. The findings outlined in this report include comments and recommended conditions provided by the Development Review Committee (DRC) and Administrative Design Review Staff (ADR). 247 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 7 Section 18.34.090 “Site Plan and Master Site Plan Review Criteria – Applicable to all the project In considering applications for site plan approval under this title, the Planning Director, City Commission, DRC, and when appropriate, the ADR Staff, the DRB, the BABAB, the CAHAB or WRB shall consider the following: 1. Conformance to and consistency with the City’s adopted growth policy. The development proposal is in conformance with the various land use designations applicable to the property as shown in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, Figure 6-2 (updated). The complexity of the project means that it touches on many different goals and elements of the growth policy. The application has its response to the growth policy in the PUD Application, Volume I, Review Criteria tab. Section 6.1.1 of the growth policy describes six core ideas which direct land use and development in Bozeman. These are: Centers, Neighborhoods, Sense of Place, Integration of Action, Natural Amenities, and Urban Density. The core ideas are carried throughout the goals and objectives of the growth policy. Some of the specific goals met by the application which area related to compliance with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan include the following: • Goal 4.9.1 Community Design–Create a community composed of neighborhoods designed for human scale and compatibility in which services and amenities are convenient, visually pleasing, and properly integrated and designed to encourage walking, cycling, and mass transit use. • Goal 4.9.2 Neighborhood Design – New neighborhoods shall be pedestrian-oriented, contain a variety of housing types and densities, contain parks and other public spaces, and have a commercial center and defined boundaries. • Goal 5.7.1 Housing–Promote an adequate supply of safe housing that is diverse in type, density, and location, with a special emphasis on maintaining neighborhood character and stability. • Goal 6.6.1 Create a sense of place that varies throughout the City, efficiently provide public and private basic service sand facilities in close proximity to where people live and work, and minimize sprawl. • Goal 6.6.2 Centers – Designate centers for commercial development rather than corridors to encourage cohesive neighborhood development in conjunction with non-motorized transportation options. Not all review criteria apply to all elements of the PUD due to the complexity of the proposal. Historic Preservation standards are only applicable to those areas within the historic district and other specifically identified resources. Entryway Corridor standards are only applicable to those areas within the entryway corridor. 248 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 8 • Goal 8.14.2 Identify, protect, and enhance natural resources within the planning area, and the important ecological functions these resources provide. • Goal 10.8.3 Encourage transportation options that reduce resource consumption, increase social interaction, support safe neighborhoods, and increase the ability of the existing transportation facilities to accommodate a growing city. Chapter 10 of the growth policy discusses transportation and The City has adopted the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update. Both the chapter and the Update present an emphasis on coordinated multi-modal transportation and encouragement for increased efficiency in transportation. The proposed project includes extensive pedestrian and bicycle facilities interconnected with existing adjacent trails. The combination of uses and proposed residential densities facilitates reduction in vehicle trips by providing options for local services accessible by pedestrians and pass-by trips. Chapter 4, Community Character, provides discussion and direction regarding the built, social, and cultural character of the community. The proposed PUD is consistent with goals and objectives regarding support for infill development, diverse housing stock, adequate and energy efficient street lighting, neighborhood focal points, development of building design guidelines, provision of street trees, encouragement for preservation of existing mature vegetation and use of native species. Goal 4.9.8, Historic Preservation, encourages the protection of historically and culturally significant resources. Implementation policies 5 and 6 for this goal encourage the combination of historic preservation and economic development to conserve integrity of properties in the best possible condition, and the use of incentives to encourage restoration of historically significant buildings to original design and/or materials. Chapter 5, Housing, not only describes existing housing inventory and future needs but also sets aspirations for the characteristics of that housing. Goal and associated objectives mirror many of the items identified in Chapter 4 for broad ranges of housing types in proximity to services, diverse neighborhoods, and infill development. It further encourages development of energy efficient housing and development of infill and affordable housing. The development does represent a significant change in intensity and variety in type of land use from the uses present in the recent past. The project will result in multiple large buildings with a scale more in keeping with the existing mill buildings than the low intensity residential and industrial uses which have typified the use of much of the site. Compatibility of new development with existing neighborhoods is an issue identified in several chapters of the growth policy. The growth policy does not require, nor suggest, that change within previously developed areas may not occur. Rather, it describes desired end conditions to be achieved while recognizing and remaining compatible with adjacent land uses. As noted above, the types of uses proposed within the project are in conformance with the future land use map. The definition of compatible development and compatible land use are provided in Chapter 14, Glossary of Terms in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. Although the project is a considerable intensification it has provided transitions in scale and intensity of use at the edges adjacent to existing development to the east and south. Existing development to the north and west are separated by a major street, Bridger Drive, and are 249 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 9 primarily non-residential in nature and have a lesser need for transitions. Therefore, after consideration of all the matters addressed by the growth policy the proposed development appears to conform to the growth policy. 2. Conformance to this title, including the cessation of any current violations. The final plan shall comply with the standards identified and referenced in the Bozeman Municipal Code. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. a. Per Section 18.74.030.D, the applicant must submit twelve (12) copies of a Concurrent Construction Plan that addresses all aspects of this section to the Planning Department for DRC review and Planning Director approval before concurrent construction may be approved. b. Per Section 18.36.060, the applicant must submit seven (7) copies a Final PUD Plan within one (1) year of preliminary approval containing all of the conditions, corrections and modifications to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. The full plan shall be provided in PDF. c. The applicant shall submit with the application for Final Plan review and approval, a written narrative stating how all of the conditions of preliminary plan approval have been satisfactorily addressed, and shall include a digital copy (PDF) of the entire Final Plan submittal. This narrative shall be in sufficient detail to direct the reviewer to the appropriate plat, plan, sheet, note, covenant, etc. in the submittal. The existing mill buildings, Volmer slaughterhouse complex, or stock yard complex are not currently served by municipal water or sewer nor by urban standard streets. This is not technically a violation of the standards of Title 18 since the area’s development predated the adoption of modern standards. However, the lack of municipal utilities has restricted development in the past. The proposed development will provide all municipal and private utilities. This will create a more safe and functional area for development and use. Identified non-conformities are either the subject of deviations or required revisions to the final documents. 3. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances and regulations. Staff has found the application in general compliance with all other applicable law, ordinances, and regulations, and the applicant is required to provide copies of all applicable permits prior to Final Site Plan approval. The application includes a request for multiple deviations as allowed under Section 18.36.030.D, BMC. A listing is provided above. Not all deviations are supported by staff, see the conditions of approval section of this report. If the City Commission grants the deviations as requested or as suggested by staff then the application must be modified to demonstrate compliance prior to award of final plan approval. The PUD application, Volume II, Tab Development Plans for Phases I & II contains the detailed site plans for those phases. Development of phases 3-10 will require further review and shall be 250 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 10 required to demonstrate compliance with applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations at that time. The Design Review Board has requested and applicants have agreed that the DRB will conduct a zoning review for each site plan which meets the threshold criteria of 18.34.040.C, BMC. A condition to enforce this request has been developed. Normally the DRB would only review those site plans located within the Entryway Corridor or Neighborhood Conservation Overlay districts. The landowners are also simultaneously seeking a subdivision approval for the property. Matters pertaining to the subdivision will be reviewed through that process and are not discussed here. Compliance with the relevant subdivision standards shall be required. Plans and specifications for utilities will be provided and reviewed by the Engineering Division subsequent to any approval action by the City Commission. A subdivision is required to also comply with any applicable zoning standards such as lot widths or sizes. The PUD has requested numerous deviations which affect subdivision layout and design. If the PUD is not approved or is materially changed then the subdivision may require substantial revisions. Workforce Housing: The City of Bozeman recently enacted Chapter 17.02, Workforce Housing, BMC. The effective date of the ordinance occurred prior to the application for subdivision review being found sufficient for review. Therefore, the application is subject to the provisions of the new ordinance. The standards of Chapter 17.02, BMC would typically require the Story Mill Neighborhood project to provide 17 dwellings subject to the affordability provisions of the chapter. Satisfaction of these requirements can be integrated with the requirements for RSLs. Of these 17 dwellings, six are required to be detached homes. The remaining 11 can be either attached or detached homes so long as they meet the affordability criteria. The workforce housing requirement is distinct from the requirement of Section 18.42.180, BMC for restricted size lots, although the two may be coordinated and mutually reinforcing. Applicants have requested to be considered for an individualized program as provided for in Section 17.02.040.E.3, BMC. Provision of affordable housing is also a means of satisfying certain requirements for a Planned Unit Development. The details are contained in the PUD application, Volume I, Tab Affordable Housing. The Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board (CAHAB) considered the individualized program on November 5th. Comments from the CAHAB are attached. The requested individualized program requires the creation of a tax increment finance (TIF) district in order to achieve the desired outcome. The action to create a TIF is separate from the review of the subdivision in both time and process and therefore a condition is recommended to address different possible outcomes of the TIF review. CAHAB raised several concerns in their attached comments. They did not support the individualized program as submitted. They expressed concern about timing and distribution of the construction of the homes. They questioned the appropriateness of the extensive cost support needed to make the homes more affordable and whether a different approach would be a more effective use of resources. A greater degree of specificity in the individualized program was also found to be necessary. CAHAB has recommended some specific revisions occur to the individualized program. The recommendations are shown as option d under Condition of Approval 26. The recommended 251 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 11 number of additional homes (28) in excess of the typical number required (17) for a development of this acreage are in mitigation of the removal of the existing manufactured home court which has provided affordable housing in the past several decades and in furtherance of growth policy goal 5.7.1 and others. Staff has a concern regarding the CAHAB recommendation for all the workforce units to occur within the first 5 phases. Although this approach would bring homes to the user sooner, it would also restrict the distribution of the homes throughout the development. Distribution has been identified as a desirable attribute. An alternative approach could be to require at least the minimum number (17 homes) to occur in the first five phases with the remaining 28 homes to be distributed amongst all the phases. An alternative language option addressing Staff’s concern is provided in condition 26d(v)(1) for Commission decision. Section 17.02.040.E.2.e, BMC requires that construction of 80% of workforce housing units occur in each phase prior to commencement of an additional phase of development. This standard may be problematic for the Story Mill Neighborhood subdivision which intends to construct roughly a phase per year. Several of the phases will require extensive site review through zoning standards before beginning construction of large mixed use buildings which will incorporate some of the housing. This may make moving through the project in a timely manner very difficult. Deed restrictions will be placed with each lot to ensure that ultimate construction will incorporate the necessary workforce dwelling units. Applicants have proposed an individualized program. Staff suggests that the Commission allow the individualized program to also address the matter of timing and that a revised schedule to ensure timely construction be developed prior to approval of a Final PUD plan. The Commission may require their approval of this element of the Final PUD plan to ensure that it complies with the intent and purpose of Chapter 17.02, BMC. 4. Relationship of site plan elements to conditions both on and off the property. With the proposed conditions outlined for the DRC and the DRB, the elements of the Story Mill Neighborhood PUD plan including the land use patterns, circulation, and open space are arranged in an appropriate manner and will be compatible with the conditions both on and off the property. The project has largely avoided impacts on wetlands, watercourses, and wildlife habitat through building placement. As discussed above, transitions in scale and massing at the edges of the development have been provided. The application proposes a more urban style development than typical in Bozeman within the commercial areas of the project. Reduced setbacks, structured parking, and alternative landscaping are all proposed. The Development Manual, PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Development Manual, describes the special standards proposed to provide a balanced and integrated project. Connectivity to existing streets and trails is provided. A portion of the site is located within the Story Mill Historic District. Section 6 of the Development Manual describes Historic and Cultural Resource Guidelines. Further development of this section of the Development Manual is necessary to fully harmonize the Development Manual and the standards of Chapter 18.28, BMC. Revisions elsewhere in the Development Manual are also required. Steps to accomplish this harmonization are established in the 252 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 12 Conditions of Approval section. The purpose of the revisions is to first, ensure that any future development be well advised of applicable regulations early in the design process, and second, to facilitate review and rational relationships with existing applicable design standards. A revised and updated cultural resource inventory and development manual has been provided and will be used as part of the final PUD plan. The development does represent a significant change in intensity and variety in type of land use from the uses present in the recent past. The project will result in multiple large buildings with a scale more in keeping with the existing mill buildings than the low intensity residential and industrial uses which have typified the use of much of the site. Portions of the site originally developed in the early 1880’s as an industrial site and remained in active use until recently. Other agricultural industrial uses included stockyards and meat packing facilities. Residential uses have long been present either as lodging for mill workers or developed later in the area as individual residences. The area has remained an area of considerable mixed uses with nearby blacksmith shop, ice distributor, auto repair, offices, fuel sales, warehousing, and other industrial uses as well as extensive residential development and a golf course. The railroad lines which originally served the area have almost all been removed and are not immediately obvious to the eye. The predominant remnant is the railroad bed which has been converted to a trail along Story Mill Road and paralleling L street until it connects with N. Wallace Avenue. There are two significant residential developments in the near vicinity. Homes along Hillside Lane and Bridger Drive to the east are on larger lots and a variety of single and multi-story designs. Some are within the City and others are not yet annexed. Heavy vegetation is present along Hillside Lane which is a gravel road. Originally developed as part of the primary access to Bridger Canyon, it now serves primarily as a local road to adjacent development. North of Bridger Drive the Bridger Creek Golf Course and associated residences are a blend of single and attached homes again in a blending of single and multiple-story styles. To the east are existing county residences lining the northern edge of Bridger Drive. The Legends development east of Story Mill Road is now under construction with primarily townhomes constructed at this time and some detached homes now underway. Residences north of Bridger Drive and west of Story Mill Rd are separated from the Story Mill Neighborhood development by the street and a variety of industrial and office structures. 5. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions. The project is intended to provide a high degree of internal trip capture with many local services being readily available to residents and surrounding residents, significant trail and sidewalk interconnectivity to other areas of Bozeman. Applicants have expressed a desire for transit service although a route has not yet been established. None the less, a considerable amount of additional vehicle traffic will be created. This is addressed in the subdivision application and conditions of approval have been crafted to address the issue through that review procedure. The PUD is proposing considerable shared parking and underground structured parking. Deviations for parking quantity and configuration have been requested. See PUD Application, Volume I, Tab H both maps and tables. The total parking to be provided is discussed in PUD Application, Volume I, Tab 1L, pages 22-47. The majority of parking reduction is proposed for 253 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 13 the commercial area with the redevelopment of the existing mill buildings, see PUD Application, Volume I, Tab H map page 6. Reduced setbacks along all streets have been proposed in all commercial and industrial development areas and some residential areas, see PUD Application, Volume I, Tab H. The redevelopment of the Mill buildings on Blocks 3 and 4 are bisected by the addition of Mill Spur Avenue. This local “festival” street is proposed to have very small, if not zero foot, front yard setbacks and a more pedestrian orientation. The urban style setbacks and building placement give a different character to the streets. A considerable number of homes are already present in the near vicinity and up Bridger Canyon. Typically, a mixed use development will seek initial development of residential to establish a customer base before beginning construction of the commercial structures. Due to the presence of the existing residential development, Story Mill is proposing to commence commercial development in its second phase with renovation and replacement of existing structures in the mill complex. 6. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress, egress and circulation. Pedestrian circulation is provided throughout Story Mill Neighborhood with sidewalks along streets or within open space areas, and a trail system through the project. See PUD Application, Volume 1, Tab Parks and Open Space Plan, for a depiction of the trail system, and Volume I, Tab L, pages PUD 100-107b (beginning on page 50 of Tab L) for sidewalk system and streets. The PUD plan includes interior streets with access off of Bridger Drive, Story Mill Road, and Griffin Drive. All lots are provided with vehicular access from local streets. The trail system provides both recreational and transportation functions. A number of boardwalks are proposed to lessen impacts of wetlands. As suggested by the WRB, in order to minimize impacts on wetlands some trails should be removed as they are redundant for the purpose of circulation. Conditions relating to the character and alignment of the trail system are included in the Conditions of Approval section for the subdivision application. Story Mill Road is proposed to be developed to an urban collector standard with boulevard sidewalk, have limited access, and vegetated medians. This is a significant change from the current gravel two lane standard. Many of the local streets are proposed to be provided privately with public access easements. Due to the extended approval period requested a condition has been developed to ensure that streets are provided in a timely manner. Local streets are more narrow than typical with a variable character. See PUD Application, Volume I, Tab IL, sections 9-11. The Montana Department of Transportation is currently preparing an environmental review for possible rebuilding of North Rouse/Bridger Drive. Upon completion of the environmental review MDOT will decide how to proceed. It is expected that rebuilding will include widening of the current two lane section and addition of pedestrian and bicycle facilities in at least some portion of the roadway. The addition of a boulevard trail along Bridger Drive across the frontage of the Phase 5 is a probable component of any MDOT project. If MDOT does not construct the trail in a timely manner it will be necessary for the developer to install. Currently two traffic signals are in the process of being installed at the intersections of North Rouse with Griffin Drive and Oak 254 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 14 Street. A traffic study was prepared and submitted as part of the subdivision application, see Subdivision Application, Volume III, Tab 12 Streets, Roads and Alleys. The traffic study indicates that level of service standards will continue to be met over the development period of the project. Monitoring of changed traffic conditions will be required with each phase. If level of service standards fail to be met then the necessary corrective measures will be required. Conditions relating to the function of streets are included in the Conditions of Approval section for the subdivision component. 7. Landscaping, including the enhancement of buildings, the appearance of vehicular use, open space and pedestrian areas, and the preservation or replacement of natural vegetation. Applicant has proposed an alternative landscaping system in lieu of the typical performance points provided by Section 18.48.060, BMC. Staff finds the alternative reasonable given the character of the development, the requested deviations for landscaping, and the proposed means of landscaping. The proposed alternative is in Section 2M of the Development Manual to be found in PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Development Manual. The original proposal suggested only to use the alternative compliance on certain lots in the development. Staff has suggested a condition to revise the proposal to apply the alternative compliance on all lots subject to a requirement for a formal landscaping plan. We consider this to be a more predictable, uniform, and cohesive approach. Numerous deviations relating to landscaping were requested as listed above. These are necessitated by the more urban character of the development with lesser width of yards and so forth. Staff is supportive of most of these deviations as part of the overall superior outcome provided by the project. Staff has not supported those deviations which would not require screening of surface parking lots on Blocks 4 and 25 from adjacent rights of way. Conditions relating to the character of the landscaping are included in the Conditions of Approval section. 8. Open space. The proposal provides a significant amount of open space through the provision of setbacks for watercourses and the avoidance of existing wetlands. The application also depicts public parks and other private open spaces. The primary character of the open spaces and parks is informal and not oriented at intensive organized activities. The total open spaces comprise more than half of the total development acreage. See PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Parks & Open Space Plan. A deviation has been requested to enable the 150 square feet per dwelling required by Section 18.50.020.C, BMC to be aggregated within the project rather than provided on each lot. Staff is supportive of this deviation. Deviations for alternative yards have also been requested. These are discussed in Criterion 10 below. The applicant has proposed a coordinated parks plan to satisfy the requirements of Chapter 18.50. The final parks plan shall be provided with the final PUD plan. A waiver of right to protest a parks maintenance district shall be provided to allow for future City maintenance of the public parks. In order to minimize impacts on wetlands some trails should be removed as they are redundant for the purpose of circulation. Conditions relating 255 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 15 to the character of the open spaces and parks are included in the Conditions of Approval section of the Subdivision review. 9. Building location and height. The applicant is requesting deviations to standards in the Bozeman Municipal Code for Sections 18.16.060, 18.18.060, and 18.20.060, Building Height; to allow a maximum building height of 75 feet for a flat roof pitch for some buildings. See PUD Application, Volume I, Tab H for description of heights for individual buildings. The revised cultural resources inventory provided with the Subdivision Application, Volume II, Tab 7 indicate that the existing Mill elevator is 110 feet in height and the brick multi-story mill building is 88 feet in height. Deviations were also requested to enable additional height for solar and wind power generation equipment. See PUD Application, Volume I, Tab H for maps and tables with detailed locations and height. Staff finds these deviations to be acceptable. The deviations are primarily constrained to the general vicinity of the existing mill buildings which provide a context and precedent for the taller structures. There has been an analysis of viewsheds and massing of proposed buildings. See PUD Application, Volume I, Tab 3 Viewsheds, Tab L, and Tab Development Manual, aerial renderings. Larger buildings have been sited in a manner that preserves views to the historic mill and do not intrude on existing residential land owners. The additional height for roof mounted equipment has been integrated with the rest of the development proposal and appears reasonable. Conditions relating to building height are included in the Conditions of Approval section The large metal sided grain elevator located to the south of the main mill building is a significant and character defining built feature in the project. Although an individual site plan has not been provided for this portion of the project, the updated cultural resources inventory indicates that due to structural and environmental factors the building may be removed. The expressed intent is to reconstruct a building of similar mass and form slightly further to the south. The existing elevator is a lawful non-conforming use. The lawful status would typically be lost upon removal of the elevator per 18.60.050, BMC. Applicants have called out in the application their desire for approval, through the PUD, for the ability to reconstruct the elevator. A condition to require the reconstruction to maintain the essential form and location of the elevator has been developed. 10. Setbacks. Deviations have been requested for setbacks in all but one of the zoning districts, Residential Suburban, present on the site. See PUD Application, Volume I, Tab H. The deviations are sought either to encourage the more urban form of the development such as on Block 3 or because of an alternative lotting arrangement such as on Block 2. A deviation has also been requested for the entryway setback along Bridger Drive. Deviations have been requested to allow parking to encroach into surface and subsurface setbacks. Staff generally finds the setbacks reasonable given the overall character of the proposed development. The deviations for setback encroachments for shared parking structures is a more formal manner of sanctioning a commonly accepted practice often addressed through an easement. The deviation does not conflict with the regulations and avoids any future confusion about intent in the approval. Staff does not support deviations for surface parking to enable parking lots to the property line. Required screening for parking must be provided. So long as the 256 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 16 screening is provided staff does support a yard reduction to the extent enabled by the screening mechanism. Screening of parking lots is discussed in Section 18.48.050.C.2.a, BMC. The requirement for screening, although located in the landscaping section, does not mandate the use vegetation as the screen. Therefore, the required screening could be an appropriately located and sized fence or wall as well as landscaping. Staff believes that minor adjustments should be made to deviations for building location so that rights of way are not encroached upon by structural elements of new buildings. The existing structures of the Mill itself may require a 0 foot setback as the ability to move the street or buildings is limited. Conditions relating to setbacks are included in the Conditions of Approval section. 11. Lighting. The project will provide subdivision lighting in accordance with Section 18.42.150.C, BMC. An alternative lighting plan, including fixture standards, has been proposed. See Subdivision Application, Volume III, Tab 18. The integrated lighting plan appears to meet the intent and purpose of the City’s lighting regulations. A variety of lighting types is included in the plan to provide lighting not only for public streets but also building sites, trails, and parks. PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Development Manual, section 2K describes the implementation of the lighting plan on individual sites. The alternative standard proposed includes shorter pole heights and closer spacing. Height and spacing are directly related in lighting. The alternative standard includes a variety of coordinated fixtures with similar style. A suspended light is included over the festival street Mill Spur Avenue. A deviation for lighting has been requested. The deviation allows two lights to not be 100% full cutoff. One light is an upwash for architectural and landscaping highlights. The other is a pole mounted light with a slight band above the fixture which omits a small amount of light also for purposes of architectural highlights and vegetation accents. See lighting plan luminaire M3 and M9. Luminaire M3 is the primary street light on the local streets. Luminaire M8 is a pathway light with the light source up and under the emitting surface of the fixture. The lighting plan includes maps of the location of proposed lighting fixtures and types. 12. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities. The project will provide utilities in accordance with the Bozeman Municipal Code and recently adopted updated facilities plans. The design reports for utilities shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for review prior to construction of each phase. The project proposes private stormwater utility which will provide some additional complexities in design and installation. This is further discussed in item 13 below. Plans and specifications for each type of infrastructure shall be reviewed by the Engineering Division prior to construction. The application requests concurrent construction of buildings and infrastructure for Phases 1 and 2 of the development. See PUD Application, Volume 1, Tab 1G. Applicant indicates a willingness to conform to the City’s requirements for concurrent construction. The project will require some large off-site expansions of water and sewer infrastructure. The facility plan contemplates the necessary expansions. Applicants have made request for some of 257 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 17 the larger items to be included on the applicable impact fee capital improvement program. If the Commission allows the inclusion it would make impact fee credits available for non-project related elements of the work. Private utilities, such as power and telecommunications, are provided during the subdivision review process. For further discussion of these items please see the subdivision staff report. 13. Site surface drainage and storm water control. Storm water detention areas have been shown on the plan. The design report for storm water control has been submitted to the Engineering Department for review. An integrated storm water control design is part of the development design. See PUD Application, Volume I, Tab 1L, section 16. The developed portion of the site has a high percentage of impervious cover due to existing and proposed buildings and streets. Storm water has been reduced with alternative street designs which reduce impervious area. The capture and treatment of storm water prior to discharge has been incorporated into open spaces and is depicted in the open space plan. See PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Parks and Open Space Plan, individual designs. As part of the subdivision some conditions of approval have been developed to ensure that stormwater facilities do not conflict with other utilities and can be located in the future. 14. Loading and unloading areas. A deviation was requested to not provide a full size loading dock as required by Section 18.42.140, BMC. The dock would be required for the redevelopment of the existing flour warehouse and mill building on Block 4 as the combined size would be in excess of 15,000 square feet. The individual tenants are anticipated to be less than 15,000 square feet each. Staff supports the deviation with some restrictions on hours of operation for loading and unloading activities. Hours of operation are important due to the noise factor of large vehicles and backing warning devices in close proximity to existing residential development. Access to site tenants will be provided through a proposed parking lot or Mill Spur Avenue. Conditions relating to loading are included in the Conditions of Approval section. 15. Grading. The site is mostly mild in slope with a significant hillside on the east. Elevation change is primarily associated with water features such as creek banks or wetlands. The areas of greatest change in grade are preserved as open spaces/parks. Plans and specifications for utilities, roads and storm water control will address grading of developed areas and be submitted to the Engineering Department for review. Significant cuts or fills have largely been avoided except for the residential structures at the toe of the Story Hills. 16. Signage. The application does not include a request for an individual sign. The application does include an overall sign proposal. The location of commercial signage is shown in the final pages of the Development Manual and Section 4 of the Development Manual, page 94, describes the character of signage to be allowed within the development. No pole signs are to be allowed although monument signs are permitted. The following signage deviations have been requested. First, an allowance for sandwich board signs in the commercial area. Second, a greater area and dimension for projecting signs. Third, an increase in allowed signage area within the B-1 district. See PUD Application, Volume I, Tab H. 258 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 18 The sandwich board sign is typically used in a heavily pedestrian environment. The applicants have proposed a development with a visually active street and a pedestrian orientation in design and land use configuration. The sandwich board sign deviation seems reasonable in this circumstance. Placement of sandwich board signs can pose a hazard if not done properly. The City has an existing program to manage sandwich board signs in the downtown area. Any approval for sandwich board signs should also include requirements to follow the existing program to address matters of public safety and liability. The second and third deviations go together. The B-1 district is normally occupied by smaller buildings with one or a few tenants. A lesser quantity of signage, 80 square feet, is therefore adequate to serve those needs. Applicants have requested deviations for a larger quantity of signage, up to 250 square feet per lot, within the B-1 district. The proposed use of those lots is for multi- tenant occupancy. Due to the physical layout suggested for the commercial areas there will not be room for monument or poles signs. Pole signs are prohibited by Section 4B of the Development Manual, PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Development Manual. Signage will be primarily building mounted. The proposed deviation for larger projecting signs, up to 50 square feet, will act to off set the lack of a free standing sign and provide larger areas for presentation of business identification and creative graphics. Signage is measured by enclosing the sign within a simple geometric shape such as an oval or rectangle. An unusual sign may have empty areas within its enclosing shape which are not part of the sign but count towards its total area. The Development Manual encourages unusual signs. The larger projecting signs may require special anchoring in the building to take wind loading. Such items must be addressed during the necessary sign permitting process. Conditions relating to signs are included in the Conditions of Approval section. 17. Screening. The majority of the development is residential and will not require specific screening. However, there are several parking lots in the development along Bridger Drive and Hillside Lane that will require screening. The addition of screening will affect requested deviations as described under Criterion 10 above. A deviation has been requested to not screen rooftop mechanical equipment. This is to allow for solar and wind power generation. Screening is likely to interfere with the function of this equipment. Screening of other mechanical equipment must still be provided. Conditions relating to screening are included in the Conditions of Approval section. 18. Overlay district provisions. This development lies within two different overlay districts, the N. Rouse/Bridger Drive Entryway Overlay District and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The two districts do not overlap each other. The entryway is along the Bridger Drive frontage. The Conservation Overlay applies to the area of the Story Mill Historic District which primarily includes the mill complex, stockyards, and slaughterhouse complex. The review for these two overlay districts is presented below. 19. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties. One letter in opposition to the project has been received to date citing impacts on area character. Three other letters have been received with comments regarding specific elements of the 259 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 19 proposal. One letter has been received in support of the project. Public comment was received during the Planning Board public hearing. The minutes of the hearing have been included with the recommendation of the Planning Board regarding the subdivision. The Cultural Resource Inventory identified three historic sites outside of the existing Story Mil Historic District as well as several structures within the district which have become eligible for historic status since the original nomination for the historic district. Not all structures can be reused or protected in their current locations given the proposed development and some have been heavily altered over the years. However, some of the structures do show potential for preservation especially those identified as 24GA1774 and 24GA1773c. During development of mitigation plans, rehabilitation and reuse of the structures within the project boundaries should be strongly considered. Revision and updating of the Story Mill Historic District will become necessary due to the considerable changes to occur in the area if the development is approved. 20. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation or other means of addressing requirements of this title, whether the lots are either: a. Configured so that the sale of individual lots will not alter the approved configuration or use of the property or cause the development to become nonconforming; or b. The subject of reciprocal and perpetual easements or other agreements to which the City is a party so that the sale of individual lots will not cause one or more elements of the development to become nonconforming. Easements and other coordinating instruments are required for interrelated lots. Conditions relating to this subject are included in the Conditions of Approval section. Section 18.34.100 City Commission Consideration and Findings for Conditional Use Permits – Applies to all the project In addition to the review criteria outlined above, the City Commission shall, in approving a conditional use permit, find favorably as follows: 1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and topography to accommodate such use, and all yards, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading and landscaping are adequate to properly relate such use with the land and uses in the vicinity. Other than as noted in the conditions recommended for approval, the site is generally adequate in size and topography to accommodate the potential uses and related site improvements. Yards have been placed and uses configured to reduce impact on adjacent development. 2. That the proposed use will have no material adverse effect upon the abutting property. Story Mill Neighborhood is a large multi-owner coordinated development. It is bounded by significant hill to the east, an arterial street to the north and west, industrial users to the west, and low density residential to the south and north-east. The closest proximity residential is to the north- east. This area of the project has been proposed to be primarily detached homes adjacent to the existing development. The transition will avoid most effects related to massing and placement of buildings. The development will be extending municipal services which will mitigate demands for water and sewer and other health and safety matters. The section of Hillside Lane passing through the project will be upgraded to a paved street from its current gravel condition and municipal utilities extended to the eastern boundary for future extension to the east. The most significant 260 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 20 impact identified is the visual impact of larger buildings to the west of the existing low density residential development along Hillside Lane and Bridger Drive. Considerable existing mature vegetation exists on the adjacent site to provide a visual breakup of building massing and western views in the area are the less significant. Off-site impacts will be mitigated under other review criteria and conditions relating to mitigation of impacts are included in the Conditions of Approval section. Phasing requirements will ensure that the initial work, including paving of Story Mill Road and Hillside Lane to access existing development, will occur early in the process. The conditions of approval require completion of a phase’s infrastructure work before subsequent phase is undertaken. This will minimize disruption to adjacent owners. 3. That any additional conditions stated in the approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to: a. Regulation of use. Uses will largely be consistent with the underlying zoning. b. Special yards, spaces and buffers. No need for special requirements has been identified. A vegetative buffer along the NE edge of Block 1 has been proposed. c. Special fences, solid fences and walls. None identified as needed beyond the character defined in Section 2N of the Development Manual, PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Development Manual. A fence should be placed along the Story Mill Spur trail to demarcate the boundary. d. Surfacing of parking areas. No special conditions are recommended addressing surfacing of parking areas. e. Requiring street, service road or alley dedications and improvements or appropriate bonds. All public streets, lanes and alleys will be dedicated or provided as easements and shall be improved to an approved standard. Additional requirements are provided in the subdivision review. A waiver of right to protest creation of SIDs to benefit future users of the development shall be provided for major infrastructure elements. f. Regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress. Conditions of approval have been developed under the subdivision review to address this issue. g. Regulation of signs. A common signage plan has been proposed with deviations. See the discussion under site plan criterion 16. Any existing non-conforming signage must come into compliance with Chapter 18.52, BMC. h. Requiring maintenance of the grounds. Planning Staff has not recommended any additional conditions addressing maintenance. The proposed covenants address this matter i. Regulation of noise, vibrations and odors. Conditions addressing noise have been proposed. The condition relates to the loading and unloading timing and is contained in the Conditions of Approval section. 261 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 21 j. Regulation of hours for certain activities. No additional conditions are recommended addressing regulation of hours for certain activities other than loading and unloading. k. Time period within which the proposed use shall be developed The applicant must submit the Final Site Plan within 1 year of City Commission approval. An extended approval period has been requested as part of the subdivision approval. See the subdivision review for further discussion. The developer has requested an extended approval period for the initial preliminary plat and final PUD plan due to the extensive size and complexity of the project. Anticipated development period is ten years with one phase occurring roughly each year. The typical approval period for a multi-phase subdivision is three years with opportunity for up to two year extension. This limitation represents a concern for the possibility that a project will “hang” unmoving for a considerable period of time and then begin again. Standards for development change due to legislative and legal actions, changing knowledge, and community concerns. The request for additional review time raises the possibility of conflict between current standards, future needs for public safety, and changing developer desires. Several conditions of approval have been developed to provide the City with additional surety that the development will proceed as represented over the extended period of time. First, easements are required with the first phase for all public parks and streets. These are the “bones” of any development and by establishing them legally it provides a much greater level of surety that locations and alignments will be respected over time. Second, a subdivision condition regarding the number of phases under development at any given time has been established so that development proceeds at an orderly pace and approach. Third, in order to ensure either the timely completion of the PUD, its active development, or its termination a condition regarding the timing of approval has been developed. l. Duration of use. Conditional use permits run with the land, subject to application and adherence to all special conditions of approval. A condition addressing potential termination of the PUD if development is not timely has been developed. m. Requiring the dedication of access rights. It is a code provision that all rights of way or access easements be dedicated. Additional right of way will be required for Bridger Drive and Story Mill Road as well as the local streets to be provided with the subdivision. n. Other such conditions as will make possible the development of the City in an orderly and efficient manner. Any additional conditions stated in this approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. The lots in Block 20 have frontage on two streets. In order to protect and enhance the character of the entryway into Bozeman it is important that a “front” yard function and appearance be provided oriented to Bridger Drive. The proposed development has been offered as a US Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) project. This has been represented as a significant method to satisfying the goals and objectives of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan and the review criteria of Title 18, Unified Development 262 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 22 Ordinance, BMC. The standards for LEED-ND certification have been cited as a reason to request deviations from typical City of Bozeman development standards. Therefore, it is important that since the City has relied upon these representations in reviewing and approving the project that the project be completed in conformance with LEED-ND standards as described in PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Development Manual, section 5 and Tab 1J LEED for Neighborhood Development. Chapter 18.36 “Planned Unit Development Design Objectives and Criteria” – Applicable to portions of the project based upon proposed uses as outlined in the criteria. In addition to the review criteria outlined for site plan and conditional use permit review, the City Commission shall, in approving a planned unit development, find favorably as follows: All Development (1) Does the development comply with all City design standards, requirements and specifications for the following services: water supply, trails/walks/bike ways, sanitary supply, irrigation companies, fire protection, electricity, flood hazard areas, natural gas, telephone, storm drainage, cable television, and streets? The development generally complies with city design standards. A requested deviation for a ditch easement width is not recommended for approval. Applicants have proposed alternative street standards to reduce storm drainage. A storm water management system to capture and reuse water is proposed. Extensive trails and bicycle facilities are proposed. Construction will correspond with adopted City standards. (2) Does the project preserve or replace existing natural vegetation? The site has been actively developed for many years and much of the natural vegetation has been removed. Most of the remaining natural vegetation is along the East Gallatin River and Bozeman Creek boundaries and associated wetlands. The application generally avoids those areas except for bridges and existing streets. The site layout seeks to preserve mature existing trees in phase 5 and 6. It is proposed to utilize native species in the project’s proposed landscaping standards, see PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Design Manual, Sections 2M, 2R, and 2S. Applicants further propose to remediate damaged wetlands on site by removing fill and trash and restoring appropriate vegetation while controlling noxious weeds which are prevalent on the site. (3) Are the elements of the site plan (e.g., buildings, circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) designed and arranged to produce an efficient, functionally organized and cohesive planned unit development? With both vehicular and pedestrian connectivity, the elements of the site plan are designed to produce an efficient, functionally organized and cohesive planned unit development. (4) Does the design and arrangement of elements of the site plan (e.g. building construction, orientation, and placement; transportation networks; selection and placement of landscape materials; and/or use of renewable energy sources; etc.) contribute to the overall reduction of energy use by the project? The availability of internal pedestrian circulation created by sidewalks, pathways, and the trail system contribute to the overall reduction of energy use by the project. The internal system also connects with and extends external trail and bicycle systems which will facilitate others in the 263 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 23 area to use these types of travel. The application includes a requested deviation to facilitate development of on-site renewable electric power through solar and wind. A commercial node is proposed to provide services to project residents and other existing users in the area. This has the potential to reduce total vehicle miles traveled and corresponding reductions in energy consumption. (5) Are the elements of the site plan (e.g. buildings, circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) designed and arranged to maximize the privacy by the residents of the project? Within the PUD, the residential areas are generally designed for some level of privacy, with streets and open space corridors providing separation. Multiple parks and open spaces are provided which provide space for personal enjoyment. (6) Park Land. Does the design and arrangement of buildings and open space areas contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of the site configuration, and has the area of park land or open space been provided for each proposed dwelling as required by §18.50.020, BMC? This project has provided a coordinated park plan for all phases. See PUD Application Volume I, Tab Parks & Open Space Plan and Subdivision Application, Volume III, Tab 16 . The parks are oriented to existing natural features, linear pathways, and urban style plazas. Adequate area has been provided to satisfy the minimum requirements for dedicated parks. Additional open space has been provided through large watercourse setbacks. (7) Performance. All PUDs shall earn at least twenty performance points. The application shows in PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Review Criteria, page 34 a calculation of how it has satisfied the required performance points. (8) Is the development being properly integrated into development and circulation patterns of adjacent and nearby neighborhoods so that this development will not become an isolated “pad” to adjoining development? The design of the PUD provides integrated circulation patterns with connections to all adjacent streets. The proposed pedestrian plan within the PUD will provide open access for all neighborhoods to enjoy the open space areas and trail system. Residential Development – Only applicable to residentially zoned areas (1) On a net acreage basis, is the average residential density in the project (calculated for residential portion of the site only) consistent with the development densities set forth in the land use guidelines of the Bozeman growth policy? Yes, PUD application, Volume I, Tab Development Manual towards the end has a unit density chart. Section 6.2.2 of the growth policy describes future land use requirements. One portion of that discussion is related to residential density as shown on page 6-17. No specific minimum standard was established although the effect of increasing density on land use demand is described. The residential development density is established through the City’s zoning standards. The residential areas of the project are primarily zoned as R-4, the City’s highest density residential 264 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 24 zoning district. The typical maximum allowed density in R-4 based solely upon the amount of land area required per dwelling is slightly over 32 dwellings per net acre. The application has requested deviations for lot area to allow density in excess of 32 dwellings per net acre on Blocks 7, 8, 9, 13, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, and 30. Net density averaged over the entire residential area of the development is presented as 29 dwellings per acre. The higher density represents a transfer of density within the net developable residentially zoned land within the development. There are also dwellings shown within future buildings in the commercial and industrial areas. There is no maximum dwelling density established within the non-residential areas. This has the functional effect of reducing the density within residential areas below the mathematical 29 dwellings per acre. (2) Does the project provide for private outdoor areas (e.g., private yards, patios and balconies, etc.) for use by the residents and employees of the project which are sufficient in size and have adequate light, sun, ventilation, privacy and convenient access to the household or commercial units they are intended to serve? The project provides for a variety of outdoor areas, with both private yards, balconies, roof gardens, and public spaces as formal and informal parks. (3) Does the project provide for outdoor areas for use by persons living and working in the development for active or passive recreational activities? The project provides outdoor areas that include a variety of linear and other parks, with areas for active and passive recreation, as well as pedestrian trail(s). Meadow Park provides the area most conducive to structured activities and has both vegetated and hard surface areas. (4) If the project is proposing a residential density bonus as described below, does it include a variety of housing types and styles designed to address community wide issues of affordability and diversity of housing stock? A residential density bonus is not proposed above the overall density allowed within the zoning on the site. This project has provide a variety of housing types to date, including single household, townhouse, and multi household on 174 lots plus 48 non-residential lots. See Subdivision Application, Volume I, Tab Development Review App and PrePlat Checklist. The first two phases proposed at this time will include single household, townhouse, and condominium mixed use types of residences. (5) Is the overall project designed to enhance the natural environment, conserve energy and to provide efficient public services and facilities? The overall project is designed to enhance the natural environment, conserve energy and to provide efficient public services and facilities. Application has been made as a LEED-ND project as described in the PUD Application, Volume I, Tab 1J. LEED-ND requires a significant commitment to energy conservation and protection of the environment. (6) Residential Density Bonus. Not applicable. (7) Limited Commercial. Not applicable. 265 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 25 (8) Does the overall PUD recognize and, to the maximum extent possible, preserve and promote the unique character of neighborhoods in the surrounding area? Yes. The diverse nature of the surrounding area results in adjacent “neighborhoods” of low intensity industrial uses such as cold storage and shops to the west, medium intensity industrial/office north of Bridger Drive, larger lot residential development to the east with a typical lot size of one acre, urban density residences and golf course along Story Mill Road north of Bridger Drive. The existing Mill complex, Volmer slaughterhouse complex and stockyard complex are distinctive from the surrounding in type and intensity of use, scale and materials of buildings. The PUD has provided various buffering/transitions to adjacent areas to reduce impacts from intensification of development. Examples are reductions in density in proximity to existing residential uses, vegetative buffering, preservation of open spaces and natural features such as wetlands and slopes. This helps preserve the unique character of adjacent neighborhoods. Given the 106.7 acre infill site and existing historic development pattern the PUD supports and preserves the unique character of adjacent neighborhoods. See also discussion under Commercial Development Criterion 5. Commercial Development – Only applicable to commercially zoned areas (1) If the project contains any use intended to provide adult amusement or entertainment, does it meet the requirements for adult businesses? No adult businesses have been proposed. Any future proposals will require separate zoning review. Adult businesses are limited to M-1 and M-2 zoning and have special review standards which apply. Unless the special review standards were changed and the allowed zoning districts revised adult businesses could not located within the Story Mill Neighborhood project. (2) Is the project contiguous to an arterial street, and has adequate but controlled access been provided? Yes, access along North Rouse/Bridger Drive has been provided at defined local and collector street intersections. (3) Is the project on at least two acres of land? Yes, the site is over 106 acres in size. (4) If the project contains two or more significant uses (for instance, retail, office, residential, hotel/motel and recreation), do the uses relate to each other in terms of location within the PUD, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, architectural design, utilization of common open space and facilities, etc.? Yes, See PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Development Manual for a description of the design character which will address these issues. (5) Is it compatible with and does it reflect the unique character of the surrounding area? Yes, the proposed development has clustered the most intensive development away from existing adjacent residences. The architectural character proposed carries forward the industrial history of 266 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 26 the site. The most visually prominent buildings on the site, the Mill complex will be renovated, although some buildings will be replaced. See PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Development Manual and Subdivision Application, Volume II, Tab Historical Features, as update on October 15, 2007. The proposed uses expand the long existing role of residential development on the site and continue to provide opportunity for non-residential uses. The PUD layout respects the watercourses on the site and minimizes wetland impacts. When completed the development will be more intensive than previously existed and will have a different built character. Compatible and Compatible Development are defined in Chapter 18.80, BMC. The proposed project with mitigation of impact as proposed and the conditions of approval will meet the requirements to be found compatible. (6) Is there direct vehicular and pedestrian access between on-site parking areas and adjacent existing or future off-site parking areas which contain more than ten spaces? Yes. Some of the proposed parking is within below ground structures. Access to these parking areas is necessarily limited. Where surface parking is proposed it has been appropriately connected. (7) Does the project encourage infill, or does the project otherwise demonstrate compliance with the land use guidelines of the Bozeman growth policy? Yes, see the discussion under Site Plan Review Criteria number one. The entire site is an infill development and is surrounded by existing development on approximately 75% of the perimeter of the development. (8) Does the project provide for outdoor recreational areas (such as additional landscaped areas, open spaces, trails or picnic areas) for the use and enjoyment of those living in, working in or visiting the development? Yes, see the discussion above on parks, open spaces, and trails. Industrial – Only applicable to industrially zoned areas (1) Is the project located adjacent to an arterial or collector street that provides adequate access to the site? The site has access via project constructed local streets to North Rouse Avenue/Bridger Drive, an arterial street, and Story Mill/L Street, a collector street. (2) Is the project developed such that the least intense uses shall be located along the arterial streets, where visibility to the public is likely? More intense uses such as heavy industrial uses and warehousing activities will be located away from the arterial streets, buffered by the other uses. The industrial components of this project are located on Blocks 10 and 11 and are away from arterial streets. (3) Does the project utilize a landscaping theme that will tie adjacent uses or projects together? Yes, see PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Development Manual, section 2M. 267 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 27 (4) Is the project being developed on land substantially surrounded by property approved for development or developed property with existing services and utilities already available? Portions of the property are already served with municipal water and sewer. All of the site lies within the City’s service area and lines may be extended or already exist in portions of the site. The entire site is within the City at this time and receives all of the City’s general government services. (5) Does the project provide for outdoor recreational areas (e.g., additional landscaped areas, open space, trails or picnic areas) for the use and enjoyment of those working in or visiting the development? Yes, see the discussion above on parks, open spaces, and trails. DESIGN OBJECTIVES PLAN CRITERIA Review under these criteria is for Blocks 1, 2, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, and 26 in general and for Phase 1 in detail. The primary area for this review is limited to the entryway corridor area along Bridger Drive. The majority of the overall PUD site is not within the overlay corridor. The Development Manual is organized according to the same pattern as the Design Objectives Plan (DOP) and includes the same topics and order. Some additional elements have been included. For example, in Section 2H the standard DOP elements were expanded by items 2H7 through 2H10. Review for the Phase 5 - 7 components will be provided with a future application. The standard thresholds for Entryway Overlay review in Chapters 18.30 and 18.34, BMC apply. 1. Neighborhood Design (pages 9-14 of the Design Objectives Plan): A. Green Space - The existing watercourses, setbacks and wetlands are being preserved as green spaces. The stormwater detention facilities are located within the green space. The Bridger Drive setback will be landscaped to Design Objectives Plan standards. A landscaped common open space is provided at the SE intersection of Story Mill Rd and Bridger Drive. B. Auto Connections – Accesses are limited in location. Local streets make the connections to Bridger Drive. Interior streets connect within the development and provide a fine grade connectivity. Underground parking garages span several of the lots in mutual support of the above ground development. There are few at grade parking areas. Hillside Lane is moving to the south and Mill Spur Ave is providing north-south circulation between Blocks 1 and 2. C. Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections - Sidewalks will connect to regional trails. Sidewalks are provided along all internal street frontages. The trails have been integrated with the sidewalks through the parks and open space plan. The planned ped/bicycle facility along Bridger Drive will be provided either by the State during rebuilding of Rouse/Bridger or with Phase 5 whichever comes first. D. Street Character - The primary character along Bridger Drive will be residential in character. Existing development along that frontage has been actively developed as residential uses for over three decades. Bridger Drive is a planned principal arterial. A pedestrian trail is planned along the street. There are numerous large evergreen trees adjacent to the right of way which are intended to be preserved. Building character is 268 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 28 described in the Development Manual Sections 1F, 1L, 1M, and 3M. A condition requiring coordination of fencing adjacent to Bridger Drive and architectural character as the “front” of the home has been developed. Block 1 has townhomes facing onto Story Mill Rd. The homes have an orientation to the street and materials reminiscent of the existing Story Mill. Street trees are provided along all public frontages. 2. Site Design (pages 15-36 of the Design Objectives Plan): A. Natural Features - The existing watercourses, setbacks and wetlands are being preserved as green spaces. The majority of the Story Hill to the east is being set aside as a park and will remain a highly visible open space. B. Views - Buildings should not significantly obstruct views. The Mill buildings are the tallest elements on the site with several structures between 88-110 feet high. The tallest new proposed buildings are 75 feet in height and will allow the Mill to remain as the visual focus of the development. A series of viewshed illustrations are shown in the Development Manual. C. Cultural Resources – An updated Cultural Resource Inventory has been provided on October 15, 2007. A final draft will be required as part of the final PUD plan. There is a portion of the site located within the Story Mill Historic District, including the main mill buildings, slaughterhouse, and stock yard complex. Some of the structures will be removed, some renovated, as described in PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Development Manual, section 6. Some required revisions and inclusion of updated information is required in the Conditions of Approval section. The historic resources are located outside of the entryway corridor and will be more completely addressed in the review section for historic preservation. D. Topography – Site work is planned to protect topographic assets. Also see discussion under site plan criteria. E. Site Drainage – Storm drains are piped, with the stormwater detention facilities located in the green space. Efforts have been made to reduce surface run off such as the use of permeable paving for Mill Spur Avenue. This subject has been addressed in the subdivision review. F. Building Placement – The buildings in this PUD are an urban style close proximity arrangement. Larger buildings are grouped, mostly in proximity to the primary Mill complex. Reduced setbacks have been requested to allow buildings placed in near proximity to streets and sidewalks. The large building in the SW corner of the intersection of Story Mill Rd and Bridger Drive has been requested to be placed within 10 feet of the Bridger Drive right of way. This will provide a strong statement at the corner. The NW corner of the intersection also has a building located in proximity to the street but it is a single story with a false front. The townhomes along Story Mill Rd and Hillside Lane are placed in close proximity to the street to present a common façade with breaks between townhome groups. In Sector E of Phase 1 a townhome cluster is proposed as a deviation to allow a larger grouping than normally permitted. Placement of homes on Block 1 is arranged to minimize the proximity to adjacent existing dwellings. G. Outdoor Public Spaces – Numerous public plazas and parks have been provided in the overall design which will facilitate public interaction and provide spaces for community activities. The public park along the East Gallatin River bisects the development and is the primary natural feature/open space on the project. 269 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 29 H. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Systems – Sidewalks will connect to regional trails. The key pedestrian systems will be continued with bridges over watercourses enabling convenient access to all parts of the development. Sidewalks or their equivalent are provided along all internal street frontages. A trail along Bridger Drive will be provided either by the development or by MDOT when Rouse/Bridger Drive is rebuilt. See discussion above. I. Internal Automobile Circulation Systems – A hierarchy of streets and alleys has been provided. Access points for larger buildings have been coordinated. J. Parking Lots – The parking for most large buildings includes some underground parking which will minimize the visibility of the car. A deviation has been sought to not screen the surface parking on Block 26 and 4. Staff has recommended that screening be provided and conditions of approval have been placed to require screening. K. Site Lighting – An alternate lighting design has been proposed. It appears to meet the intent and purpose of the City’s lighting requirements. Some upward or unshielded light is proposed for design purposes. L. Utilities and Service Areas – Service areas are oriented away from the major streets and integrated into the building design. M. Landscape Design – An alternate landscaping proposal has been made for certain lots, see PUD Application, Tab Development Manual, section 2M. Staff has recommended that its application be expanded and that it replace the performance standards of Section 18.48.060, BMC throughout the project. The requested deviations for yard setbacks would have made the provision of adequate landscaping points difficult if not impossible. N. Buffers – Landscaped buffers are provided and must be enhanced to buffer incompatible uses. 3. Building Design (pages 37-48 of the Design Objectives Plan): A. Building & Topography – No specific buildings are proposed on Blocks 20 and 25 at this time. The area of Blocks 1 and 2 is generally flat and unrestricted. B. Building Character - The proposed buildings reflects the regional urban character and the architectural history of the Story Mill. There are no buildings designed yet for Blocks 20 and 25. The design character is contained in Chapter 3 of the Development Manual . C. Primary Building Entrance - The primary building entrances face towards Hillside Lane and Story Mill Rd. The lots along Block 20 have frontage along both Bridger Drive and Millrace Street. It is important that neither street be ignored by the adjacent architecture. A condition of approval has been developed to require “double frontage” design. D. Street Level Interest - Materials and details must be used as shown on the elevation study of the buildings and as described in the Development Manual to provide street level interest. E. Building Mass & Scale- The mass and scale is variable with a range from detached homes to townhomes to substantial multi-use buildings. As discussed in review criteria above the mass and scale is proportional to existing site development or has been appropriately transitioned to adjacent less intensive uses. F. Roof Form- The primary roof form is flat with variable projections for enclosure of mechanical equipment and access ways. 270 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 30 G. Building Materials- See PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Development Manual, Sections 3 and 6. A diversity of materials is acceptable, however industrial type materials such as brick, wood, metal, and concrete are most evocative of the historical development of the Story Mill and other existing structures. It is not required that materials duplicate those used in existing historic structures but modern interpretations of those materials are encouraged. H. Building Complex - This PUD is divided into 7 areas which are subject to a common design standard while recognizing distinct character for each area. See PUD Application, Volume I, Tab Development Manual . I. Service Canopies- Not applicable. The policy is specific to gas station canopy design and none are proposed. J. Color- The guidelines recommend natural tones to blend in and reduce perceived scale. The primary building elements are in stone, wood, and earth tones with bolder colors in the signage. K. Utilities & Mechanical Equipment- The Bozeman Municipal Code and the Design Objectives Plan require all mechanical equipment to be screened from view. Deviations have been requested to not screen solar and wind electrical generation equipment. Staff is supportive of this deviation. All other equipment must be screened. 4. Sign Design (pages 49-56 of the Design Objectives Plan): A. Sign Context & Position – A comprehensive sign plan is provided in Section 4 of the Development Manual. Only Blocks 25 and 26 are likely to contain substantive signage. B. Sign Type – No pole signs are permitted. A diversity of sign types is described. Two deviations have been requested for additional signage within the B-1 zoned areas and to exceed the normally allowed size and dimensions of projecting signs. Analysis of this issue is under Criterion 16 of the site plan review section. C. Sign Materials – White backgrounds are not appropriate. D. Sign Lighting – Internal illumination is discouraged. E. Sign Content - All signs will comply with the Bozeman Municipal Code. F. Wall Murals – none proposed at this time but public art is encouraged.. 5. Corridor Specific Guidelines: North Rouse/Bridger Drive Corridor (pages 86-91 of the Design Objectives Plan) 1. Bridger Drive east of the Story Mill Road intersection, should be relatively narrow in keeping with the rural arterial road character. The proposed development intends to preserve the majority of existing mature trees along the Bridger Drive right of way and in several parks or open spaces. The Department of Transportation 2. A pedestrian and bicycle boulevard trail shall be provided. The boulevard trail called for in the DOP shall be installed either by the developer or by MDOT with the rebuild of Bridger Drive. 3. Build upon the “industrial style” architecture that exists along Rouse. 271 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 31 Coordinate Sections 3B and 3G of the Development Manual to explicitly tie to the requirements of the Design Objectives Plan for North Rouse/Bridger Drive on pages 89 and 90. 4. Build upon the “rural and mountain style” architecture that exists along Bridger Drive. Coordinate Sections 3B and 3G of the Development Manual to explicitly tie to the requirements of the Design Objectives Plan for North Rouse/Bridger Drive on pages 89 and 90. 5. Reduce the visual impact of industrial operations. There are no industrially zoned lots within the project which are overlaid by the corridor. 6. The following streetscape elements would be appropriate in this corridor: The suggested elements, with the exception of the shelter, are included in the proposed development. NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY CRITERIA Section 18.28.050 “Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness” - This section only applies to the portion of the Story Mill Neighborhood located within the Story Mill Historic District or specifically brought within the review criteria by a condition of approval for the PUD. The specific conditions identified in the review at this time are primarily for the Tin Shed, Miller’s Carriage House, Flour Warehouse, and Mill as depicted on the site plans included with the PUD application. These buildings are part of the site plan/COAs for which approval is sought. Some general conditions to help coordinate documents and provide mitigation of impacts are also suggested. As noted in Section 18.28.050.A, BMC below, work done in compliance with the terms of a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) must comply with certain standards. The City of Bozeman has developed locally adopted guidelines to further explain and help decision makers, landowners, and interested parties apply the Secretary of Interior’s standards. The nature of the guidelines and their application require some interpretation and judgment. When full compliance is not able to be achieved, mitigation of impacts may be required to off-set an impact. Mitigation may take many forms including, but not limited to, design changes, use of materials, documentation of a site, providing information about the site to future users, and other options. Evaluation of impact includes the historic significance, site location, and effect of non-historical elements, as well as the structure and architecture. A. All work performed in completion of an approved Certificate of Appropriateness shall be in conformance with the most recent edition of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Published 1995), published by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services, Washington, D.C. (available for review at the Department of Planning). 272 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 32 Phase 1 – The Garden (Parks Property) COA The proposed movement of the existing Story Mill Carriage House (c. 1892), recognized as a contributing building in the original Northern Pacific/Story Mill Historic District, causes an adverse effect to the building due to the change in location and orientation which alters it’s historic context and physical relationship with other Mill buildings and therefore, does not abide by the Secretary of Interior Standards. The impact is recognized to be able to be mitigated and physical integrity of the structure is to be preserved. Mitigation of the adverse effect is conditioned as a combination of historic signage and documentation of the structure and site. Additional information is also being requested to ensure that the proposed treatment of the structure following its relocation abides by the Standards. . If the building is moved, the exterior configuration and fabric (color, materials, etc.) should be maintained in their historic appearance and the structure should have no exterior additions. Phase 2 – The Mill, Tin Shed COA The Flat Storage Warehouse (c. 1950) was not included in the original Northern Pacific/Story Mill Historic District as a contributing structure because it was not fifty years of age at the time of the 1996 nomination. However, the Cultural Resource Inventory conducted by the applicant does recommend the addition of the building to the district as a contributing building due to its close affiliation and proximity to the historic site. The building is proposed to be entirely removed and replaced. The replacement building shares some of the locational and physical characteristics of the Tin Shed which helps preserve the physical relationship between the Mill buildings. The proposed deconstruction of the existing Flat Storage Warehouse causes an adverse effect to the building as it will cease to exist and therefore, does not abide by the Secretary of Interior Standards. Mitigation of the adverse effect is conditioned as standardized historic documentation and salvaging of materials, preferably for reuse within the site to retain as much of the relationship as possible. The salvage and reuse of material is consistent with the standards of LEED. Phase 2 – The Mill, Main Mill Building COA This particular COA project includes alterations to the East Warehouse (c.1883), the Mill Building (pre-1904), the Boiler Room/Administration/Laboratory Building (pre-1904), the Flour Warehouse Building (1912) and the Mill Rail Yard (c. 1883-1943). Because of the applicant’s possible interest in obtaining Federal Tax Incentives with the project, the proposal was delivered to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for their determination of whether or not the project meets the Secretary of Interior Standards (see Pete Brown’s “SHPO Comments on Story Mill Neighborhood Development” letter). SHPO determined that several components of the project do not abide by the Standards and therefore was not eligible for historic preservation tax credits. Planning Staff took SHPO’s comments under advisement and after conducting its own review elaborated the architectural issues below. It is Staff’s intent that the recommended conditions of approval will help the proposal better conform to the Secretary of Interior Standards. Where Standards are not met mitigation is proposed. Alternative means of approaching specific issues may also be explored and when a superior option, in the judgment of the City, is identified it should be utilized. The buildings affected by this COA 273 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 33 are some of the most characteristic of the historic district and provide the origin of the name of the historic district and the proposed PUD. Applicants assert that the COA application as presented recognizes the fact that the zoning on the property has changed to community commercial and storefronts are necessary for businesses to succeed in these spaces. They believe this application is more appropriately described as an adaptive re-use project utilizing a majority of the site’s historic structures as opposed to a preservation project where the site will once again be utilized as a flour mill. Mitigation of the adverse effect is conditioned as a combination of historic signage and interpretive information. Applicants assert that documentation, distinguishing between what is old and what is new, and preserving two structurally supporting walls of the East Warehouse facility and turning the remainder of that space into a pleasing outdoor public plaza area will serve as mitigation of any loss of historic fabric. Historic signage and interpretive information and public education will serve to preserve the historic information important to the entire Story Mill area and persons will be educated by the historic information and signage placed throughout the site. B. Architectural appearance design guidelines used to consider the appropriateness and compatibility of proposed alterations with original design features of subject structures or properties, and with neighboring structures and properties, shall focus upon the following: (NOTE: DISCUSSION BELOW FOR CRITERIA B IS ONLY FOR THE MILL BUILDING COA AS THE PROPOSED TIN SHED WILL REPLACE THE EXISTING FLAT WAREHOUSE ENTIRELY) 1. Height; Overall, the heights of the structures remain unaltered. The non-historic metal-clad addition on the east elevation of the Mill Building is proposed to be replaced by a glass tower that approximately sits at the same height as the historic brick portion of the Mill Building. The COA application as presented asserts that the new glass tower needs to remain as proposed to provide fire department access to the roof and allow room for the elevator override. Recognizing the importance of addressing life safety standards, Staff recommends a condition that the glass tower be compatible with both the adaptive reuse of the building and the historic structure, but is clearly distinguishable from that which is old/historic. This may require revised materials with greater transparency of glass and structural forms, e.g. steel framing, which are industrial in character. Those portions of the tower which may need to protrude above the current height of the building shall be minimized to the extent possible given functional requirements. 2. Proportions of doors and windows; The enlarged openings and new openings proposed on the west elevation of the Flour Warehouse are an item of extensive concern. The openings, in both size and number, are part of the character defining features of the Flour Warehouse. It is important that the character defining features of a historic building are retained with rehabilitation. If changed openings are too expansive for the primary elevation (easily viewed from the 274 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 34 public right of way) it can substantially alter both the appearance and historical integrity of the structure. Large openings should be proposed on the secondary elevations (south and east), as long as they are subtly differentiated from the original so they are not mistaken as historic/original. As recommended with the conditions of approval, all of the existing door entries on the west and north elevations of the Flour Warehouse shall respect the historic proportion of void to wall. The doors proposed in the original entries shall primarily be a traditional material (wood, metal, etc). A primarily glass door is not appropriate. All of the new openings shall substantially decrease in glazing area from that depicted in the COA drawings. It is acceptable to consider expanding an opening as part of the reuse/rehabilitation of the site. However, additional glazing area should be modest and grouped with the entrance. For example, many traditional store fronts have glazing for product display but have a lower wooden or brick panel for the first 2-3 feet above ground. The simple canopies/awnings proposed shall also be a traditional industrial material (wood, metal, etc) ) and shall be distinguishable from what is old/historic. For example, a fabric awning is not appropriate because it is more commercial in style than industrial. The new window openings proposed on the south elevation of the Mill Building shall be distinguishable from the original window openings. Staff is recommending a condition that the new openings use a straight/flat lintel rather than an arched form. Modified openings shall preserve the arched lintel form to recall the location and size of the original opening. 3. Relationship of building masses and spaces; The mass of the proposed replacement stair/elevator tower on the Mill Building is appropriate occurring to the east. The proposal of a Festival Street in the location of the abandoned Mill Rail Yard spur track reintroduces traffic in the space to the east (front) of the Flour Warehouse and the Mill Building. Because of this fact, the importance of protecting the character-defining features of those primary elevations is emphasized. 4. Roof shape; The greatest change of roof shape is to the Flour Warehouse Building, with the proposed mechanical equipment screening. The character of a historical roof should be preserved. The addition of features such as skylights or solar panels should not be installed in a manner such that they will interrupt the plane of the historic roof. Staff is recommending the applicant to investigate possibilities of lowering the proposed metal panels for mechanical screening on the Flour Mill Warehouse, so that they are not visible from the public right of way. At a minimum, while rooftop additions may be allowed to be taller than the existing cornice height, the rooftop additions shall not physically break the line of the original cornice and shall be set substantially behind the front plane of the building. 5. Scale; 275 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 35 Overall, the scales of the structures remain unaltered. The existing metal-clad addition on the east elevation of the Mill Building is proposed to be replaced by a glass tower (see review comments under item 7 above) that sits roughly at the same height of the historic brick portion of the Mill Building. Staff is recommending the tower to be more subordinate in height and scale to the Mill Building by minimizing those portions which may be higher than the current Mill Building roofline. 6. Directional expression; The primary elevations of the Flour Warehouse and Mill Building shall remain largely unaltered so that the character-defining features are highlighted. With the reintroduction of traffic in the front of these buildings, it is appropriate to highlight the original entries of the buildings as primary, with clear distinctions made between what is old and what is new. 7. Architectural details; The architecture proposed should build upon the industrial style of architecture that exists in and around the Story Mill Historic District. Materials, such as wood cladding, corrugated steel metal, concrete or brick, should be emphasized. Expansive areas of glass shall be avoided. New construction should distinguish itself from original features, while also complementing the historic form and scale of the buildings. The proposed glass tower on the east elevation of the Mill Building is not consistent in character with the industrial nature of the existing buildings. However, it is easily distinguishable from the original/historic architecture. Staff is recommending a condition that the tower use a greater percentage of metal in its surface area or that the steel skeleton structure of the tower addition be visible through the glass shell of the building to enhance the industrial nature of the new building. The glass used in the tower shall be non-reflective and transparent. The new steel and glass vestibule on the ground floor of west elevation of the Mill Building is not in character with historic fabric and nature of the building. However, it covers a new/non-historic door opening in an existing historic building. The vestibule attempts to clearly distinguish between what is old and what is new. The new opening needs to be different than the original/historic entrances. A vestibule on a historic building’s primary elevation should be interior to the building’s walls. If the exterior vestibule is necessary because an interior vestibule would create even more undesirable impacts to the interior of the building, the materials should reflect the industrial character of the site and minimize visual impact. Any glass used to construct an exterior vestibule needs to be non-reflective and transparent so as to not cover up the historic brick structure behind it. It is recommended to coordinate materials between the vestibule and the proposed east stair/elevator tower. 8. Concealment of non-period appurtenances, such as mechanical equipment; Staff is recommending the applicant to investigate possibilities of lowering the proposed metal panels for mechanical screening on the Flour Mill Warehouse, so that they are not visible from the public right of way. At a minimum, while rooftop additions may be 276 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 36 allowed to be taller than the existing cornice height, the rooftop additions shall not physically break the line of the original cornice and shall be set substantially behind the front plane of the building. 9. Materials and color scheme. As conditioned, the Final Site Plan materials shall include a materials and color palette for all new construction on the Mill, which will be reviewed by ADR Staff prior to final site plan approval. C. Contemporary, nonperiod and innovative design of new structures and additions to existing structures shall be encouraged when such new construction or additions do not destroy significant historical, cultural or architectural structures, or their components, and when such design is compatible with the foregoing elements of the structure and the surrounding structures. Contemporary and new additions are discussed above in further detail. D. When applying the standards of subsections A-C, the review authority shall be guided by the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District which are hereby incorporated by this reference. When reviewing a contemporary, non-period, or innovative design of new structures, or addition to existing structure, the review authority shall be guided by the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District to determine whether the proposal is compatible with any existing or surrounding structures. The Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation & the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District was referenced during ADR Staff’s architectural review of the three COA applications. It is recommended that the applicant reference several components of the Design Guidelines in their Development Manual’s Chapter 6 (Historic & Cultural Resource Guidelines). The Development Manual shall prominently call out that individual site development lying within the area of the Story Mill Historic District is subject to the Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings and the Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. As these standards are nationally established and have been utilized for decades it is not expected that they will materially change over the life of the project. While excessive detail can be repetitive and burdensome, if items are of great importance they should be given emphasis. The components of utmost importance include the following. The items for inclusion in the Development Manual are the chapter title and policy. The guidelines associated are provided here to illustrate the type of issues to be addressed by each standard. Chapter 1: B. Historic Building Materials 277 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 37 Policy: Primary historic building materials should be preserved in place whenever feasible and should not be covered or subjected to harsh cleaning treatments. Guideline 1: Preserve original building materials. Masonry features that define the overall historic character, as wall, cornices, pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved. Guideline 5: Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-in, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material. Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired. Guideline 6: Repoint mortar joints where there is evidence of deterioration. Duplicate the old mortar in strength, composition, color and texture. Avoid using mortar with a high Portland cement content, which will be substantially harder than the original. Duplicate the mortar joints in width and profile. Guideline 7: Use the gentlest means possible to clean the surface of a structure. Harsh cleaning methods, such as sandblasting, can damage historic materials, changing their appearance. Such procedures are inappropriate. If cleaning is appropriate, a low pressure water wash is preferred. Guideline 9: Do not use synthetic materials, such as aluminum or vinyl siding or panelized brick, as replacements for primary building materials. Guideline 10: Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate. Guideline 11: Consider removing later covering materials that have not achieved historic significance. Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material. If a house has a stucco finish, removing the covering may be difficult, and may not be desirable. Test the stucco to assure that the original material underneath will not be damaged. Chapter 1: C. Individual Building Features/Windows Policy: The character-defining features of an historic window and its distinct materials and placement should be preserved. Guideline 2: Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. Enclosing a historic window opening in a key character-defining façade is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. Guideline 3: Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. Guideline 4: Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a primary façade(s). Chapter 1: C. Individual Building Features/Doors Policy: The character defining-features of a historic door and its distinct materials and placement should be preserved. Guideline 9: Preserve the decorative and functional features of a primary entrance. Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway (such as the door, door frame, transoms, etc). Avoid changing the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. Guideline 10: Maintain the historic proportion of a significant door. Guideline 12: When replacing a door, use materials that appear similar to that of the original. Chapter 1: C. Individual Building Features/Roofs Policy: The character of a historical roof should be preserved. 278 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 38 Guideline 17: Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. The addition of features such as skylights or solar panels should not be installed in a manner such that they will interrupt the plane of the historic roof. Guideline 18: When planning a rooftop addition, it should not interrupt the original cornice and ridgeline. Chapter 1: D. Rehabilitation of Historic Commercial Properties/Additions Guideline 11: An addition should be compatible in scale, materials and character with the main building. An addition should relate to the building in mass, scale and form. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure. Chapter 1: G. Adaptive Re-Use Policy: Converting a building to a new use that is different from that which its design reflects is considered to be “adaptive re-use.” A good adaptive re-use retains the historic character of the building while accommodating its new function. Guideline 1: Seek uses that are compatible with the historic character of the building. Avoid altering porches and original windows and doors. Chapter 1: H. Historic Additions Policy: Some early additions may have taken on historic significance of their own. One constructed in a manner that was compatible with the original building and that is associated with the period of significance may merit preservation in its own right. Chapter 2: H. Materials Guideline 1: Use building materials that appear architecturally similar to those used traditionally in the area. The use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. Guideline 2: The use of masonry that appears similar in character to that seen historically is appropriate. Chapter 2: I. Architectural Character Policy: New construction should distinguish itself from historic structures. E. Conformance with other applicable development standards of this title. Based on the requirements outlined in Chapter 18.34 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance, ADR Staff has provided comments in this report to comply with the “Site Plan Review Criteria.” RECOMMENDATION The Design Review Board is established to evaluate aesthetic considerations of larger and more complex proposals which are likely to produce significant community impact and to provide recommendations regarding such proposals to the Planning Director or City Commission. The Board is empowered to recommend approval or conditional approval of the project with support of some or all of the requested relaxations or to forward a recommendation of denial. The Design Review Board conducted their review on October 24th and recommended approval of the Staff suggested conditions to meet the intent of the Planned Unit Development and to mitigate 279 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 39 the requested relaxations. The Development Review Committee also conducted their final preliminary PUD review on October 24th and likewise recommended approval with specific conditions to mitigate impact of the development. The following needed code based revisions have been identified and the following conditions of approval are recommended: Story Mill Neighborhood PUD Plan Code Provisions: a) A qualified landscape professional shall either document that the current watercourse setback planting plan meets the requirements of Section 18.42.100 of the Bozeman Municipal Code or a watercourse setback planting plan shall be prepared by a qualified landscape professional and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the commencement of development or site preparation. The plan shall include a schedule for planting and landscaping as outlined for Zone 1 and Zone 2 outlined in Section 18.42.100 of the Bozeman Municipal Code. b) Per 18.42.170, the design and location of any trash enclosure is subject to review and approval by the City Sanitation Department, and must be shown on the final site plan for the phase. c) Per 18.44.100, sight vision triangles must be correctly depicted on each final site plan. d) Per 18.52.060, a comprehensive sign plan is required for all commercial centers consisting of two or more tenant spaces on a lot and shall be designed in accordance with §18.52.070, BMC. The sign plan in the Development Manual shall be enhanced to specify how the owner will allocate signage within each lot if there is more than one tenant space. e) Per 18.36.060.A, BMC the applicant must submit seven (7) copies of a Final PUD Plan within one (1) year of preliminary approval containing all of the conditions, corrections and modifications to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Office. f) Per 18.64.100, a Building Permit for the first phase must be obtained prior to the work, and must be obtained within one (1) year of Final Site Plan approval. Building Permits will not be issued until the Final Site Plan is approved. Minor site surface preparation and normal maintenance shall be allowed prior to submittal and approval of the Final Site Plan, providing that such activity does not include excavation for foundations or the removal of mature, healthy vegetation, and NO CONCRETE MAY BE POURED UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT IS OBTAINED. g) Concurrent construction has been sought and is recommended for approval. No work may begin until all of the terms of Title 18, BMC regarding concurrent construction have been satisfied. h) The applicant shall submit with the application for Final Site Plan review and approval, a written narrative stating how each of the conditions of preliminary site plan approval has been satisfactorily addressed. i) Any existing signs on the project site must come into compliance with Chapter 18.52, BMC. j) Development of future lots shall require a comprehensive sign plan allocating sign area to individual tenants. k) Reciprocal easements or other necessary means of coordinating individual and common 280 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 40 ownerships in Blocks 1 and 2 shall be provided. l) All non-conforming signs in a phase shall be removed prior to final site plan for that phase. Story Mill Neighborhood Overall PUD Plan Conditions: 1) The duration of the requested 10 year approval period for the PUD shall begin on the date the Final PUD plan is signed by the Director of Planning and Community Development. For any phases not having been subject to a final plat after the passage of the ten year period the PUD approval shall expire, unless a request for an extension of the design guidelines/standards for not more than five additional years shall be made in writing and approved by the City as described in Section 18.36.070, BMC. If the design guidelines/standards are extended then the approval period shall continue but will again terminate in the same manner at the end of the extended period. This process may be continued until the entire project is complete or a request for extension fails to be made in a timely manner. If the request for extension fails to be submitted in a timely manner the termination of the PUD approval shall occur without need for any further action by the City of Bozeman. 2) The right to a use and occupancy permit within the PUD shall be contingent upon the fulfillment of all general and special conditions imposed by the conditional use permit procedure. 3) All of the special conditions of PUD approval shall constitute restrictions running with the land use, shall apply and be adhered to by the owner of the land, successors or assigns, shall be binding upon the owner of the land, his successors or assigns, shall be consented to in writing, and shall be recorded as such with the County Clerk and Recorder’s Office by the property owner prior to the City approval of the final PUD plan. 4) Applicant shall provide and file with the County Clerk and Recorder's office executed Waivers of Right to Protest Creation of SIDs for the following: a) Street improvements including paving, curb/gutter, sidewalk and storm drainage facilities for the following streets: i) Bridger Drive. ii) Story Mill Road iii) L Street iv) Local streets within all phases of the subdivision b) Signalization Improvements for the following intersections: i) Story Mill Rd and Bridger Drive ii) Griffin Drive and Bridger Drive/Rouse Avenue iii) Bryant Street and Rouse Avenue iv) Bond Street and Rouse Avenue c) Trunk Sewer and Water mains to serve the property. The documents filed shall specify that in the event an S.I.D. is not utilized for the completion of these improvements, the developer agrees to participate in an alternate financing method for the completion of said improvements on a fair share, proportionate basis as determined by square footage of property, taxable valuation of the property, traffic contribution from the 281 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 41 development or a combination thereof. 5) That the applicant execute at the Gallatin County Clerk & Recorder’s Office a waiver of right-to-protest creation of S.I.D.’s for a City-wide Park Maintenance District, which would provide a mechanism for the fair and equitable assessment of maintenance costs for City parks. 6) The boundaries of private lots adjacent to open spaces shall be clearly delineated. The final site plan shall describe how the delineation will be provided. More than one marking option may be utilized. 7) Concurrent construction of infrastructure and buildings is approved for Phases 1&2 (as geographically depicted) only, as requested in the subdivision application Volume 3, Tab 20 and PUD application Volume 1, Tab G. Emergency and landowner access to Hillside Lane must be provided at all times. 8) Individual Lots between Millrace Street and Bridger Drive have frontage on two streets. The Development manual shall contain design standards so that homes constructed on these lots present a “front” architecture to both streets. Development standards shall address fenestration, doors, porches, fencing, garage orientation and other items needed to establish the required Development character. This shall include double fronted home designs, including having a true front presentation towards these arterials with porches, front doors, no garage fronts, and coordinated 4’ tall (maximum) fencing with gates/openings and walkway connections providing access to the streetscape and sidewalk system. Fencing is not required for the open space area located mid-block. Fencing shall be installed simultaneously for all lots and prior to occupancy of the first home on Block 20. 9) The PUD in its entirety is approved under the regulations currently in place in accordance with Section 18.34.070, BMC. If the applicant proposes a Major Change to the PUD as defined in 18.36.040.C.4, BMC, then the revised plan shall conform with any updated regulations in place at the time the request for change is deemed adequate for review, except where a specific deviation was approved either initially or with the Major Change. This condition does not restrict or limit the application of updated engineering, building, or other life safety codes or standards. 10) Landowners have proposed the PUD to be completed as a project subject to the US Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) rating system, see PUD application Volume 1, Tab J. Applicant has stated their intention of utilizing LEED-ND to both satisfy the purposes of a PUD as stated in Section 18.36.010, BMC and as an inducement to the City to approve the project and provide a benefit to justify the multiple deviations requested with the project. Failure to develop the project subject to the LEED requirements shall be considered a Major Change as described in Section 18.36.040.C.4.b, BMC and will require re-review of the project and may alter the conditions of approval and the deviations granted. 11) The parking description tables in PUD application Volume I, Tab 1 Section L shall be corrected to reflect parking requirements for development and any awarded deviations. 12) The applicant shall submit with the application for PUD final site plan review and approval, a written narrative stating how each of the conditions of preliminary plat approval has been satisfactorily addressed, and shall include a digital copy (PDF) of the entire Final Plat submittal. This narrative shall in sufficient detail to direct the reviewer to the appropriate plat, plan, sheet, note, covenant, etc. in the submittal. 282 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 42 13) Buildings to be constructed shall retain the general massing, especially those shown as base and pedestal in form, portrayed in the PUD Application, Volume 1, Development Manual Appendix, subsection 4 - Height Setback and Floor Area Limitations, when individual site plans are submitted. 14) A full historic resources/cultural resources mitigation plan shall be provided at the time of submittal of the PUD final site plan for the first two phases and shall be provided concurrent with the preliminary site plans for phase 3 and beyond. Part of the mitigation plan could include renovation of buildings not currently listed as contributing due to age. 15) The development manual has little reference to the Secretary of the Interior standards for historic preservation. They are applicable to this project and need to be referenced. References to terms such as rehabilitation must correspond to the usage of the Secretary of the Interior standards. 16) The Development Manual sections 2V and 6 shall be coordinated to encourage education regarding the historic development of the site and to recognize the railroad presence and importance and its importance. For example, interpretive signs regarding the Story Mill spur trail being an old railroad bed and its ties throughout site. a) A comprehensive sign plan shall be submitted with the Final PUD plan for overall coordination of signage format and design and general locations throughout the PUD. Signage shall be address each major location and/or category of structures or time period identified in the cultural resource inventory. Each final site plan or final plat if no final site plan will be needed within a phase shall show locations and detailed content of the signage to be placed within each phase or site. b) Signage for cultural interpretation and explanation shall be visually distinct from that relating to LEED development and shall be of materials and manufacture that is durable. c) Sign content accuracy shall be verified with the state historic preservation office or Bozeman historic preservation officer. 17) Changes to the Story Mill granary and other contributing buildings as identified in the updated Cultural Resource Inventory as amended by conditions of approval shall be the subject of a specific individual Certificate of Appropriateness review by the City Commission. 18) Any structure removed from the Story Mill Historic District shall be documented to Level 2 utilizing the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) and the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standards. 19) Tree species along roadways shall be diversified to have not more than 70% of a single species along the length of a street. A species choice capable of tolerating street salts well shall be provided along Bridger Drive. 20) The applicant has requested multiple deviations as part of the PUD, see PUD Application, Volume 1, Tab H. Except as modified in the conditions of approval for the PUD and related subdivision the deviations are approved as requested. The PUD final site plan shall contain maps, tables and text describing the deviations applicable per lot in the same manner as the original submittal. Deviations shall retain the same numbering in the final site plan as in the original application. 283 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 43 a) Deviation 8, 18.16.040 Residential Lot Width – The restrictions in the Development Manual Section 3M3 for larger lot size minimums and restricted locations must be included in the final PUD materials. b) Deviations 9-12, 18.16.050, Residential Yard Setbacks reduction – The requested zero foot front yard setback is approved only for stoops, eaves, stairs, doors, interior parking, and similar elements. The main structural walls enclosing the habitable space shall be setback from the property line so that no door, eave or other projecting element of the building crosses a property line. Rear yard setbacks adjacent to wetlands shall maintain the necessary transitional planting to comply with Development Manual standards 2M and 2R. c) Deviations 16-18, 18.18.050, BMC Commercial Yards Setbacks reduction - The requested zero foot front yard setback is approved only for stoops, eaves, stairs, doors, underground structured parking, canopies, marquees, awnings and similar elements. The main structural walls enclosing the habitable space shall be setback from the property line so that no door, eave or other projecting element of the building crosses a property line. Shared elements such as parking facilities shall require reciprocal easements to allow crossing of the property lines. d) Deviation 19, 18.18.050.A.2, Commercial Front Yard reduction to encroach in the required yard for parking. The requested setback to zero feet is not approved. Sufficient space must be retained to provide for parking lot screening from adjacent streets and lots. Exact distance allowed for encroachment will be determined by the efficiency of the screening. Screening of parking needs to be exceptional and likely include some berming. e) Deviation 24, 18.20.20, Industrial Authorized Uses – The requested deviations to allow more than 50% of total building gross square footage to be used as residential is acceptable only if the building ground floor area, exclusive of parking, is not less than 75% non-residential uses. f) Deviation 26, 18.20.050.a.1.A, Industrial Yard – The main structural walls enclosing the habitable space shall be setback from the property line so that no door, eave or other projecting element of the building crosses a property line. g) Deviation 28, 18.30.060.B Entryway Corridor Setback Standards – Requested relaxation to yard setbacks along Bridger Drive. Approval of this deviation also requires the same deviation to additional Sections 18.38.060.C.2 Special Yard Setback for Arterials, and 18.16.050.A.1.a Residential Yards, BMC. The deviation request for a 20 foot building setback for Block 20 Lots 1-16 and a 10 foot building setback for Block 25, Lot 1 is approved. The requested zero foot setback for parking is not approved. Sufficient space must be retained to provide for parking lot screening from adjacent streets and lots. Exact distance permitted for the allowed encroachment will be determined by the efficiency of the screening. Screening of parking needs to be exceptional and will likely include some berming. The placement of any parking lot lights shall be to the interior of the parking lot and not on the north edge. h) Deviation 29 – The deviation request for additional height as shown in the detailed table is approved. The additional height allowance for solar and wind power generation is in addition to the specified larger building heights and solar equipment may be not more than an additional 8 feet higher and wind generation equipment may not be more than an additional 15 feet higher. 284 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 44 i) Deviation 32 – The deviation is denied. j) Deviation 33 – The deviation to 18.42.140 Loading Berth is approved, however the tenants shall coordinate loading and delivery times and delivery shall not be permitted between 10pm and 6am. The conflict with Development Manual 3P7 shall be corrected. k) Deviation 34 – This deviation shall be coordinated with the revisions to yard setback deviations 9, 10, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 26 and 28, and relevant sections of the Development Manual shall be adjusted as needed. l) Deviations 37& 38 – These deviations are denied because they have been rendered irrelevant by Condition of Approval 26 which applies the landscaping alternate means of compliance as allowed by the PUD in Section 2M of the Development Manual to the entire development. m) Deviation 40 – Sandwich board signs are allowed as an additional accessory use. Prior to placement of any sandwich board sign an encroachment permit must be obtained from the City utilizing the same procedures as are applicable to Main Street n) Deviation 41 – The requested deviation to allow 250 square feet of signage per lot in the B-1 district is approved only for those lots with more than one commercial or office use tenant. o) Deviation 46 – The alternative lighting plan is acceptable as allowed by Section 18.42.150.B.2, BMC, however the luminaries must be adjusted when installed to ensure they comply with the full cutoff standard. p) A deviation is granted from Section 18.42.150.D.7, BMC to allow a fixture to not restrict all light to a plane below the lowest point of the light emitting element. See Subdivision Application, Volume III, Tab 18, Fixtures M3, M4 and M9. q) The necessary deviations from Sections 18.44.050 ROW, 18.44.060, and 18.44.080 sidewalks are approved to allow the private non-City Standard streets as depicted in PUD Application, Volume 1, Section L with the deviations from City standards shown in PUD Application Volume 1, Tab 4 and modified by conditions of approval. r) An additional deviation to Section 18.38.050.F, BMC is approved to not require screening of certain rooftop mechanical equipment (solar and wind electrical generators). All other roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened as required by Section 18.38.050. s) Two additional deviations from Section 18.52.060.A.3 are approved in conjunction with Deviation 41 to allow increased size and dimensions of projecting signs as described in Section 4M1. Project signs larger than 12 square feet shall include a structural evaluation for wind loading which shall be submitted at the same time as the sign permit. t) An additional deviation is granted from Section 18.16.050.A.4 in conjunction with Deviations 11 and 12 to allow a zero foot garage entrance setback for lots where lots and building dimensions coincide. u) A deviation is approved from Section 18.46.010.D to allow stacked parking for a use other than a townhouse or detached home. The stacked parking shown for the underground parking provided for the Tin Shed component shall be assigned to an individual tenant and Development Manual section 2J shall be revised so that it specifies that stacked spaces must in all circumstances be assigned to an individual user. 285 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 45 v) The requested deviation to encroach in a watercourse setback for Wetland 10 (as depicted in the Subdivision Application, Volume II, Tab 1, Sheet WETL 404-6) so that the setback boundary is the edge of the wetland is acceptable only if the unpermitted fill within the wetland and south of Griffin Drive be removed and the wetland rehabilitated, and a hydrologic connection be established under Griffin Drive to allow the wetland to flow to the north. w) A deviation to Section 18.42.180.C, BMC for Block 1, Lot 5 and Block 20, Lot 1 to allow an RSL lot in excess of 5,000 square feet is approved. However, the buildings constructed on such lots shall not exceed the size which would have been allowed had the lots not exceeded the normal size limit. x) An additional deviation is required from Section 18.48.050.C, BMC to not provide parking lot landscaping on Blocks 25 and 4 in order to not provide screening for the parking lots located on those sites. y) All deviations are part of the Planned Unit Development and are subject to the same termination provisions as the overall PUD as described in Chapter 18.36, BMC. Failure to perform and complete development of the project may result in formerly approved deviations or other approvals “timing out” for uncompleted phases. Deviations may be continued for undeveloped phases in the same manner as seeking an extension of design guidelines approval. 21) PUD Application, Volume 1, Tab Development Manual. Except as modified in this condition the Development manual is approved as requested. The PUD final site plan shall contain maps, tables and text describing the Development standards and incorporating these revisions in the same manner as the original submittal. a) The Development manual shall be reviewed and any inconsistent numbering shall be corrected. b) Introduction, Article 7 – The Development manual may only be amended with COB approval for sections affecting PUD approval or compliance with ordinance provisions. If the applicant chooses to limit City of Bozeman approval to sections required for approval they shall propose a list of sections for City concurrence as part of the final PUD plan. If all edits to the manual require City of Bozeman approval then the list of sections is not required. c) Neighborhood Districts Summary, p. 24. i) p. 25 The Story Mill - The industrial/traditional character of the existing buildings shall be noted here – emphasis on a material selection that is traditional and industrial in nature for all new construction shall be noted – abiding by national historic preservation standards shall be noted for proposed rehabilitation/preservation. ii) P. 25 East Gallatin – No discussion of materials/colors provided as was done in other districts iii) P. 26 Mill Spur – Architecture to encourage respect the spur trail present to the east. d) Section 1G1 – Include reference to removal of historic structures as described in Section 6 and Cultural Resource Inventory. e) Section 2B – Include in this section discussion of protecting views of the Mill buildings as provided in the section on viewsheds. 286 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 46 f) Section 2C3 – Provide clarification of “when preservation is not possible” such as giving examples that would qualify or remove the phrase. g) Section 2H – The section shall be modified to encourage covered or enclosed bicycle parking and storage in addition to typical surface bicycle racks. h) Section 2J – Stacking of parking spaces which are not individually owned shall be limited to circumstances where parking within the stacked spaces is allocated directly to individual tenants and the stalls have signage identifying the controlling party. i) Section 2M – The manual shall be revised to state who decides or by what criteria a plant species qualifies as a “native” species. j) Section 2N – Modify discussion regarding fence height to advise that no fence in excess of 4 feet in height is allowed adjacent to any linear park. SMARC may not grant a variance to this code requirement. A requirement for a coordinated fence meeting the standards of 18.42.130 and the Development Manual to be placed along the Story Mill Spur Trail to demarcate the boundary and restrict unapproved access to wetlands shall be added to the section. k) Section 2M6 – The special landscaping standards from the Development Manual section currently numbered 2M6 shall be applied across the entire development for all sites which require site plan review per Section 18.34.060.A and shall replace required compliance with Section 18.48.060, BMC. l) Section 2M6 – Examples of the types of item which may be used to provide “Outdoor recreation facilities installed within residential lots” as a means of satisfying landscaping requirements shall be provided. The provision of outdoor recreation facilities shall be noted to be applicable only to lots subject to site plan review by the City of Bozeman. m) Section 2R3 – The width requirement for the wetland management transition plantings needs to be more clearly specified. n) Section 3B – Coordinate with Section 3G to explicitly tie to the requirements of the Design Objectives Plan for North Rouse/Bridger Drive on pages 89 and 90. o) Section 3K – The section shall be revised to require that plant materials for screening of equipment must be evergreen plants. p) Section 3M1 – SMARC is to be responsible to enforce this item, print out full working of the acronym FHAA q) Section 3P7 – This section regarding the loading dock requirement cites UDO compliance however, a deviation has been sought to not meet UDO requirement. The conflict in the text must be corrected. Reference to limited hours of operation for loading shall be included. r) Section 3R – Lot coverage with parking garage pedestal and tower – verify that lot coverage deviation already mentioned s) Section 4A or 4B – A reference needs to be added so that the use portable signs/sandwich boards is included. t) Section 4D1-2 – Metric measure is acceptable but also include English measure for lighting illumination. 287 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 47 u) Section 4M – The stated size of a blade/projecting sign of 50 square feet exceeds that allowed by Chapter 18.52. If a deviation is granted to allow such a sign and alternative dimensions any corresponding restrictions shall also be included in this section. v) Section 6 – Historic and Cultural Resource Guidelines i) Include reference to areas within the Story Mill Historic District being subject to review for a Certificate of Appropriateness per Chapter 18.28, BMC for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings and the Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, especially Chapter 5, section A., pp. 79-80. Some specific items shall be referenced in order to provide interested parties early knowledge of standards of particular concern to the City. Each COA shall be reviewed on its own merits in relationship to the City’s adopted standards, historic character and nature of affected structures, and the overall PUD. Specific components to be referenced directly in the Development Manual are: (1) Chapter 1: B. Historic Building Materials (a) Policy: Primary historic building materials should be preserved in place whenever feasible and should not be covered or subjected to harsh cleaning treatments. (2) Chapter 1: C. Individual Building Features/Windows (a) Policy: The character-defining features of an historic window and its distinct materials and placement should be preserved. (3) Chapter 1: C. Individual Building Features/Doors (a) Policy: The character defining-features of a historic door and its distinct materials and placement should be preserved. (4) Chapter 1: C. Individual Building Features/Roofs (a) Policy: The character of a historical roof should be preserved. (5) Chapter 1: G. Adaptive Re-Use (a) Policy: Converting a building to a new use that is different from that which its design reflects is considered to be “adaptive re-use.” A good adaptive re-use retains the historic character of the building while accommodating its new function. (6) Chapter 1: H. Historic Additions (a) Policy: Some early additions may have taken on historic significance of their own. One constructed in a manner that was compatible with the original building and that is associated with the period of significance may merit preservation in its own right. (7) Chapter 2: H. Materials (a) Policy. Building materials of new structures and additions to existing structures should contribute to the visual continuity of the neighborhood. They should appear similar to those seen traditionally to establish a sense of visual continuity. (8) Chapter 2: I. Architectural Character (a) Policy: New construction should distinguish itself from historic structures. (9) Chapter 3: B. Building Mass and Scale (a) Policy: While new buildings and additions are anticipated that may be larger than many of the earlier structures, this new construction should not be so 288 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 48 dramatically greater in scale than the established context that the visual continuity of the neighborhood would be compromised w) The Appendices for the Development Manual which show density by lot, massing models with summary statistics, and aerial views of the project shall be revised as needed to address changes between requested and approved deviations. 22) The Cultural Resource Inventory (CRI) as revised, updated and received by the City on October 15, 2007 shall be revised per any comments of the City. The amended CRI shall then, as the most current and comprehensive information available, be the location specific information which will form the basis for individual Certificate of Appropriateness reviews. a) After approval of development within Phase 8 and prior to approval of development for Phase 9, an amendment to the Story Mill Historic District shall be formally submitted through a new nomination to incorporate all changes in the district to date and to supersede the existing district nomination. 23) The CRI is recognized as being preliminary in scope (page 107). Historic Preservation Treatment Plans shall be submitted as part of each individual COA preliminary plans. 24) As offered in the submittal, a letter of approval from the Story Mill Architectural Review Committee approving the overall design of any building within the development shall be provided to the City of Bozeman at the time that application is made to the City for any building permit for a new or renovated structure. 25) The PUD Application, Volume II, Tab Development Program, detail sheets shall be amended to include a listing by lot of the applicable zoning designation. 26) Workforce Housing – One of the following options shall be satisfied as may be applicable to City actions. OPTIONS A OR B – INCLUDE BOTH IF THE INDIVIDUALIZED PLAN IS APPROVED a) If the individualized workforce housing plan requested to provide 120 dwellings of price restricted housing meeting the price thresholds of Chapter 17.02, BMC is approved and the City later approves the requested tax increment district then the applicant shall provide, prior to approval of the first final plat, a map of the phased development depicting where the price restricted homes shall be constructed and how many dwellings are assigned to each lot. Final plats for each phase will include appropriate deed restrictions on individual lots to ensure that ultimate development of the lots will include the applicable number of price restricted homes. b) If the individualized workforce housing plan requested to provide 120 dwellings of price restricted housing meeting the price thresholds of Chapter 17.02, BMC is approved and the City does not later approve the requested tax increment district then the applicant shall provide, prior to approval of the first final plat, a map of the phased development depicting where 60 price restricted homes shall be constructed and how many dwellings are assigned to each lot. Final plats for each phase will include appropriate deed restrictions on individual lots to ensure that ultimate development of the lots will include the applicable number of price restricted homes. OPTIONS C OR D – SELECT ONLY ONE IF THE INDIVIDUALIZED PLAN IS NOT APPROVED c) If the individualized workforce housing plan requested to provide 120 dwellings of price restricted housing is not approved then the applicant shall comply with the minimum 289 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 49 terms of Chapter 17.02, BMC. Prior to approval of the first final plat, a map of the entire phased development shall be provided depicting where the price restricted homes shall be constructed and how many dwellings are assigned to each lot. Final plats for each phase will include appropriate deed restrictions on individual lots to ensure that ultimate development of the lots will include the applicable number of price restricted homes. d) If the individualized plan is not accepted, the CAHAB recommendation shall be satisfied and coordinated between the preliminary plat and planned unit development. i) The Story Mill Neighborhood Development shall supply not less than 45 homes that meet the income and price restrictions of Chapter 17.02, BMC. ii) Seventeen of the homes should comply with the Workforce Housing Ordinance, most specifically the matrix and pricing guidelines. iii) For the additional 28 units the developer may submit a detailed alterative plan. However, all 45 units must comply with the affordability guidelines as described in Chapter 17.02, Workforce Housing, BMC and if the developer submits an alternative plan they need to supply the same level of details as provided in the WHO. The alternative plan shall be submitted as part of the Final PUD plan. iv) Blue Sky Development is required to build the units are built as opposed to donating lots or cash-in-lieu. Blue Sky Development will ensure that any entity that purchases the WHU lots understands the requirements of the final plat. v) Select only one option (1) The housing plan should provide for not less than 17 affordable units within the first 5 phases. The additional 28 affordable dwellings may be distributed throughout all phases. Eighty percent of the WHO units per phase must be completed before another phase is started. (2) The housing plan should provide for all of the affordable units within the first 5 phases and 80% of the WHO units per phase must be completed before another phase is started. vi) The areas where affordable units are to be located be designated on the final plat. Phase 1 (The Garden) Site Plan Specific Conditions: 1) Access easements shall be provided across Sections A&E for access to adjacent single household lots. 2) Section A trees are too close to the storm water lines on the north and shall be reconfigured to decrease likelihood of root damage to stormwater facilities. 3) The coordinated hedge shown on Sheet L200 shall be provided along the NE boundary between the proposed residences and existing development. A design consistent with Section 2N of the Design Manual shall be submitted with the final site plan. Installation of the hedge and associated irrigation shall be done all at once and shall be completed prior to the first certificate of occupancy for a detached home on Block 1. 4) The narrative in this application shall be revised in the following manner: (a) the citation of Section 18.30 shall be changed to Section 18.28. 5) Because an adverse effect is occurring to the existing Story Mill Carriage House from the proposed relocation, the following mitigation shall be provided. The information required in items a and b shall be provided prior to Final Site Plan approval and physical installation of item b shall occur prior to occupancy of the Tin Shed building: 290 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 50 a) Historic documentation of the Story Mill Carriage House, at HABS/HAER level 2, shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development (including drawings and photographs). b) One (1) interpretive sign shall be placed in front of the building that explains the building’s history (construction date, use, affiliation with the Head Miller’s House, etc) and its original location (in affiliation with the original location of Hillside Lane). The proposed location and design of the sign shall be shown on a site plan/schematic plan that is submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development. Sign content will be approved with the final site plan. 6) A site plan that shows both the existing and proposed location of the Story Mill Carriage House shall be submitted to the Department of Planning with the final site plan application. 7) Any exterior changes proposed to the Story Mill Carriage House following its relocations shall be portrayed in scaled building elevations. 8) The applicant shall provide the Department of Planning the proposed movement method of the Story Mill Carriage House. 9) A materials board/color palette for the new construction that includes actual material samples and color chips shall be submitted for review and approval by the Department of Planning prior to final COA approval. The materials/color palette shall be presented on a board no larger than 24” x36” and contain all the primary materials to be utilized on the building including window/storefront frames and doors (entry, garage, and service). All final building elevations shall be keyed to the color palette to delineate where each individual building material and color is specified. Phase 2 (Story Mill – Tin Shed) Site Plan Specific Conditions: 1) Sheet C300-1 shows a 1 inch water stub to serve the entire building. This seems unlikely to be adequate for both homes and nonresidential uses for the new Tin Shed. Developer shall coordinate with the Water Department regarding stub locations and sizing. 2) The northern parking area in the Mill Building site shall be developed concurrently with this work and shall be available for use at the time a certificate of occupancy is granted for the new “tin shed” building. 3) The narrative in this application shall be revised in the following manner: (a) the citation of Section 18.30 shall be changed to Section 18.28. 4) Because an adverse effect is occurring to the existing Flat Storage Warehouse from the proposed deconstruction, the following mitigation shall occur prior to Final Site Plan approval: a) Historic documentation of the building, at HABS/HAER level 2, shall be submitted to the Department of Planning (including drawings and photographs). b) Documentation showing the applicant’s attempt to salvage the materials of the existing building shall be submitted to the Department of Planning. Documentation shall describe how the materials will be removed from the building, aggregated, stored, and the intended use of the reclaimed materials. The LEED reclaimed materials documentation format may be utilized. 5) A site plan that shows both the existing location of the Flat Storage Warehouse and the proposed location of the new Tin Shed shall be submitted to the Department of Planning with the final site plan application. 291 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 51 6) The applicant shall provide the Department of Planning and Community Development a written description of the proposed steps in the deconstruction and reconstruction process of the Flat Storage Warehouse. 7) A materials board/color palette for the new construction that includes actual material samples and color chips shall be submitted for review and approval by the Department of Planning prior to final COA approval. The materials/color palette shall be presented on a board no larger than 24” x36” and contain all the primary materials to be utilized on the building including window/storefront frames and doors (entry, garage, and service). All final building elevations shall be keyed to the color palette to delineate where each individual building material and color is specified. Phase 2 (Story Mill – Mill Building/Flour Warehouse) Site Plan Specific Conditions: 1) Architectural Design Review Staff shall review and approve revisions required to comply with the following conditions prior to approval of the final site plan. 2) The NE center curb along Hillside lane is too wide and allows backing into the public right of way as shown, which is not permitted. The northern most 3 parking stalls shall be removed and the space utilized for covered bike parking. If necessary the requested parking deviation for Phase 3 shall be adjusted to enable a further reduction in the physically provided parking 3) The narrative in this application shall be revised in the following manner: (a) the citation of Section 18.30 shall be changed to Section 18.28 and (b) the removal of “both” so that it is clear the Northern Pacific/Story Mill Historic District is indeed one district. 4) A site plan that shows both the location of all existing buildings and the location of all new construction/additions shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development with the final site plan. 5) Details of the proposed treatment and changes to the interior spaces of the Mill Building, Flour Warehouse and Boiler Room shall be submitted to the Department of Planning. Information shall include the items that will be removed, salvaged, placed on educational display, etc. Additionally, a description of the intended final treatment of floors, walls and ceilings shall be included with the final site plan. 6) Larger (not larger than 8x10 inches) and more detailed photographs of the buildings proposed to be altered shall be submitted to the Department of Planning. The photographs shall clearly show the existing condition of each elevation to be altered. 7) A more gentle cleaning method than sand-blasting (with sand) shall be proposed and all the notes of “sandblasting” brick shall be removed. 8) To correctly correlate with the Development Manual, Chapter 6 shall be revised so that the north, east and south walls of the East Warehouse are proposed as structurally stabilized/preserved. 9) The stair/elevator tower on the east elevation shall be subordinate to the Mill Building. This may be achieved by minimizing height protrusions above the cornice level of the Mill Building to the minimum necessary to meet life safety needs, utilization of materials with an industrial character, and distinguishing the new addition from the main building. 10) The door fixtures proposed in the original entries of the Flour Warehouse shall primarily be a traditional material (wood, metal, etc). A primarily glass door is not appropriate. 11) All of the new openings proposed in Flour Warehouse shall substantially decrease in glazing area or shall be consolidated with existing entrance areas. 292 #Z-07159 Story Mill Neighborhood CUP / PUD City Commission Staff Report 52 12) The canopies/awnings proposed shall be a traditional industrial material (wood, metal, etc). A fabric awning is not appropriate because it is more commercial in style than industrial. 13) The new window openings proposed on the south elevation of the Mill Building shall be distinguishable from the original window openings. The new openings use a straight/flat lintel rather than an arched form. Modified openings shall preserve the arched lintel form to recall the location and size of the original opening. 14) The new steel and glass vestibule on the ground floor of the west elevation of the Mill Building is not in character with the building. The vestibule shall clearly distinguish between what is old and what is new. The new opening needs to be different than the original/historic entrances. A vestibule on a historic building’s primary elevation should be interior to the building’s walls. If the exterior vestibule is necessary because an interior vestibule would create even more undesirable impacts to the interior of the building, the materials shall reflect the industrial character of the site and minimize visual impact. Any glass used to construct an exterior vestibule shall be non-reflective and transparent so as to not cover up the historic brick structure behind it. It is recommended to coordinate materials between the vestibule and the proposed east stair/elevator tower. 15) Staff is recommending the applicant to investigate possibilities of lowering the proposed metal panels for mechanical screening on the Flour Mill Warehouse, so that they are not visible from the public right of way. At a minimum, the rooftop additions shall not interrupt the original cornice and ridgeline and be set substantially behind the front plane 16) The architecture proposed should build upon the industrial style of architecture that exists in and around the Story Mill Historic District. Materials, such as wood cladding, corrugated steel metal, concrete or brick, should be emphasized. Expansive new areas of glass in an existing building shall be avoided. 17) New construction should distinguish itself from original features, while also complementing the historic form and scale of the buildings. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends conditional approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Story Mill Neighborhood Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan application #Z-07159. The applicant must comply with all other provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code, which are applicable to this project prior to receiving Final Site Plan, Final Plat or Building Permit approval. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. Attachments: Applicant’s Submittal. Agency Comments Public Comment cc: Blue Sky Development, Inc., 6730 Tawny Brown Lane, Bozeman, MT 59718 Wake Up, Inc., 402 Bonner Ln., Bozeman, MT 59715 Hyalite Engineers 1111 Research Drive, Bozeman MT 59718. 293 November 28, 2007 Chris Saunders Assistant Director Bozeman Planning and Community Development 20 East Olive St. PO Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771 Dear Chris: I am writing in response to the most recent versions of the CAHAB recommendations to the City Commission and your subsequent suggested conditions for the staff report on the Story Mill Neighborhood PUD. It seems as though there is still some confusion on the plan and there may or may not be time to clarify the issue(s) prior to our upcoming commission hearing. Regardless, we feel this letter is not only necessary but important to make part of the record for the upcoming meetings. It has always been our understanding that we would at a very minimum have to comply with the Chapter 17.02, Workforce Housing, BMC. With our project, I am trying to go above and beyond the minimum requirements and provide a diverse neighborhood community with a diversity of income levels being able to afford units within the development. Furthermore, I am trying to do this as a sustainable project which comes with a cost premium. Our plan is an aggressive one but it is achievable through a public- private partnership as we have outlined. We have also felt like there was a large level of specifics that would need to be worked out post preliminary PUD approval and we feel like the conditions of approval would and could be drafted in such a way requiring subsequent review and approval of the appropriate advisory boards (such as CAHAB). For example, we still have to get our engineers to perform addition work on the final infrastructure designs before we can get the city engineer to approve our construction plans. We feel like the affordable housing plan has fine details that can and will be worked out prior to final PUD approval. Please note that final PUD approval is the next step in this process for us. We cannot even start the subdivision related work until the final PUD is accepted by the city. 294 Page 2 of 3 With that, we ask that you consider recommending that the following condition be considered for inclusion in the staff report as an alternative to what has been presented to date: If the applicant’s individual workforce housing plan requested to provide 120 dwellings of price restricted housing meeting the price thresholds of Chapter 17.02, BMC is approved by the city then the applicant shall further refine its affordable housing plan to provide an additional level of specificity meeting the requirements of CAHAB regarding the planned location and number of units, design of the units, unit costs, and the planned administration and implementation of the affordable housing plan for the Story Mill Neighborhood prior to final PUD approval. I would like to also note that in our proposed plan we will have provided a total of 17 units (equal to the total number required under Chapter 17.02, BMC) within the first three (3) phases of the proposed project. If we have not achieved that number of units by the close of that particular phase, we will not have met the intent of the PUD submittal and, therefore, would have a hard time with our final site plan or subdivision approvals on subsequent phases. Because we propose to phase the project the city has leverage on mandating compliance with an affordable housing plan approved as part of the final PUD. A. Clarification on CAHAB’s Questions and Concerns: 1. Units proposed under our individual affordable housing plan will meet the 80 to 120 percent AMI as defined with the current WFO. 2. We disagree with the statement that the city will somehow be “subsidizing” the cost of the units. Without the project, the projected tax revenues will never be realized. 3. The number of units required under Chapter 17.02, BMC is seventeen (17). 4. Because of the size and complexity of the project and the fact that we are dealing with a project that is almost entirely attached residential dwelling units, we feel like it is almost impossible to complete a plan of any greater detail regarding the number, types, sizes, cost, etc. until we have designed the actual and final structure that will be constructed on any lot. Consequently, staff has conditioned that we provide the appropriate restrictions on the final plats as appropriate. 5. We have either purchased or are under contract to purchase all 92 mobile home units in the Bridger View Mobile Home Court. All 92 owners were given the option of getting into an affordable unit (meeting the definition of Chapter 17.02, BMC) as an alternative to a cash buy-out at 115% of the appraised value of the mobile homes and not one owner opted for that alternative. Twelve (12) people have expressed interest in living in SMN but still took the buy-out alternative. 6. We are offering a plan that will achieve a 700% increase above and beyond what is required under Chapter 17.02, BMC. 7. CAHAB’s suggestion that we provide WHO units off-site defeats the intent of the diversified neighborhood adhering to the goals of LEED. 8. The project is a large project that will take at least 10 years to build. If we could build it out any faster and if the market would absorb those units we would be headed 295 Page 3 of 3 in that direction. What we have proposed and requested for an extended approval is fair and reasonable given the complexity of the project. Because the project is being done as a PUD and major subdivision, I do not see how anyone such as a future owner could not be held accountable and the plan be enforced. As a final note, I would like to point out that we have not asked for a density bonus above and beyond what is allowed under the current zoning of the property. A majority of the deviations that we have requested under the PUD were a result of our desire to minimize impact on existing historic structures, riparian corridors, and wetlands. We are not asking for a cost offset via a reduction in parkland and we have not utilized the protection of sensitive lands, i.e. wetlands, in our parkland dedications. There are a lot of positive aspects to our project and we feel like our proposed individual affordable housing plan is one of those items. I look forward to continuing our work on the project and working with the city and CAHAB to make sure that the entire plan for the neighborhood becomes a reality. Thank you. Sincerely, Matthew Crocker 296 Design Review Board Minutes – October 24, 2007 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 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 Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner Mel Howe Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Bill Rea Walter Banziger Visitors Present Sue Doss Frank Cikan Jami Morris Craig Mendenhall Corey Ravnaas Joby Sabol Katryn Mitchell Chaucer Siverson Scott Carpenter Glen Morrighetti ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Story Mill Neighborhood PUD with Ph. 1 & 2 Prel. Plan #Z-07159 (Saunders) North and south of Bridger, east and west of Story Mill Road * A Planned Unit Development Preliminary 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, Corey Ravnaas, and Joby Sabol joined the DRB. Assistant Planning Director Saunders presented the Staff Report noting the project was complex and had nearly every example of review process contained within it. He stated page three of the Staff report contained a long list of requested Deviations and contained overlapping issues; adding that design choices often had many ramifications. He gave an example of one setback deviation which affected all the properties adjacent to the proposed deviation. He stated the deviation requests for height (75 297 Design Review Board Minutes – October 24, 2007 2 feet), increased footprints in the B-1 zoning district, reduced Entryway Corridor setbacks, rooftop mechanical equipment screening (wind and solar equipment functionality issues), and lighting standards would need to be discussed by the DRB. He added that the applicant had proposed an alternative to the required performance points for landscaping and Staff would like the DRB to provide comment on that as well. He stated the applicant had requested the institution of sandwich board signs on the site, projecting signs in a larger dimension that usually allowable, and larger than normally allowable tenant signage. He asked what the DRB thought of the packet being digitally submitted to them. He added that the proposal was more urban than what had been seen in the past and had been packaged and presented as a LEED development; adding the City would be relying on that aspect of the proposal and had included a condition to that effect. He noted one of the criteria of the PUD that would be significant would be integration with the surrounding neighborhood; adding that the existing mill would be in keeping with the requested height. He stated there had been discussion regarding Historic Preservation points; adding a portion of the site was within a Historic District. He stated if the project went through as planned there would need to be a follow-up to the Historic Inventory due to the significant amount of modification involved. He stated Staff condition #1 recommended a 10 year approval period with renewal in five year increments to provide a sunset provision; adding that if no renewal was sought, the project would need to seek new approval subject to the regulations at that time. He stated the Commission had required the proposed double-frontage lots to create front style presentation to the street. He stated the design manual contained a description of the general character and massing of the proposed structures; including view sheds and shading. He stated a section on the proposed Millspur Avenue might have encroachments into the right of way and existing conditions might cause difficulties so Staff had revised the condition to specify new construction. Mr. Mendenhall stated he would like to recommend that any building greater than a single- family home be reviewed by the DRB prior to the issuance of a building permit; adding it should be a requirement of the PUD. He stated the overview had shown the Stockyard buildings without a description and they had thought more about what those buildings would be used for. He stated that approximately 200 homes would be placed near the mill to provide for the vibrant activity in that location. He stated he could provide the DRB with a video that would let them view a walk-through of the proposal; suggesting the massing and street presentation would more visible. He stated the scale of the structures was evident on the video, as well as the pedestrian scale. He described the areas the DRB was visually touring. He stated the shadow study was also included on the video during the course of a day. He stated he would like to speak to the specifics of the buildings, but they were still at the 1,000 foot height mark of design in the proposal. Mr. Ravnaas stated the applicant’s issues with the conditions of approval were primarily related to implementing historic regulations. He stated they were trying to get approval for the overall plan with the assumption that structures would be reviewed under the COA criteria on an individual basis. Mr. Howe stated the architectural aesthetics of the proposal could be reviewed 298 Design Review Board Minutes – October 24, 2007 3 by the DRB, but if it were in standard regulations or ordinances, Planning Staff would be responsible for those items. Mr. Ravnaas stated the crux of the matter would be the distinction between a preservation project and a development project; adding the applicant thought they had a development project with historic aspects. He stated no one wanted to remove the historical integrity of the area, but the applicant was feeling like it would be a difficult project if the historical aspects of the proposal prevented portions of the project from being completed. Planner Saunders explained that the proposal consisted of three site plans; adding the other components on the site without individual drawings did not have a final design. Mr. Banziger was excused and left the DRB. Planner Bristor added that the applicant had not had an opportunity to discuss the draft historic preservation conditions prior to the issuance of the Staff Report. Mr. Mendenhall stated there were different aspects; the planning aspects tied to the PUD and specific building issues would be DRB aspects. Mr. Ravnaas added the conditions of the PUD caused significant issues with the LEED related aspects of the design. Planner Saunders added the design manual would specify which portions of the proposal in which they would be applicable and everything outside of those areas would be exempt from those design standards. Planner Saunders clarified that Historic Design (Secretary of Interior) standards would be applicable to only historic structures. Mr. Mendenhall asked if the Secretary of Interior Standards applied to the PUD as a whole or COA projects within the PUD. Planner Saunders explained that they would apply to both; adding that a condition of approval would be to resurvey and re-nominate the Historic District between phases 8 and 9 of the development, even if that meant non-contributing status. Mr. Sabol stated the Secretary of Interior Standards would be followed, but if it were a condition of approval and unattainable for some reason, the project would be brought to a standstill. Planner Saunders responded that the Secretary of Interior Standards were further developed and adopted locally and applied within any registered Historic District regardless of specific conditions. Planner Bristor added that without a specific condition of approval, the applicant could get approval without meeting those standards. Planner Saunders stated Staff wanted clear and specific Design Guidelines that would address the historical aspects of the proposal. Mr. Ravnaas responded that the Standards required them to recreate the historical structures and therefore the standards would not be met under the current proposal. Mr. Sabol suggested that the wording of the condition would need to be reworked. Chairperson Livingston stated the applicant had a good idea of what would be done with the existing buildings and the Historic Inventory, so the applicant could specify which of those properties the Secretary of Interior Standards applied to; adding the specific inventory items should be treated with extra care due to their part in the Historic Inventory. He stated some of the things being proposed in the design manual read similarly to historic guidelines. He suggested the historically significant things could be set aside and addressed separately. Mr. Howe suggested the applicant was concerned that there would be no alternatives if the condition of approval were established. Planner Saunders responded the language of the condition could be modified. Mr. Sabol responded a preamble could be included in the design manual to clarify. Mr. Ravnaas added the preamble should also be included in the Staff Report. Chairperson 299 Design Review Board Minutes – October 24, 2007 4 Livingston suggested the applicant keep in mind that there might be a danger of damage to the Historic District and how would the buildings keep their historic designation; adding that the language of the condition was attempting to address that concern. He stated the Story Mansion was a good example of the commitment of the city to the preservation of historic districts and structures. Mr. Rea stated he thought the digital packet was a great idea, but he was not supportive of any fixture that allowed up-lighting. Mr. Saunders explained the proposed lighting would have a lower overall light output. Mr. Rea asked if he were hang-gliding over the “M” at night, would he see light sources. Mr. Mendenhall responded that no light sources would be seen as they would be washing over the building or the trees. Mr. Rea asked, as the phases of development progressed, would there be any assurance that, through whatever means, the development would be required to be completed. Planner Saunders responded that would be addressed with the subdivision approval as conditioned and one phase would need to be completed before the next phase began; adding there was an opportunity to bond uncompleted items, however the City would not release building permits until those items were completed. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if LEED’s established goal was driving some of the requested deviations. Mr. Mendenhall responded that it was. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked how the UDO regulations were being addressed with regard to LEED certifications. Planner Saunders responded there would be trade-offs for deviation requests; adding the proposal would be the low end of LEED recommendations for density. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if there were requirements within the LEED Neighborhood to require each building to be LEED as well. Mr. Mendenhall responded there were two agencies (LEED and Building Codes) that contradicted each other and were currently in discussions to harmonize. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the proposed deviation for the light fixture would present light horizontally. Mr. Mendenhall responded that LEED did not allow the presentation of a light source from any building. Chairperson Livingston asked if the proposed Entryway Corridor setback took into consideration the widening of Bridger Drive. Mr. Ravnaas responded that it did and they had provided an extra 10 feet. Planner Saunders added that the State had not yet released its EIS regarding the widening of Bridger Drive. Chairperson Livingston asked why affordable housing was a goal. Mr. Sabol responded the City wanted the proposal to contain the affordable housing. Mr. Mendenhall added there was a requirement for affordable housing in the LEED certification, but it could not be attained in the proposed location and would not therefore be a point the proposal would gain. Chairperson Livingston asked how the 50% construction waste stream production was guaranteed or policed. Mr. Mendenhall stated there were construction waste management regulations and the contractor would be held responsible. Chairperson Livingston asked how it was possible to weigh the difference between the historical and developmental aspects of the proposal with regard to the jeopardy of the Historic District. Planner Bristor responded it would be impossible to say at what point the District would fall apart, but most likely the boundaries of the District would change and there might be more building listings than a District. She stated the question would be how what was proposed was more of a benefit to the community than a detriment. Chairperson Livingston stated the applicant had done a great job of attempting to 300 Design Review Board Minutes – October 24, 2007 5 preserve what existed. Mr. Rea stated he thought that, unlike the downtown area, the proposed site was not as obvious; adding he did not think it would be critical if it lost its Historic designation. He stated he applauded the applicant and they had brought credibility to themselves by attempting to save some of those features. He stated his big concern was the timeframe involved in the phasing of the development. He stated he liked the street layout, but thought there could be additional work and clarity. He stated he was not supportive of allowing more signage than the rest of the community. Mr. Howe stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and he appreciated the work the applicant had done on the project and the graphics they had brought for the presentation. He stated the proposal was well presented given its complexity and he was highly supportive of the proposal. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he felt the DRB was looking at the proposal from 1,000 feet and he was not concerned with architectural features at this point. He stated he was more concerned with the flavor of the architecture and he was frustrated with the design guidelines due to their demand of design and colors; suggesting they draft more broad guidelines and adding he was supportive of the DRB reviewing all of the buildings. He stated the project could be dissected at such a time as it became important to dissect it and he felt strongly about reviewing each building for continuities sake. He stated he agreed with Mr. Rea regarding the idea of losing the historic status as it would never lose its historic presence and he would allow latitude on the historic structures. He stated he thought it was a great proposal and it should be moved forward. Chairperson Livingston stated that page 24 of the Design Objectives Plan called out natural tones of color and he did not see that as being important for this proposal. He stated on page 27 of the Staff Report, the language should read “transparent” instead of “translucent”. He stated that any buildings that met the DRB review threshold should be review by the DRB, but not every building within the site. He stated he was supportive of the requested height, but he had an issue with the Entryway Corridor setback being so small as there would be a park and residential development surrounding. He stated some of the parking areas did not show much vegetation in the parking lot and the heat build-up load could be reduced by the institution of trees. He stated the sight of technology without mechanical screening made the public aware of those things in their world and was not a bad idea; adding that screening of ugly mechanical equipment should occur. He stated he thought the Mill building tower feature (glass) on the east side should be lower and subordinate in height to create a link. He stated he thought all of the buildings carried a consistent look of “industrial chic” and it came through in the proposal. He stated it would be nice to see a color pallet and he was supportive of the proposal and thought it would be a good project. MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Howe seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for Story Mill Neighborhood PUD with Ph. 301 Design Review Board Minutes – October 24, 2007 6 1 & 2 Prel. Plan #Z-07159 with Staff conditions and the addition of two conditions; 1) that anything throughout the site meeting the DRB review criteria as outlined in Unified Development Ordinance be reviewed by the DRB, and 2) the proposed design guidelines be more specific in those areas that will not be reviewed by the DRB. The motion carried 4-0. Mr. Rea stated he did not think the second condition was necessary. Vice Chairperson Pentecost responded his concern in forming the condition had been the residential portions of the site that the DRB would not be reviewing. Mr. Howe added the second condition couldn’t hurt. Mr. Sabol asked for clarification on the specificity of the design guidelines (250 feet of detail instead of 1,000 feet of detail). Chairperson Livingston confirmed that he was correct. Planner Saunders added that the small Architectural Review approval letter would be required prior to City Building Permit approval. 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 •P. O. Box 7021 • 25 N. Willson, Suite E • Bozeman, MT 59771 • • 406-587-8404 • Fax 406-582-1136 • www.gvlt.org • landtrust@gvlt.org • September 11, 2007 From: Ted Lange, GVLT Community Trails Program To: Chris Saunders, Bozeman Planning Department Subject: Story Mill Center – Preliminary Plat & PUD Following are GVLT’s comments on the Trails Plan for the Story Mill Preliminary Plat and PUD. Overall, we believe this plan represents an extensive, well-designed addition to Bozeman’s community trail system, with excellent bicycle-pedestrian connectivity for both new residents of the proposed neighborhoods and the community as a whole. This property is a critical link in the Main Street to the Mountains trail system, connecting the Northeast Neighborhood to the East Gallatin Recreation Area, new trails along Bridger Creek in the Legends and Creekwood developments, and the “M” trailhead on Bridger Canyon Rd. The following comments address areas where GVLT believes mostly minor changes could be made to improve the safety and function of the proposed trail system. Additionally, we found some discrepancies concerning trail widths and types in the preliminary plat application’s text, tables and maps. The comments below specify GVLT’s recommendations for trail widths and types.  East Gallatin Greenway Trail & Monad Sidewalk – One of the most heavily used trail connections in the development will be on the north side of the East Gallatin River between the Story Mill Spur Trail and Meadow Park. This will be part of a popular running and walking loop and will be an area where users will want to experience the riparian corridor. o As proposed, the connection between Griffin and Meadow Park is limited to the wide concrete sidewalk along Monad. GVLT strongly recommends a Class II trail in this section separated from the Monad sidewalk, routed as closely as possible to the river, but connecting to the sidewalk at the Griffin-Monad intersection to ensure that users cross at the crosswalk – similar to the next section of trail to the east shown in exhibit L207. This Class II trail would better serve the running community which has expressed very strong opposition to concrete trails, and will also provide users an option that allows them to better experience the riparian corridor. Also, we believe that without a developed trail in this location, users will create trails. o The Trails Plan in the Trail Networks section shows a significantly different trail layout from that show in exhibit L207. GVLT strongly prefers the trail layout shown in L207 in which there is a Class II trail running between the river and Monad, fully separated from the Monad sidewalk until it connects directly to the Monad-Griffin intersection.  Riverfront Trail and Boardwalk – From the Story Mill Spur trail to Griffin, GVLT recommends a Class II natural fines trail. Also, it is very important to design for the fact that the pond crossing will be part of a heavily used east-west trail connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend making the boardwalk across the pond at least eight feet wide to safely accommodate a high volume of two-way traffic, including bicycles, wheelchairs, baby strollers and pedestrians. 330 • GVLT • P. O. Box 7021 • 25 N. Willson, Suite E • Bozeman, MT 59771 • • 406-587-8404 • Fax 406-582-1136 • www.gvlt.org • landtrust@gvlt.org •  Story Mill Spur / Story Mill Road Intersection – As currently designed, the intersection of the Story Mill Spur Trail and the Story Mill Rd. sidewalk south of Monad will result in a large number of bicycles on the sidewalk, and the likelihood that some bicyclists will attempt to cross mid-block on Story Mill Rd. We recommend rerouting the northern end of the trail so that it follows the edge of Riverfront Park to join the sidewalk at the Monad/Story Mill Rd. intersection to minimize conflicts with pedestrians using the sidewalk and ensure that bicyclists cross at the crosswalks.  Trail South of Meadow Park – From the southern boundary of Meadow Park to the bridge over the East Gallatin, GVLT recommends a Class II natural fines trail.  Linear Park Trail – GVLT recommends that the linear park trail be constructed as a Class I, 10’ asphalt trail. We believe this would be preferable for accommodating high volumes of two-way traffic, as well as snow removal for this bike-ped route through high density mixed use development.  Olympian Ave. Crossing Offset – To keep bicycles off the sidewalk and ensure the safest possible crossing, GVLT recommends angling the crosswalk or making other minor changes to eliminate the offset in the Linear Park Trail at the Olympian Ave. crossing shown on exhibit L203.  Overlook Park Trail – GVLT supports developing a trail to the high point of Overlook Park. We believe there will be user created trails with erosion problems if a developed trail is not provided. We recommend a combination of Class II and Class III trail as the steepness of the slope allows.  Story Mill Spur from Hillside to Bridger – Exhibit L204 shows an “existing” 12-foot trail, but it is important to note that this existing trail is currently a much more narrow gravel path that will need to be improved. GVLT recommends a Class II natural fines trail to provide runners and other users with an alternative to the wide concrete sidewalk on Story Mill that will parallel it. This trail should be connected directly to the intersections to ensure that users cross at the crosswalks, and to keep bicycles off the sidewalk.  Wetland Park Concrete Paths – In the wetland park, we recommend that only the trails connecting directly to the seatwall be 3’ concrete. We recommend making the spur connecting to Mckinsie a 6’ natural fines trail. The 3-foot concrete paths accessing the seatwall seem appropriate as nature trails, but we believe it will be important to prohibit bicycles on these paths as they will not be able to safely accommodate bicycle traffic. Exhibit L206 shows a three-foot concrete path running south from the six-foot Class II trail to Mckinsie Way. This path is the northwestern end of a continuous connection from the Story Mill Spur Trail, so changing it to a six-foot natural fines trail would accommodate the inevitable bike traffic.  Ceretana-Griffin Intersection Trail Connections – The Trails Plan in the Trail Networks section shows a significantly different lot and street layout for Block 17 compared to exhibits L101 and L103. L101 shows a trail angling from northwest to southeast, with an offset, mid- block crossing on Ceretana within 75 feet of the Ceretana-Griffin intersection. This does not appear to be either safe or functional. GVLT recommends routing this trail directly to the corner of Ceretana and Griffin on the east side of Ceretana, and eliminating the corner cutoff trail on the west side of Ceretana. 331 • GVLT • P. O. Box 7021 • 25 N. Willson, Suite E • Bozeman, MT 59771 • • 406-587-8404 • Fax 406-582-1136 • www.gvlt.org • landtrust@gvlt.org •  Boardwalks South of East Gallatin River – The trails south of the river include significant sections of boardwalk. GVLT supports the inclusion of these boardwalk trails. Due to the extensive wetlands in the neighborhood south of the river, trails appear to be the only active recreation provided in the open space in this neighborhood. We believe the boardwalks will provide these residents and other users with an important opportunity for active recreation and for experiencing the wetlands. We believe the boardwalks will not significantly increase disturbance of the wetlands beyond the disturbance they will already experience from the adjacent streets and residences. Careful consideration should be given to designing the boardwalks so that they can be shared by bicyclists and other users.  East Gallatin Trail to Southern Boundary – GVLT strongly supports development of the proposed trail in Block 9, along the East Gallatin River to this project’s southern boundary. This trail can be extended along the river by future developments to the south. Exhibit L104 appears to show a trail segment paralleling the sidewalk connecting this river trail to the Story Mill Spur. GVLT supports this trail configuration to keep bicycles off the sidewalk. However, if possible, we would like to see some separation and landscaping between the Class II trail and the sidewalk.  Bridger Drive Sidewalk vs. Shared Use Path – GVLT recommends a six to eight foot sidewalk, or a 10-foot Class I trail along Bridger Drive. Because of the ever-increasing bike traffic on Bridger, the tremendous popularity of the “M” trailhead, and the new Montana Outdoor Science School campus and the soon to be constructed Drinking Horse Mountain trail at the Fish Technology Center, GVLT believes that in the coming years it will be important to construct a Class I trail on one or both sides of Bridger to the “M” and the Fish Technology Center. On the south side of Bridger, either the Griffin-Bridger intersection or the Story Mill-Bridger intersection would the logical start points for a Class I trail.  Easements on Bozeman Creek – GVLT recommends securing trail easements, but not constructing trails along Bozeman Creek north and south of Bond. The easements would provide for future construction of a continuous Bozeman Creek trail if there are ever changes in land uses north and/or south of the Story Mill Center property boundary. In conclusion, we applaud the Story Mill developers for their commitment to creating a high quality trail system in their development, and for their willingness to work with GVLT and the city to refine the details of the Trails Plan. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ted Lange, GVLT Community Trails Planner 332 November 27, 2007, Dear Mayor Kraus and Commissioners: The City’s Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board (CAHAB) met November 5th and 13th to consider Blue Sky Development’s Affordable Housing Plan as presented in the preliminary plat. The CAHAB had the following questions and concerns. • The units proposed in Blue Sky Development’s Affordable Housing Plan do not meet the City’s definition as affordable under the adopted affordable housing guidelines. • All of the units proposed in Blue Sky Development’s Affordable Housing Plan require a large amount of subsidy. Should the City subsidize one house at $100,000 or 5 houses at $20,000 each? • The homes proposed in Blue Sky Development’s Affordable Housing Plan are not affordable without a TIF which may not happen. The alternative to the TIF is the required 17 Workforce Housing Ordinance (WHO) units. • The CAHAB is concerned that the Blue Sky Development’s Affordable Housing Plan has few specifics. The CAHAB had twice written Blue Sky Development and asked for clarification on types of dwellings, prices, size, definition of affordability, target income groups etc. If Blue Sky Development wishes to submit an alternative Workforce Housing Plan it needs to have the same level of detail as the ordinance. • The Story Mill Development necessitates the loss of 90 affordable housing units. The CAHAB questions if it is in the City’s best interest to accept Blue Sky Development’s Affordable Housing Plan which replaces the 90 affordable Bridger Court units with 120 units that need heavy subsidies to be affordable and have a 10 year build- out. • The CAHAB believes that the City may request additional affordable units during the PUD process and recommends that the Commission do so. • The CAHAB realizes that the Story Mill development is unique due to the proposed LEED’s Certification. If the high building costs are caused by the LEED’s Certification the CAHAB suggests then developer consider the option of building units that qualify under the WHO off-site. • The CAHAB recommends that the City not accept cash or land in lieu of WHO units. The Workforce Housing Ordinance is new and Story Mill Development is the first developer to supply information on how they will comply with the WHO. Until the Workforce Housing Ordinance is tested the CAHAB recommends that the 17 required units follow the Ordinance and no alternative plan be accepted. • The CAHAB has concerns about projects with multiple phases that stretch over years. We have seen two examples where the property was sold and it has been difficult to enforce the original plat requirements. • The housing need that caused the City to adopt the WHO is still as pressing. Although alternative housing plans are acceptable under the WHO the CAHAB recommends that the City approve a plan that will result in WHU being built as soon as possible. 333 In light of the loss of 90 units of affordable housing stock and the other concerns listed above the CAHAB proposes the following: ƒ The Story Mill Development supply 45 homes that are affordable under the WHO definition. ƒ 17 of the homes should comply with the Workforce Housing Ordinance, most specifically the matrix and pricing guidelines. ƒ For the additional 28 units the developer may submit a detailed alterative plan. However, all 45 units must comply with the affordability guidelines as described in the Workforce Housing Ordinance and if the developer submits an alternative plan they need to supply the same level of details as provided in the WHO. ƒ Blue Sky Development is required to build the units are built as opposed to donating lots or cash-in-lieu. Blue Sky Development will ensure that any entity that purchases the WHU lots understands the requirements of the final plat. ƒ The housing plan should provide for all of the affordable units within the first 5 phases and 80% of the WHO units per phase must be completed before another phase is started. ƒ The areas where affordable units are to be located be designated on the final plat. 334 335 336 337 338 Bozeman Recreation & Parks Advisory Board P.O. Box 1230 · Bozeman, MT · 59771 Subdivision Review PLANNER: Chris Saunders FROM: Subdivision Review Committee SUBJECT: Story Mill REVIEWED ON: August 16, 2007 COMMENTS: • RPAB favors the use of boardwalks through the wetland areas. Our feeling is that the boardwalks provide a much greater trail experience than sidewalks around the park. The benefits of this experience far outweigh the possible negative impacts to local wildlife. • We support the construction of trails through the Overlook Park. Our opinion is that well designed and constructed trails will provide better service and ultimately lower impact than “usage trails” that will appear if trails are not provided. • We recommend that in areas where there are trails and adjacent sidewalks that the trails be allowed to move off the sidewalks and meander as much as is practical in order to provide a less urban trail experience. • In general, it is our position that as Story Mill provides very little recreational parkland for the anticipated population, it is critical that great attention be paid to the quality of the trail system in order to provide the excellence of design required for a PUD. Respectfully submitted, Sandy Dodge, Chairman, RPAB Sept 10, 2007 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 SHPO Comments on Story Mill Neighborhood Development SHPO comments are based on project drawings and renderings presented to us by the Bozeman Historic Preservation Office. We use the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation (the Standards) as a basis for our review. These are the same standards used by the National Park Service in their review of projects submitted for Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits. The intention of the Tax Credit program is to provide an incentive for owners of National Register buildings to make their buildings contribute culturally, aesthetically, and economically to the local community. Meeting the Standards is a requirement for the program; they provide guidance for retaining the historic character of a building, enabling the historic architect’s or builder’s design intent to endure while meeting modern needs without undue modern embellishment. In the case of the Story Mill complex, the general character is very industrial. While a new, non-industrial use for the complex is likely necessary to “save” the buildings, it will be important to retain a distinctly industrial character through retention and reintroduction of character-defining architectural features big and small, unique and ubiquitous. New features such as window and door openings can be introduced on secondary elevations, but significant new features must be historic in character, but subtly differentiated from the original so they are not mistaken as historic. Additions must not be conspicuous or significantly alter the mass or form of a building, but rather read as a subset of it. With this in mind we offer the following comments: „ The glass and steel addition is not in character with the other buildings. Its height, cladding, and fenestration pattern are not subtly differentiated from, or in keeping with the historic building’s character as required by the standards. „ The enlarged openings are likely too expansive; could these be reduced in size or moved to a less conspicuous location? „ Infill or significant expansion of historic openings and creation of significant new openings on primary elevations (those easily viewed from the public right of way) does not meet the Standards. „ New metal panel mechanical screens and rooftop structures are likely too conspicuous. Can the height of these be lowered to a point where they are not visible from the public right of way? „ The new steel and glass vestibule is not in character with this building, vestibules on primary elevations should be inboard of historic building walls. Main entrances can be made to read as such through landscaping, lighting or understated awnings. „ New awnings must be in character with the existing building; glass and steel are a departure from this character. „ New window openings are too identical to historic openings; new openings might be allowable at this location because the elevation is less conspicuous than others, but new openings and their window units should be subtly differentiated from adjacent historic work. Window openings should be simple without segmental arches; window unit configurations should be simplified possibly with a one-over-one configuration as opposed to the adjacent, historic two-over-two configuration. For further guidance on the Standards please visit: http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/tax/ITS/itshome.htm 365 366 367 368