HomeMy WebLinkAbout25. The CanneryPage 1 of 12
Z14075, Staff Report for the Cannery District Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Date: City Commission Meeting October 6, 2014 at 6:00 pm in the City Commission
Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana.
Project Description: A Concept Planned Unit Development application for a multi-phase
development located on 12.24 acres northwest of the intersection of East Oak Street
and North Rouse Avenue. The property is under the split jurisdiction of the City of Bozeman and Gallatin County.
Project Location: Tracts 1, 2 and 3A of COS 2128B, Tract and COS 2548, and portions of
Block 2 of the Imes Addition, Plat C-41 north of East Oak Street. The project is
located within the Class II, Oak Street and North Rouse Avenue and Class I, I-90
Entryway Corridor Overlay Districts.
Recommendation: That the City Commission review and provide comments on the PUD
concept plan.
Report Date: Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Staff Contact: Brian Krueger, Development Review Manager
Project Summary
Property owner/applicant Cannery District Partners, LLC, with representative Comma Q
Architecture, submitted a Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) application to the City
of Bozeman proposing a new PUD to extend development from the existing Northside PUD
onto adjacent tracts of land for a phased mixed use commercial development.
The property is zoned as B-2 (Community Business District) zoning (effective August 26,
2014). The project spans jurisdiction lines with a portion of the Cannery District property
under the jurisdiction of Gallatin County.
The Design Review Board reviewed the concept plan on August 13, 2014 and was generally
supportive of the design and with the staff comments provided below. A summary of Design Review Board comments is provided in Section 5.
A more detailed project background can be found in Section 2.
The project owners are proceeding with site plan approval through the County and with State
issued building permits for the renovation of some of the existing buildings on the site. The
Concept PUD application states that the owners plan to annex the County parcels into the City at a future date. A group of City staff, across multiple departments, continue to work
with the owners and their team towards a defined plan and schedule for future annexation of
the County parcels. The City learned late in the review of this concept plan that the County
parcels do not lie within a Fire District, and do not currently have fire protection. Staff and
the owners are to working to establish parameters for the annexation and provision of additional City services to several properties that comprise the Cannery District recognizing
the long standing provision of water and sewer service to the property and to facilitate the
394
Z14075, Design Review Board Staff Report-Cannery District Concept PUD Page 2 of 12
redevelopment of this infill site while meeting the City’s Annexation goals and policies as
established pursuant to Resolution 4400.
Additional information on annexation will be provided to the Commission during the staff
presentation at the meeting or before if it becomes available.
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES .................................................................................................... 3
SECTION 2 – PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................ 6
SECTION 3 - REQUESTED RELAXATION/DEVIATIONS/VARIANCES ........................ 6
SECTION 4 - STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS ......................................................... 6
SECTION 5 – DESIGN REVIEW BOARD COMMENTS ................................................... 11
APPENDIX A – PROJECT SITE ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY............................... 11
APPENDIX B - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF ............................ 12
395
Z14075, Design Review Board Staff Report-Cannery District Concept PUD Page 3 of 12
SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES
396
Z14075, Design Review Board Staff Report-Cannery District Concept PUD Page 4 of 12
397
Z14075, Design Review Board Staff Report-Cannery District Concept PUD Page 5 of 12
398
Z14075, Design Review Board Staff Report-Cannery District Concept PUD Page 6 of 12
SECTION 2 – PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Cannery District Planned Unit Development concept plan is a proposed plan to extend
the development that exists at the Northside PUD onto the adjacent property to create a larger
commercial mixed use district. The property has split jurisdiction between the City of
Bozeman and Gallatin County. The applicants propose to initially develop the site with the split jurisdiction with the eventual annexation and application of municipal zoning for all the parcels on the property. The redevelopment would include the reuse and rehabilitation of the
existing structures on the site, the construction of new structures, and the development of
common parking areas and open spaces. The proposed uses for the site include health and
exercise, personal and convenience services, retail, office, light manufacturing, and restaurants. The City recently approved a zone map amendment to rezone the annexed portions of the property to B-2, Community Commercial District. The land use designation
within the Bozeman Community Plan for the property is Community Commercial Mixed
Use. A subdivision of the property is anticipated in the future to designate zero lot line
building pad lots within common parking area lots. The history of the property is varied, but includes the buildings associated with the historic 1917 Bozeman Canning Company Pea Cannery operations. City sewer and water was extended into these properties under County
jurisdiction in 1926. The proposal is to renovate the Pea Cannery buildings under County
jurisdiction with a planned annexation in the future.
SECTION 3 - REQUESTED RELAXATION/DEVIATIONS/VARIANCES
Planned Unit Development Relaxations are requested with this application. The applicant has identified potential relaxations to the following standards:
1. Lot area and width - to create pad lots within common parking areas and open space;
2. Yard setbacks - to create pad lots within common parking areas and open space;
3. Entryway Corridor setbacks - to place buildings closer to Oak street than the required
25’ setback and to place parking and circulation closer to I-90 than the required 50’ entryway corridor setback;
4. Access frontage for lots - to create pad lots with common open space;
5. Access spacing - to abandon one access and provide two full accesses on Oak Street;
6. Parking lot landscaping - to provide unbroken rows of parking in excess of 100 feet
without a landscape island.
SECTION 4 - STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS
Analysis and resulting recommendations are based on the entirety of the application
materials, municipal codes, standards, plans, public comment, and all other materials
available during the review period. The purpose of the Concept PUD is for discussion of the
applicant’s proposal with the designated review committees in order to identify any requirements and applicable standards and policies, as well as offering the applicant the opportunity to identify major problems that may exist and identify solutions prior to making
formal application. Staff has evaluated the project and offers the following comments for
consideration.
Phasing: The phasing depicts the first phase of the development to occur within the County jurisdiction. The County is currently processing a major site plan and conditional use permit
399
Z14075, Design Review Board Staff Report-Cannery District Concept PUD Page 7 of 12
for buildings E, F G and H. Access to phase 1 is proposed through the City and via an
existing parking and access area. The existing buildings in phase 1 are on City water and
sewer service. The application proposes upgrades to the sewer and water infrastructure on
County property and to grant access and maintenance easements to the City. The application states that a deferred annexation of phase 1 property is proposed with no date certain
provided. Phase 2 is proposed on City property and will connect the historic Pea Cannery
buildings to the Northside PUD buildings at the corner of North Rouse Avenue and East Oak
Street.
Process: Zoning: A preliminary PUD plan application would be the next step in the
entitlement process. This could only be submitted for the extent of the existing property
within city limits, unless an application for annexation and initial zoning is submitted in the
interim for the Cannery properties under County jurisdiction. The preliminary PUD plan
application requires public notice, a public hearing, and approval by the City Commission. A Final PUD plan application would be required following approval of the preliminary plan.
Subdivision: The subdivision process to entitle the requested building pad and common open
space design would be a three step process: pre-application plan, preliminary plat, and final
plat. The preliminary plat application could be submitted concurrently with the preliminary
PUD plan application. The PUD zoning relaxations related to lot access, frontage, and setbacks would have to be approved prior to or concurrent with the approval of the
preliminary plat.
Site Development: A site plan and certificate of appropriateness application approval is
required for each building on the site unless the PUD anticipates and requests a sketch plan
level review for all future building pads. All site plans are required to conform to the final PUD plan and development guidelines required for phased PUD plans. If common parking
and plaza areas are proposed to be constructed independent from buildings, a final plan
process may be used prior to construction to determine compliance with the PUD final plan.
Annexation: Future annexation of the County parcels is anticipated. Staff would anticipate
that a B-2 Community Business zoning designation will be the initial zoning of the parcels annexed. The Cannery PUD would be extended to cover properties annexed into the City to
facilitate the implementation of the development master plan as shown in the first exhibit of
the map series. Staff and the owners are exploring innovative opportunities to keep this
project moving forward under split jurisdiction with the eventual realization that the entire
project site will be annexed into the City limits over time.
Street Vacation: The application proposes to vacate the Montana Avenue right of way and
potentially other alley and street rights of way left over in the Imes Addition to the City
following the realignment of the Oak Street right of way. Staff is generally supportive of
removing the access at Montana Avenue due to the proximity of the access to the intersection
and that it lies on a curve. Internal streets are not proposed for the PUD and Montana Avenue would remain a singular portion of right of way without further connections if not
removed. City sewer and water easements would remain to serve infrastructure if the street
were vacated.
Uses: The project is proposed as mixed use and includes heath and exercise, retail, restaurant, office, light manufacturing, artisan manufacturing and personal and convenience
400
Z14075, Design Review Board Staff Report-Cannery District Concept PUD Page 8 of 12
services. All uses proposed are principle and permitted uses with the B-2 zoning designation
except on premise sales and consumption of alcohol and light manufacturing entirely indoors
which are conditional uses.
Performance Points: With a PUD, Section 38.20.090.E.2.a.7 requires at least 20
performance points for the subject property. Points can be met using any combination of on-
site and off-site open space or other options listed in the code. The Preliminary PUD must
specify how the performance points are being met. The concept plan does not provide an
inventory or discussion of how the PUD performance requirements are met on the site. Open space provisions for phased PUD developments: If a project is to be built in phases, each phase shall include an appropriate share of the proposed recreational, open space, affordable
housing and other site and building amenities of the entire development used to meet the
requirements of section 38.20.090.E.2. The appropriate share of the amenities for each phase
shall be determined for each specific project at the time of preliminary approval and shall not be based solely upon a proportional or equal share for the entire site.
Development Guidelines: With a PUD, Section 38.20.070.D.2 requires development
guidelines for all phased PUD’s. Such information may include, but is not limited to, the
following:
a. A description of submittal requirements and review procedures for the approval of preliminary and final plans submitted in accordance with the master plan and development
guidelines (to be developed with the assistance of staff);
b. A description of the coordination with any other applicable review procedures, e.g.,
subdivision review;
c. A complete list of proposed or potential land uses;
d. Sign guidelines: type, location, design, illumination, size and height;
e. Perimeter buffering guidelines with specific regard to adjoining land uses;
f. Landscaping guidelines, including a description of the landscaping theme in relation to the
streetscape, the buildings on site, and any proposed signage, open space treatment, parking and circulation areas, display areas and screening;
g. Design guidelines for outdoor storage and/or display;
h. Protective covenants which may include requirements, property owners' association
provisions, provisions for maintenance, etc.;
i. Parking: guidelines for design, provision for shared facilities, circulation between lots, coordination with sidewalk system, and service areas;
j. Dimensional requirements: building heights, setbacks (interior and perimeter), open space,
etc.;
k. Lighting;
l. Architectural guidelines;
m. Provisions for utilities, communications and refuse;
n. Guidelines for noise, emissions, glare, hazardous materials, etc.; and
o. Improvements schedule.
401
Z14075, Design Review Board Staff Report-Cannery District Concept PUD Page 9 of 12
Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation: The pedestrian circulation system is a strong element of
the design. A hierarchy of types of circulation is provided and connections are available both
in the north/south and east/west orientations. Consideration should be given to stronger connections between areas of open space, through the parking lot, as well as connections
with public areas primarily through the pedestrian crossings through parking areas and drive
accesses. Crosswalks made of scored concrete should be provided in all areas to highlight
pedestrian areas and provide traffic calming. Landscaping adjacent to pedestrian walks
through the parking should retain a minimum 8 foot wide planting area wherever possible to accommodate the planting and protection of trees within the parking areas. Bicycle racks are
required and should be numbered and placed near key building entrances or open spaces.
Automobile Connections: Vehicular connections are provided from the primary adjacent
streets. Two accesses are proposed from North Rouse Avenue and two from East Oak Street. The spacing of the accesses is largely determined from a new proposed fairground primary access and the elimination of Montana Avenue at the curve on East Oak adjacent to Lone
Mountain Gymnastics. The vehicular accesses provide generally clear circulation through
the development. The parking areas are broken into smaller fields between and behind
buildings and away from the street frontages. District wayfinding signage is recommended for development of this size. East Oak Street is a City facility and will be required to be constructed to one half of the principal arterial street section as shown in the City’s
Transportation Plan on the north side of the street for the entire length of the property
frontage. North Rouse Avenue is proposed to be reconstructed in its entirety along the
project frontage as part of a Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) project scheduled for 2016. North Rouse Avenue is under MDT jurisdiction and all access will require their approval.
Innovative Stormwater: The concept plan includes a stormwater design that localizes the
treatment and conveyance of stormwater. In lieu of intensive interior parking lots landscaping within rows of parking; the plan proposes interior parking lot landscape swales
to catch and treat stormwater. This type of design is known as Low Impact Development and
is highly supported by staff.
Landscaping: At the concept level, the application does not delineate in detail the amount of landscape features that are intended. Overall, the landscape plan should provide at least 15
performance points. The concept plans shows a mixture of trees, turf, plaza landscaping
areas, and stormwater areas. The landscaping at the Northside PUD is considered an
exemplary example of commercial landscaping. If that same character is carried forward the
development will continue to be a strong local example of placemaking defined by the overall layout, plazas, architecture, and landscaping. Common site furniture and outdoor
plaza design should exhibit commonalities of theme and design. Public art is recommended
in all plaza areas and near building entrances.
Lighting: As with landscape features and site furniture, lighting of open space and major entrances into the development and individual buildings should implement a common theme
402
Z14075, Design Review Board Staff Report-Cannery District Concept PUD Page 10 of 12
that supports the concept of this commercial/industrial PUD. Off-street parking lots should
be properly illuminated, but not become an intrusive element along the entryway corridor
during the evening hours. A hierarchy of lighting types are recommended to direct
pedestrians in the evening hours. A security lighting plan should be developed to provide an adequate level of light after business hours without lighting the entire development. LED
lighting is highly recommended in all areas.
Signage: Because this project contains multiple tenants, the Preliminary PUD should include
a comprehensive signage plan which is required by code. Signs should be an integral part of the overall architectural design and should be part of the Development Guidelines. A common signage program that specifies location, size, lighting, materials, and unified
graphic design for both shared and individual signs should be developed.
Public Areas and Plazas: Consideration should be given to identifying a general theme for the central public outdoor plaza area(s) with landscape furniture, landscape features, public art, and lighting. Consideration should be given to shade structures or elements within the
outdoor areas. Accenting key pedestrian crossings and connections is an important element
of these public areas. Landscape features, outdoor furniture, lighting, seating areas, and
outdoor vendor areas should also be integral elements of these areas.
Building Design: The property is located in the North Rouse Avenue, East Oak Street, and
the I-90 Entryway Overlay Districts; therefore, a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) is
required with the PUD, future site plans for buildings, and any subsequent exterior
modifications. The applicants should review the development proposal against relevant sections of the Design Objectives Plan. The Northside PUD has developed organically with
each building and includes high quality design that reflects the local community character,
climate, history, and natural environment. This design theme should be carried forward with
considerations to the designs of the historic Pea Cannery buildings.
Variety in architectural design with dramatic architectural forms is encouraged; however, not at the cost of losing an overall unified theme. The development guidelines should include a
vocabulary of acceptable materials, treatment and use of materials, patterns, fenestration,
scale and directional expression. Use of fenestration treatment, proportions, and emphasis of
main entrances should be included. A discussion of how buildings address the pedestrian
circulation areas, plaza areas, street frontages should be included. Primary building entrance locations should be carefully considered and be designed to be clearly identifiable and with a
sheltering element. The building architecture and design along the street frontages should be
carefully considered and expressly discussed within the development guidelines. The
development guidelines are recommended to include many various visual examples of
intended outcomes and options to achieve the overall design vision.
Service and Utility areas: Consideration will need to be given to the overall approach to
circulation for deliveries, trash service, and outdoor storage. Depending on the overall mix
of uses that develop within the project, demands for services may vary substantially.
Restaurants have a much higher demand for deliveries and services than office or retail uses. Thought should be given to a flexible approach to trash enclosures and loading/delivery areas
403
Z14075, Design Review Board Staff Report-Cannery District Concept PUD Page 11 of 12
to service the development. The development guidelines should include a section on utilities
and service areas.
SECTION 5 – DESIGN REVIEW BOARD COMMENTS
The Design Review Board considered the concept PUD plan at their August 13, 2014
meeting. Overall, the DRB was supportive of the concept and offered the following constructive comments:
• Provide more green spaces.
• Provide bus connections.
• Provide focus on outdoor seating and gathering spaces.
• Concern about survivability of trees within bioswales.
• Design of individual buildings will be key.
• Textures of building materials important.
• Concerns about the angled facades of buildings along Oak Street.
• Supportive of proposed Oak Street and I-90 setback relaxations and bioswales in lieu
breaking up rows of parking with landscaping in phase 2.
• Concern about alignment of rail trail across drive access at North Rouse Avenue.
• Concern about site egress, consider left turn pockets at egress locations.
APPENDIX A – PROJECT SITE ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY
Zoning Designation and Land Uses: The subject property is zoned “B-2” (Community
Business District). The intent of the “B-2” district is to provide for a broad range of mutually supportive retail and service functions located in clustered areas bordered on one or more
sides by limited access arterial streets.
Adopted Growth Policy Designation: The Future Land Use Map of the Bozeman
Community Plan designates the subject property to develop as “Community Commercial Mixed Use”. The “Community Commercial” classification states that activities within this
land use category are the basic employment and services necessary for a vibrant community.
Establishments located within these categories draw from the community as a whole for their
employee and customer base and are sized accordingly. A broad range of functions
including retail, education, professional and personal services, offices, residences, and general service activities typify this designation.
In the “center-based” land use pattern, Community Commercial Mixed Use areas are
integrated with significant transportation corridors, including transit and non-automotive
routes, to facilitate efficient travel opportunities. The density of development is expected to
be higher than currently seen in most commercial areas in Bozeman and should include multi-story buildings. A Floor Area Ratio in excess of .5 is desired. It is desirable to allow
residences on upper floors, in appropriate circumstances. Urban streetscapes, plazas, outdoor
seating, public art, and hardscaped open space and park amenities are anticipated,
appropriately designed for an urban character. Placed in proximity to significant streets and
intersections, an equal emphasis on vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation shall be provided. High density residential areas are expected in close proximity. Including
residential units on sites within this category, typically on upper floors, will facilitate the
provision of services and opportunities to persons without requiring the use of an automobile.
404
Z14075, Design Review Board Staff Report-Cannery District Concept PUD Page 12 of 12
The Community Commercial Mixed Use category is distributed at two different scales to
serve different purposes. Large Community Commercial Mixed Use areas are significant in
size and are activity centers for an area of several square miles surrounding them. These are
intended to service the larger community as well as adjacent neighborhoods and are typically distributed on a one mile radius. Smaller Community Commercial areas are usually in the 10-
15 acre size range and are intended to provide primarily local service to an area of
approximately one-half mile radius. These commercial centers support and help give identity
to individual neighborhoods by providing a visible and distinctive focal point.
They should typically be located on one or two quadrants of intersections of arterials and/or collectors. Although a broad range of uses may be appropriate in both types of locations the
size and scale is to be smaller within the local service placements.
Mixed use areas should be developed in an integrated, pedestrian friendly manner and should
not be overly dominated by any single land use. Higher intensity employment and residential
uses are encouraged in the core of the area or adjacent to significant streets and intersections. As needed, building height transitions should be provided to be compatible with adjacent
development.
APPENDIX B - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF
Owner/Applicant: Cannery District Partners, LLC 1006 West Main Street Bozeman, MT 59715
Representative: Comma Q Architecture 109 N. Rouse Avenue #1, Bozeman, MT 59715
Report By: Brian Krueger, Development Review Manager
405
MINUTES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
UPSTAIRS CONFERENCE ROOM,
ALFRED STIFF PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, 20 EAST OLIVE STREET WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2014 5:30 P.M.
:07 Seconds
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER Board Members Present: Michael Pentecost, Chair
Bill Rea
Lessa Racow
Mark Hufstetler Mel Howe
Walt Banzinger
Staff Present
Brian Krueger Commissioner Chris Mehl
Members of Public
Cordell Pool, Stahly Engineering
Scott Dehlendorf, Cannery District Partner
:17 Seconds
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT
• Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Development Review
Committee, not on this agenda. Three minute time limit per speaker.
• Individual items will have a public comment period at the end of Committee discussion.
No public comment forthcoming
:25 Seconds ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2014 Motion and second to approve minutes of July 23rd. Minutes approved unanimously.
:29 Seconds ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW 1. Cannery Concept PUD Z14175 (Krueger /Johnson)
101 East Oak Street
This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD).
Page 1 of 4 406
A Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) Application to allow the development of proposed
phase 2 of the PUD consisting of 2 new buildings, with associated parking and related site
improvements.
:30 Seconds
Planner Krueger asked for a quick roll call for the minutes.
1:42 minutes Planner Krueger introduced Scott Dehlendorf, applicant and Cordell Pool, Stahly Engineering,
representing the applicant. He then presented the staff report for the Cannery PUD stating this is an
opportunity for the City to identify compliance with the guidelines of long-range planning policy
and City Code and an opportunity to provide input. This is an historic area of Bozeman that
includes sections that are not annexed. Relaxations would be focused on two things – setbacks and lot frontage. This project will tentatively be heard before the City Commission on August 25th.
32:39 minutes
Planner Krueger completed the staff report and answered questions from Board members.
32:59 minutes
Mr. Banzinger asked if there any jurisdictional issues with the County. He also questioned if
Community Development is OK with the proposed setback relaxations on I-90 and Oak St. He
stated the design appears to follow established precedence.
38:34 minutes
Ms. Racow asked about a fence line or buffer between I-90 and the parking areas. Mr. Pool
responded saying there is an existing fence and a 30’ high hill near the railroad tracks.
40:42 minutes Mr. Howe had no questions.
40:46 minutes
Mr. Hufstetler asked if the City extended Oak St to the east, would additional lanes be added to the
west side and, if so, would that affect this project? Planner Krueger responded that Oak St is an arterial street and not a local street, and explained the differences and stated there were no plans to
extend Oak St. to the east at this time. Mr. Pool stated they did allow for a wider right-of-way in
this project. Mr. Hufstetler asked about the zoning of the property to the west of this project and
about specific architectural guidelines in place from the Northside PUD. Is there any procedure in place to collaborate with County planning on this project? Does the applicant plan to get rid of the
metal siding on the Cannery Building? The reply was, yes, they are.
53:14 minutes
Mr. Rea asked if a mid-street pedestrian crossing on Oak Street would get a traffic signal or is it a crosswalk? Is there anything planned by the City on Rouse for pedestrian connectivity?
56:27 minutes
Chair Pentecost asked what dictates how many access points would be planned for the 162,000 sq ft
of potential development? What is the time frame for the phases? Will the developer design and
This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD).
Page 2 of 4 407
build the pad sites? Why is there no residential component?
1:04:36 hr
Commissioner Mehl spoke to the Oak St extension to the east. Why are we talking about setbacks from the Interstate, which is County land, but not talking about a site plan? Will the City planning staff pursue meeting more often with the County planning staff? What is the ratio of parking per
building?
1:14:09 hr Chair Pentecost closed for Planner/Applicant questioning and opened for Board discussion.
1:14:13 hr
Mr. Banzinger appreciates hearing the informal and the opportunity to comment. He is supportive
of staff’s comments, positions and everything they presented. He likes the concept and believes it’s appropriate for the area. He would like to see more greenspace, trail connections, bus connections, pedestrian orientation, and gathering spaces on site. He would like more mixed use added.
1:17:02 hr
Ms. Racow agrees with everything Mr. Banzinger said. She commends the applicant on the nice parking lots and encourages them to apply that to the rest of the development. She is concerned about the survival rate of canopy trees in the bioswale area. She stated it can be very difficult for
trees to survive in that type of condition. She’s excited to see this happen and commends them for a
job well done so far.
1:18:21 hr
Mr. Howe commends the proposal and imagines that this will be an aesthetically attractive project
and supports it.
1:19:11 hr Mr. Hufstetler echoes the above comments. He likes the project and the irregular rhythm and
unusual feel. He thinks the design of the individual buildings will be key to how the development
succeeds. He likes the industrial feel of the buildings and encourages architectural diversity with an
industrial feel with a variety of textures on the buildings. Overall, he likes the project.
1:21:28 hr
Mr. Rea commended the existing project. He stated he has some grave concerns about it because of
another PUD in town which had specific, thick design guidelines but turned out completely
different from what was originally planned. He sees a potential for things to go terribly wrong in
building pads N, K, J, and I. The combination of odd shapes with outside designs along the view shed could be disastrous. He loves the fact of saving the street wall and completely supports minimizing the Oak St setback on the County property and along I-90. He supports the long
parking runs and the bioswale combination. He’d like to see some thought put into the NE
intersection and the Rail/Trail stating it’s not far enough away from or close enough to the
intersection. He likes the clapboard siding on Building F. 1:27:31 hr
This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD).
Page 3 of 4 408
Chair Pentecost echoes the other comments. He talked about the site access. With about 500
parking spaces and only two exits onto Oak St makes him uneasy for 5:00pm traffic. He strongly
agrees with Mr. Rea about the design guidelines. Creativity can be stifled and the development can
be dragged down if design guidelines get too heavy-handed. Allow the design line to be crossed. He gets good public comments on what is currently there. He supports the lot area width, yard
setbacks, access frontage for lots, access spacing, parking areas and landscaping.
1:32:33 hr ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA
Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-3203 (TDD).
This meeting is open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3200 (voice) or 582-2301/582-2432 (TDD).
Page 4 of 4 409
Co.t .
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4400
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
MONTANA, REVISING AND RE-ESTABLISHING GOALS AND POLICIES FOR
ANNEXATION OF PROPERTIES TO THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, AND
SUPERSEDING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3907.
WHEREAS,the City of Bozeman wishes to establish updated comprehensive annexation goals and
policies,to provide for orderly, well-planned growth, and
WHEREAS, adoption of such goals and policies will provide our community with clear guidelines
for informed annexation proposals and
WHEREAS,the City establishes these goals and policies in accordance with annexation statutes as
set forth in Title 7, Chapter 2, Parts 43, 45, 46 and 47, M.C.A.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman,
Montana, to wit:
Section 1
Goals
The following goals are hereby established for the consideration of annexations to the City of
Bozeman.
1. It shall be the goal of the City of Bozeman to encourage annexations of land
contiguous to the City.
2. The City shall seek to annex all areas that are totally surrounded by the City,without
regard to parcel size.
3. The City shall seek to annex all property currently contracting with the City for City
services such as water, sanitary sewer and/or fire protection..
4. It shall be the goal of the City of Bozeman to require annexation of all land proposed
for development lying within the service boundary of the existing sewer system as
depicted in the Bozeman Growth Policy, and to encourage annexations within the
urban growth area identified in the Bozeman Growth Policy.
1 of 4410
Resolution No. 4400, Goals and Policies for Annexation
Section 2
Policies
The following policies are hereby established for the consideration of all future annexations to the
City of Bozeman.
1. Annexations shall include dedication of all easements,rights-of-way for collector and
arterial streets, water rights and waivers of right to protest against the creation of
improvement districts necessary to provide the essential services for future
development of the city.
2. Issues pertaining to master planning and zoning shall be addressed in conjunctionwith
the application for annexation.
a.The initial application for annexation shall be in conformance with the current
Bozeman Growth Policy, If a Growth Policy Amendment is necessary to
accommodate anticipated uses, said amendment process may be initiated by the
applicant and conducted concurrently with the processing of the application for
annexation.
b.Initial zoning classification ofthe property to be annexed shall be determined by the
City Commission, in compliance with the Bozeman Growth Policy and upon a
recommendation of the City Zoning Commission,prior to final annexation approval.
C.The applicant may indicate his or her preferred zoning classification as part of the
annexation application.
3. Fees for Annexation procedures shall be established by the City Commission.No fee
will be charged for any City-initiated annexation.
4. It shall be the general policy of the City that annexations will not be approved where
unpaved county roads will be the most commonly used route to gain access to the
property.
5. Prior to annexation ofproperty,it shall be the policy ofthe City of Bozeman to acquire
adequate and usable-water rights, or an appropriate fee in lieu thereof, in accordance
with Section 38.23.180 ofthe municipal code, equal to the avefage annual&vefsien
requirement neeessai=y te pr-evide he arAieipated Epiefage af.-iffial eenstmVtieii efv elef
by fesideiAs aftd/ef tiser-s ef the pr-eperty when fully develeped en the basis of the
zoning designation(s). The -&-ee may be iised to aequire water- r-i&s af fe
4s te the water systeffi whieh would er-eate additiena4 walef stipp
eapaeib,, This peliey may be &ubjeet to the fellewing
exeepti
a.Fer-afty aiine Eatieii in eNeess eften(10)aer-es,it shall be eaffied efft pfier-to final plat
appreval, final site plan appreva4 or- 4te issiianee of any Wildiiig pefmit, whieheve
eeetffs first provided applieai4 exeetites a premissei-y Rote er- other- appr-epi:iale
doeument aeeeptable to the Givy.
b. Fef aRy annexatien or portien thereof proposed fi)r use as a ehweh as that tefm
defined in the Bozeman zoning or-dinanee, the R 1, ResiderAial Single 14ouseheld,
Low sDensityDistr-iet shall be used ift plaee of the pfepefty zening designation fe
ealeulating the water requirement. if!he use ehmges 4em a ehweh at aft),fifne in the
2 of 4
411
Resolution No. 4400, Goals and Policies for Annexation
9...
the time of the ehange, the ewtier- ar- its sueeesser- shall supply any additional wa4
rights or fee whieh fnigh4 be"e,based en the aetual .a
the eh
6. Infrastructure and emergency services for an area proposed for annexation will be
reviewed for the health, safety and welfare of the public. If it is found that adequate
services cannot be provided to ensure public health, safety and welfare,it shall be the
general policy of the City to require the applicant to provide a written plan for
accommodation of these services, or not approve the annexation. Additionally,
annexation proposals that would use up infrastructure capacity already reserved for
properties lying either within undeveloped portions of the City limits or lying outside
the City limits but within identified sewer or water service area boundaries, shall
generally not be approved.
7.It shall be the general policy of the City of Bozeman to require annexation of any
contiguous property for which city services are requested or for which city services are
currently being contracted.
8. The annexation application shall be accompanied by mapping to meetthe requirements
of the Director of Public Service.
9. It shall be the policy of the City of Bozeman to assess a systern development/impact
fee in accordance with-Chaptef 3.24Chapter_2,Article 6 Division '9, Bozeman
Municipal Code, and accordance with the Bozeman Growth Policy and other policies
as they are developed.
10. Public notice requirements shall be in compliance with Montana Code Annotated. In
addition, notice shall be posted in at least one conspicuous location on the site in
question,and mailed to all owners ofreal property ofrecord within 200 feet ofthe site
in question using last declared county real estate tax records, not more than forty-five
days nor less than fifteen days prior to the scheduled action to approve or deny the
annexation by the City Commission, specifying the date,time and place the annexation
will be considered by the City Commission. The notice shall contain the materials
required by Section 18.76.0-20. 38.40.020.A & B.1, BMC.Ina d• e ,-a
annexed,
nefiee shall provide a map of the area in question so as to indieate its general leeation
11. Annexation agreements shall be executed and returned to the City within 60 days of
distribution of the annexation agreement, unless another tirne period is specifically
identified by the City Commission.
12. When possible, the use of Part 46 annexations is preferred.
3 of 4
412
Resolution.No. 4400, Goals and Policies for Annexation.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Commission ofthe City of Bozeman, Montana, at a regular
session thereof held on the l 01" day of September 2012, The effective date of this Resolution shall be
October 13 2012.
SEAN A. BECKER
Mayor
ATTEST:
ewm
CmC
City Jerk
M
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SULLIVAN
City Attorney
4 of
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
Building G
Building
H
Building O
Building N Building F Building E
Building K
Building L
Building
M
Building I
Building
J
424
425
426
427
428
429