Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA2. Golden Gate15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 1 of 27 15531, City Commission Staff Report for the Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness Application Date: City Commission meeting is on March 21, 2016 Project Description: A Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness application to allow five multi-unit residential buildings with a total of 70 dwelling units, affiliated private open space, landscaping and surface parking. The proposed project is located at 4835 Golden Gate Avenue. Project Location: 4835 Golden Gate Avenue, and is legally described as Lot 11, Block 1, Phase 1A of the Loyal Garden Subdivision, NE ¼ of Section 16, T2S, R5E, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The subject property is approximately 3.7 acres and is zoned R-4 (Residential High Density District) within the Class II West Main Street/Huffine Lane Entryway Corridor. Recommendation: Approval with the recommended conditions. Recommended Motion: “Having reviewed and considered the application materials, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 15531 and move to recommend approval of the Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness with conditions and subject to all applicable code provisions.” Report Date: March 10, 2016 Staff Contact: Allyson B. Brekke, Associate Planner Shawn Kohtz, Development Review Engineer EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Description The Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness application proposes the construction of five multi-unit residential buildings with a total of 70 dwelling units, affiliated private open space, landscaping and surface parking. The net density proposed for the residential development is 20 units/net acre. The approximately 3.7 acres subject property is the original platted lot planned and zoned R-4 (Residential High Density District) in Phase 1A of the Loyal Garden Subdivision (platted in June 2007). The property is located within the Class II West Main Street/Huffine Lane Entryway Corridor. Therefore it is subject to review under the applicable chapters of the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan. The City Commission reclaimed review authority for this application during their public hearing on January 25, 2016. The Golden Gate application being considered by the City Commission reflects a revised design to the original proposal submitted to the Planning Division. The 214 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 2 of 27 building elevations affiliated with the original application can be found in Appendix E. The property owner chose to revise the original design out of respect to the generous public comment received in regards to the original application. In summary, the revisions that occurred include the following: • The two buildings along Golden Gate were redesigned to appear more townhome in design and appearance than larger apartment buildings, by incorporating covered front porches, and traditional gable-shape roof forms to front the street. • Reduction in height of buildings (three-story to two-story/ 38 feet tall to 29 feet tall) adjacent to existing single-household properties, particularly the buildings along Golden Gate and the east side. • Overall reduction in density by eliminating 14 dwelling units (84 to 70 units). • Addition of two pedestrian/bike trail connections to the existing subdivision trails; one provided on each side of the property. • The “fire access only” drive is changed to a full service, two-way traffic drive access, resulting in two drive accesses in and out of the property. • Additional landscaping is proposed on the west side of the property to provide additional buffer between the 12-plex building and the single-household properties. • Change in roof design of the 24-plex building along Huffine Lane, specifically the addition of a gable-front roof form in the center of the building. The Development Review Committee (DRC) completed their review of the application on February 17, 2016. The conditions and code provisions recommended to the DRC are included within this report. The Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed both the original and revised design of the application. The first review occurred on January 13, 2016 and the second review occurred on February 24, 2016. Unanimous approval by the DRB of the revised design occurred at the February meeting. Copies of the meeting minutes and staff reports are attached to this report. A more thorough analysis of the affiliated land use designation and zoning for the property can be found in Appendix B. A more detailed project description and property history can be found in Appendix C. Alternatives 1. Recommend Approval of the application with the recommended conditions; 2. Recommend Approval of the application with modifications to the recommended conditions; 3. Deny the application based on non-compliance with the applicable criteria contained within the staff report; or 215 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 3 of 27 4. Continue the review of the application, with specific direction to staff or the applicant to supply additional information or to address specific items. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1 Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 2 SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES .................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 2 –REQUESTED RELAXATION/DEVIATIONS/VARIANCES ...................... 12 SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL .................................... 12 SECTION 4 - CODE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRING PLAN CORRECTIONS ............... 13 SECTION 5 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS ...................................... 14 SECTION 6 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ........................................................... 14 Applicable Plan Review Criteria, Section 38.19.100, BMC. ............................................ 15 Entryway Overlay District Review Criteria ...................................................................... 19 APPENDIX B – PROJECT SITE ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY ............................... 19 APPENDIX C – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND.............. 20 APPENDIX D – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT ................................................... 22 APPENDIX E – ORIGINAL APPLICATION DRAWINGS ................................................ 23 APPENDIX F - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF ............................ 27 ATTACHMENTS ................................................................................................................... 27 216 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 4 of 27 SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES Figure 1: Golden Gate Zoning Map 217 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 5 of 27 Figure 2: Golden Gate Future Land Use Designation (Community Plan) 218 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 6 of 27 Figure 3: Golden Gate Existing Land Use Map 219 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 7 of 27 Figure 4: Golden Gate Condominiums Proposed Site Plan New Trail Connections 220 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 8 of 27 Figure 5: 8-plex Building Elevations (along south side of property/adjacent to Golden Gate Avenue) 221 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 9 of 27 Figure 6: 12-plex Building Elevations (along west side of property) 222 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 10 of 27 Figure 7: 18-plex Building Elevations (along east side of property) 223 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 11 of 27 Figure 8: 24-plex Building Elevations (along the north side of property/ adjacent to Huffine Lane) 224 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 12 of 27 SECTION 2 –REQUESTED RELAXATION/DEVIATIONS/VARIANCES No relaxations, deviations or variances have been requested. SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The recommendations of the DRB and DRC will be forwarded to the City Commission who will make the final decision regarding this project. The applicant must comply with all other provisions of the Bozeman Unified Development Code, which are applicable to this project. Planning Staff has found that the project, with conditions and/or code provisions, complies with the requirements of Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code and should not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Please note that these conditions are in addition to any required code provisions identified in this report. These conditions are specific to the development. Conditions of Approval 1. 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. 2. Easements for water and sewer mains not located in the right-of-way shall be provided and be executed by the applicant on the City’s standard form. The applicant may contact the City Engineering Department for a template document to be executed by the applicant. The executed easements shall be provided prior to final plan approval. 3. The applicant shall provide details of the proposed underground stormwater retention system. 4. The bottom elevation of the proposed basin and subsurface retention systems shall be located above the seasonal high groundwater elevation. Standing water in the retention systems is not allowed as this will reduce retention capacity. 5. The stormwater ponds are indicated with a depth of 2.0-feet, which is acceptable if there is a 0.5-foot freeboard built into the volume calculations for the proposed ponds. The design water depth of the proposed ponds may not be greater than 1.5-feet in areas accessible to the public per the City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy. 6. The applicant shall provide a stormwater system maintenance plan to be included with the property owner’s association documents. 7. Prior to building permit approval, a Stormwater Management Permit shall be obtained from the City’s Stormwater Program Coordinator. 225 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 13 of 27 8. The applicant must indicate if a wetlands delineation was performed or was necessary as part of the original subdivision application. If wetlands exist on the site and will be altered the materials from 38.41.130, BMC shall be provided. SECTION 4 - CODE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRING PLAN CORRECTIONS A. Section 16.05.360.E, “Permit for removal of trees on public right-of-way,” states that at least 48 hours prior to engaging in any work (except in the case of a hazard), a licensee shall apply for a permit to do any work on any tree or shrub which is located in any public area. The permit application shall be filed with the city manager on a form provided by the city. The application shall contain any information required by the city for processing the application, including the scope and nature of the work to be performed on the specified tree or shrub. The city shall issue the requested permit only if the proposed work complies with all applicable laws and ordinances, any master street tree plan, any urban forestry plan, and any arboricultural specification manuals adopted by the city and upon payment of permit fee as established by city commission resolution. Any removal of boulevard trees must follow the process described in this section and should be shown as removed on the plan sheets. Proof that the process was followed must be submitted prior to the removal of said boulevard trees. B. Section 38.21.050.F, “Accessory buildings, uses and equipment,” states that mechanical equipment must be screened. Rooftop mechanical equipment should be screened. Screening should be incorporated into the roof form when possible. The requirement for screening of rooftop mechanical equipment does not apply to solar or wind energy collection devices. Ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from public rights-of-way with walls, fencing or evergreen plant materials. Mechanical equipment shall not encroach into required setbacks. All building mounted and ground mounted mechanical equipment must be adequately screened. The electrical power meters should be a similar color or painted to match the exterior siding. C. Section 38.23.080.H, “Grading and Drainage,” states that stormwater retention/detention facilities in landscaped areas shall be designed as landscape amenities. They shall be an organic feature with a natural, curvilinear shape. The facilities shall have 75 percent of surface area covered with live vegetation appropriate for the depth and design of the retention/detention facility, and be lined with native grasses, indigenous plants, wet root tolerant plant types and groupings of boulders to create a functional yet, natural site feature. A cross section and landscape detail of each facility shall be submitted with the final landscape plan for review and approval. Facilities with a slope up to and including ten percent grade may be grassed and irrigated to blend into the adjacent landscaped area. A cross section and landscape detail of each facility shall be submitted with the final landscape plan for review and approval. 226 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 14 of 27 D. Plans and specifications for any water, sewer and/or storm sewer main extensions and Public Streets (including curb/gutter and sidewalks) prepared by a Professional Engineer (PE) shall be provided to and approved by the City Engineer. Water and sewer plans shall also be approved by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. The applicant shall provide Professional Engineering services for construction inspection, post-construction certification and preparation of mylar record drawings. Specific comments regarding the existing and proposed infrastructure shall be provided at that time. Construction shall not be initiated on the public infrastructure improvements until the plans and specifications have been approved and a pre-construction conference has been conducted. Building permits will not be issued prior to City acceptance of the site infrastructure improvements unless requirements for concurrent construction are met per Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) Section 38.39.030.C. E. Plans and specifications for any fire service line must be prepared in accordance with the City’s Fire Service Line Policy by a Professional Engineer and be provided to and approved by the City Engineer prior to initiation of construction of the fire service or fire protection system. The applicant shall also provide Professional Engineering services for construction inspection, post-construction certification and preparation of mylar record drawings. Fire service plans (and domestic services 4” or larger) shall be a standalone submittal, separate from the final plan submittal and infrastructure plans submittal. Fire services shall be approved by the Water and Sewer Superintendent. City of Bozeman applications for service shall be completed by the applicant. F. If not already paid with the subdivision, the transfer of water rights or the payment of cash-in-lieu of water rights shall be provided in accordance to BMC section 38.23.180. G. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, SCS, Montana Department of Environmental Quality and Army Corps of Engineer's shall be contacted, as necessary, regarding the proposed project and any required permits (i.e., 310, 404, Turbidity exemption, etc.) shall be obtained prior to final plan approval. SECTION 5 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS The Development Review Committee (DRC) completed its review of the Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness on February 17, 2016. The Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed both the original and revised design of the application. The first review occurred on January 13, 2016 and the second review occurred on February 24, 2016. Unanimous approval by the DRB of the revised design occurred at the February meeting. Copies of the meeting minutes and staff reports are attached to this report. SECTION 6 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Analysis and resulting recommendations are based on the entirety of the application materials, municipal codes, standards, and plans, public comment, and all other materials available during 227 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 15 of 27 the review period. Collectively this information is the record of the review. The analysis in this report is a summary of the completed review. The site is located within the Class II, West Main Street/Huffine Lane Entryway Corridor Overlay District. ADR staff has reviewed the proposal for conformance with the Bozeman Design Guidelines for Entryway Corridors. Staff finds the proposal to be in general conformance with the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan as reviewed under the Entryway Overlay District Review Criteria. Applicable Plan Review Criteria, Section 38.19.100, BMC. 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. In considering applications for plan approval under this title, the advisory boards and City Commission shall consider the following: 1. Conformance to and consistency with the City’s adopted growth policy This property is designated as “Residential” on Figure 3-1 (Future Land Use Map) of the Bozeman Community Plan. The construction of multi-unit residential buildings complies with the description of this land use designation and the R-4 zoning. No conflicts between the proposed use, zoning and the growth policy have been identified. 2. Conformance to this chapter, including the cessation of any current violations; No known violations currently exist on the site. 3. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations; No conflicts have been identified at this time. Some additional steps are required such as final plan review verifying all conditions of approval have been met and building permit submittal, which will be addressed in the future. The plans will be further evaluated against the requirements of the International Building Code at the time application is made for a building permit. 4. Relationship of site plan elements to conditions both on and off the property; Staff finds the design revisions to create a development that is more compatible with and sensitive to the immediate environment of the site and the adjacent neighborhood. Compatibility can be achieved in many ways, including architectural design, building mass and height, neighborhood identity, landscaping, orientation of buildings on the site and visual integration. Particular to the redesign, Staff finds the placement of the smaller 8-plex buildings along Golden Gate Avenue as appropriate. It helps provide a shorter building front at the street edge to better relate to the single-household residences across the street. Additionally, these 8-plexes will present a more traditional form of building design with the covered front porches at the ground level and gable-pitched roof forms. This form is very 228 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 16 of 27 compatible with the existing building character across Golden Gate Avenue. Individual sidewalks are proposed to each ground floor unit within the 8-plexes which helps to connect the buildings to the street front and provide a pedestrian scale. 5. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions; Unified Development Code (UDC) requires 2 parking spaces for every 2-bedroom dwelling unit. All 70 units are proposed as 2-bedroom units. The development now provides all required parking within the surface parking lot. Five spaces more than the minimum are provided and planned for guest parking. No on-street parking is required for the proposed density and number of bedrooms. Any member of the public may park on the public street and there is no restriction imposed as part of this project. The surface parking is interior to the site and is almost completed shielded by the proposed residential buildings. 6. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress, including: A one foot no access strip exists along the property’s north perimeter. This prevents any vehicular access to the property from Huffine Lane. Therefore, all vehicular access to the site is proposed from Golden Gate Avenue. The two drive accesses will accommodate two- way traffic and supplies the required fire secondary access to the development. The site development includes pedestrian crossings interior to the site to help accommodate the pedestrian traffic within the surface parking area. Perimeter sidewalks are provided along the outside of all proposed buildings. Trail connections are provided from the property to the existing subdivision trails, providing pedestrian access from the development into the common space of the development, and to the pedestrian sidewalk systems along Golden Gate, Advance and Huffine. 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; The proposed landscaping meets the standard landscaping requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code, including the required parking lot landscaping and the groupings of plants. An extensive landscaped berm is proposed adjacent to Huffine Lane that is intended to buffer the large 24-plex residential building from both the vehicular and pedestrian traffic traveling the Huffine Lane corridor. Turf grass is proposed in combination with the plantings. Required screening for residential adjacency is provided. A code provision correction is included at this point with staff’s recommendation to provide a detailed landscape plan for each proposed storm water retention pond to demonstrate how 229 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 17 of 27 each pond will be planted with native grasses and indigenous plants to create a true landscape amenity. 8. Open space; Private open space is proposed in the center of the lot, with surface parking surrounding its perimeter. This creates somewhat of a private urban pocket park that will provide benches and landscaped shade. Pedestrian access is provided to the open space across the parking with stamped concrete pedestrian crossings. Approximately half of the required private open space is supplied through the incorporation of private patios and balconies in the buildings’ designs (34 of the 70 units). Twenty of the units are determined to have ground floor access to a landscaped rear yard and therefore do not trigger private open space. The remaining open space is supplied in the interior area, previously described. The original Loyal Garden Subdivision provided parkland with the original platting. The maximum density was planned and provided for this particular lot, and therefore, no additional parkland is required for this residential development. 9. Building location and height; The proposed building heights of all buildings are less than the maximum height limit of 44 feet permitted in the R-4 zoning district (if greater than 9:12 roof pitch). The two-story buildings are proposed to be 29 feet at their highest point. The three-story buildings are proposed to be 38 feet at their highest point. The maximum height in the adjacent R-3 district is 42 feet. The 24-plex building along the north side of the property, and adjacent to Huffine, has changed the design of the roof design. A gable-front roof form was added to the center of the building to help break up the length and roof plane of the large building. 10. Setbacks; Section 38.08.050, Unified Development Code (UDC), requires setbacks for this double frontage residential lot. All proposed structures meet UDC the front, side and rear yard setback requirements. As specified in this section of the UDC, if a lot has one or more principal buildings which are oriented to place the functional rear of the building(s) adjacent to a side lot line, then a setback from the property line equal to that for a rear yard shall be provided. This specific provision is provided on the east and west sides of the property. The smallest required yard setback required is the one adjacent to Golden Gate Avenue, which is 15 feet. 11. Lighting; Only building mounted fixtures are proposed with this development. All shown light fixtures abide by the full-cutoff lighting standards in the Unified Development Code (UDC). Please 230 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 18 of 27 see Staff’s additional comments pertaining to lighting under the Entryway Overlay Design Review Criteria. 12. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities; The on-site water and sewer lines for the proposed development are shown within the vehicular circulation and drive aisle area. Per condition of approval no. 2, Engineering is requesting easements for water and sewer mains not located in the right-of-way. The executed easements shall be provided prior to final plan approval. 13. Site surface drainage; Site surface and stormwater items are included within conditions of approval nos. 3 through 7. The applicant will be required to provide a stormwater system maintenance plan that is included with the property owner’s association documents. Prior to building permit approval, a Stormwater Management Permit shall be obtained from the City’s Stormwater Program Coordinator. 14. Loading and unloading areas; Not applicable. No formal loading or unloading areas are proposed or required. 15. Grading; An extensive landscaped berm is proposed along Huffine Lane between the existing shared- use asphalt trail and the proposed 24-plex. The grading of the parking area appears very gradual in change and variation. Grading of the site will have to occur to accommodate the proposed stormwater retention ponds (four in total proposed on both the east and west sides of the property). 16. Signage; No signage is proposed at this time or anticipated with this development, other than signage affiliated with addressing. If any new signage is proposed, it must be in compliance with the Bozeman Municipal Development Code and will require a sign permit prior to construction. 17. Screening; All required screening appears to be met. No ground mechanical equipment is proposed. Code provision correction B requires any and all mechanical equipment to be screened and shall be shown on the final site plan. 18. Overlay district provisions; The site is located within the Class II West Main Street/Huffine Lane Entryway Corridor. Over 90 parking spaces are proposed triggering review by the Design Review Board (DRB) pursuant to Section 38.19.040.C, BMC. The findings can be found further below under Entryway Overlay District Review Criteria section. 231 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 19 of 27 19. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties; Any comments received prior to the close of the public comment period will be forwarded to the City Commission. Please see Appendix D for more information about the public noticing that occurred for the project. 20. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation or other means of addressing requirement of this title, whether the lots are either: 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 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; Not applicable. 21. Compliance with article 43 of chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code; and Not applicable. 22. Phasing of development. The project is proposed for construction in one phase. Entryway Overlay District Review Criteria The site is located within the Class II, West Main/Huffine Lane Entryway Corridor Overlay District. ADR staff has reviewed the proposal for conformance with the Bozeman design guidelines for entryway overlay districts which can be found within the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan. Staff finds the proposal to be in general conformance with the site design guidelines within the Design Objectives Plan, including the specific design guidelines for the West Main/Huffine Lane. APPENDIX B – PROJECT SITE ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY Zoning Designation and Land Uses: The subject property is zoned “R-4” (Residential High Density). The intent of the R-4 residential zoning district is to provide for high-density residential development through a variety of housing types within the city with associated service functions. This will provide for a variety of compatible housing types to serve the varying needs of the community's residents. Although some office use is permitted, it shall remain as a secondary use to residential development. Secondary status shall be as measured by percentage of total building area. 232 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 20 of 27 Adopted Growth Policy Designation: The Future Land Use Map of the Bozeman Community Plan designates the subject property to develop as “Residential”. This category designate places where the primary activity is urban density dwellings. Other uses which complement residences are also acceptable such as parks, low intensity home based occupations, fire stations, churches, and schools. High density residential areas should be established in close proximity to commercial centers to facilitate the provision of services and employment opportunities to persons without requiring the use of an automobile. Implementation of this category by residential zoning should provide for and coordinate intensive residential uses in proximity to commercial centers. The residential designation indicates that it is expected that development will occur within municipal boundaries, which may require annexation prior to development. The dwelling unit density expected within this classification varies between 6 and 32 dwellings per net acre. A higher density may be considered in some locations and circumstances. A variety of housing types can be blended to achieve the desired density. Large areas of single type housing are discouraged. In limited instances the strong presence of constraints and natural features such as floodplains may cause an area to be designated for development at a lower density than normally expected within this category. All residential housing should be arranged with consideration of compatibility with adjacent development, natural constraints such as watercourses or steep slopes, and in a fashion which advances the overall goals of the Bozeman growth policy. The residential designation is intended to provide the primary locations for additional housing within the planning area. APPENDIX C – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Project Description The Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness application proposes the construction of five multi-unit residential buildings with a total of 70 dwelling units, affiliated private open space, landscaping and surface parking. The net density proposed for the residential development is 20 units/net acre. The approximately 3.7 acres subject property is the original platted lot planned and zoned R-4 (Residential High Density District) in Phase 1A of the Loyal Garden Subdivision (platted in June 2007). The property is located within the Class II West Main Street/Huffine Lane Entryway Corridor. Therefore it is subject to review under the applicable chapters of the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan. The City Commission reclaimed review authority for this application during their public hearing on January 25, 2016. The Golden Gate application being considered by the City Commission reflects a revised design to the original proposal submitted to the Planning Division. The building elevations affiliated with the original application can be found in Appendix E. The property owner chose to revise the original design out of respect to the generous public comment received in regards to the original application. In summary, the revisions that occurred include the following: 233 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 21 of 27 • The two buildings along Golden Gate were redesigned to appear more townhome in design and appearance than larger apartment buildings, by incorporating covered front porches, and traditional gable-shape roof forms to front the street. • Reduction in height of buildings (three-story to two-story/ 38 feet tall to 29 feet tall) adjacent to existing single-household properties, particularly the buildings along Golden Gate and the east side. • Overall reduction in density by eliminating 14 dwelling units (84 to 70 units). • Addition of two pedestrian/bike trail connections to the existing subdivision trails; one provided on each side of the property. • The “fire access only” drive is changed to a full service, two-way traffic drive access, resulting in two drive accesses in and out of the property. • Additional landscaping is proposed on the west side of the property to provide additional buffer between the 12-plex building and the single-household properties. • Change in roof design of the 24-plex building along Huffine Lane, specifically the addition of a gable-front roof form in the center of the building. The Development Review Committee (DRC) completed their review of the application on February 17, 2016. The conditions and code provisions recommended to the DRC are included within this report. The Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed both the original and revised design of the application. The first review occurred on January 13, 2016 and the second review occurred on February 24, 2016. Unanimous approval by the DRB of the revised design occurred at the February meeting. Copies of the meeting minutes and staff reports are attached to this report. A more thorough analysis of the affiliated land use designation and zoning for the property can be found in Appendix B. Property Background The subject property was originally planned and platted as high density residential development and zoned as R-4. It was also anticipated that no vehicular access to this property would occur from Huffine Lane (due to drive access limitations determined by Montana Department of Transportation). However, an amended plat to the original subdivision was approved by the City for the lots directly across Golden Gate Avenue from this subject property. The original plat showed two larger lots zoned as R-3 (Residential Medium-Density District) which were likely anticipated to accommodate a smaller scale apartment/condo building (5+ dwelling units within a building). The amended plat allowed the change to six smaller lots which have since accommodated one-story, single-household residences upon several of them. No change in the R-3 zoning occurred with the amended plat. Therefore while the existing houses today are single-household, the R-3 zoning would potentially allow for two-household residences to occupy these lots. The maximum building height in R-3 is 42’-0” and enables multi-story dwellings. 234 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 22 of 27 APPENDIX D – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT The project was originally noticed the week of December 21, 2015. This included a notice mailed to the adjoining property owners and a notice posted on site. A small error was then identified in the list of adjoining property owners submitted by the applicant (two property owners were missing). A notice was sent to these additional owners and the notice on site updated to reflect an extension of the original public comment closure date of January 19 to January 25, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. The reduction of density and change in design did not warrant an additional notice for this development. A large number of public comment letters were received for this project. They can be found here. Several neighbors within the Loyal Garden Subdivision have expressed general concern over the original design of development, largely as it pertains to the density proposed and the believed negative effect such density will have on the existing neighborhood. Over the counter conversations between Staff and some of the subdivision property owners showed the owners across the street were aware of the R-4 zoning and the potential for high density development, but believe this proposal is too dense for the surrounding neighborhood. Due to the neighborhood’s concerns, the City’s Neighborhood Coordinator arranged for several meetings between the developer/owner and the neighborhood to discuss their areas of concerns. Public testimony was delivered at the second Design Review Board meeting on February 24, 2016 (as reflected in the attached meeting minutes). There has been two letters of public comment submitted since the applicant chose to reduce the development’s density (84 to 70 units) and redesign the appearance of some of the buildings. Those letters are dated post February 1, 2016. 235 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 23 of 27 APPENDIX E – ORIGINAL APPLICATION DRAWINGS The drawings below were submitted with the original Golden Gate application and considered by the Design Review Board on January 13, 2016. Figure 9: Golden Gate Condominiums Original Proposed Site Plan 236 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 24 of 27 Figure 10: 12-plex Building Elevations (along south side of property/adjacent to Golden Gate Avenue) 237 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 25 of 27 Figure 11:18-plex Building Elevations (along east and west sides of property) 238 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 26 of 27 Figure 12: 24-plex Building Elevations (along north side of property/adjacent to Huffine Lane) 239 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 27 of 27 APPENDIX F - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF Owner: Covenant LLC, PO Box 11428, Bozeman, MT 59719 Applicant: Chase-Skogen Construction, 2149 Durston Road #31, Bozeman, MT 59718 Representatives: JDS Architects, 719 West Mendenhall Street, Bozeman, MT 59715 Caddis Engineering & Surveying, PO Box 11805, Bozeman, MT 59719 Report By: Allyson B. Brekke, Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS The full application and file of record can be viewed at the Community Development Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715. Application materials DRB Staff Report and Meeting Minutes from January 13, 2016 (Review of original application) DRB Staff Report Meeting Minutes from February 24, 2016 (Review of revised application) Because of the volume of public comment received for this application, a digital database was created and is located here (if additional comment is received, it will be forwarded to the Commission separately) 240 Design Review Board Wednesday, February 24, 2016, 5:30 pm, City Hall, City Commission Chambers – 121 N. Rouse A. 05:33:22 PM Call meeting to order and Roll Call Bill Rea – Chair - Present Lessa Racow - Present Charley Franklin - Present Melvin Howe – Present Walter Banzinger - Present Cynthia Andrus – Present – Commission Liaison 05:33:58 PM – Deputy Mayor Andrus provides procedural information to the board. B. 05:38:19 PM Changes to the Agenda Walt Banzinger questions if what Ms. Andrus discussed would be included in the meeting minutes. Board confirms that it will be included. C. 05:38:36 PM Approve Meeting Minutes – February 10, 2016 05:38:51 PM Mr. Rea with regards to 7:23:59 it should indicate the last “10%” not “100%”. 05:39:25 PM Lessa Racow moves to approve the minutes. Second by Walter Banzinger. Board unanimously approves. D. 05:39:36 PM Public Comment 05:40:18 PM Sherry Granier – 4858 Golden Gate Ave. States that she recognizes that the developer has a good reputation. She is concerned because when she bought her house she was told it would be 12-14 units per acres. Currently the project will be at 90 units per acre. She would like for the developer to reduce to what they were told it would be. She states that the HOA board did not approve the project. She states the Design Review for the neighborhood is controlled by one individual, who is also the person who owned the property. She feels it’s one sided. She feels they should be given some leeway on the project and ask for their opinion. She feels that the property would be more accurately described as an apartment or rental, that being sold as condos, is misleading because individuals are buying up a whole building. Mr. Rea questions the written document she has that states the density will be kept at 12-14 acres. Ms. Granier states it is the original platted subdivision. 241 05:45:33 PM Pete Rinaldi – 4858 Golden Gate Ave. – He states that they original saw the platted lot being 12-14 acres in the meeting minutes as being stated by Allyson Brekke. He does not feel the revised drawings have addressed the concerns presented at the previous DRB meeting. He feels density has been reduces, but it’s still too high. All of the individuals living there will need a vehicle as they are too far from conveniences. States concerns with emissions and noise associated with all those vehicles starting – he states all of those vehicles go against Bozeman’s environmental image. He is concerned about his ability to back out of his driveway. He states that it had been indicated that the street width was 33 feet. He said he measured and it’s 24 foot, 2 inches. He is asking for the density to be reduced, the buildings to be limited to 2 story and for an additional access to be added for the project. 05:49:56 PM Deborah Diteman – 4886 Golden Gate Ave. – She states that there is currently no available parking and the road is narrow. She states that there is currently no place for her guests to park and she feels that with this project the tenants will take up parking. She is concerned about the pedestrian crossing, where the road narrows. She states that it will cause vehicle back up because people are always walking through there and using that space – and it is narrow. She has concerns about the light from vehicles going into house windows. She also mentioned that there are sidewalks and crossing near a 50 MPH speed limit sign which will cause accidents. E. 05:54:01 PM Action Items A. 05:54:11 PM 15531 – Golden Gate Condominiums SP/CCOA – REVISED Resubmittal (Brekke) 4835 Golden Gate Avenue A REVISED site plan and commercial certificate of appropriateness application to allow five multi-unit residential buildings, with a total of 70 dwelling units (reduced from 84), and affiliated private open space, landscaping and surface parking. 05:54:22 PM Chris Saunders begins presentation of the project. 06:01:09 PM Applicant – Jesse Chase – begins presentation. 06:08:22 PM Applicant – Jesse Sobrepena – Architect begins second applicant presentation discussing changes to the project. 06:14:14 PM Questions for Staff and the Applicant 06:14:27 PM Walter Banzinger questions the discrepancy between the 12-14 proposed units that the community was told and the current proposal of 19 units. Mr. Saunders responds that he’s not sure where the 12-14 units came from originally, but it’s not uncommon for expected densities to be proposed. He states that the property has always been an R4 lot and that has not changed. Mr. Banzinger confirms that the density as presented has been consistent over time. 06:15:27 PM Lessa Racow states that she had questions, but they were all answered and appreciates their work. 06:15:38 PM Charley Franklin states that he does not have any questions. 242 06:15:51 PM Ms. Andrus questions where the hedge was added for privacy. Applicant indicates on the rendering where the hedge will be and indicates that its goal is to buffer any excess light or noise pollution. 06:16:44 PM Bill Rea questions if it would be permissible to go to 4 stories along Huffine. Mr. Saunders states that they could go to 4 stories if they tucked it into a gable. But it would be difficult to get a full story that way. 06:17:23 PM Bill Rea questions why they selected 3 stories for the project. Applicant responds in detail regarding height restrictions. 06:18:07 PM Bill Rea questions why they used a hedge vs. a fence. Applicant responds that it would likely be more aesthetically pleasing, but they are open to either option. He feels a fence would be more cost effective to a hedge per foot. 06:18:50 PM Opens the meeting for public comment. 06:19:50 PM Eli Anselni– Homeowner in Loyal Gardens – He appreciates the changes that have been made to the project. He feels that there are still traffic concerns, but thinks that the applicant has come a long way with the design of the project. 06:21:11 PM Bill Hookie – 4853 Vine Street – Expresses concerns with traffic where the road narrows to allow for pedestrian crossing. Confirmation from audience that each member of the public only gets one chance to speak. Board confirms that yes, each member can speak once. Bill Hookie questions where the bus stop will be 06:23:53 PM Close of Public Comment 06:24:27 PM Brought to the board for discussion. 06:24:46 PM Melvin Howe states that the proposed changes met his concerns 06:25:23 PM Charley Franklin states that they have done a nice job of responding to immediately adjacent buildings. He thinks it’s a nice project. 06:25:52 PM Lessa Racow states that she was excited to see the redesign and thinks they have really taken into account the requests of the community and neighborhood character. She feels the 8 plex is a nice street front and likes the color changes. She likes that both accesses are now accessible. She expresses concerns with the landscape island – she has concerns about it being used as a snow storage area and trees and benches not surviving being covered. She appreciates the shrubs vs a fence near the entrance and likes that the bus stop is being incorporated. 243 06:28:42 PM Walter Banzinger states he appreciates the public comment. He feels the applicant responded very well to the board’s concerns. He states that it may not be perfect, but we may never get it perfect. He states that perhaps the larger units along Huffine could use more architectural character/detail, but otherwise it’s a great project. 06:30:47 PM Bill Rea questions how the bus stop on Huffine would operate. Mr. Saunders stated that it is under the control of Montana Department of Transportation. Bill Rea questions the width of the road as discussed by the public. Mr. Saunders states that the narrowing of the road for pedestrian crossing is to allow a more obvious crossing section, keep cars back a distance so pedestrians are not popping out between cars and keep them in the street for less time. The ultimate goal is fewer vehicle/pedestrian conflicts and controlled vehicle behavior. 06:33:06 PM Mr. Rea questions the signage on the building and what is allowed and the process they have to go through. Mr. Saunders responds. 06:33:50 PM Mr. Rea states that the project has changed considerably since the last time they’ve seen it. He feels it has gotten substantially better – specifically the 8-plexs along Golden Gate. He would appreciate the same level of detail be given to the buildings along Huffine as was given to Golden Gate, but that it is still a considerable change. He encourages the public to review the staff report and see the changes made to the project. He feels the applicant did a great job in just a few weeks pulling together a better project. He states that the applicant is completely within the code, and the changes they made were voluntary based on community feedback. He states that there are concerns about the speed limit issue brought up earlier and would like to figure out the density issue that the residents bring up of 12-14 units, but that does not fall under the purview of the board. 06:36:59 PM Walter Banzinger echoes Bill Rea’s comments about the project and moves to approve item number 15531 Golden Gate Condominiums to recommend approval with consideration o staff and DRB comments. Second by Melvin Howe 06:37:37 PM No discussion by the board. Board unanimously approves. Chris Saunders requests that public please sign the sign-in sheet prior to leaving. 244 E. 06:38:24 PM FYI/Discussion – no FYI/Discussion F. 06:38:36 PM Adjournment For more information please contact Alicia Kennedy at akennedy@bozeman.net This board generally meets the second and fourth Wednesday of the month at 5:30pm Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Chuck Winn at 582-2307 (TDD 582-2301). 245 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 1 of 23 15531, Design Review Board Staff Report for the Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness Application (Revised materials since last consideration) Date: Design Review Board meeting is on February 24, 2016 Project Description: A Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness application to allow five multi-unit residential buildings with a total of 70 dwelling units, affiliated open space, landscaping and surface parking. Project Location: 4835 Golden Gate Avenue, and is legally described as Lot 11, Block 1, Phase 1A of the Loyal Garden Subdivision, NE ¼ of Section 16, T2S, R5E, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The subject property is approximately 3.7 acres and is zoned R-4 (Residential High Density District) within the Class II West Main Street/Huffine Lane Entryway Corridor. Recommendation: Administrative Design Review Staff recommends approval of the design presented in the application. Recommended Motion: “Having reviewed and considered the application materials, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 15531 and move to recommend approval of the Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness with conditions and subject to all applicable code provisions.” Report Date: February 18, 2016 Staff Contact: Allyson B. Brekke, Associate Planner Shawn Kohtz, Development Review Engineer EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Description The approximately 3.7 acres subject property is the original platted lot planned and zoned R-4 (Residential High Density District) in Phase 1A of the Loyal Garden Subdivision. The property is located within the Class II West Main Street/Huffine Lane Entryway Corridor. Therefore it is subject to review under the applicable chapters of the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan. The Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness application being considered reflects a revised design to the original proposal considered by the Design Review Board at their regular meeting on January 13, 2016. The number of multi-unit buildings remains at five, but three have reduced their building height from three stories to two stories. This design change reduced the number of dwelling units by 14 units, to a total of 70 dwelling units. The development still is proposing affiliated landscaping, private open space and surface parking. The property is considered to have double frontage with Huffine Lane adjacent to the north and Golden Gate Avenue adjacent to the south. Vehicular access to the property is proposed solely 246 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 2 of 23 from Golden Gate Avenue because of an existing one-foot no access strip along the entire Huffine Lane frontage. The area along Huffine Lane, including the 50-foot required front yard setback, is proposed to be extensively landscaped over the existing grass berms. The net density proposed for the residential development is 20 units/net acre (net residential density = 70 dwelling units/ 3.5035 acres or 152,612.46 square feet of net area = 20 units/net acre). This surpasses the minimum 8 units/net acre minimum density established for R-4 zoning by the Unified Development Code (UDC). The UDC maximum density is 33 units per acre based upon minimum land area requirements. The UDC standards for the remaining site development requirements (parking, open space, etc) determine whether the maximum density is feasible on a site. The Development Review Committee (DRC) completed their review of the application on February 17, 2016. The conditions and code provisions recommended to the DRC are included within this report. A more thorough analysis of the affiliated land use designation and zoning for the property can be found in Appendix B. A more detailed project description and property history can be found in Appendix C. Alternatives 1. Recommend approval of the application with the recommended conditions; 2. Recommend approval of the application with modifications to the recommended conditions; 3. Recommend denial the application based on the Design Review Board’s findings of non- compliance with the applicable criteria contained within the staff report; or 4. Open and continue the review on the application, with specific direction to staff or the applicant to supply additional information or to address specific items. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1 Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 2 SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES .................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 2 –REQUESTED RELAXATION/DEVIATIONS/VARIANCES ...................... 12 SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL .................................... 12 SECTION 4 - CODE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRING PLAN CORRECTIONS ............... 13 SECTION 5 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS ...................................... 14 SECTION 6 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ........................................................... 14 Applicable Plan Review Criteria, Section 38.19.100, BMC. ............................................ 15 247 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 3 of 23 Entryway Overlay District Review Criteria ...................................................................... 21 APPENDIX B – PROJECT SITE ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY ............................... 21 APPENDIX C – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND.............. 22 APPENDIX D – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT ................................................... 23 APPENDIX E - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF ............................ 23 ATTACHMENTS ................................................................................................................... 23 248 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 4 of 23 SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES Figure 1: Golden Gate Zoning Map 249 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 5 of 23 Figure 2: Golden Gate Future Land Use Designation (Community Plan) 250 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 6 of 23 Figure 3: Golden Gate Existing Land Use Map 251 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 7 of 23 Figure 4: Golden Gate Condominiums Proposed Site Plan 252 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 8 of 23 Figure 5: 8-plex Building Elevations (adjacent to Golden Gate Avenue) 253 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 9 of 23 Figure 6: 12-plex Building Elevations (along west side of property) 254 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 10 of 23 Figure 7: 18-plex Building Elevations (along east side of property) 255 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 11 of 23 Figure 8: 24-plex Building Elevations (along the north side of property/ adjacent to Huffine Lane) 256 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 12 of 23 SECTION 2 –REQUESTED RELAXATION/DEVIATIONS/VARIANCES No relaxations, deviations or variances have been requested. SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The recommendations of the DRB and DRC will be forwarded to the City Commission who will make the final decision regarding this project. The applicant must comply with all other provisions of the Bozeman Unified Development Code, which are applicable to this project. Planning Staff has found that the project, with conditions and/or code provisions, complies with the requirements of Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code and should not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Please note that these conditions are in addition to any required code provisions identified in this report. These conditions are specific to the development. Conditions of Approval 1. 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. 2. Easements for water and sewer mains not located in the right-of-way shall be provided and be executed by the applicant on the City’s standard form. The applicant may contact the City Engineering Department for a template document to be executed by the applicant. The executed easements shall be provided prior to final plan approval. 3. The applicant shall provide details of the proposed underground stormwater retention system. 4. The bottom elevation of the proposed basin and subsurface retention systems shall be located above the seasonal high groundwater elevation. Standing water in the retention systems is not allowed as this will reduce retention capacity. 5. The stormwater ponds are indicated with a depth of 2.0-feet, which is acceptable if there is a 0.5-foot freeboard built into the volume calculations for the proposed ponds. The design water depth of the proposed ponds may not be greater than 1.5-feet in areas accessible to the public per the City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy. 6. The applicant shall provide a stormwater system maintenance plan to be included with the property owner’s association documents. 7. Prior to building permit approval, a Stormwater Management Permit shall be obtained from the City’s Stormwater Program Coordinator. 257 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 13 of 23 8. The applicant must indicate if a wetlands delineation was performed or was necessary as part of the original subdivision application. If wetlands exist on the site and will be altered the materials from 38.41.130, BMC shall be provided. SECTION 4 - CODE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRING PLAN CORRECTIONS A. Section 16.05.360.E, “Permit for removal of trees on public right-of-way,” states that at least 48 hours prior to engaging in any work (except in the case of a hazard), a licensee shall apply for a permit to do any work on any tree or shrub which is located in any public area. The permit application shall be filed with the city manager on a form provided by the city. The application shall contain any information required by the city for processing the application, including the scope and nature of the work to be performed on the specified tree or shrub. The city shall issue the requested permit only if the proposed work complies with all applicable laws and ordinances, any master street tree plan, any urban forestry plan, and any arboricultural specification manuals adopted by the city and upon payment of permit fee as established by city commission resolution. Any removal of boulevard trees must follow the process described in this section and should be shown as removed on the plan sheets. Proof that the process was followed must be submitted prior to the removal of said boulevard trees. B. Section 38.21.050.F, “Accessory buildings, uses and equipment,” states that mechanical equipment must be screened. Rooftop mechanical equipment should be screened. Screening should be incorporated into the roof form when possible. The requirement for screening of rooftop mechanical equipment does not apply to solar or wind energy collection devices. Ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from public rights-of-way with walls, fencing or evergreen plant materials. Mechanical equipment shall not encroach into required setbacks. All building mounted and ground mounted mechanical equipment must be adequately screened. The electrical power meters should be a similar color or painted to match the exterior siding. C. Section 38.23.080.H, “Grading and Drainage,” states that stormwater retention/detention facilities in landscaped areas shall be designed as landscape amenities. They shall be an organic feature with a natural, curvilinear shape. The facilities shall have 75 percent of surface area covered with live vegetation appropriate for the depth and design of the retention/detention facility, and be lined with native grasses, indigenous plants, wet root tolerant plant types and groupings of boulders to create a functional yet, natural site feature. A cross section and landscape detail of each facility shall be submitted with the final landscape plan for review and approval. Facilities with a slope up to and including ten percent grade may be grassed and irrigated to blend into the adjacent landscaped area. A cross section and landscape detail of each facility shall be submitted with the final landscape plan for review and approval. 258 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 14 of 23 D. Plans and specifications for any water, sewer and/or storm sewer main extensions and Public Streets (including curb/gutter and sidewalks) prepared by a Professional Engineer (PE) shall be provided to and approved by the City Engineer. Water and sewer plans shall also be approved by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. The applicant shall provide Professional Engineering services for construction inspection, post-construction certification and preparation of mylar record drawings. Specific comments regarding the existing and proposed infrastructure shall be provided at that time. Construction shall not be initiated on the public infrastructure improvements until the plans and specifications have been approved and a pre-construction conference has been conducted. Building permits will not be issued prior to City acceptance of the site infrastructure improvements unless requirements for concurrent construction are met per Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) Section 38.39.030.C. E. Plans and specifications for any fire service line must be prepared in accordance with the City’s Fire Service Line Policy by a Professional Engineer and be provided to and approved by the City Engineer prior to initiation of construction of the fire service or fire protection system. The applicant shall also provide Professional Engineering services for construction inspection, post-construction certification and preparation of mylar record drawings. Fire service plans (and domestic services 4” or larger) shall be a standalone submittal, separate from the final plan submittal and infrastructure plans submittal. Fire services shall be approved by the Water and Sewer Superintendent. City of Bozeman applications for service shall be completed by the applicant. F. If not already paid with the subdivision, the transfer of water rights or the payment of cash-in-lieu of water rights shall be provided in accordance to BMC section 38.23.180. G. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, SCS, Montana Department of Environmental Quality and Army Corps of Engineer's shall be contacted, as necessary, regarding the proposed project and any required permits (i.e., 310, 404, Turbidity exemption, etc.) shall be obtained prior to final plan approval. SECTION 5 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS Having considered the criteria established for site plans and certificates of appropriateness, the Design Review Board (DRB) shall forward its recommendation to the City Commission for consideration and action. The date for Commission consideration is March 21, 2016. The Development Review Committee (DRC) completed its review of the Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness on February 17, 2016. SECTION 6 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Analysis and resulting recommendations are based on the entirety of the application materials, municipal codes, standards, and plans, public comment, and all other materials available during 259 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 15 of 23 the review period. Collectively this information is the record of the review. The analysis in this report is a summary of the completed review. The site is located within the Class II, West Main Street/Huffine Lane Entryway Corridor Overlay District. ADR staff has reviewed the proposal for conformance with the Bozeman Design Guidelines for Entryway Corridors. Staff finds the proposal to be in general conformance with the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan as reviewed under the Entryway Overlay District Review Criteria. Applicable Plan Review Criteria, Section 38.19.100, BMC. 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. In considering applications for plan approval under this title, the advisory boards and City Commission shall consider the following: 1. Conformance to and consistency with the City’s adopted growth policy This property is designated as “Residential” on Figure 3-1 (Future Land Use Map) of the Bozeman Community Plan. The construction of multi-unit residential buildings complies with the description of this land use designation and the R-4 zoning. No conflicts between the proposed use, zoning and the growth policy have been identified. 2. Conformance to this chapter, including the cessation of any current violations; No known violations currently exist on the site. 3. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations; No conflicts have been identified at this time. Some additional steps are required such as final plan review verifying all conditions of approval have been met and building permit submittal, which will be addressed in the future. The plans will be further evaluated against the requirements of the International Building Code at the time application is made for a building permit. 4. Relationship of site plan elements to conditions both on and off the property; DRB concerns with original design: • Three-story building height along Golden Gate. • Lack of buffer between the high density and single-family households. • Too much of a “cookie cutter” design and not reflective of the neighborhood character. • Great building architecture on its own, but not right character for surrounding neighborhood. Applicant design revisions: 260 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 16 of 23 • Two buildings along Golden Gate were redesigned to appear more townhome in appearance than larger apartment buildings, by incorporating covered front porches, and traditional gable-shape roof forms to front the street. • Reduction in height of buildings adjacent to existing single-household properties (three-story to two-story). Staff findings: Staff finds the design revisions to create a development that is more compatible with and sensitive to the immediate environment of the site and the adjacent neighborhood. Compatibility can be achieved in many ways, including architectural design, building mass and height, neighborhood identity, landscaping, orientation of buildings on the site and visual integration. Particular to the redesign, Staff finds the placement of the smaller 8-plex buildings along Golden Gate Avenue as appropriate. It helps provide a shorter building front at the street edge to better relate to the single-household residences across the street. Additionally, these 8-plexes will present a more traditional form of building design with the covered front porches at the ground level and gable-pitched roof forms. This form is very compatible with the existing building character across Golden Gate Avenue. Individual sidewalks are proposed to each ground floor unit within the 8-plexes which helps to connect the buildings to the street front and provide a pedestrian scale. 5. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions; DRB concerns with original design: • Concern with potential traffic congestion issues with the need for on-street parking to meet the parking requirements. Applicant design revisions: • Reduction in density by eliminating 14 dwelling units. Staff findings: Unified Development Code (UDC) requires 2 parking spaces for every 2-bedroom dwelling unit. All 70 units are proposed as 2-bedroom units. The development now provides all required parking within the surface parking lot. Five spaces more than the minimum are provided and planned for guest parking. No on-street parking is required for the proposed density and number of bedrooms. Any member of the public may park on the public street and there is no restriction imposed as part of this project. The surface parking is interior to the site and is almost completed shielded by the proposed residential buildings. 261 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 17 of 23 6. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress, including: DRB concerns with original design: • Concern with potential traffic congestion issues with one access point on Golden Gate Avenue. • Concern with the lack of private pedestrian/bike trail connections to the existing subdivision trail network. • Concern with the design of the “fire access only” drive access (asphalt vs. concrete pavers). Applicant design revisions: • Reduction in density by eliminating 14 dwelling units. • Addition of two pedestrian/bike trail connections to the existing subdivision trails; one provided on each side of the property. • The “fire access only” drive is changed to a full service, two-way traffic drive access, resulting in two drive accesses in and out of the property. Staff findings: A 1-foot no access strip exists along the property’s north perimeter. This prevents any vehicular access to the property from Huffine Lane. Therefore, all vehicular access to the site is proposed from Golden Gate Avenue. The two drive accesses will accommodate two- way traffic and supplies the required fire secondary access to the development. The site development includes pedestrian crossings interior to the site to help accommodate the pedestrian traffic within the surface parking area. Perimeter sidewalk is provided along the outside of all proposed buildings. Trail connections are provided from the property to the existing subdivision trails, providing pedestrian access from the development into the common space of the development, and to the pedestrian sidewalk systems along Golden Gate, Advance and Huffine. 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 design revisions: • Additional landscaping is proposed on the west side of the property to provide additional buffer between the 12-plex building and the single-household properties. Staff findings: The proposed landscaping predominately meets the standard landscaping requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code, including the required parking lot landscaping and the groupings of plants. An extensive landscaped berm is proposed adjacent to Huffine Lane that is 262 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 18 of 23 intended to buffer the large 24-plex residential building from both the vehicular and pedestrian traffic traveling the Huffine Lane corridor. Turf grass is proposed in combination with the plantings. Required screening for residential adjacency is provided. A code provision correction is included at this point with staff’s recommendation to provide a detailed landscape plan for each proposed storm water retention pond to demonstrate how each pond will be planted with native grasses and indigenous plants to create a true landscape amenity. 8. Open space; Private open space is proposed in the center of the lot, with surface parking surrounding its perimeter. This creates somewhat of a private urban pocket park that will provide benches and landscaped shade. Pedestrian access is provided to the open space across the parking with stamped concrete pedestrian crossings. Approximately half of the required private open space is supplied through the incorporation of private patios and balconies in the buildings’ designs (34 of the 70 units). Twenty of the units are determined to have ground floor access to a landscaped rear yard and therefore, do not trigger private open space. The remaining open space is supplied in that interior area previously described. The original Loyal Garden Subdivision provided parkland with the original platting. The maximum density was planned and provided for this particular lot, and therefore, no additional parkland is required for this residential development. 9. Building location and height; DRB concerns with original design: • Three-story building height along Golden Gate Avenue and the three-story height in close proximity to the single-household properties along Advance Drive. • Long, unbroken roof plane of the 24-plex along Huffine. Applicant design revisions: • Two multi-unit buildings along Golden Gate were reduced from three-stories to two- stories in height. • The multi-unit building along the west side of the property were reduced from three- stories to two-stories in height. • Change in roof design of the 24-plex building. Staff’s response: The proposed building heights of all buildings are less than the maximum height limit permitted in the R-4 zoning district. The three-story buildings are proposed to be 38’-0” at their highest point. The maximum height in the adjacent R-3 district is 42’-0”. 263 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 19 of 23 The 24-plex building along the north side of the property, and adjacent to Huffine, has changed the design of the roof design. A gable-front roof forms was added to the center of the building incorporation of a gable roof form in the center of the building to help break up the length and roof plane of the large building. 10. Setbacks; Section 38.08.050, Unified Development Code, states required setbacks for this double frontage residential lot. All proposed structures are within the required front, side and rear yard setbacks. As specified in this section of the UDC, if a lot has one or more principal buildings which are oriented to place the functional rear of the building(s) adjacent to a side lot line, then a setback from the property line equal to that for a rear yard shall be provided. This specific provision is provided on the east and west sides of the property. The smallest required yard setback required is the one adjacent to Golden Gate Avenue, which is 15 feet. 11. Lighting; Only building mounted fixtures are proposed with this development. All shown light fixtures abide by the full-cutoff lighting standards in the Unified Development Code (UDC). Please see Staff’s additional comments pertaining to lighting under the Entryway Overlay Design Review Criteria. 12. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities; The on-site water and sewer lines for the proposed development are shown within the vehicular circulation and drive aisle area. Engineering requested the proposed utility easement to accommodate such lines to avoid overlap with parking spaces. The utilities are being reviewed by the City Engineering Division. All final utility locations will be reviewed with the Final Site Plan application. 13. Site surface drainage; The proposed site surface drainage appears to meet standards and is currently being reviewed by the Engineering Division and the greater Development Review Committee (DRC) Staff. 14. Loading and unloading areas; Not applicable. No formal loading or unloading areas are proposed or required. 15. Grading; An extensive landscaped berm is proposed along Huffine Lane between the existing shared- use asphalt trail and the proposed 24-plex. The grading of the parking area appears very gradual in change and variation. Grading of the site will have to occur to accommodate the proposed stormwater retention ponds (four in total proposed on both the east and west sides of the property). 264 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 20 of 23 16. Signage; No signage is proposed at this time or anticipated with this development, other than signage affiliated with addressing. If any new signage is proposed, it must be in compliance with the Bozeman Municipal Development Code and will require a sign permit prior to construction. 17. Screening; All required screening appears to be met. No ground mechanical equipment is proposed. Code provision correction B requires any and all mechanical equipment to be screened and shall be shown on the final site plan. 18. Overlay district provisions; The site is located within the Class II West Main Street/Huffine Lane Entryway Corridor. Over 90 parking spaces are proposed triggering review by the Design Review Board (DRB) pursuant to Section 38.19.040.C, BMC. The findings can be found further below under Entryway Overlay District Review Criteria section. 19. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties; As of the writing of this report, three letters of public comment have been received in response to the noticing of the project and are attached with the application materials. Any comments received prior to the close of the public comment period will be forwarded to the Director. Please see Appendix D for more information about the public noticing that occurred for the project and a future scheduled neighborhood meeting about the development. 20. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation or other means of addressing requirement of this title, whether the lots are either: 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 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; Not applicable. 21. Compliance with article 8 of chapter 10 of the Bozeman Municipal Code; and Not applicable. 22. Phasing of development. The project is proposed for construction in one phase. 265 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 21 of 23 Entryway Overlay District Review Criteria The site is located within the Class II, West Main/Huffine Lane Entryway Corridor Overlay District. ADR staff has reviewed the proposal for conformance with the Bozeman design guidelines for entryway overlay districts which can be found within the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan. Staff finds the proposal to be in general conformance with the site design guidelines within the Design Objectives Plan, including the specific design guidelines for the West Main/Huffine Lane. APPENDIX B – PROJECT SITE ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY Zoning Designation and Land Uses: The subject property is zoned “R-4” (Residential High Density). The intent of the R-4 residential zoning district is to provide for high-density residential development through a variety of housing types within the city with associated service functions. This will provide for a variety of compatible housing types to serve the varying needs of the community's residents. Although some office use is permitted, it shall remain as a secondary use to residential development. Secondary status shall be as measured by percentage of total building area. Adopted Growth Policy Designation: The Future Land Use Map of the Bozeman Community Plan designates the subject property to develop as “Residential”. This category designate places where the primary activity is urban density dwellings. Other uses which complement residences are also acceptable such as parks, low intensity home based occupations, fire stations, churches, and schools. High density residential areas should be established in close proximity to commercial centers to facilitate the provision of services and employment opportunities to persons without requiring the use of an automobile. Implementation of this category by residential zoning should provide for and coordinate intensive residential uses in proximity to commercial centers. The residential designation indicates that it is expected that development will occur within municipal boundaries, which may require annexation prior to development. The dwelling unit density expected within this classification varies between 6 and 32 dwellings per net acre. A higher density may be considered in some locations and circumstances. A variety of housing types can be blended to achieve the desired density. Large areas of single type housing are discouraged. In limited instances the strong presence of constraints and natural features such as floodplains may cause an area to be designated for development at a lower density than normally expected within this category. All residential housing should be arranged with consideration of compatibility with adjacent development, natural constraints such as watercourses or steep slopes, and in a fashion which advances the overall goals of the Bozeman growth policy. The residential designation is intended to provide the primary locations for additional housing within the planning area. 266 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 22 of 23 APPENDIX C – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Project Description The approximately 3.7 acres subject property is the original platted lot planned and zoned R-4 (Residential High Density District) in Phase 1A of the Loyal Garden Subdivision. The property is located within the Class II West Main Street/Huffine Lane Entryway Corridor. Therefore it is subject to review under the applicable chapters of the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan. The Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness application being considered reflects a revised design to the original proposal considered by the Design Review Board at their regular meeting on January 13, 2016. The number of multi-unit buildings remains at five, but two have reduced their building height from three stories to two stories. This design change reduced the number of dwelling units by 14 units, to a total of 70 dwelling units. The development still is proposing affiliated landscaping, private open space and surface parking. The property is considered to have double frontage with Huffine Lane adjacent to the north and Golden Gate Avenue adjacent to the south. Vehicular access to the property is proposed solely from Golden Gate Avenue because of an existing one-foot no access strip along the entire Huffine Lane frontage. The area along Huffine Lane, including the 50-foot required front yard setback, is proposed to be extensively landscaped over the existing grass berms. The net density proposed for the residential development is 20 units/net acre (net residential density = 70 dwelling units/ 3.5035 acres or 152,612.46 square feet of net area = 20 units/net acre). This surpasses the minimum 8 units/net acre minimum density established for R-4 zoning by the Unified Development Code (UDC). The UDC maximum density is 33 units per acre based upon minimum land area requirements. The UDC standards for the remaining site development requirements (parking, open space, etc) determine whether the maximum density is feasible on a site. The Development Review Committee (DRC) completed their review of the application on February 17, 2016. The conditions and code provisions recommended to the DRC are included within this report. Property Background The subject property was originally planned and platted as high density residential development and zoned as R-4. It was also anticipated that no vehicular access to this property would occur from Huffine Lane (due to drive access limitations determined by Montana Department of Transportation). However, an amended plat to the original subdivision was approved by the City for the lots directly across Golden Gate Avenue from this subject property. The original plat showed two larger lots zoned as R-3 (Residential Medium-Density District) which were likely anticipated to accommodate a smaller scale apartment/condo building (5+ dwelling units within a building). The amended plat allowed the change to six smaller lots which have since accommodated one-story, single-household residences upon several of them. No change in the R-3 zoning occurred with the amended plat. Therefore while the existing houses today are single-household, the R-3 zoning would potentially allow for two-household residences to occupy these lots. The maximum building height in R-3 is 42’-0” and enables multi-story dwellings. 267 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & CCOA Page 23 of 23 APPENDIX D – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT The project was originally noticed the week of December 21, 2015. This included a notice mailed to the adjoining property owners and a notice posted on site. A small error was then identified in the list of adjoining property owners submitted by the applicant (two property owners were missing). A notice was sent to these additional owners and the notice on site updated to reflect an extension of the original public comment closure date of January 19 to January 25, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. The reduction of density and change in design did not warrant an additional notice for this development. A large number of public comment letters were received for this project. They can be found here. Several neighbors within the Loyal Garden Subdivision have expressed general concern over the original design of development, largely as it pertains to the density proposed and the believed negative effect such density will have on the existing neighborhood. Over the counter conversations between Staff and some of the subdivision property owners showed the owners across the street were aware of the R-4 zoning and the potential for high density development, but believe this proposal is too dense for the surrounding neighborhood. Due to the neighborhood’s concerns, the City’s Neighborhood Coordinator arranged for several meetings between the developer/owner and the neighborhood to discuss their areas of concerns. APPENDIX E - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF Owner: Covenant LLC, PO Box 11428, Bozeman, MT 59719 Applicant: Chase-Skogen Construction, 2149 Durston Road #31, Bozeman, MT 59718 Representatives: JDS Architects, 719 West Mendenhall Street, Bozeman, MT 59715 Caddis Engineering & Surveying, PO Box 11805, Bozeman, MT 59719 Report By: Allyson B. Brekke, Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS The full application and file of record can be viewed at the Community Development Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715. Application materials Public comment received by the writing of this report can be found here. 268 Wednesday, January 13, 2016, 5:30 pm, City Hall, Madison Room – 121 N. Rouse A. Call meeting to order – Bill Rae Calls meeting to order at 5:33 Board Present: Lessa Racow Melvin Howe Bill Rea Cynthia Andrus (Commission Liaison) Walter Banzinger Brian Krueger (Planning Staff Liaison) B. Changes to the Agenda – No Changes to the Agenda C. Approve Meeting Minutes – No Minutes to approve D. Public Comment – No public comment E. Action Items A.15569 – Taco Bell at Catron Crossing – (Davis/Kohtz) 2515 Catamount Street To seek informal advice and guidance on the future development of a new commercial building for a restaurant use with parking and associate site improvements. 269 Heather Davis begins presentation on the informal application for Taco Bell at Catron Crossing. The applicant is looking for feedback before their formal application. Project is at the corner of Catamont and Valley Center Roads. It is zoned B-2. Ms. Davis begins discussing location of the project and the approved Master Sight Plan of the area. Ms. Davis discusses the setbacks for the project and that it will complete a portion of the road that is currently undeveloped. She states that the project will be reviewed based on the Bozeman Design Objective Plan. Concerns include franchise architecture and making the project unique. The building will use the drive access currently in place for the neighboring hotel. Heather Davis states that they are currently requesting a relaxation to the stream setback. Ms. Davis displays the proposed building showing materials used, outdoor seating and landscaping. Heather Davis discusses a suggestion to reduce the amount of pavement and a suggestion to flip the site plan for building location. Ms. Davis mentions that they moved away from franchise architecture and toward innovative design. In addition, the applicant used pedestrian connectivity, which is favorable. Call for Public Comment – No public comment Discussion by the board – this is an informal project, so no formal vote on the item. Lessa Racow begins the board discussion. She states that with a formal application, they will require a landscape plan given the tight space and stream buffering and to soften the building with all of the pavement. Lessa Racow suggests moving the access to Catamont Street to make easier access for the drive-thru. She feels that it still holds a bit of franchise architecture and resembles other Taco Bells, but still is a bit unique. Bill Rea comments that franchise architecture is always a big deal for this board, but has improved over the years. He states that the volume and design are largely the same as other Taco Bells. He likes opening up to the stream on the east. He likes the stream and patio eating area being close to one another. Applicant states that the patio is on the south side to allow additional lighting. Bill Rea apologizes as he was turned around on the map. Bill Rea states that the design doesn’t particularly bother him in that area, as that area already has the Outback there. He expressed concerns with the wood as it could weather quickly. Bill Rea says that he would say to staff that he would allow this level of franchise architecture. He did state that landscape would be critical in the formal application. He suggested they look at the Cannery District for landscape ideas. Melvin Howe comments that we have seen a great change in franchise architecture. He states he sees no concerns with franchise architecture as it is improving. As long as designs are quality, it is fine. 270 Board takes a 5 minute break between projects. Currently do not have a quorum, so waiting for a board member to arrive. B.15531 – Golden Gate Condominiums SP/CCOA (Brekke/Kohtz) 4835 Golden Gate Avenue A site plan and commercial certificate of appropriateness application to allow five multi-unit residential buildings, with a total of 84 dwelling units, and affiliated open space, landscaping and surface parking. Allyson Brekke begins presentation of the Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan and Commercial COA. Ms. Brekke shows maps indicating the location of the building and explains the development is proposing 84 units among 5 buildings in the Loyal Gardens Subdivision. Ms. Brekke indicates that the property is R-4 bordering an R-3 zoning district. The project proposes 23 units per acre. Ms. Brekke indicates that the adjacent storm water ponds and City lift station to the east and subdivision open space to the west. She indicates a small private open space and parking interior to the site. Ms. Brekke indicates that the buildings are meeting all required setbacks. Ms. Brekke states that in R-4 you are required to have at least 8 units per acre and up to 33 units per acre. Ms. Brekke displays the placement of the buildings along Golden Gate Ave. She indicates that the DRC required an additional access for the units. The additional access was added for emergency use only and will be gated and locked by the fire department. Ms. Brekke indicates that this lot was designed for only one access. She states that staff encourages the interior to the lot parking location. Ms. Brekke discusses the intent to shield the 24-plex along Huffine with a landscaping berm and that there is a shared use asphalt trail already in place along that section of Huffine. Ms. Brekke states that the buildings are all similar in design, with main difference being the length of the buildings and number of units. Ms. Brekke states that the DRB’s goal is to discuss how the buildings address the streets and how the balconies appear and the variation and materials being used. Ms. Brekke states that there is both private open space located interior to the lot as well as being provided on private patios and balconies. The general height of the buildings is about 38’. The proposal does an adequate job of keeping the building lighting to the inside of the property (facing toward the parking lot). Ms. Brekke states that the majority of parking is on the site. They are able to count on street parking as well based on the length of the property street frontage. Ms. Brekke discusses the concerns presented by the neighbors regarding the proposal. The neighbors are concerned with density, traffic control and neighborhood character. 271 Ms. Brekke displays Google street images showing the site as you drive down Golden Gate Ave and Huffine, to give an idea of the current character of the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Brekke discusses that the project meets most of the Design Guidelines presented in the Design Objectives Plan for the Huffine Entryway Corridor. Ms. Brekke concludes her presentation and opens up for applicant presentation. Applicant/architect Jesse Sobrepena begins presentation of projects. He starts with images of a similar project to the one being proposed on Golden Gate that is constructed south of town (in Meadow Creek Subdivision). He states that there is some material variation that gives a streetscape feel. He states the project displayed has received positive feedback from the community. Applicant shows a birds eye view rendering of the proposed project as it would look once constructed. Applicant states that the design objective was to provide an attractive sustainable building within city limits. In addition, to provide a private outdoor area for everyone in the units. Also, affordability was considered. He states that a lot of thought was put into keeping the best face forward towards the streets (Golden Gate and Huffine). They attempted to keep the busier parts of the project internal to reduce concerns with parking, etc. Applicant states that instead of a large fat building, they went with a linear design, so there are no corridors to heat and light. He feels the building offers interesting design and roof shapes. Applicant shows a rendering of how the project will look on the street side of the 24-plex. Applicant completes his presentation. Board begins with staff and applicant questions. Lessa Racow questions why the secondary entrance will be gated. Ms. Brekke responds that the fire department wants the drive access to remain available for their use at all times. The idea is to avoid parking in the space and blocking fire access. Lessa Racow questions if the colors in rendering are accurate. Applicant responds that they are fairly accurate. They will not be white like the units displayed earlier that are located south of town. Walt Banzinger questions if staff could go back to see the character of the neighborhood. He questions if it’s R-3 zoning or single family homes. Allyson Brekke states that it was developed under R-3 zoning at the lowest density available. He questions the applicant about what was discussed with owner when designing. Applicant stated that the owner had explored various versions of 12-24-plexes. Mr. Banzinger questions if they explored other density options. Applicants state that they only explored high density to make it viable. Applicant also comments that they have already reduced density based on the informal review process. 272 Melvin Howe questions if there will be any outdoor seating. The applicant states that they focused on providing nice balconies and patios with a nice view. Melvin Howe questions if there is a local bus stop. Applicant states that there is a bus stop nearby and that they explored a reduction in parking, but it was not available. Bill Rea questions if these are rental units or condominiums. Applicant responds they will be condominiums. Bill Rea questions if the original subdivision came before the DRB. Allyson Brekke states that it did not go to the DRB and that it was platted in 2012. Bill Rea questions when homes began to be developed. Allyson Brekke states that some spec homes were built at the time of the original plat, but most have been built within the last two years. Bill Rea questions if Golden Gate Avenue meets city standards. Allyson Brekke responds that it’s the city standard of 60’ right-of-way. Commissioner Cynthia Andrus questions the parking lot connectivity and the walking connectivity that goes east to west within the property. Applicant responds there are walk ways and sidewalks throughout the property. Cynthia Andrus questions the affordability of the buildings. Applicant responds that it is affordable with respects to Bozeman – compared to single family homes and some similar sized units downtown. Cynthia Andrus questions if there are other properties were there is only one drive access with an emergency drive access. Ms. Brekke states there are some other recent project approved with a similar drive access arrangement. Cynthia Andrus questions if there are bike spaces available. The applicant responds that there are about 40 bike spaces available – mostly internal to the site. Lessa Racow questions if the regulations on R-4 have changed since this was zoned accordingly. Ms. Brekke says there hasn’t been changes to R-4 zoning. Lessa Racow questions if something other than pavement has been considered for the emergency entrance. Applicant responds the fire department was not in favor of anything other than pavement – they had considered the grass pavers. Bill Rea questions the pedestrian access outside of the property for the bus stop or bike paths. Lessa Racow questions how some of the units could connect to the bike paths. Allyson Brekke comments on some ways it may be accessible. Board opens the meeting for public comment. Public Comment – Eli Anselmi states that originally there was intent to have a buffer to the south with the zoning transition. However, the subdivision has been developed with all single household homes. He 273 is not opposed to high density, but does not think this is not the best way to go about it. He expresses concern with the building height and thinks there should be some blending from 1.5-2 story buildings to the larger structures using more of a townhome look, etc. He said that he looked at the subdivision plat when he bought his home and thought the density was estimated to be 12-14 units per acre. Public Comment from Lance Lehigh, who say he wants something that better incorporates neighborhood character and he does not feel that this does. He thinks that lowering the buildings along Golden Gate to two-story would be advantageous to the design. He feels the outside of the buildings are all pretty similar and doesn’t meet the variety of the neighborhood – some variety would be beneficial. He feels that there is not enough thought to access of the subdivision trail system and that if they plan to use parking along Golden Gate, it will be a health and public safety issue. Public Comment from Matt Sonnichson – He states he will be right in front of the access drive. The way the project is proposed, there will be 160 cars driving in front of his home. He states that traffic is being increased considerably from what was originally planned at 12-14 units per acre. He thinks that the traffic will be more taxing than expected. Public comment from Randy Stevens – Questions if the buildings are exceeding utility needs. He questions if the traffic study extended beyond Golden Gate. He stated back up at the He states that the bus stop may not be ideally place in relation to the project with regard to street crossing. He is interested in what the rent would be for these properties. He is concerned about the transition. He states the renderings do not indicate the other buildings in the area and is perceived as an island. Public comment from Karmon Klundt – Expresses concerns with the impact of safety and vehicle usage. She states that she is concerned with the view and that they chose this neighborhood because it was single family. She feels they are an island from the city and that there is not much connectivity and so there is a lot of walking traffic around the neighborhood and additional traffic could be dangerous. Public Comment from Larry Summers – Questions if there will be AC units outside of the building – applicant responds no. He states that he regularly uses the trail system and it is pretty decent. He states that he has seen some very visually appealing buildings and supports making more diverse buildings and making the units less dense. Public Comment from Jay Willett – Discusses that Advance Dr goes right onto Huffine Lane, but does not allow access into the subdivision (right in/out only). With it being the closest access to the proposed project, that it will really bog down that access. Planning to use this access just will not work with its current design. Bill Rea questions the access onto Cottonwood. Mr. Woolit expresses no concerns with the access to Cottonwood. Public Comment from Mike Hennessy – Questions the developer about whether they have gone through discussions about what the units will cost based on the claim that they will be affordable. He questions if they have explored what it will take to make them available to the public. He expresses the concern with no transition. 274 Public Comment from Shaun Ross – He states that he is concerned with the lack of transition and the backyards and balconies facing the street. He states that he would not use Huffine or Cottonwood to ride his bike, that it’s dangerous and thus won’t be relieving the vehicle demands. He states that there are no real services nearby so it won’t be a lot of bikers and walking. He doesn’t feel there’s much curb appeal. Public Comment from Karen Willett – Ms. Woolit states that the character of the neighborhood is a major concern with single household homes fronting 3 story buildings. She suggests discussing with the school system how the bus accesses the neighborhood, as there is issues with them coming through the neighborhood. Public Comment from Brad Eberspecher – Just wants to repeat what others have said. That the originally planned for 12-14 units per acre would be much more compatible with the neighborhood. If you use street parking, it will leave little space for vehicle traffic. Close of Public Comment. Bill Rea brings conversation back to the front for motion, discussion and a vote. Thanks the public for their comment and reminds them this board is one small portion of the process. Lessa Racow questions if these units will be condos and assumes there will be a HOA. Questions if there will be an owner/renter ratio requirement – applicant responds no. Questions if there will be allocated visitor parking – applicant responds no. Walt Banzinger questions the utility study and what was put in place and whether they meet the demands of the property. He questions how the owners association aligns with the owners association in place. Builder states that they went to the HOA and they gave them the OK with this project. Walt Banzinger questions if a traffic study was done with regards to this property. Ms. Brekke responds that the traffic study was done with the original subdivision of the property and that Engineering sees no immediate concerns with the traffic demands. Walt Banzinger questions the understanding that the homeowners had that it would be 8 units per acre. Ms. Brekke responds that 12-14 units was originally based on original park land dedication on the original subdivision and the water/sewer, but that has all been re-checked with the proposed density and meets code requirements. Mel Howe states that the board is responsible for the way the project looks. The board’s responsibility is to discuss the aesthetics of the project. He questions the city’s position on the density. Ms. Brekke responds that the density is on track with what is being established currently in the community. In addition, they are meeting the code requirements with park land, parking, storm water, etc. Cynthia Andrus questions what portion of the subdivision is developed. Public responds that there are over 130 lots and currently 124 homes built. 275 Bill Rea questions where the 12-14 unit misconception came from. Ms. Brekke explains that was the general estimate based on the original subdivision plan. Bill Rea questions how the HOA associates with the City. Ms. Brekke states that the HOA has the ability to require more than the City, but that the City is not party to any HOA requirements. Bill Rea questions if there is land space to add a sheltered bus stop. Brian Krueger, Development Review Manager, states that the Streamline bus stops occur within the street right-of-way, to put it on public space would require easements into the street right-of-way. Bill Rea questions the AC units. Applicant responds that there will be no ground units and that they will be thru the wall and shielded by the balcony. Applicant responds that the Streamline bus system is anticipating putting a shelter at that stops at Cottonwood and Huffine in the near future. No additional questions from the board. Bill Rea questions where they will go from here. Ms. Brekke states that currently the project will go to the Director for final action, but may be reclaimed to the Commission. Cynthia Andrus clarifies that the city commission added the project to a future agenda to discuss if they will reclaim this project. It has not been decided officially for it to be reclaimed by the commission. Lessa Racow begins board discussion on the project. She states that she likes the architectural design. She also states that she likes the parking on the interior of the project. She has a hard time with the three-story building being right on Golden Gate. That it may be too much and perhaps lowering the units on Golden Gate to two-story would help. With regards to the large building on Huffine, she states that it may be beneficial for the middle section of the building to change in height or design to break up the street face. She expresses concerns with the owner occupancy percentage for the building units – but that’s not a concern for the DRB. With regards to landscaping, the development needs to provide access to existing trails – to avoid dead grass pathways and people crossing over storm water areas. Lessa Racow states that replacing some of the benches in the proposed private open space area with a fenced in dog park may be advantageous to the occupants. Lessa Racow suggested lighting with over the property addresses would help with way-finding, also changing the color of the buildings – which could also help with the transition from the neighborhood to the project. Lessa Racow expressed concern with traffic connectivity – especially with the second access being gated off. She really encourages a permeable surface for the gated off access, not paved. With regards to the central access, having parking immediately at the entrance could be problematic. She is concerned with the parking with regards to the lack of visitor parking. Walt Banzinger states that he feels the developer is developing within their rights and code requirements. He states that the architecture is nicely done. He questions if the developer should be responsible for fixing the problems created by all single household homes being built within the subdivision. He questions if there is a possibility for the developer to create the buffer between the 276 single household properties. He feels there is an opportunity to develop the property and get a good return for the developer, but still meeting the needs of the community. He suggests working with the community to reevaluate some of the density. Creating breaks in the building fronts would be advantageous. He suggests creating the buffer between the single household homes and three-story multi-family units. He also suggests blending the architecture with the character of the surrounding homes. Bill Rea states that the board can be very subjective while the staff needs to be more objective based on code. He states the property is being developed within the rights of the property owner, but that it just does not fit in this space. He feels it’s a cookie-cutter design onto the property multiple times. He does not like that there’s no connectivity outside of this property – there should be bike lanes between buildings so that there is not a perception that this is an island. He feels the scale of the building could be brought down through various building heights bringing down the building heights on Golden Gate and increasing along Huffine. He said that he appreciates color on the units instead of being largely brown. He agrees that an effort should be made to reduce vehicles with accessibility to bike and bus systems. He feels that the traffic issues are valid concerns. He feels it meets the City’s code checklist, but needs a good second look to meet the neighborhood’s demands. Walt Banzinger questions if the applicant would entertain reviewing the design. Applicant states they would review the color and connectivity. He also agrees they would address the front to Huffine and breaking it up. Applicant also continues to state that similar situations with the R-4 high density butting up against the single family homes exist across the street and it has not affected home value, etc. Board discusses how they will move forward with the motion. Brian Krueger states that the City is required to move an application forward and act on the proposal presented. It is up to the board to either provide a recommendation or not. It is typical to make a motion in support and just either vote in favor or against. Walt Banzinger moves to accept staff’s recommended motion. Melvin Howe seconds. Walt Banzinger comments that he thinks that the builder should take the neighborhood’s opinion into consideration and build collaboratively. Bill Rea comments that it’s not in the spirit of the design objectives plan. He states the neighborhood should have known density could have been developed to this degree. He feels however that the neighborhood context is critical here – and that the project could meet that density in another way in design. Lessa Racow states that she agrees with everything that was said and that they’re in a tough position. Typically they have issues with the architecture, but there are none here. However, the way the site relates to the community is a concern and that it’s being forced. She feels with a little adjusting, that it could pencil out to a better plan than is currently shown. 277 Walt Banzinger states that they did everything right, but based on public comment, he just can’t support it. Vote on the motion: None in favor All oppose. E. FYI/Discussion – no additional items F. Adjournment – Bill Rea adjourns the meeting. For more information please contact Alicia Kennedy at akennedy@bozeman.net This board generally meets the second and fourth Wednesday of the month at 5:30pm Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Chuck Winn at 582-2307 (TDD 582-2301). 278 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 1 of 22 15531, Design Review Board Staff Report for the Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness Application Date: Design Review Board meeting is on January 13, 2016 Project Description: A Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness application to allow five multi-unit residential buildings with a total of 84 dwelling units, affiliated open space, landscaping and surface parking. Project Location: 4835 Golden Gate Avenue, and is legally described as Lot 11, Block 1, Phase 1A of the Loyal Garden Subdivision, NE ¼ of Section 16, T2S, R5E, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The subject property is approximately 3.7 acres and is zoned R-4 (Residential High Density District) within the Class II West Main Street/Huffine Lane Entryway Corridor. Recommendation: Administrative Design Review Staff recommends approval of the design presented in the application. Recommended Motion: “Having reviewed and considered the application materials, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 15531 and move to recommend approval of the Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness with conditions and subject to all applicable code provisions.” Report Date: January 6, 2016 Staff Contact: Allyson B. Brekke, Associate Planner Shawn Kohtz, Development Review Engineer EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Description The Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness application proposes the construction of five multi-unit residential buildings with a total of 84 dwelling units, affiliated open space, landscaping and surface parking. The approximately 3.7 acres subject property is the original platted lot planned and zoned R-4 (Residential High Density District) in Phase 1A of the Loyal Garden Subdivision. The property is located within the Class II West Main Street/Huffine Lane Entryway Corridor. Therefore it is subject to review under the applicable chapters of the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan. The property is considered to have double frontage with Huffine Lane adjacent to the north and Golden Gate Avenue adjacent to the south. Vehicular access to the property is proposed solely from Golden Gate Avenue. The area along Huffine Lane, including the 50-foot front yard setback, is proposed to be extensively landscaped with berms. The density proposed for the residential development is 23 units/net acre (net residential density = 84 dwelling units/ 162,464 square feet of total area – 3,430 square feet within the 35’ public access easement = 23 units/net 279 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 2 of 22 acre). This surpasses the minimum 8 units/net acre minimum density established for R-4 zoning by the Unified Development Code (UDC). The UDC maximum density is 33 units per acre based upon minimum land area requirements. The UDC standards for the remaining site development requirements (parking, open space, etc) determine whether the maximum density is feasible on a site. Development Review Committee (DRC) staff is still in the process of reviewing this application. The final week of DRC review is scheduled for January 20, 2016. Conditions related to the DRC review are in development at this time. Staff has included a list of code provisions requiring corrections in this report for the Design Review Board’s (DRB) consideration. Staff would also appreciate the DRB’s input on the comments under the Entryway Overlay Design Review Criteria section of this report. A more thorough analysis of the affiliated land use designation and zoning for the property can be found in Appendix B. A more detailed project description and property history can be found in Appendix C. Alternatives 1. Recommend approval of the application with the recommended conditions; 2. Recommend approval of the application with modifications to the recommended conditions; 3. Recommend denial the application based on the Design Review Board’s findings of non- compliance with the applicable criteria contained within the staff report; or 4. Open and continue the review on the application, with specific direction to staff or the applicant to supply additional information or to address specific items. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1 Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 2 SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES .................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 2 –REQUESTED RELAXATION/DEVIATIONS/VARIANCES ...................... 12 SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL .................................... 12 SECTION 4 - CODE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRING PLAN CORRECTIONS ............... 12 SECTION 5 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS ...................................... 13 SECTION 6 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ........................................................... 14 Applicable Plan Review Criteria, Section 38.19.100, BMC. ............................................ 14 280 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 3 of 22 Entryway Overlay District Review Criteria ...................................................................... 18 APPENDIX B – PROJECT SITE ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY ............................... 19 APPENDIX C – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND.............. 20 APPENDIX D – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT ................................................... 21 APPENDIX E - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF ............................ 21 ATTACHMENTS ................................................................................................................... 22 281 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 4 of 22 SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES Figure 1: Golden Gate Zoning Map 282 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 5 of 22 Figure 2: Golden Gate Future Land Use Designation (Community Plan) 283 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 6 of 22 Figure 3: Golden Gate Existing Land Use Map 284 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 7 of 22 Murdoch’s Corporate Headquarters Rendering Figure 4: Golden Gate Condominiums Proposed Site Plan 285 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 8 of 22 Figure 5: 12-plex Building Elevations 286 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 9 of 22 Figure 6: 18-plex Building Elevations 287 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 10 of 22 Figure 7: 24-plex Building Elevations 288 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 11 of 22 Figure 8: Floor Plans (same room layout for all units) 289 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 12 of 22 SECTION 2 –REQUESTED RELAXATION/DEVIATIONS/VARIANCES No relaxations, deviations or variances have been requested. SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Administrative Design Review Staff recommends approval of the requested Site Plan/COA Application 15531 to the Director of Community Development. The applicant must comply with all applicable conditions of approval as recommended by the Design Review Board (DRB) and Development Review Committee (DRC) and approved by the Director. Prior to receiving Final Site Plan or Building Permit approval, the applicant must comply with all other provisions of the Bozeman Unified Development Code, which are applicable to this project. 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. Conditions related to the DRC review are in development at this time. The recommendations of the DRB and DRC will be forwarded to the Director of Community Development who will make the final decision regarding this project. SECTION 4 - CODE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRING PLAN CORRECTIONS A. Section 16.05.360.E, “Permit for removal of trees on public right-of-way,” states that at least 48 hours prior to engaging in any work (except in the case of a hazard), a licensee shall apply for a permit to do any work on any tree or shrub which is located in any public area. The permit application shall be filed with the city manager on a form provided by the city. The application shall contain any information required by the city for processing the application, including the scope and nature of the work to be performed on the specified tree or shrub. The city shall issue the requested permit only if the proposed work complies with all applicable laws and ordinances, any master street tree plan, any urban forestry plan, and any arboricultural specification manuals adopted by the city and upon payment of permit fee as established by city commission resolution. Any removal of boulevard trees must follow the process described in this section. Proof that the process was followed must be submitted prior to the removal of said boulevard trees. B. Section 38.21.050.F, “Accessory buildings, uses and equipment,” states that mechanical equipment must be screened. Rooftop mechanical equipment should be screened. Screening should be incorporated into the roof form when possible. The requirement for screening of rooftop mechanical equipment does not apply to solar or wind energy collection devices. Ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from public rights-of-way with walls, fencing or evergreen plant materials. Mechanical equipment 290 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 13 of 22 shall not encroach into required setbacks. All building mounted and ground mounted mechanical equipment must be adequately screened. The electrical power meters should be a similar color or painted to match the exterior siding. C. Section 38.23.080.H, “Grading and Drainage,” states that stormwater retention/detention facilities in landscaped areas shall be designed as landscape amenities. They shall be an organic feature with a natural, curvilinear shape. The facilities shall have 75 percent of surface area covered with live vegetation appropriate for the depth and design of the retention/detention facility, and be lined with native grasses, indigenous plants, wet root tolerant plant types and groupings of boulders to create a functional yet, natural site feature. A cross section and landscape detail of each facility shall be submitted with the final landscape plan for review and approval. Facilities with a slope up to and including ten percent grade may be grassed and irrigated to blend into the adjacent landscaped area. A cross section and landscape detail of each facility shall be submitted with the final landscape plan for review and approval. D. Section 38.25.020.A, “Stall, aisle and driveway design,” states that in any parking facility containing 20 or more parking spaces, a maximum of 25 percent of the provided parking spaces may be reduced in size for small cars, provided these spaces shall be clearly identified with a sign permanently affixed immediately in front of each space containing the notation, "Compacts Only." Where feasible, all small car spaces shall be located in one or more contiguous areas and/or adjacent to ingress and egress points within parking facilities. Location of compact car parking spaces shall not create traffic congestion or impede traffic flows. Compact parking space counts should be included in the parking calculations and shown on Sheet C1.0. A detail for the sign proposed for the parking shall be included in the final plan materials. E. Section 38.41.080.A.2.f, “Site plan submittal requirements,” density per type of dwelling units must be shown on the plans. The net residential density calculation on Sheet C1.0 must be revised so that the total area of land subtracts the area within the 35-foot public access easement along Huffine Lane. SECTION 5 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS Having considered the criteria established for site plans approval with conditions as recommended to the Design Review Board (DRB), the DRB shall forward its recommendation to the Director of Community Development for consideration and action. The final date for Director final action and decision is February 2, 2016. The Development Review Committee (DRC) will complete its review of the Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness on January 20, 2016. If the DRC finds that the application is sufficient for review they will make a recommendation to the Director of Community Development. 291 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 14 of 22 SECTION 6 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Analysis and resulting recommendations are based on the entirety of the application materials, municipal codes, standards, and plans, public comment, and all other materials available during the review period. Collectively this information is the record of the review. The analysis in this report is a summary of the completed review. The site is located within the Class II, West Main Street/Huffine Lane Entryway Corridor Overlay District. ADR staff has reviewed the proposal for conformance with the Bozeman Design Guidelines for Entryway Corridors. Staff finds the proposal to be in general conformance with the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan as reviewed under the Entryway Overlay District Review Criteria. Applicable Plan Review Criteria, Section 38.19.100, BMC. 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. In considering applications for plan approval under this title, the advisory boards and City Commission shall consider the following: 1. Conformance to and consistency with the City’s adopted growth policy This property is designated as “Residential” on Figure 3-1 (Future Land Use Map) of the Bozeman Community Plan. The construction of multi-unit residential buildings complies with the description of this land use designation and the R-4 zoning. No conflicts between the proposed use, zoning and the growth policy have been identified. 2. Conformance to this chapter, including the cessation of any current violations; No known violations currently exist on the site. The DRC is continuing their review of this criterion. If corrections are determined to be necessary any action by the Review Authority will include such corrections. 3. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations; No conflicts have been identified at this time. Some additional steps are required such as application for final site plan and building permit, which will be addressed as appropriate in the future. The plans will be further evaluated against the requirements of the International Building Code at the time application is made for a building permit. 4. Relationship of site plan elements to conditions both on and off the property; Staff has found the development to be compatible with and sensitive to the immediate environment of the site and the adjacent neighborhood. Compatibility can be achieved in many ways, including architectural design, building mass and height, neighborhood identity, landscaping, orientation of buildings on the site and visual integration. Particular to this 292 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 15 of 22 development, Staff finds the placement of the smaller 12-plex buildings along Golden Gate Avenue as appropriate. It helps provide a shorter building front at the street edge to better relate to the single-household residences across the street. Additionally, these 12-plexes will present the private balcony and patio spaces toward the street which provide the building elevation with a lot of variation and relief. It also helps support the notion of bringing the private open space toward the street, as seen across the street with the covered porches of the existing houses. Individual sidewalks are proposed to each ground floor unit within the 12- plexes which also helps connect the buildings to the street front. While the three-story height is taller than the existing one-story houses that exist across the street to the south and the open space to the west, Staff finds the 60-foot right-of-way and open space corridor to provide adequate buffer between the different styles and forms of residential structures. This is consistent with Section 328.08.010.A which states in part “…uses set forth for each district will be compatible with each other when the standards of this chapter are met…” See Entryway Overlay District Review Criteria below for more detailed discussion. 5. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions; The plan provides adequate off-street and on-street parking to meet minimum parking requirements of the Unified Development Code (UDC), which requires 2 parking spaces for every 2-bedroom dwelling unit. All 84 units are proposed as 2-bedroom units. The surface parking is interior to the site and is almost completed shielded by the proposed residential buildings. 6. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress, including: A 1-foot no access strip exists along the property’s north perimeter. This prevents any vehicular access to the property from Huffine Lane. Therefore, all vehicular access to the site is proposed from Golden Gate Avenue. The primary drive access is approximately centered along the street frontage and will accommodate two-way traffic. An emergency access only is proposed at the southwest corner of the property. This is located outside of the required side yard setback and will be gated and striped appropriately to indicate the emergency only access. This access provides the required secondary access to the development. The site development includes pedestrian crossings interior to the site to help accommodate the pedestrian traffic within the surface parking area. Perimeter sidewalk is provided along the outside of all proposed buildings. 293 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 16 of 22 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; The proposed landscaping generally meets the standard landscaping requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code, including the required parking lot landscaping and the groupings of plants. An extensive landscaped berm is proposed adjacent to Huffine Lane that is intended to buffer the large 24-plex residential building from both the vehicular and pedestrian traffic traveling the Huffine Lane corridor. Turf grass is proposed in combination with the plantings. A code provision correction is included at this point with staff’s recommendation to provide a detailed landscape plan for each proposed storm water retention pond to demonstrate how each pond will be planted with native grasses and indigenous plants to create a true landscape amenity. 8. Open space; Private open space is proposed in the center of the lot, with surface parking surrounding its perimeter. This creates somewhat of a private urban pocket park that will provide benches and landscaped shade. Pedestrian access is provided to the open space across the parking with stamped concrete pedestrian crossings. The majority of the required private open space (56 of the 84 units) is supplied through the incorporation of private patios and balconies in the buildings’ designs. Twelve of the units are determined to have ground floor access to a landscaped rear yard and therefore, do not trigger private open space. The remaining open space is supplied in that interior area previously described. The original Loyal Garden Subdivision provided parkland with the original platting. The maximum density was planned and provided for this particular lot, and therefore, no additional parkland is required for this residential development. 9. Building location and height; The proposed building height is less than the maximum height limit permitted in the R-4 zoning district. The three-story building is proposed to be 38’-0” at its highest point. 10. Setbacks; Section 38.08.050, Unified Development Code, states required setbacks for this double frontage residential lot. All proposed structures are within the required front, side and rear yard setbacks. As specified in this section of the UDC, if a lot has one or more principal buildings which are oriented to place the functional rear of the building(s) adjacent to a side lot line, then a setback from the property line equal to that for a rear yard shall be provided. This specific provision is provided on the east and west sides of the property. The smallest required yard setback required is the one adjacent to Golden Gate Avenue, which is 15 feet. 294 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 17 of 22 11. Lighting; Only building mounted fixtures are proposed with this development. All shown light fixtures abide by the full-cutoff lighting standards in the Unified Development Code (UDC). Please see Staff’s additional comments pertaining to lighting under the Entryway Overlay Design Review Criteria. 12. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities; The on-site water and sewer lines for the proposed development are shown within the vehicular circulation and drive aisle area. Engineering requested the proposed utility easement to accommodate such lines to avoid overlap with parking spaces. The utilities are being reviewed by the City Engineering Division. All final utility locations will be reviewed with the Final Site Plan application. 13. Site surface drainage; The proposed site surface drainage appears to meet standards and is currently being reviewed by the Engineering Division and the greater Development Review Committee (DRC) Staff. 14. Loading and unloading areas; Not applicable. No formal loading or unloading areas are proposed or required. 15. Grading; See Staff’s comments under the Entryway Overlay Design Review Criteria section of this report related to “Topography.” An extensive landscaped berm is proposed along Huffine Lane between the existing shared-use asphalt trail and the proposed 24-plex. The grading of the parking area appears very gradual in change and variation. Grading of the site will have to occur to accommodate the proposed stormwater retention ponds (four in total proposed on both the east and west sides of the property). 16. Signage; No signage is proposed at this time or anticipated with this development, other than signage affiliated with addressing. If any new signage is proposed, it must be in compliance with the Bozeman Municipal Development Code and will require a sign permit prior to construction. 17. Screening; All required screening appears to be met. No ground mechanical equipment is proposed. Code provision correction A requires any and all mechanical equipment to be screened and shall be shown on the final site plan. 18. Overlay district provisions; The site is located within the Class II West Main Street/Huffine Lane Entryway Corridor. Over 90 parking spaces are proposed triggering review by the Design Review Board (DRB) 295 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 18 of 22 pursuant to Section 38.19.040.C, BMC. The detailed findings can be found further below under Entryway Overlay District Review Criteria section. 19. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties; As of the writing of this report, three letters of public comment have been received in response to the noticing of the project and are attached with the application materials. Any comments received prior to the close of the public comment period will be forwarded to the Director. Please see Appendix D for more information about the public noticing that occurred for the project and a future scheduled neighborhood meeting about the development. 20. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation or other means of addressing requirement of this title, whether the lots are either: 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 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; Not applicable. 21. Compliance with article 8 of chapter 10 of the Bozeman Municipal Code; and Not applicable. 22. Phasing of development. The project is proposed for construction in one phase. Entryway Overlay District Review Criteria The site is located within the Class II, West Main/Huffine Lane Entryway Corridor Overlay District. ADR staff has reviewed the proposal for conformance with the Bozeman design guidelines for entryway overlay districts which can be found within the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan. Staff finds the proposal to be in general conformance with the site design guidelines within the Design Objectives Plan, including the specific design guidelines for the West Main/Huffine Lane. The specific guidelines below are areas that Staff would appreciate to receive additional comments from the Design Review Board. Chapter 2. Site Design Guidelines D. Topography, 1. Minimize cut and fill on a site, 3. Design a building foundation to conform to the existing topography, rather than creating extensive cut and fill. 296 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 19 of 22 The area adjacent to Huffine Lane, including the required 50-foot yard setback, is proposed to contain a landscaped berm. The intention is to provide a greenscaped edge along Huffine Lane, as well as provide a buffer or separation between Huffine Lane and the largest building proposed on the property (24-plex). Staff is unsure how the building’s foundation will interact with the proposed berm. Additional information could be provided to demonstrate how the building foundation will step to follow the site contours. E. Site Drainage, 2. Incorporate drainage systems as a part of the site amenities and landscape design. A code provision correction is included at this point with staff’s recommendation to provide a detailed landscape plan for each proposed storm water retention pond to demonstrate how each pond will be planted with native grasses and indigenous plants to create a true landscape amenity. K. Site Lighting, 3. Provide lighting for pedestrian ways that is appropriately scaled to warlking, 4. Lighting shall be shielded to prevent any off-site glare. Currently, the proposed lighting plan does not include any parking or interior light fixtures including within the proposed private open space and the pedestrian crossings. Due to the proposed density, the lighting plan is very important to ensure that the development will prevent any off-site glare. The proposed lighting plan shows the majority of lighting to be on the interior sides of all building proposed at the building entrance points (stairwell). This appears to provide a dark face to the exterior sides of all buildings which is appropriate for the adjacent property lots. Staff is curious to know what lights are proposed in the private patio and balcony areas. APPENDIX B – PROJECT SITE ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY Zoning Designation and Land Uses: The subject property is zoned “R-4” (Residential High Density). The intent of the R-4 residential zoning district is to provide for high-density residential development through a variety of housing types within the city with associated service functions. This will provide for a variety of compatible housing types to serve the varying needs of the community's residents. Although some office use is permitted, it shall remain as a secondary use to residential development. Secondary status shall be as measured by percentage of total building area. Adopted Growth Policy Designation: The Future Land Use Map of the Bozeman Community Plan designates the subject property to develop as “Residential”. This category designate places where the primary activity is urban density dwellings. Other uses which complement residences are also acceptable such as parks, low intensity home based occupations, fire stations, churches, and schools. High density residential areas should be established in close proximity to commercial centers to facilitate the provision of services and employment opportunities to persons without requiring the use of an 297 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 20 of 22 automobile. Implementation of this category by residential zoning should provide for and coordinate intensive residential uses in proximity to commercial centers. The residential designation indicates that it is expected that development will occur within municipal boundaries, which may require annexation prior to development. The dwelling unit density expected within this classification varies between 6 and 32 dwellings per net acre. A higher density may be considered in some locations and circumstances. A variety of housing types can be blended to achieve the desired density. Large areas of single type housing are discouraged. In limited instances the strong presence of constraints and natural features such as floodplains may cause an area to be designated for development at a lower density than normally expected within this category. All residential housing should be arranged with consideration of compatibility with adjacent development, natural constraints such as watercourses or steep slopes, and in a fashion which advances the overall goals of the Bozeman growth policy. The residential designation is intended to provide the primary locations for additional housing within the planning area. APPENDIX C – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Project Description The Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness application proposes the construction of five multi-unit residential buildings with a total of 84 dwelling units, affiliated open space, landscaping and surface parking. The approximately 3.7 acres subject property is the original platted lot planned and zoned R-4 (Residential High Density District) in Phase 1A of the Loyal Garden Subdivision. No change in zoning designation for this lot has occurred since the Loyal Garden Subdivision was initially platted. The property is located within the Class II West Main Street/Huffine Lane Entryway Corridor. Therefore it is subject to review under the applicable chapters of the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan. The property is considered to have double frontage with Huffine Lane adjacent to the north and Golden Gate Avenue adjacent to the south. Vehicular access to the property is proposed solely from Golden Gate Avenue. The area along Huffine Lane, including the 50-foot front yard setback, is proposed to be extensively landscaped with berms. The density proposed for the residential development is 23 units/net acre (net residential density = 84 dwelling units/ 162,464 square feet of total area – 3,430 square feet within the 35’ public access easement = 23 units/net acre). This surpasses the minimum 8 units/net acre minimum density established for R-4 zoning by the Unified Development Code (UDC). The UDC maximum density is 32 units per acre based upon minimum land area requirements. The UDC standards for the remaining site development requirements (parking, open space, etc) determine whether the maximum density is feasible on a site. Development Review Committee (DRC) staff is still in the process of reviewing this application. The final week of DRC review is scheduled for January 20, 2016. Conditions related to the DRC review are in development at this time. Staff has included a list of code provisions requiring corrections in this report for the Design Review Board’s (DRB) consideration. Staff would also appreciate the DRB’s input on the comments under the Entryway Overlay Design Review Criteria section of this report. 298 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 21 of 22 Property Background The subject property was originally planned and platted as high density residential development and zoned as R-4. It was also anticipated that no vehicular access to this property would occur from Huffine Lane (due to drive access limitations determined by Montana Department of Transportation). However, an amended plat to the original subdivision was approved by the City for the lots directly across Golden Gate Avenue from this subject property. The original plat showed two larger lots zoned as R-3 (Residential Medium-Density District) which were likely anticipated to accommodate a smaller scale apartment/condo building (5 dwelling units within a building). The amended plat allowed the change to six smaller lots which have since accommodated one-story, single-household residences upon several of them. No change in the R-3 zoning occurred with the amended plat. Therefore while the existing houses today are single-household, the R-3 zoning would potentially allow for two-household residences to occupy these lots. APPENDIX D – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT The project was originally noticed the week of December 21, 2015. This included a notice mailed to the adjoining property owners and a notice posted on site. A small error was then identified in the list of adjoining property owners submitted by the applicant (two property owners were missing). A notice has been sent to these additional owners and the notice on site will be updated to reflect an extension of the original public comment closure date of January 19 to January 25, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. Several neighbors within the Loyal Garden Subdivision have expressed general concern over the development, largely as it pertains to the density proposed and the believed negative effect such density will have on the existing neighborhood. Over the counter conversations between Staff and some of the subdivision property owners showed the owners across the street were aware of the R-4 zoning and the potential for high density development, but believe this proposal is too dense for the surrounding neighborhood. As of the writing of this report, three letters of public comment have been received in response to the noticing of the project and are attached with the application materials. Due to the neighborhood’s concerns, the City’s Neighborhood Coordinator has arranged for a meeting between the developer/owner and the neighborhood to discuss their areas of concerns. Planning Staff has been invited to attend this meeting. This meeting is scheduled the evening prior to the Design Review Board (DRB) meeting. Staff will give a summary of the meeting in their oral presentation to the DRB. APPENDIX E - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF Owner: Covenant LLC, PO Box 11428, Bozeman, MT 59719 Applicant: Chase-Skogen Construction, 2149 Durston Road #31, Bozeman, MT 59718 Representatives: JDS Architects, 719 West Mendenhall Street, Bozeman, MT 59715 Caddis Engineering & Surveying, PO Box 11805, Bozeman, MT 59719 299 15531, Golden Gate Condominiums Site Plan & COA Page 22 of 22 Report By: Allyson B. Brekke, Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS The full application and file of record can be viewed at the Community Development Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715. Application materials Public comment received by the writing of this report (if additional comment received, it will be forwarded to the DRB separately) 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 _______________________________________ N1CITY OF BOZEMAN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NOTICING MATERIALS Notice is required for certain projects in order for citizens to participate in decision making which affects their interests and provides opportunity to receive information pertinent to an application that would not otherwise be available to the decision maker. SITE PLAN, MASTER SITE PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, DEVIATION, FIRST MINOR SUBDIVISON AND SIMILAR REQUIRED NOTICING MATERIALS Completed and signed property adjoiners certificate form N1. Legible list of full names and addresses of all property owners within 200 feet of the project site, attached to this checklist. Stamped, unsealed, plain (no return address) #10 envelopes preaddressed with the names and addresses of the adjoining property owners. MAJOR AND SUBSEQUENT MINOR SUBDIVISION REQUIRED NOTICING MATERIALS Completed and signed property adjoiners certificate form N1. Legible list of full names and addresses of all property owners within 200 feet of the project site and not physically contiguous (touching a boundary) to the subdivision, attached to this checklist. Clearly label list ADJOINER NOT CONTIGUOUS. Stamped, unsealed, plain (no return address) #10 envelopes preaddressed with the names and addresses of the adjoining property owners. Legible list of full names and addresses of all property owners physically contiguous (touching a boundary) including recorded purchasers under contract for deed to be sent certified mail attached to this checklist. Clearly label list CONTIGUOUS. Stamped, unsealed, plain (no return address) #10 envelopes preaddressed with the names and addresses of the physically contiguous property owners including recorded purchasers under contract for deed. Two sets additional mailing labels with the names and addresses of the physically contiguous property owners including recorded purchasers under contract for deed attached. NOTICE Current property owners of record can be found at the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder’s Office in the Gallatin County Courthouse 311 West Main Street Bozeman, Montana. CERTIFICATION I, _____________________________________________, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the attached name and address list of all adjoining property owners (including all condominium owners, within 200 feet of the property located at ________________________________________________________, is a true and accurate list from the last declared Gallatin County tax records. I further understand that an inaccurate list may delay review of the project. Signature CONTACT US Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street 59715 (FED EX and UPS Only) PO Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771 phone 406-582-2260 fax 406-582-2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.net Noticing Materials Page 1 of 1 Revision Date 4-27-15 Required Forms: N1 Recommended Forms: NA 314 315 316 317 318 319 EBLOCK 1162,464 SQ. FT3.7297 ACRESLOT 11OPEN SPACE OOPEN SPACE PLOT 4LOT 5LOT 6LOT 7LOT 8LOT 9LOT 10R-O ZONINGR-3 ZONINGR-3 ZONINGR-3 ZONINGR-3 ZONINGR-3 ZONINGR-3 ZONINGR-3 ZONINGR-3 ZONINGGOLDEN GATE AVENUEADVANCE DRIVEN 00°21'29" W 406.29'N 89°03'02" E 275.62'S 18°52'46" E 404.18'S 12°34'10" W 50.00'N 18°52'46" W 120.00'S 71°07'14" W 271.29'L=98.80'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''R=180.05'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''=31°26'29"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""LPEEXISTING GRAVEL TRAILEX ISTI NG GR AVEL TR AI LEXISTING ASPHALT TRAILEXISTING ASPHALT TRAILEXISTING STORMWATER PONDEXISTING STORMWATER PONDTELEPHONE BOXELECTRICAL BOXGAS CONDUITCATV BOXTOE OF LANDSCAPE BERM482248214821482148204820482048204819481948194819481848 18 481848174817481748164816481548154815 4814481448144813EXISTINGPARKING10.7210.55F.F. ELEV = 6.5011.68F.F. ELEV = 12.50(12.00)(12.00)(12.00)(12.00)(6.00)(6.00)(6.00)(6.00)(8.50)(5.29)(5.29)(5.20)(4.94)(4.58)(4.48)(4.30)(5.29)(5.29)(5.20)(4.75)(4.65)(4.43)10.34(10.66)(10.66)(8.50)F.F. ELEV = 11.16(8.50)(8.35)(7.21)(7.21)1.0%1.0%(10.66)(10.58)(10.58)(10.22)(10.58)(7.90)(4.58)(6.26)F.F. ELEV = 6.76(7.15)(7.78)(8.43)(8.68)(8.36)(4.97)(8.07)(5.06)(5.24)(4.94)(6.19)(6.37)(7.26)F.F. ELEV = 7.76(6.06)(6.24)(5.50)(7.41)F.F. ELEV = 8.76(7.48)(7.27)(7.26)(8.26)(8.26)(7.26)(6.10)(7.00)8.509.09(8.85)(9.79)(9.80)(9.70)(9.25)(9.02)(9.20)(9.35)(8.25)(8.03)(8.36)(9.12)F.F. ELEV = 9.62F.F. ELEV = 7.12(6.62)(5.86)F.F. ELEV = 8.37(7.87)(7.11)(5.28)(5.42)(6.62)(7.87)(9.12)(7.71)(5.60)(6.94)(6.42)(5.97)(6.58)(6.18)(6.15)(5.15)(9.40)(9.80)(10.66)(9.75)(9.65)(7.98)(8.21)(8.18)(7.74)PROPOSED STORM WATERRETENTION POND #1VOLUME=640 CU FT, DEPTH=1.2'T.O.P. ELEV=7.00, B.O.P. ELEV=5.804:1 SIDE SLOPES(8.15)PROPOSED STORM WATERRETENTION POND #2VOLUME=364 CU FT, DEPTH=1.0'T.O.P. ELEV=9.00, B.O.P. ELEV=8.004:1 SIDE SLOPES(6.79)2.3% 1.5%1.0%1.0%1.4%1.4%(8.04)(7.83)(9.73)(10.58)(9.46)(8.75)(10.22)(10.90)(10.44)(10.49)(10.17)(6.75)(7.33)(6.68)(6.58)(7.23)(6.79)(6.97)(7.51)(7.61)(8.54)(7.81)(8.45)(7.72)15' FRONT YARD SETBACK15' FRONTYARD SETBACK5' SIDE YARD SETBACK 20' SIDE YARD SETBACK50' SETBACK20' SIDE YARD SETBACK (6.86)1.0%1.0%(6.32)(6.60)(5.47)PROPOSED STORM WATERRETENTION POND #3VOLUME=1,790 CU FT, DEPTH=2.0'T.O.P. ELEV=4.30, B.O.P. ELEV=2.304:1 SIDE SLOPESPROPOSED STORM WATERRETENTION POND #4VOLUME=1,660 CU FT, DEPTH=2.0'T.O.P. ELEV=4.20, B.O.P. ELEV=2.204:1 SIDE SLOPES(6.90)(7.25)(7.21)18-PLEX12-PLEX18-PLEX24-PLEX12-PLEXEXISTING 5' SIDEWALKEXISTING 5' SIDEWALK(5.10)(5.00)(5.77)(5.84)(6.57)(6.35)(5.61)(5.47)(5.21)(5.27)(5.07)(5.01)(5.89)(5.39)(5.25)(5.66)(5.52)(5.34)(9.05)(8.25)(7.30)(7.17)(8.10)UNDERGROUND RETENTIONCHAMBERSVOLUME=770 CU FTUNDERGROUND RETENTIONCHAMBERSVOLUME=1,461 CU FTCURB CUT &DRAINAGE TROUGH1' WIDECURB CUTCURB CUT &DRAINAGE TROUGHFND MAG W/WASHER(C&H ENG.)FND MAG W/WASHER(C&H ENG.)DRAINAGEAREA #1DRAINAGEAREA #2DRAINAGEAREA #3DRAINAGEAREA #4DRAINAGE AREA MAP0 80 160#15072SCALE IN FEETDRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY320 LED WATTAGE AND LUMEN VALUES Ordering Code Average System Watts1 LED Current (mA) LED Selection Luminaire Initial Absolute Lumens2,3 Basis of Lumen Data Photometric tests performed in compliance with IESNA LM-79.TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 4 35LA 34 350 NW 3,459 3,559 3,385 55LA 52 530 NW 4,785 5,021 4,709 1. Wattage may vary by +/- 8% due to LED manufacturer forward volt specification and ambient temperature. Wattage shown is average for 120V through 277V input. Actual wattage may vary by an additional +/- 10% due to actual input voltage. 2. Tests are in process for luminaires with the DL option , CW and WW luminaires. CW values may be approximated by applying a 1.08 multiplier to NW values shown. Contact Gardco.applications@philips.com if any approximate estimates are required for design purposes. 3. LED arrays feature LEDs that provide from 100 to 130 lumens per watt when operated at 350 mA. Lumen values based on tests performed in compliance with IESNA LM-79. 101L Trapezoidal Wedge LED - Constant Wattage / Full Light Output 101L-DCC Trapezoidal Wedge LED - Dual Arrays with Dual Circuit Control 101L-DIM Trapezoidal Wedge LED - 0 - 10V Dimming (Control system by others.) 101L-APD Trapezoidal Wedge LED with Automatic Profile Dimming See page 3 for more detailed luminaire configuration information. Job: Type: Notes: 100 Line LED 101 Performance Sconce LED Philips Gardco 101 LED trapezoidal wedge high performance sconce luminaires are designed to integrate naturally to wall surfaces. 101 LED luminaires are available with three (3) different distribution patterns, providing full cutoff performance (in the normal downlight position) and featuring LED arrays. Luminaires provide performance excellence and advanced Philips Gardco LED thermal management technology. High performance Class 1 LED systems offer potential energy savings of 50 % or more compared to HID systems. 101 LED luminaires are also available with Automatic Profile Dimming, increasing savings by an additional 33%. PREFIX DISTRIBUTION Enter the order code into the appropriate box above. Note: Philips Gardco reserves the right to refuse a configuration. Not all combinations and configurations are valid. Refer to notes below for exclusions and limitations. For questions or concerns, please consult the factory. PREFIX LED WATTAGEDISTRIBUTION LED SELECTION FINISHVOLTAGE OPTIONS 2 3 4 Type II Type III Type IV Wide Throw Optic, featuring Maximized Lateral Throw Preferred Wide Throw Optic, featuring Improved Forward Throw Maximized Forward Throw Optic VOLTAGELED SELECTION CW Cool White - 5700°K - 75 CRI NW Neutral White - 4000°K - 70 CRI WW Warm White - 3000°K - 80 CRI UNIV 120V through 277V, 50hz or 60hz 120 208 240 277 347 © 2014 Koninklijke Philips N.V. All rights reserved. G200-028 10/14 page 1 of 3 www.philips.com/luminaires 321 100 Line LED 16 1/4"41.28 cm 9"22.86 cm 7"17.78 cm 101 Performance Sconce LEDPage 2 of 3 4. Polycarbonate lenses carry a 1 year warranty only.5. Rear entry permitted. 6. Not available with PSO option and not available with the WG option.7. Not available with DL option and not available with the WG option.8. Not available with DL option and not available with the PSO option.9. Specify input voltage. FINISH OPTIONS DIMENSIONS LUMINAIRE CONFIGURATION INFORMATION Mounting Bolt Pattern 4 5/16"10.95 cm 3" 7.62 cm Mounting Plate 1 3/4" dia.4.4 cm Note: Mounting plate center is located in the center of the luminaire width and 3.5"(8.89cm) above the luminaire bottom (lens down position). Splices must be made in the J-box (by others). Mounting plate must be secured by max. 5/16" (.79cm) diameter bolts (by others) structurally to the wall. BRP Bronze Paint BLP Black Paint WP White Paint NP Natural Aluminum Paint BGP Beige Paint OC Optional Color Paint Specify Optional Color or RAL ex: OC-LGP or OC-RAL7024. SC Special Paint Specify. Must supply color chip. F9 Fusing PCB9 Button Type Photocontrol DL6 Diffusing Lens (reduces performance significantly) PSO4,7 Offset Polycarbonate Flat Shield UT 5° Uptilt WS5 Wall Mounted Box for Surface Conduit WS/UT5 WS Option w/5° Uptilt WG8 Wire Guard 101L: Philips Gardco performance LED sconce providing constant wattage and constant light output when power to the luminaire is energized. 101L-DCC: Philips Gardco performance LED sconce provided with dual circuiting, and dual arrays, permitting separate switching of each led array. 101L-DIM: Philips Gardco performance LED sconce provided with 0 -10V dimming for connection to a control system provided by others. 101L-APD: Philips Gardco performance LED sconces with Automatic Profile Dimming are provided with a progammed LED Driver included. The LED driver is factory programmed to go to 50% power, 50% light output two (2) hours prior to night time mid-point and remain at 50% for six (6) hours after night time mid-point. Mid-point is continuously calculated by the LED driver based on the average mid-point of the last two full night cycles. Short duration cycles, and power interruptions are ignored and do not affect the determination of mid-point. APD Dimming Profile: 100% 100% 50%50% Power On Mid Point 2 Hours 6 Hours Power Off © 2014 Koninklijke Philips N.V. All rights reserved. G200-028 10/14 page 2 of 3 www.philips.com/luminaires 322 GENERAL: Philips Gardco 101 LED Trapezoidal Wedge high performance sconce luminaires are designed to integrate naturally to wall surfaces. 101 LED luminaires are available with three (3) different distribution patterns, providing full cutoff performance (in the downlight position) and featuring LED arrays. Luminaires provide performance excellence and advanced Philips Gardco LED thermal management technology. High performance Class 1 LED systems offer potential energy savings of 50 % or more compared to HID systems. Surge protector standard. 10KA per AN SI/IEEE C62.41.2. THERMAL MANAGEMENT: Philips Gardco 101 LED luminaires utilize extruded aluminum integral thermal radiation fins to provide the excellent thermal management so critical to long LED system life. LED RELIABILITY: PREDICTED LUMEN DEPRECIATION DATA Ambient Temperature °C LED Wattage / Driver mA L70 Hours10 25 °C 35LA / 350 mA 150,000 55LA / 530 mA 100,000 40 °C 35LA / 350 mA 100,000 55LA / 530 mA 70,000 10. Predicted performance derived from LED manufacturer’s data and engineering design estimates, based on IESNA LM-80 methodology. Actual experience may vary due to field application conditions. L70 is the predicted time when LED performance depreciates to 70% of initial lumen output. OPTICAL SYSTEMS: Philips Gardco 101 LED luminaires utilize lensed LED arrays set to achieve IES Type II, Type III, and Type IV distributions. Individual LED arrays are replaceable. Luminaires feature high performance Class 1 LED systems. HOUSING: Housings are die cast aluminum. A memory retentive gasket seals the housing to the door frame to exclude moisture, dust, insects and pollutants from the optical system. A black, die cast ribbed backplate dissipates heat for longer system life. DOOR FRAME: A single-piece die cast aluminum door frame integrates to the housing form. The door frame is hinged closed and secured to the housing with captive stainless steel fasteners. The heat and impact resistant 1/8" (.32cm) tempered glass lens and one-piece gasket are mechanically secured to the door frame with galvanized steel retainers. IP RATING: Luminaires are rated IP66. FINISH: Each standard color luminaire receives a fade and abrasion resistant, electrostatically applied, thermally cured, triglycidal isocyanurate (TGIC) textured polyester powdercoat finish. Standard colors are as listed. Consult factory for specs on custom colors. LABELS: All luminaires bear UL or CUL (where applicable) labels. Lens down application is Wet Location and lens up is Damp Location. WARRANTY: Philips Gardco LED luminaires feature a 5 year limited warranty, including a 5 year limited warranty covering the LED arrays. See Warranty Information on www.sitelighting.com for complete details and exclusions. Polycarbonate lenses carry a 1 year warranty only. FULL CUTOFF PERFORMANCE: Full cutoff performance means a luminaire distribution where zero candela intensity occurs at an angle at or above 90° above nadir . Additionally, the candela per 1000 lamp lumens does not numerically exceed 100 (10 percent) at a vertical angle of 80° above nadir. This applies to all lateral angles around the luminaire. CUTOFF PERFORMANCE: Cutoff performance means a luminaire distribution where the candela per 1000 lamp lumens does not numerically exceed 25 (2.5 percent) at an angle at or above 90° above nadir, and 100 (10 percent) at a vertical angle of 80° above nadir. This applies to all lateral angles around the luminaire. Page 3 of 3 100 Line LED 101 Performance Sconce LED SPECIFICATIONS © 2014 Koninklijke Philips N.V. All rights reserved. Philips reserves the right to make changes in specifications and/or to discontinue any product at any time without notice or obligation and will not be liable for any consequences resulting from the use of this publication. G200-028 10/14 page 3 of 3 www.philips.com/luminaires Philips LightingNorth America Corporation200 Franklin Square Drive Somerset, NJ 08873Tel. 855-486-2216 Imported by: Philips Lighting, A division of Philips Electronics Ltd.281 Hillmount Rd, Markham, ON, Canada L6C 2S3Tel. 800-668-9008 323 Storm Water Design Calculations Project:Golden Gate Condominiums Date:11/10/2015 From City of Bozeman Design Standards:Q = CIA V = 7200Q Q = runoff (cfs) C = Weighted C factor I = Rainfall Intesity (in/hr) A = Area (acres) V = Volume (ft3) Rainfall Intensities (from figures I-2 & I-3) I10 = 0.4079 in/hr (10 yr, 2 hr event) I25 = 0.5005 in/hr (25 yr, 2 hr event) I50 = 0.5822 in/hr (50 yr, 2 hr event) I100 = 0.6348 in/hr (100 yr, 2 hr event) Composite Runoff Coefficient Calculation Area (ft2)Area (acres)C factorHardscape =71,386 1.6388 0.90 Roof =29,896 0.6863 0.85 Landscaping =61,182 1.4045 0.30 Total Area =162,464 3.7297 Weighted C =0.66 Drainage Area #1 For a 10-year storm event: Area =13,835 ft2 Q10 =0.0861 cfs Vrqd =620 ft3 →640 ft3 provided Drainage Area #2 For a 10-year storm event: Area =7,952 ft2 Q10 =0.0495 cfs Vrqd =356 ft3 →364 ft3 provided Drainage Area #3 For a 10-year storm event: Area =57,043 ft2 Q10 =0.3551 cfs Vrqd =2,557 ft3 →1,790 ft3 provided in retention pond →770 ft3 provided in underground storage chambers Drainage Area #4 For a 10-year storm event: Area =69,622 ft2 Q10 =0.4334 cfs Vrqd =3,121 ft3 →1,660 ft3 provided in retention pond →1,461 ft3 provided in underground storage chambers 324 HUFFINE LANEGOLDEN GATE AVE .325 EBLOCK 1162,464 SQ. FT3.7297 ACRESLOT 11LOT 3ABLOCK 3R-3 ZONINGOPEN SPACE OOPEN SPACE PLOT 4LOT 5LOT 6LOT 7LOT 8LOT 9LOT 10R-O ZONINGR-3 ZONINGR-3 ZONINGR-3 ZONINGR-3 ZONINGR-3 ZONINGR-3 ZONINGR-3 ZONINGR-3 ZONINGBLOCK 3LOT 4AR-3 ZONINGGOLDEN GATE AVENUEADVANCE DRIVEN 00°21'29" W 406.29'N 89°03'02" E 275.62'S 1 8 °5 2 '4 6 " E 4 0 4 .1 8 'S 12°34'10" W 50.00'N 1 8 °5 2 '4 6 " W 1 2 0 .0 0 'S 71°07'14" W 271.29'L=98.80'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''R=180.05'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''=31°26'29"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""HUFFINE LANE35' WIDE PUBLICACCESS EASEMENT6 0 ' R /W 1 0 ' U T I L I T Y E A S E SPACEOPENLOT 2BLOCK 3R-3 ZONINGLOT 1BLOCK 3R-3 ZONINGLPEEXISTING GRAVEL TRAILE X IS TIN G G R A V E L TR A IL EXISTING ASPHALT TRAILEXISTING ASPHALT TRAILEXISTING STORMWATER PONDEXISTING STORMWATER PONDBENCHMARK:ARROW BOLTELEV = 4822.69(COB DATUM)TELEPHONE BOXELECTRICAL BOXGAS CONDUITCATV BOXTOE OF LANDSCAPE BERM48224821482148214820482048204820481948194819481948184 8 1 8 481848174817481748164816481548154 8 1 5 4814481448144813EXISTINGPARKING10.7210.55COCOCO11.6810.348.509.09INSTALL NON-RESIDENTIALDRIVEWAY APPROACH PERCOB STD DWG NO. 02529-12(SEE DETAIL 1, C1.1)STREET VISIONTRIANGLEPROPOSED STORM WATERRETENTION POND #1VOLUME=640 CU FT, DEPTH=1.2'T.O.P. ELEV=7.00, B.O.P. ELEV=5.804:1 SIDE SLOPESPROPOSED STORM WATERRETENTION POND #2VOLUME=364 CU FT, DEPTH=1.0'T.O.P. ELEV=9.00, B.O.P. ELEV=8.004:1 SIDE SLOPESINSTALL H/C ACCESSIBLERAMPS IN S/W(SEE DETAIL 3)INSTALL H/C PARKING SIGN(SEE DETAILS 4 & 5)INSTALL H/C PARKING SIGN(SEE DETAILS 4 & 5)INSTALL H/C ACCESSIBLERAMPS IN S/W(SEE DETAIL 3)INSTALL H/C ACCESSIBLERAMPS IN S/W(SEE DETAIL 3)INSTALL H/C PARKING SIGN(SEE DETAILS 4 & 5)15' FRONT YARD SETBACK15' FRONTYARD SETBACK5 ' S I D E Y A R D S E TB AC K 20' SIDE YARD SETBACK50' SETBACK2 0 ' S I D E YA R D S E T B A C K INSTALL H/C PARKING SIGNS(SEE DETAILS 4 & 5)INSTALL H/C ACCESSIBLERAMPS IN S/W(SEE DETAIL 3)INSTALL H/C PARKING SIGN(SEE DETAILS 4 & 5)INSTALL H/C ACCESSIBLERAMPS IN S/W(SEE DETAIL 3)PROPOSED 1.5" WATERSERVICE & 4" FIRE SERVICEPROPOSED 1.5" WATERSERVICE & 4" FIRE SERVICESAWCUT EXISTING STREET &REPLACE EXISTING 2" W.S.W/ NEW 8" MAINSNOW STORAGESNOW STORAGES N O W S T O R A G E SNOWSTORAGEPROPOSED STORM WATERRETENTION POND #3VOLUME=1,790 CU FT, DEPTH=2.0'T.O.P. ELEV=4.30, B.O.P. ELEV=2.304:1 SIDE SLOPESPROPOSED STORM WATERRETENTION POND #4VOLUME=1,660 CU FT, DEPTH=2.0'T.O.P. ELEV=4.20, B.O.P. ELEV=2.204:1 SIDE SLOPESSNOWSTORAGE3 EXISTING BLVD TREESIN SVT TO BE REMOVEDPROPOSED31' WIDEUTILITYEASEMENT18-PLEX12-PLEX18-PLEX24-PLEX12-PLEXOPEN SPACE(3,768 SQ FT)18'26'18'9'(TYP.)(TYP.)26'18'5'5'26'18'5'5 ' 1 8 ' 2 6 ' 2 0 ' 2 0 ' 2 8 ' 1 6 ' 5 '5'18'26'18'5'5 '1 8 '2 8 ' 1 6 ' 5 '16'26'20'26'18'5'26'18'5'9' (T Y P .)INSTALL 2" WATER & 4" FIRE SERVICE LINESINSTALL 4" SEWER SERVICEINSTALL 2"WATER & 4"FIRE SERVICELINESINSTALL 4" SEWER SERVICEINSTALL 4"SEWERSERVICEINSTALL 4"SEWERSERVICEINSTALL 4"SEWERSERVICEINSTALL 2" WATER & 4" FIRE SERVICE LINESEXISTING 5' SIDEWALKEXISTING 5' SIDEWALKSTAMPEDCOLOREDCONCRETESTAMPEDCOLOREDCONCRETESTAMPEDCOLOREDCONCRETEUNDERGROUND RETENTIONCHAMBERSVOLUME=770 CU FTUNDERGROUND RETENTIONCHAMBERSVOLUME=1,461 CU FTCURB CUT &DRAINAGE TROUGH1' WIDECURB CUTCURB CUT &DRAINAGE TROUGH10' UTILITY EASEMENT1' NO ACCESS STRIPFND MAG W/WASHER(C&H ENG.)FND MAG W/WASHER(C&H ENG.)BIKE RACKB I K E RA C K BIKE RACKBIKE RACKTEMPORARYCONSTRUCTIONDUMPSTERTEMPORARYCONSTRUCTIONDUMPSTERTEMPORARYCONSTRUCTIONDUMPSTERTEMPORARYCONSTRUCTIONDUMPSTERCETVBLOCK 3R-3 ZONINGLOT 4BBLOCK 3R-3 ZONINGLOT 3BBLOCK 3R-3 ZONINGLOT 3CBLOCK 3R-3 ZONINGLOT 3DPROPOSED 31'WIDE UTILITYEASEMENT20' WIDE PAVEDEMERGENCYACCESS DRIVE"FIRE LANE"NO PARKINGSTRIPING6' PARK BENCHESCOORD. W/ LANDSCAPEATTACH TO CONC PADINSTALL RESIDENTIALDRIVEWAY APPROACH PERCOB STD DWG NO. 02529-11EXISTING TREETO BE REMOVEDCONTRACTOR TO COORD.UTILITY BOX RELOCATIONSLEGENDFOUND 5/8" REBAR W/ 1 1/4 INCH PLASTIC CAP(70.00)TVCTEPPLPCOPROPOSED STREET LIGHTPROPOSED SEWER CLEANOUTUNDERGROUND TELEPHONE LINEUNDERGROUND ELECTRIC POWERSANITARY SEWER MAINGRATED INLETSANITARY SEWER SERVICE STORM DRAIN CULVERTSANITARY SEWER MANHOLETRAFFIC SIGNEXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONPROPOSED SPOT ELEVATIONPROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTIONPROPOSED STORM DRAIN INLETPROPOSED STORM WATER BASINCONCRETE SURFACINGTELEPHONE BOXFIRE HYDRANTOVERHEAD ELECTRIC POWER WATER MAIN4" FIRE SERVICE LINEWATER VALVEELECTRIC POWER BOXWATER SERVICE LINEOVERHEAD POWERPOWER POLEUNDERGROUND GASEASEMENT LINEPROPERTY LINEEXISTING FENCE LINEUNDERGROUND CABLE TV LINEUNDERGROUND COMMUNICATIONS LINECOMMUNICATIONS BOXCABLE TV BOXADJOINING PROPERTY LINEEXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR LINEEXISTING MINOR CONTOUR LINEEXISTING CURB AND GUTTERPROPOSED CURB AND GUTTEREXISTING TREEEXISTING IRRIGATION VALVE BOX10.72TRAFFIC FLOW DIRECTION0 30 60SCALE IN FEET#15072CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FOOTREV. DATE0 11/10/15OVERALLSITE PLANGENERAL NOTES:1. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE ACCOMPANYING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL BURIED UTILITIES PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION.3. TYPE 1 OR TYPE 2 TRENCH EXCAVATION MAY BE USED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CONTRACTOR.4. TRENCH BACKFILL SHALL BE TYPE A, FOR ALL AREAS TO BE PAVED.5. THE INSTALLATION OF THE SANITARY SEWER SERVICE LINE FROM THE EXISTING SERVICE STUB TO THE BUILDING IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER.6. THE INSTALLATION OF THE WATER SERVICE LINES FROM THE EXISTING SERVICE STUBS TO THE BUILDING IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER.7. AN APPROVED DOUBLE CHECK BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE MUST BE INSTALLED FOR EACH NEW BUILDING SHOWN, PER CITY OF BOZEMAN REQUIRMENTS.8. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY LINE AND GRADE OF EXISTING SEWER AT SERVICE CONNECTION POINT TO VERIFY ADEQUATE FALL FOR SEWER SERVICE.9. THE CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT THE PROJECT MEETS OSHA AND ALL APPLICABLE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS.10. GROUND MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING, BUT NO LIMITED TO UTILITIES, AIR EXCHANGE CONDITIONING UNITS, TRANSFORMERS AND METERS SHALL NOT ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED YARD SETBACKS AND SHALL BE PROPERLY SCREENED WITH AN OPAQUE SOLID WALL AND ADEQUATE LANDSCAPE FEATURES. ALL ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE ROOF FORM OR SCREENED IN AN APPROVED ENCLOSURE.11. PROPOSED DRY UTILITY (ELEC, GAS & COMMUNICATIONS) LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE PRELIMINARY. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE FINAL LOCATIONS WITH UTILITY PROVIDERS.www.caddiseng.comSHEETMatthew B.Cotterman15873ESDESNECILMONTANAROYEVRUS DNAL-REENIGNE .FORP C1.0GOLDEN GATE CONDOMINIUMSLOT 11, BLOCK 1, LOYAL GARDENS SUBDIVISION, PHASE 1ALOCATED IN THE NE 1/4, SECTION 16, T. 2 S., R 5 E. OF P.M.M., CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANADRAWING DATE:1/4/16AREA OF LAWN/LANDSCAPING = 61,182 SQ FT (37.7%)PERCENT SITE COVERAGE = 62.3%FLOOR AREA RATIO: FOOTPRINT = 29,896 SQ FT LOT SIZE = 162,464 SQ FT F.A.R. = 0.184(18.4%)OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS20 UNITS HAVE GROUND FLOOR ACCESS TO A LANDSCAPED REAR YARD56 UNITS HAVE PRIVATE BALCONIES OR PRIVATE PATIOS MEETING THEREQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 38.27.020.E OF THE UDOOPEN SPACE IS REQUIRED FOR 8 - 2 BR UNITS (GROUND FLOOR UNITS ON GOLDEN GATE)8 UNITS x 150 SQ FT/2BR = 1,200 SQ FT RQD PROPOSED ON SITE OPEN SPACE = 3,768 SQ FTPERCENT BUILDING COVERAGE = 18.4%NET DENSITY = 84 UNITS PER 3.7297 ACRES = 22.5 UNITS/ACRE84 - 2 BR UNITS @ 2.0 SPACES PER UNIT = 168 SPACES(ADA PARKING REQUIRED = 6 SPACES) TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED - 159 PARKING LOT SPACES 9 ON STREET SPACES 168 SPACES PROVIDED (6 ADA SPACES PROVIDED)BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED = 10% OF 168 SPACES = 16.8 SPACES REQUIREDBICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED - 40 SPACES (4 STATIONS AT 10 SPACES EACH)PARKING CALCULATIONSAREA OF SIDEWALKS & PATIOS = 13,545 SQ FT (8.3%)AREA OF PAVING & CURBS = 57,841 SQ FT (35.6%)SITE DATAAREA OF BUILDINGS = 29,896 SQ FT (18.4%)AREA OF LOT 11 = 162,464 SQ FT (3.7297 ACRES)EXISTING ZONING: R-4 (RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY)FRONT = 15'R-4 MINIMUM YARDS: R-4 MAXIMUM BLDG HEIGHT:REAR = 20' SIDE = 5' ROOF PITCH LESS THAN 3:12 = 34 FEETROOF PITCH GREATER THAN 3:12 AND LESS THAN 6:12 = 38 FEETROOF PITCH GREATER THAN 6:12 AND LESS THAN 9:12 = 42 FEETROOF PITCH EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 9:12 = 44 FEETHANDICAP ACCESSIBLE RAMP & STRIPING12:1 12:1 SIDEWALK DEPRESSED TO PAVEMENT ELEVATION (LANDING TO HAVE MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 2% IN ANY DIRECTION)6' RAMPS AT MAXIMUM 12:1 SLOPE. RAMPS TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACES COMPLYING WITH ADAAG.SCALE: NTSINSTALL DETECTABLE WARNING STRIPS FULL WIDTH PER ADAAGC1.036'SIDEWALK6'PARKINGRESERVED$100 FINEWITHOUT PERMITVAN ACCESSIBLE4C1.02"x2"x1/8" SQUARE STEEL TUBESET IN 18" OF CONCRETE (TYP.)SCALE: NTSMUTCD R7-8(12"x18")72" FROM BOTTOMOF SIGN TO GROUNDHANDICAP PARKING SIGN5SCALE: NTSSIGN POST AS SPECIFIEDSIGN POST SETTING DETAILC1.012" DIA.x18" DEEP HOLEFILLED WITH CONCRETECOMPACTED TOPSOILBICYCLE RACK DETAILSCALE: NTS1C1.0COMPACTED SUB-BASE4" CONC. SLABOVER 4" WASHEDGRAVEL ORCRUSHED ROCKATTACH PER MANUNFACTURERREQUIREMENTSU-STYLE "PARK-IT-2" BIKE RACK W/ BLACK POWDER COAT FINISH OR EQUAL SET RACKS AT 36" CENTER TO CENTERS24" +/-36" +/-L2X2X3/16" ANGLE SUPPORTSOPTIONAL 2X3/16" FLAT BARL2X2X3/16" ANGLE SUPPORTSCANE BOLTSINFILL PANELS)COLORNOTE:ARCHITECT, STEEL TO MATCH PANELVERIFY COLOR SELECTIONS W/STEEL SLEEVES IN CONC. TO ACCEPTPRIOR TO POURING SLABIN 12" DIAZ. X 30" SONOTUBE4X4X3/16" T.S. SUPPORTS, SET(POWDER COAT TO MATCHSTEEL INFILL ON BACK2"X2" TUBE FRAME 1/ 1/8" PLATE ACCESSOF SUPPORTSEND CAPS AT TOP PROVIDE WELDED1/8"=1'-0"SLOPEDUMPSTERLCSLABRECYCLE BINS CSLABLGRAVELEA. WAY OVER 6" WASHED SLAB W/ #3 BARS @ 18" O.C. 4" THICKENED EDGE CONC.SIDING AND FINISHTO MATCH BUILDING METALCORRUGATED METALGATE SWING.ALLOW 180° MIN.WELD HINGES TOSLABSONOTUBE PRIOR TO POURINGSET IN 12" DIAZ. X 30"4X4X3/16" T.S. SUPPORTS,HIGHPIPE BOLLARD, 36"4" DIA. X 60" STEEL6'-0"6"6'-0"6'-0"12'-0"6'-0"6"4'-0"6"4"4"4"12'-8"6'-0" 6'-0"12'-0"6'-0"8'-2" 3'-6"4"6'-0"12'-0"12'-8"12'-0"DUMPSTER ENCLOSER DETAILSSCALE: NTS2C1.01 11/25/152 12/22/15PARKLAND CALCULATIONSPARKLAND WAS PROVIDED AT THE MAXIMUM ALLOCATIONFOR R-4 ZONING WITH LOYAL GARDENS SUBDIVISION3 1/4/16326 EBLOCK 1162,464 SQ. FT3.7297 ACRESLOT 11LOT 3ABLOCK 3R-3 ZONINGOPEN SPACE OOPEN SPACE PLOT 4LOT 5LOT 6LOT 7LOT 8LOT 9LOT 10R-O ZONINGR-3 ZONINGR-3 ZONINGR-3 ZONINGR-3 ZONINGR-3 ZONINGR-3 ZONINGR-3 ZONINGR-3 ZONINGBLOCK 3LOT 4AR-3 ZONINGGOLDEN GATE AVENUEADVANCE DRIVEN 00°21'29" W 406.29'N 89°03'02" E 275.62'S 1 8 °5 2 '4 6 " E 4 0 4 .1 8 'S 12°34'10" W 50.00'N 1 8 °5 2 '4 6 " W 1 2 0 .0 0 'S 71°07'14" W 271.29'L=98.80'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''R=180.05'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''=31°26'29"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""HUFFINE LANE35' WIDE PUBLICACCESS EASEMENT6 0 ' R /W 1 0 ' U T I L I T Y E A S E SPACEOPENLOT 2BLOCK 3R-3 ZONINGLOT 1BLOCK 3R-3 ZONINGLPEEXISTING GRAVEL TRAILE X IS TIN G G R A V E L TR A IL EXISTING ASPHALT TRAILEXISTING ASPHALT TRAILEXISTING STORMWATER PONDEXISTING STORMWATER PONDBENCHMARK:ARROW BOLTELEV = 4822.69(COB DATUM)TELEPHONE BOXELECTRICAL BOXGAS CONDUITCATV BOXTOE OF LANDSCAPE BERM48224821482148214820482048204820481948194819481948184 8 1 8 481848174817481748164816481548154 8 1 5 4814481448144813EXISTINGPARKING10.7210.55F.F. ELEV = 6.50COCOCO11.68F.F. ELEV = 12.50(12.00)(12.00)(12.00)(12.00)(6.00)(6.00)(6.00)(6.00)(6.00)(5.29)(5.29)(5.20)(4.94)(4.58)(4.48)(4.30)(5.29)(5.29)(5.20)(4.75)(4.65)(4.43)10.34(10.66)(10.66)(6.72)F.F. ELEV = 11.16(8.50)(8.35)(7.21)(7.21)1.0%1.0%(10.66)(10.58)(10.58)(10.22)(10.58)(7.90)(4.58)(6.26)F.F. ELEV = 6.76(7.15)(7.87)(8.65)(8.83)(4.97)(8.33)(5.06)(5.24)(4.94)(6.19)(6.37)(7.26)F.F. ELEV = 7.76(6.06)(6.24)(5.50)(7.41)F.F. ELEV = 8.76(7.54)(7.27)(7.26)(8.26)(8.26)(7.26)(6.10)(7.00)8.509.09(8.85)(9.79)(9.80)(9.70)(9.25)(9.02)(9.20)(9.35)(8.25)(8.03)(8.36)(9.12)F.F. ELEV = 9.62F.F. ELEV = 7.12(6.62)(5.86)F.F. ELEV = 8.37(7.87)(7.11)(5.28)(5.42)(6.62)(7.87)(9.12)(7.71)(5.60)(6.94)(6.42)(5.97)(6.58)(6.18)(6.15)(5.15)(9.40)(9.80)(10.66)(9.75)(7.98)(8.21)(8.18)(7.74)PROPOSED STORM WATERRETENTION POND #1VOLUME=640 CU FT, DEPTH=1.2'T.O.P. ELEV=7.00, B.O.P. ELEV=5.804:1 SIDE SLOPES(8.15)PROPOSED STORM WATERRETENTION POND #2VOLUME=364 CU FT, DEPTH=1.0'T.O.P. ELEV=9.00, B.O.P. ELEV=8.004:1 SIDE SLOPES(6.79)2 .3 % 1 .5 %1.0%1.0%1.4%1.4%(8.04)(7.83)(9.73)(10.58)(9.46)(8.75)(10.22)(10.90)(10.44)(10.49)(10.17)(6.78)(7.34)(6.68)(6.58)(7.24)(6.83)(7.02)(7.52)(7.62)(8.54)(7.81)(8.45)(7.72)15' FRONT YARD SETBACK15' FRONTYARD SETBACK5 ' S I D E Y A R D S E TB AC K 20' SIDE YARD SETBACK50' SETBACK2 0 ' S I D E YA R D S E T B A C K (6.86)1.0%1.0%(6.32)(6.60)(5.47)PROPOSED STORM WATERRETENTION POND #3VOLUME=1,790 CU FT, DEPTH=2.0'T.O.P. ELEV=4.30, B.O.P. ELEV=2.304:1 SIDE SLOPESPROPOSED STORM WATERRETENTION POND #4VOLUME=1,660 CU FT, DEPTH=2.0'T.O.P. ELEV=4.20, B.O.P. ELEV=2.204:1 SIDE SLOPES(6.90)(7.21)PROPOSED31' WIDEUTILITYEASEMENT18-PLEX12-PLEX18-PLEX24-PLEX12-PLEXEXISTING 5' SIDEWALKEXISTING 5' SIDEWALK(5.10)(5.00)(5.77)(5.84)(6.57)(6.35)(5.61)(5.47)(5.21)(5.27)(5.07)(5.01)(5.89)(5.39)(5.25)(5.66)(5.52)(5.34)(9.05)(8.25)(7.30)(7.17)(8.10)UNDERGROUND RETENTIONCHAMBERSVOLUME=770 CU FTUNDERGROUND RETENTIONCHAMBERSVOLUME=1,461 CU FTCURB CUT &DRAINAGE TROUGH1' WIDECURB CUTCURB CUT &DRAINAGE TROUGH10' UTILITY EASEMENT1' NO ACCESS STRIPFND MAG W/WASHER(C&H ENG.)FND MAG W/WASHER(C&H ENG.)TEMPORARYCONSTRUCTIONDUMPSTERTEMPORARYCONSTRUCTIONDUMPSTERTEMPORARYCONSTRUCTIONDUMPSTERTEMPORARYCONSTRUCTIONDUMPSTERCETVBLOCK 3R-3 ZONINGLOT 4BBLOCK 3R-3 ZONINGLOT 3BBLOCK 3R-3 ZONINGLOT 3CBLOCK 3R-3 ZONINGLOT 3D(5.40)9.0%(3.70)(3.80)7.2%(5.72)(5.34)PROPOSED 31'WIDE UTILITYEASEMENT6' PARK BENCHESCOORD. W/ LANDSCAPEATTACH TO CONC PAD(7.25)0 30 60SCALE IN FEET#15072CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FOOTREV. DATE0 11/10/15SITE GRADING &DRAINAGE PLANwww.caddiseng.comSHEETMatthew B.Cotterman15873ESDESNECILMONTANAROYEVRUS DNAL-REENIGNE .FORP C1.1GOLDEN GATE CONDOMINIUMSLOT 11, BLOCK 1, LOYAL GARDENS SUBDIVISION, PHASE 1ALOCATED IN THE NE 1/4, SECTION 16, T. 2 S., R 5 E. OF P.M.M., CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANAAT 10' INTERVALS IN CURB & GUTTER5'1. Subgrade or base course compaction shall conform to section 02230 (M.P.W. Specs., 1996 ed.)2. Contraction joints shall be placed at 10' intervals and shall have a minimum depth of 3/4" and minimum width of 1/8".3. 1/2" expansion joint material shall be placed at all P.C.s, P.T.s, curb returns and at not more than 300' intervals. Theexpansion material shall extend through the full depth of the curb and gutter.4. No curb and gutter shall be placed without a final form inspection by the City Engineer or his representative.6. Crushed gravel base shall meet the requirements of Section 02235 (MPW SPECS, 1996 ed.) For curb andgutter replacement projects, washed rock may be used for the gravel base.DROP CURB FOR PEDESTRIAN RAMPSCONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DETAILGRASS LINED SWALE DETAIL1. Swale bottom shall maintain a minimum slope of 1% down gradient to the storm water basin.2. Channel shall be lined with erosion control fabric if vegetation has not been establishedprior to periods of high runoff.3/4" PER 1' SLOPESCALE: NTSC1.155. Concrete shall be Class M-4000.3/4" PER 1' SLOPEDROP CURB FOR DRIVEWAYSNOTES:9.5"6"SCALE: NTSNOTES:C1.122'9.5"4H:1V SIDE SLOPES6" MIN. DEPTHSPILL CURB1/2" PER 1' SLOPEGRADE ESTABLISHED AS 1/4" RISE PER FOOT FROM TOP OF ADJACENT FULL HEIGHT CURB OR MATCH EXISTING SIDEWALK GRADENON RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY APPROACHCOMPACTED SUBGRADE5.4" (0.45')MIN. 6" THICKM-4000 CONCRETECOB STD DWG NO. 02529-12EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL SHALL BE 1/2" THICK PRE-FORMED BITUMINOUS TREATED FIBERBOARD FILLER.ALL CURB REPLACEMENT SHALL BE DONE WITH INTEGRAL CURB AND GUTTER UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED.TOPSOIL(TYP.)9"CRUSHED GRAVELSUB-BASE COURSEBASE - 3" MIN.AS REQUIRED1.5"0.5"12"4"3/4"9.5"2"3"R4"R1.5"* OR MATCH EXISTING OR REQUIRED SIDEWALK WIDTHSCALE: NTS1/4" PER FOOT SLOPESIDEWALKPROPERTY LINE3" WASHED ROCKC1.11* 5' TYP.5.5' TYP.(VARIES)DRIVEWAY APRON3/4" PER 1' SLOPE4.5"24"6"7.5"STREET SURFACECURB & GUTTERCONTRACTION JOINTS TO BE SPACEDMAX. THROAT WIDTH35' COMMERCIALSPACED AT 5' INTERVALS - MIN.DEPTH 1". EXPANSION JOINTSSIDEWALK CONTRACTION JOINTS40' INDUSTRIALTO BE PLACED AT 25'INTERVALS.VARIABLE(5.5' TYP.)PROPERTY LINEMAINTAIN PROPER SIDEYARDSETBACK PERREGULATIONSZONINGAROUND SIDEWALK SECTIONFLOW LINEEDGE OF GUTTERCURB & APRON POURED MONOLITHICUNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVEDCONTRACTION JOINTEXPANSION JOINTS AT CURB RETURNSBACK OF CURB5' TRANSITION SECTION FROMEXISTING CURB TO DROP CURB:EXPANSION JOINTS COMPLETELYTYPICAL ASPHALT CROSS SECTIONSCALE: NTSC1.14INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC AND/OR GEOGRID IF SOFT SUBGRADE CONDITIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED.TYPICAL CURB WALK DETAIL1. Extend isolation joints the full depth of concrete and fill using 1/2" thick, pre-formed joint filler. Place isolation joints where concrete abuts existing concrete or fixed structure. Form isolation joints around all appurtenances, such as manholes, utility poles, etc. extending into and through the concrete. Place isolation joints at radius points, junctions with existing concrete, and opposite to or at expansion joints in adjacent concrete.2. Install cold joints at unions of consecutive pours. Assure the cold joint is vertical, the full depth of concrete, and tooled to a 1/4-inch radius.3. Divide sidewalk into sections using contraction joints formed by a jointing tool or other approved methods. Extend the contraction joints into the concrete for at least one-fourth its depth and make the joints approximately 1/8-inch wide. Unless otherwise directed, space contraction joints at maximum 10-foot intervals or a distance equal to the sidewalk width, whichever is less. In continuous sidewalk runs, install expansion joints at the location of a regular contraction joint, if the distance between expansion joints does not exceed 25 feet.CONCRETE SIDEWALK WITH CONTRACTION JOINTS SPACED AT 5' INTERVALS AND EXPANSION JOINTS AT 25' INTERVALS.SEE TYPICAL ASPHALT CROSS SECTION DETAILCONCRETE JOINTING REQUIREMENTS:SLOPE AWAY FROM CURBASPHALT PAVEMENT(AS SPECIFIED)6"SCALE: NTSC1.134"5'-0"2% SLOPE3" OF 1" MINUS CRUSHED GRAVEL3" MIN. OF BITUMINOUS ASPHALT12" MIN. OF 6" MINUS "IMPORTED" PIT RUN3" MIN. OF 1" MINUS CRUSHED GRAVELCOMPACTED SUBGRADE1 11/25/15DRAWING DATE:12/22/152 12/22/15327 EPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPL PLPLPLPLPLPL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PLPLPLBLOCK 1 LOT 11 OPEN SPACE O OPEN SPACE P LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 10 R-O ZONING R-3 ZONING R-3 ZONING R-3 ZONING R-3 ZONING R-3 ZONING R-3 ZONING R-3 ZONING R-3 ZONING 35' WIDE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT 8''W8' 'W8' 'SS 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 6''WPLPLPLLP E EXISTING ASPHALT TRAIL EXISTING ASPHALT TRAIL 8' 'SS8''SS8''W8''W2''W8'' W 8''W 8'' W 8''W 8'' W 8''W EXISTING STORM WATER POND EXISTING STORM WATER POND BENCHMARK: ARROW BOLT ELEV = 4822.69 (COB DATUM) EXISTING PARKING 4''SS 8''W 4''W 4''W 4''W 4''W 4''W 4''SS 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 4''SS CO 4''W 4''SS 4''SS 4''SS 4''SS CO CO INSTALL NON-RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY APPROACH PER COB STD DWG NO. 02529-12 (SEE DETAIL 1, C1.1) PROPOSED STORM WATER RETENTION POND #1 VOLUME=640 CU FT, DEPTH=1.2' T.O.P. ELEV=7.00, B.O.P. ELEV=5.80 4:1 SIDE SLOPES PROPOSED STORM WATER RETENTION POND #2 VOLUME=364 CU FT, DEPTH=1.0' T.O.P. ELEV=9.00, B.O.P. ELEV=8.00 4:1 SIDE SLOPES INSTALL H/C ACCESSIBLE RAMPS IN S/W (SEE DETAIL 3) INSTALL H/C PARKING SIGN (SEE DETAILS 4 & 5) INSTALL H/C PARKING SIGN (SEE DETAILS 4 & 5) INSTALL H/C ACCESSIBLE RAMPS IN S/W (SEE DETAIL 3) INSTALL H/C ACCESSIBLE RAMPS IN S/W (SEE DETAIL 3) INSTALL H/C PARKING SIGN (SEE DETAILS 4 & 5) INSTALL H/C PARKING SIGNS (SEE DETAILS 4 & 5) INSTALL H/C ACCESSIBLE RAMPS IN S/W (SEE DETAIL 3) INSTALL H/C PARKING SIGN (SEE DETAILS 4 & 5) INSTALL H/C ACCESSIBLE RAMPS IN S/W (SEE DETAIL 3) SNOW STORAGE PROPOSED STORM WATER RETENTION POND #3 VOLUME=1,790 CU FT, DEPTH=2.0' T.O.P. ELEV=4.30, B.O.P. ELEV=2.30 4:1 SIDE SLOPES PROPOSED STORM WATER RETENTION POND #4 VOLUME=1,660 CU FT, DEPTH=2.0' T.O.P. ELEV=4.20, B.O.P. ELEV=2.20 4:1 SIDE SLOPES 3 EXISTING BLVD TREES IN SVT TO BE REMOVED OPEN SPACE (3,768 SQ FT) STAMPED COLORED CONCRETE STAMPED COLORED CONCRETE STAMPED COLORED CONCRETE UNDERGROUND RETENTION CHAMBERS VOLUME=770 CU FT UNDERGROUND RETENTION CHAMBERS VOLUME=1,461 CU FT CURB CUT & DRAINAGE TROUGH 1' WIDE CURB CUT 10' UTILITY EASEMENT 1' NO ACCESS STRIPFND MAG W/ WASHER (C&H ENG.) FND MAG W/ WASHER (C&H ENG.) TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION DUMPSTER TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION DUMPSTER TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION DUMPSTERTEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION DUMPSTER TV8''SS8''SS8''SS8''SS8''SS8''SS8''W8''W8''W8''W8''W8''W8''W8''W 8''W 8''W 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS4''SS4''SS4''SS4''SS4''SS2''W2''W2''W2''W4''W4''W4''W4''W8''W8' 'W8''SS8''SS 8''S S 8'' W Turf Turf Turf Turf Turf Turf Turf Turf Boulder (typ) Existing Blvd Trees Existing Spruce and Aspen to remain Symbol Plant Name (Scientific)Size @ Planting Mature Size Qty Plant Table Discovery Elm (Ulmus sp.) Little Leaf Linden (Tilia cordata) Emerald Lustre Maple (Acer platenoides) Colorado Spruce (Picea pungens) Quaking Aspen (Populus tremuloides) Andorra Juniper (Juniperus horizontalis) Dwarf Korean Lilac (Syringa meyeri 'Palabin') Goldflame Spirea (Spiraea japonica) Blue Oat Grass (Helictotrichon sempervirens) Feather Reed Grass (Calamogrostis acutiflora) Gro Low Sumac (Rhus aromatica) Isanti Dogwood (Cornus sericea) Cologreen Juniper (Juniperus scopulorum) Dwarf Mugho Pine (Pinus mugo 'Pumillo') 8-10'50-60'8 3-4'8-10'11 #5 3-5'13 #5 3-5'35 1.5-2"50-60'20 1.5-2"50-60' 1.5-2"50-60' 1.5-2"50-60' 18-24"5-6' 18-24"5-6' 9-12"2-3' 9-12"2-3' #1 2-3' #1 2-3' 10 12 45 74 46 40 69 110 24 Golden Gate Condominiums50 Bronco DriveBozeman, Montana 59718ph 406.539.7030e-mail:chad@customearthdesign.comL 1.0Date: 05 Nov 2015Revised: Landscape PlanProject for: Bozeman, MontanaChad Rempfer, Landscape DesignerScale 1"=30'-0" Owner Covenant LLCPO Box 11428Bozeman, MT 59719 Date: 24 Nov 2015Date: 21 Dec 2015328 EPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPLPL PLPLPLPLPLPL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PLPLPLBLOCK 1 LOT 11 OPEN SPACE O OPEN SPACE P LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 8 LOT 9 LOT 10 R-O ZONING R-3 ZONING R-3 ZONING R-3 ZONING R-3 ZONING R-3 ZONING R-3 ZONING R-3 ZONING R-3 ZONING 35' WIDE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT 8''W8' 'W8' 'SS 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS 6''WPLPLPLLP E EXISTING ASPHALT TRAIL EXISTING ASPHALT TRAIL 8' 'SS8''SS8''W8''W2''W8'' W 8''W 8'' W 8''W 8'' W 8''W EXISTING STORM WATER POND EXISTING STORM WATER POND BENCHMARK: ARROW BOLT ELEV = 4822.69 (COB DATUM) EXISTING PARKING 4''SS 8''W 4''W 4''W 4''W 4''W 4''W 4''SS 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 2''W 4''SS CO 4''W 4''SS 4''SS 4''SS 4''SS CO CO PROPOSED STORM WATER RETENTION POND #1 VOLUME=640 CU FT, DEPTH=1.2' T.O.P. ELEV=7.00, B.O.P. ELEV=5.80 4:1 SIDE SLOPES PROPOSED STORM WATER RETENTION POND #2 VOLUME=364 CU FT, DEPTH=1.0' T.O.P. ELEV=9.00, B.O.P. ELEV=8.00 4:1 SIDE SLOPES PROPOSED STORM WATER RETENTION POND #3 VOLUME=1,790 CU FT, DEPTH=2.0' T.O.P. ELEV=4.30, B.O.P. ELEV=2.30 4:1 SIDE SLOPES PROPOSED STORM WATER RETENTION POND #4 VOLUME=1,660 CU FT, DEPTH=2.0' T.O.P. ELEV=4.20, B.O.P. ELEV=2.20 4:1 SIDE SLOPES UNDERGROUND RETENTION CHAMBERS VOLUME=770 CU FT UNDERGROUND RETENTION CHAMBERS VOLUME=1,461 CU FT CURB CUT & DRAINAGE TROUGH 1' WIDE CURB CUT 10' UTILITY EASEMENT 1' NO ACCESS STRIPFND MAG W/ WASHER (C&H ENG.) FND MAG W/ WASHER (C&H ENG.)CC C C CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG EE E TVTV TVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTV TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION DUMPSTER TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION DUMPSTER TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION DUMPSTERTEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION DUMPSTER TVTVTV CCCCTVTVTVTVTVTVEEEEEEEEGGGGGGGGCCCCEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGCTVEG CCCCCCTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVTVEEEEEEEEEEEEGGGGGGGGGGGGCCCCCCC CTVTVEEGG 8''SS8''SS8''SS8''SS8''SS8''SS8''W8''W8''W8''W8''W8''W8''W8''W 8''W 8''W 8''SS 8''SS 8''SS4''SS4''SS4''SS4''SS4''SS2''W2''W2''W2''W4''W4''W4''W4''W8''W8' 'W8''SS8''SS 8''S S 8'' W Turf Turf Turf Turf Turf Turf Turf Turf Boulder (typ) Existing Blvd Trees Existing Spruce and Aspen to remain Golden Gate Condominiums50 Bronco DriveBozeman, Montana 59718ph 406.539.7030e-mail:chad@customearthdesign.comL 1.1Date: 05 Nov 2015Revised: Irrigation PlanProject for: Bozeman, MontanaChad Rempfer, Landscape DesignerScale 1"=30'-0"Date: 21 Dec 2015329 DESCRIPTION:NO:DATE:DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: JOB NO: PLOT SCALE:BY:2004-2015 JDS ARCHITECTScBOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715719 WEST MENDENHALLPHONE 406-556-8080FAX 406-585-1677E-MAIL: MTARCHITECT@MSN.COMWEB: JDSARCHITECTS.NETHUFFINE LANE GOLDE N G A T E A V E . 330 DESCRIPTION:NO:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:JOB NO:PLOT SCALE:BY:2004-2015 JDS ARCHITECTScBOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 719 WEST MENDENHALL PHONE 406-556-8080 FAX 406-585-1677 E-MAIL: MTARCHITECT@MSN.COMWEB: JDSARCHITECTS.NET331 DESCRIPTION:NO:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:JOB NO:PLOT SCALE:BY:2004-2015 JDS ARCHITECTScBOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 719 WEST MENDENHALL PHONE 406-556-8080 FAX 406-585-1677 E-MAIL: MTARCHITECT@MSN.COMWEB: JDSARCHITECTS.NET332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339