HomeMy WebLinkAboutA3. Four PointsPage 1 of 25
Application 15526 Staff Report for the Four Points Phase II Major
Subdivision
Public Hearing Dates: Planning Board April 5, 2016; City Commission April 18, 2016
Item: Four Points Phase II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat application to allow the
subdivision of two lots of approximately 36.1 acres into twelve lots for multi-household development, one parkland corridor lot and associated streets and infrastructure.
Project Location: 2545 Veronica Street, 3605 Kimberwicke Street, generally southwest of
the intersection of Davis Lane and Cattail Street. Lots 4 and 5 of the Four Points Minor
Subdivision in the SE ¼ of Section 34, Township 1S, Range 5E, City of Bozeman, Gallatin
County, Montana. The subject property is approximately 36.1 acres and is zoned R-4 (Residential High Density District).
Recommendation: Approval with conditions
Recommended Motions:
Parkland: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and
all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 15526 and move to approve the Four Points Phase II Park Plan with conditions
and subject to all applicable code provisions.
Main Motion: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment,
and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for
application 15526 and move to approve the preliminary plat with conditions and subject to all applicable code provisions.
Report Date: Thursday, April 14, 2016
Staff Contact: Brian Krueger, Development Review Manager
Agenda Item Type: Action-Quasi Judicial
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Summary
The property owner and applicant, Four Points, MT LLC represented by Madison
Engineering have submitted an application to subdivide two lots of approximately 36.1
acres into twelve lots for multi-household development, one parkland corridor lot, and
associated streets and infrastructure.
The site is zoned R-4, Residential High Density and is generally southwest of the intersection of Davis Lane and Cattail street. This subdivision is phase II of the Four Points Subdivision which
began due east of Chief Joseph Middle School. Phase I consisted of the dedication of a 5.36-acre
city park along Ferguson Avenue, the construction of Cattail Street from Davis Lane to Ferguson
Avenue and the development of multi-household housing on two lots zoned R-3 and R-4. Four
Points phase II is proposed for the development of multi-household housing that is anticipated on six lots. Three lots are proposed as common open space wetland lots with deed restrictions to
protect wetlands and water resources. Two lots are proposed with stormwater facilities to treat
284
15526 Staff Report for the Four Points Ph. II Major Subdivision Page 2 of 25
subdivision stormwater. Two lots are proposed to be transferred to the City of Bozeman, one
with a public lift station and one for a city park linear trail corridor. The subdivision is proposed
to be phased, being developed generally from west to east.
The final decision for a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat under 50 lots in size must be made within 60 working days of the date it was deemed adequate for review, or in this case by May 25,
2016.
Unresolved Issues
No unresolved issues have been identified at this time.
Advisory Board Recommendations
The Development Review Committee (DRC), Wetlands Review Board (WRB) and Recreation & Parks Advisory Board (RPAB) have all reviewed the project and made affirmative
recommendations to the City Commission.
The Bozeman Planning Board held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 5, 2016 to review the
application and hear public testimony. One written comment was submitted and testimony was
received from the public. The public comment focused on two issues: first a request that the
public comment period be extended and second, a comment regarding the location of an adjacent
trail corridor in the Cattail Subdivision near the intersection of Cattail Street and Davis Lane.
The members of the Board discussed the proposed preliminary plat application in regards to the
character of the area and the intent of the subdivision and zoning district; and reviewed the
application against the requirements of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act and found that,
with conditions, the Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application would comply with those
requirements; and adopted the findings presented in the staff report for application 15526 and
voted to recommend approval of the preliminary plat application, with the conditions as outlined
in the staff report, 7:1. The recommendation is provided in the attached board resolution P-15526
and the discussion is summarized in the attached meeting minutes.
The two public comments submitted at the Planning Board meeting are the only public
comments that have been received.
Alternatives
1. Approve the application with the recommended conditions;
2. Approve the application with modifications to the recommended conditions;
3. Deny the application based on the Commission’s findings of non-compliance with the
applicable subdivision criteria contained within the staff report; or
4. Continue review on the application, with specific direction to staff or the applicant to
supply additional information or to address specific items.
285
15526 Staff Report for the Four Points Ph. II Major Subdivision Page 3 of 25
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1
SECTION 1 –MAP SERIES ........................................................................................................... 4
SECTION 2 – REQUESTED VARIANCES ................................................................................. 7
SECTION 3 – RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ............................................ 7
SECTION 4- CODE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRING PLAN CORRECTIONS ...................... 10
SECTION 5- RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE ACTIONS ........................................... 10
SECTION 8 - STAFF ANALYSIS............................................................................................... 11
Applicable Subdivision Review Criteria, Section 38.03.040, BMC................................. 11
Primary Subdivision Review Criteria, Section 76-3-608 Mont. Code Ann. .................... 13
Preliminary Plat Supplements ........................................................................................... 16
APPENDIX A – PROJECT SITE ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY..................................... 23
APPENDIX B – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND.................... 24
APPENDIX C – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT ......................................................... 24
APPENDIX D – OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF ................................. 25
APPENDIX E – PUBLIC COMMENT AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ....................... 25
286
15526 Staff Report for the Four Points Ph. II Major Subdivision Page 4 of 25
SECTION 1 –MAP SERIES
Map 1: Surrounding Zoning
287
15526 Staff Report for the Four Points Ph. II Major Subdivision Page 5 of 25
Map 2: Future Land Use
288
Page 6 of 25
Map 3: Preliminary Plat
289
Page 7 of 25
SECTION 2 – REQUESTED VARIANCES
No variances have been requested in conjunction with this preliminary plat application.
SECTION 3 – RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Please note that these conditions are in addition to any required code provisions identified in this
report. Mandatory compliance with the explicit terms of Chapter 38, Bozeman Municipal Code
(BMC) does not constitute conditions of approval. The conditions of approval may require
compliance with more than the minimum standards in order to conform to the physical and
economic development of the City, and to the safety and general welfare of the future lot owners
and of the community at large. The applicant must comply with all provisions of the Bozeman
Municipal Code which are applicable to this project.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Planning
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. The plat shall conform to all requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and the
Uniform Standards for Subdivision Plats (Uniform Standards for Certificates of Survey
and Subdivision Plats (24.183.1104 ARM) and shall be accompanied by all required documents, including certification from the City Engineer that as-built drawings for public improvements were received, a platting certificate, and all required and corrected
certificates. The Final Plat application shall include three (3) signed reproducible copies
on a 3 mil or heavier stable base polyester film (or equivalent); two (2) digital copies; one
(1) PDF copy; and five (5) paper prints. The Gallatin County Clerk & Recorder’s office has elected to continue the existing medium requirements of 2 mylars with a 1½” binding margin on one side for both plats and COS’s. The Clerk and Recorder will file the new
Conditions of Approval sheet as the final sheet of the plat.
3. The applicant must submit with the application for Final Plat review and approval, a
written narrative stating how each of the conditions of preliminary plat approval and noted code provisions have been satisfactorily addressed, and shall include a digital copy (pdf) of the entire Final Plat submittal. This narrative shall be in sufficient detail to direct
the reviewer to the appropriate plat, plan, sheet, note, covenant, etc. in the submittal.
4. Prior to final plat approval, in conjunction with required or offered dedications, the
subdivider (or owner of the property being subdivided if the owner is not the subdivider) must transfer ownership to the City of all dedicated parkland and any lift station lot proposed to be conveyed to the City and all its right, title, and interest in any
improvements made to such parkland or lift station lot. For the transfer of real property,
the subdivider or owner of the property must submit with the application for final plat a
warranty deed or other instrument acceptable to the City Attorney transferring fee simple ownership to the City. The subdivider or owner of the property must record the deed or
290
15526 Staff Report for the Four Points Ph. II Major Subdivision Page 8 of 25
instrument at the time of recording of the final plat with the original of such deed
returned to the City. For personal property installed upon dedicated parkland or lift
station lot, the subdivider shall provide the City an instrument acceptable to the City
Attorney transferring all its rights, title and interest in such improvements including all applicable warranties to such improvements.
5. Prior to final plat approval, in conjunction with proposed deed restrictions and common
open space lots, the subdivider (or owner of the property being subdivided if the owner is
not the subdivider) must transfer ownership to the property owners’ association all
common open space lots proposed to be conveyed to the property owners’ association and all its right, title, and interest in any improvements made to such common open space. For the transfer of real property, the subdivider or owner of the property shall
submit with the application for final plat a warranty deed, quit claim deed or other
instrument acceptable to the City Attorney transferring fee simple ownership to the City.
The subdivider or owner of the property must record the deed or instrument at the time of recording of the final plat with the original of such deed returned to the property owners’ association. For personal property installed upon dedicated parkland or lift station lot,
the subdivider shall provide the property owners’ association an instrument acceptable to
the City Attorney transferring all its rights, title and interest in such improvements
including all applicable warranties to such improvements.
6. The deed restrictions for common open space lots must be recorded at the time of recording of the final plat and prior to the recording of the deed transferring ownership to
the property owners’ association.
Engineering
7. Any new detention or retention facilities must accommodate the requirement to capture the first 0.5-inches of runoff per the City of Bozeman (COB) Design Standards and Specifications Policy. This calculation was not provided for Sub-Basin B1, which feeds
into the new detention pond #4. This calculation was also not provided for stormwater
from the Kimberwicke extension, which feeds into the new detention pond #5.
8. The provided stormwater calculations do not accommodate Veronica Way. The stormwater master plan must accommodate runoff from this street.
9. The applicant must provide and file with the County Clerk and Recorder's office executed
Waivers of Right to Protest Creation of Special Improvement Districts (SID’s) for the
following:
a) Street improvements to Davis Lane including paving, curb/gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage.
b) Street improvements to Baxter Lane including paving, curb/gutter, sidewalk, and
storm drainage.
c) Intersection improvements to the intersection of Davis Lane and Baxter Lane.
d) Left-turn lane improvements at the intersection of Davis Lane and Kimberwicke Street, if not constructed by the developer.
The document filed must specify that in the event an SID is not utilized for the
291
15526 Staff Report for the Four Points Ph. II Major Subdivision Page 9 of 25
completion of these improvements, the developer agrees to participate in an alternate
financing method for the completion of said improvements on a fair share, proportionate
basis as determined by square footage of property, taxable valuation of the property,
traffic contribution from the development, or a combination thereof.
10. Kimberwicke Street must be constructed to a local street standard from the intersection with Caspian Avenue to the intersection with Davis Lane prior to any final site plan
approvals associated with proposed Lots 2, 3, 4 or 5 in Block 3 (BMC 38.24.010.A). A
no-build restriction will be placed on these lots until the identified section of
Kimberwicke Street is constructed.
11. Veronica Way must be constructed between Kimberwicke Street and Cattail Street prior to any site plan approvals of Lot 2-Block 1, Lot 4-Block 2, or Lots 2, 3, 4 or 5 in Block 3
(BMC 38.24.010.A). A no-build restriction will be placed on these lots until the
identified section of Veronica Way is constructed.
12. Upon construction of Kimberwicke Street, the auxiliary left-hand turn lane on Davis Lane must be constructed as defined in the submitted traffic impact study.
13. Irrigation from the exempt wells on the project may not exceed the limits for an exempt
well as defined by the Montana Department of Natural Resources. This shall be
demonstrated prior to final plat approval.
14. A water main must be constructed in the Kimberwicke Street right-of-way to the intersection with Davis Lane to allow future extension and looping of the water system.
15. Sidewalk must be constructed on the existing local street north of Kimberwicke between
Vaquero Parkway and Caspian Avenue.
16. Shared use paths must be constructed prior to final plat approval for any phase containing
a share use path and with the construction of the adjacent street.
17. 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.
18. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, SCS, Montana Department of
Environmental Quality and Army Corps of Engineer's shall be contacted regarding the
proposed project and any required permits (i.e., 310, 404, Turbidity exemption, etc.) shall be obtained prior to final plat approval.
19. Plans and Specifications for water and sewer main extensions, streets, and storm water
improvements, prepared and signed by a professional engineer (PE) registered in the
State of Montana 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 also provide professional engineering services for construction inspection, post-construction certification, and preparation of mylar record
drawings. Construction shall not be initiated on the public infrastructure improvements
until the plans and specifications have been approved and a preconstruction conference
has been conducted.
20. Any public street lighting installed by this development must be LED.
21. Subdivision lighting SILD information must be submitted to the Clerk of Commission
292
15526 Staff Report for the Four Points Ph. II Major Subdivision Page 10 of 25
after Preliminary Plat approval in hard copy and digital form. The final plat will not be
deemed complete until the resolution to create the SILD has been approved by the City
Commission.
Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
22. Way finding signage must be placed at both the north and south ends of the proposed trail in the city linear park, Lot 7, Block 3 subject to the review and final approval of the City
Parks, Recreation and Cemetery Department.
SECTION 4- CODE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRING PLAN CORRECTIONS
None.
SECTION 5- RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE ACTIONS
Development Review Committee
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the preliminary plat application on
December 16, 23 2015, February 17, 24 and March 2, 2016 and found that the application, with conditions, is in general compliance with the adopted growth policy, the Montana Subdivision
and Platting Act and the Unified Development Code. The DRC recommends conditional
approval of the preliminary plat application.
Wetlands Review Board
The Wetlands Review Board (WRB) reviewed the preliminary plat application on January 7, 2016 and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed subdivision. The WRB
concurred that is appropriate to allow a 20 foot wetland setback on the west side of the proposed
property boundary between Lot 1 and Lot 2 of Block 2. The Board supported the linear parkland
improvements within the 50’ Wetland Setback within the proposed City Linear Park, Lot 7
Block 3. The Board noted that best practices regarding the deed restricted lots would be to minimize any vegetation removal, grading and structures.
Recreation & Parks Advisory Board
The Recreation and Parks Advisory Board (RPAB) subdivision committee reviewed the
preliminary plat application on January 7, 2016 recommended approval of the proposed
subdivision with a proposed condition that way finding signage must be placed at both the north and south ends of the proposed trail in the City Linear Park, Lot 7, Block 3. They noted that at
the north end, as sign should indicate that the trail will continue north with a slight job to the
west on Cattail Street. At the south end, a sign should note that the trail ends, as there is no
connection across Davis Lane at this time. When a future trail connection is constructed east of
Davis Lane, the small gap on Kimberwicke Street will need to be addressed.
Planning Board
The Bozeman Planning Board held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 5, 2016 to review the
application and hear public testimony.. One written comment was submitted and testimony was
received from the public. The public comment focused on two issues: first a request that the
public comment period be extended and second, a comment regarding the location of an adjacent
trail corridor in the Cattail Subdivision near the intersection of Cattail Street and Davis Lane.
293
15526 Staff Report for the Four Points Ph. II Major Subdivision Page 11 of 25
The members of the Board discussed the proposed preliminary plat application in regards to the
character of the area and the intent of the subdivision and zoning district; and reviewed the
application against the requirements of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act and found that,
with conditions, the Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application would comply with those
requirements; and adopted the findings presented in the staff report for application 15526 and
voted to recommend approval of the preliminary plat application, with the conditions as outlined
in the staff report, 7:1.
City Commission
The City Commission is scheduled to consider the application and hold a public hearing on April
18, 2016.
SECTION 8 - STAFF ANALYSIS
Analysis and resulting recommendations are based on the entirety of the application materials,
municipal codes, standards, and plans, public comment, and all other pertinent information
available during the review period. Collectively this information is the record of the review. The analysis is a summary of the completed review.
Applicable Subdivision Review Criteria, Section 38.03.040, BMC.
The site is not within an overlay district and does not have any applicable special use review
criteria unique to the project. The proposed subdivision meets minimum design standards for
subdivision lots and access pursuant to Section 38.23.030, BMC.
There are no Code provisions requiring plan corrections. The applicant must comply with all provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code, which are applicable to this project, prior to
receiving final plan approval. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code
provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, do 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 subdivision approval under this title, the advisory boards and City
Commission shall consider the following:
1) Compliance with the survey requirements of Part 4 of the Montana Subdivision and
Platting Act
The preliminary plat has been prepared in accordance with the survey requirements of the
Montana Subdivision and Platting Act by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of
Montana. As noted in recommended condition 1, the final plat must comply with State statute,
the Administrative Rules of Montana, and the Bozeman Municipal Code.
2) Compliance with the local subdivision regulations provided for in Part 5 of the Montana
Subdivision and Platting Act
1. Pursuant to Section 38.03.040.A.5 (f), BMC conditional approval of the preliminary plat
shall be in force for not more than one calendar year. Prior to that expiration date, the
294
15526 Staff Report for the Four Points Ph. II Major Subdivision Page 12 of 25
applicant may submit a letter of request for the extension of the period to the Director of
Community Development for consideration. The City may at the written request of the
applicant, extend its approval for a mutually agreed upon time. More than one extension
may be requested for a particular subdivision. Each request shall be considered on its individual merits as provided for in Section 38.03.040.A.5 (g), BMC.
2. Pursuant to Section 38.03.060.A.1, BMC the applicant shall submit with the application for
final plat review and approval, a written narrative stating how each of the conditions of
preliminary plat approval has been satisfactorily addressed, and specifically (tab, page,
paragraph, etc.) where this information can be found.
3. Pursuant to Section 38.23.060.A, BMC all easements, existing and proposed, shall be accurately depicted and addressed on the final plat and in the final plat application.
4. The final covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements shall be submitted with the final
plat application for review and approval by the Planning Division and shall contain, but not
be limited to, the provisions required in Section 38.38.020, BMC.
5. Pursuant to Section 38.39.010., if it is the developer’s intent to file the final plat prior to installation, certification, and acceptance of all required improvements by the City of
Bozeman, an Improvements Agreement shall be entered into with the City of Bozeman
guaranteeing the completion of all improvements in accordance with the Preliminary Plat
submittal information and conditions of approval. If the final plat is filed prior to the installation of all improvements, the developer shall supply the City of Bozeman with an acceptable method of security equal to 150 percent of the cost of the remaining
improvements.
3) Compliance with the local subdivision review procedures provided for in Part 6 of the
Montana Subdivision and Platting Act
A subdivision pre-application was submitted on September 21, 2015. The pre-application was
reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC) on October 7, 14 and 21, 2015 and
summary review comments were forwarded to the applicant in preparation of the preliminary
plat application.
A preliminary plat application was submitted on November 4, 2015 and was deemed
unacceptable for initial review on November 13, 2015. Revised application materials were
submitted on December 3, 2015 and deemed acceptable for initial review. The preliminary plat
was reviewed by the DRC on December 16 and 23, 2105. The DRC deemed the application
inadequate for continued review on December 23, 2015. Revised application materials were
submitted on February 1, 2016 and deemed acceptable for initial review. The DRC reviewed the
application on February 17 and 24, 2016. On March 2, 2016, the DRC determined that the
application and additional supporting materials submitted were adequate for continued review,
and further recommended approval with conditions and code provisions to be forwarded to the
City Commission for consideration.
295
15526 Staff Report for the Four Points Ph. II Major Subdivision Page 13 of 25
Public notice was sent to property owners of record within 200 feet of the subject property via
first class mail, on March 17, 2016. Notice was posted on the site March 18, 2016. The
Bozeman Daily Chronicle posted a legal notice for the proposed subdivision on March 20, 2016.
On March 30, 2016 this subdivision staff report with a recommendation of conditional approval
was forwarded to the Planning Board, which is scheduled to hold a public hearing on April 5,
2016. A public hearing and final decision will occur at the City Commission meeting on April
18, 2016. The final decision for a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat with less than fifty lots
must be made within 60 working days of the date it was deemed adequate for review on March
2, 2106, or in this case by May 25, 2016.
4) Compliance with Chapter 38, BMC and other relevant regulations
Based on review of the DRC, and the Department of Community Development, all applicable
regulations are to be met. Code provisions and site specific requirements are included in this
report for City Commission consideration.
5) The provision of easements to and within the subdivision for the location and installation
of any necessary utilities
As noted under Staff Finding 2) 3 above, and required by Section 38.23.060.A, BMC, all
easements, existing and proposed, shall be accurately depicted and addressed on the final plat
and in the final plat application. All utilities and necessary utility easements will be provided and
depicted accordingly on the final plat.
6) The provision of legal and physical access to each parcel within the subdivision and the
notation of that access on the applicable plat and any instrument transferring the parcel
As shown on the preliminary plat, proposed all lots have legal and physical access exceeding
minimum requirements in Section 38.24.090 (2) via Blondie Street, Veronica Way Milkhouse
Avenue and Kimberwicke Street. Conditions 10, 11, 12, 15 and 17 apply to this issue.
Primary Subdivision Review Criteria, Section 76-3-608 Mont. Code Ann.
1) The effect on agriculture
The subject property is designated as a residential area according to the City of Bozeman
Community Plan. The area is zoned for residential development and is surrounded by residential
development. There are no viable farm units located on the property. Therefore, this subdivision
will not have adverse effects on agriculture.
2) The effect on Agricultural water user facilities
Agricultural water user facilities are present on site and located on Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 2
Block 2. A blanket easement exists over the property to allow future water flow through and
maintenance access to these facilities. Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 2 Block 2 will be deed restricted
wetland and common open space lots. No development is proposed on those lots. The plat
includes note 2 on sheet 3 of 3 that notifies property owners regarding the agricultural water user
296
15526 Staff Report for the Four Points Ph. II Major Subdivision Page 14 of 25
facilities and the related requirements. The subject property is designated as a residential area
according to the City of Bozeman Community Plan; the area is zoned for residential
development, and is developing in accordance with regulations. Therefore, the proposed
subdivision will have minimal impacts on agricultural water user facilities.
3) The effect on Local services
Water/Sewer – Municipal water and sewer service will be provided by the construction of new
service lines within the street rights of way. Each lot will connect to the constructed water and
sewer mains designed to the appropriate design standard and must be located in the standard
location as approved by the water/sewer superintendent. Adequate capacity exists to support the
proposed subdivision. Cash in lieu of water rights is required by Condition 17 to provide City
water supply for the life of this project.
Streets – Local streets Blondie Street, Veronica Way and Kimberwicke Street will be improved
with City standard asphalt surfacing and curb, gutter and sidewalks providing access to the
development. Following new water and service line installations to accommodate the new lots,
all street improvements will be constructed to acceptable City standards with curb, gutter,
pavement, boulevard sidewalks and storm water facilities. Conditions 10, 11, 12, 15 and 17
apply to this issue. Bozeman’s land development regulations place high value on an
interconnected street system. With conditions, this subdivision executes that purpose and design.
Future improvements may be necessary to support transportation in the vicinity of this site and to
accommodate the demand produced by this subdivision. Condition 9 applies to this issue.
Police/Fire – The property is located within the City’s Police and Fire emergency response area.
The subdivider must obtain addresses for the new lots from the Engineering Division prior to
filing the final plat to facilitate emergency response to the site.
Stormwater - The standard requirement for a detailed review of the final grading and drainage
plan, and approval by the City Engineer is required as part of the infrastructure plan and
specification review process prior to final plat approval. Specific locations for storm water areas
are shown on the face of the plat. The stormwater design does not satisfy all the applicable
requirements of the City of Bozeman. Conditions 7 and 8 apply to this issue.
Parklands –The requirement to dedicate parkland is enabled through Section 76-3-621(2), Mont.
Code Ann. and implemented pursuant to Section 38.27.020.A.1, BMC. There are both minimum
and maximum dedication requirements.
The parkland dedication requirement at initial subdivision when net density is known at the time
of preliminary plat is 0.03 acre per dwelling unit of land. Parkland must be provided for density
up to a limit of 12 dwelling units per acre. The applicant proposes to satisfy parkland for the
maximum 12 units per acres density allow within the zoning district for each lot. The proposed
residential density in Phase II requires a total of 4.94 acres of parkland dedication. A 5.23 acre
park was dedicated and improved with Phase I and a parkland requirement of 1.95 acres was
297
15526 Staff Report for the Four Points Ph. II Major Subdivision Page 15 of 25
required for the two lots platted in Phase I. Phase II proposes to dedicate and improve an
additional 1.66 acres of parkland as a linear park. Linear parks are not required to meet the street
frontage requirements of 38.27.060 BMC as they are meant to convey a trail corridor that may
not be adjacent to streets. A total of 6.89 acres of city parkland is required between Phases I and
II. A total of 6.89 acres (5.23 + 1.66) of total city parks will be provided following the
improvement of the Phase II trail corridor in the proposed linear park. A table is provided on
sheet 3 of 3 of the plat summarizing the dedication and parkland credit allocated to each
individual lot.
The Recreation and Parks Advisory Board (RPAB) subdivision committee reviewed the proposal
on January 7, 2016. Based on site specific considerations the RPAB recommended that the City
Commission approve the proposed master park plan and accept the linear park with a trail
corridor as depicted in the proposed park plan. They recommend Condition 22 that requires that
way finding signage must be placed at both the north and south ends of the proposed trail in the
City Linear Park, Lot 7, Block 3. They noted that at the north end, as sign should indicate that
the trail will continue north with a slight job to the west on Cattail Street. At the south end, a sign
should note that the trail ends, as there is no connection across Davis Lane at this time. When a
future trail connection is constructed east of Davis Lane, the small gap on Kimberwicke Street
will need to be addressed. Park staff, RPAB, and planning staff find the proposed park plan is
consistent with the Park Recreation Open Space and Trails plan, the letter and intent of Article
38.27, BMC, and the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act.
4) The effect on the Natural environment
No significant physical or topographical features have been identified, (e.g., outcroppings,
geological formations, steep slopes), on the subject property. A watercourse and significant areas
of wetlands are present on site. The wetland areas and watercourse are proposed to be platted on
common open space wetland lots. The applicant proposes deed restrictions on those lots that will
prevent the removal of vegetation, the placement of structures and modifications to existing
grades without City approval. Appropriate wetland buffers are shown on the preliminary plat to
protect water resources and water quality. The Wetlands Review Board (WRB) reviewed the
preliminary plat application on January 7, 2016 and voted unanimously to recommend approval
of the proposed subdivision. The WRB concurred that it is appropriate to allow a 20 foot wetland
setback on the west side of the proposed property boundary between Lot 1 and Lot 2 of Block 2.
The Board supported the linear parkland improvements within the 50’ wetland setback within the
proposed City Linear Park, Lot 7 Block 3. The Board noted that best practices regarding the deed
restricted lots would be to minimize any vegetation removal, grading and structures. Provisions
have been made to address the control of noxious weeds and the maintenance of the property and
will be further addressed by the existing protective covenants and compliance with the
recommended conditions of approval. Infill development with municipal services has fewer
impacts on the natural environment than development on urban fringes or in rural areas.
5) The effect on Wildlife and wildlife habitat
298
15526 Staff Report for the Four Points Ph. II Major Subdivision Page 16 of 25
The subject property is designated as a residential area according to the City of Bozeman
Community Plan. The area is zoned for residential development has been used for residential
purposes. Although there are incidental small animals and birds residing on this and adjacent
property, infill development within the City limits will occur. Buffers and deed restrictions have
been provided from and on lots and areas where there are water and wetland resources to assure
habitat survival for wildlife.
6) The effect on Public health and safety
The intent of the regulations in Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code is to protect the
public health, safety and general welfare. The subdivision has been reviewed by the DRC which
has determined that it is in general compliance with the title. Any conditions deemed necessary
to ensure compliance have been noted throughout this staff report. In addition, all subdivisions
must be reviewed against the criteria listed in 76-3-608.3.b-d, Mont Code Ann. The Department
of Community Development has reviewed this application against the listed criteria and provides
the following summary for submittal materials and requirements.
Preliminary Plat Supplements
A subdivision pre-application plan review was completed by the Development Review
Committee on October 21, 2015. The following summary comments address the supplemental
information required under Article 38.41, BMC.
38.41.060.A.1 Surface Water
Surface waters on the property include wetlands, spring ditches and various other waters of the
United States (WUS) as described in the Waters of the US Delineation Report prepared by
Vaughn Environmental Services, dated November 20, 2013. The report identified thirteen
wetlands within the project area. Two of the wetlands are classified as isolated, non-
jurisdictional wetlands based on lack of connection to waters of the US. The remaining 17.04
acres of wetlands are classified as jurisdictional.
The Spring Ditch is a perennial stream flowing from south to north through the west half of the
project site. The wetland fringe adjacent to the stream channel is approximately 2-3 feet wide
with one-foot high banks. Trees and shrubs planted in 2005 as part of the mitigation required for
the Baxter Meadows Subdivision are still developing. The stormwater ditch to the east of the
Spring Ditch has a straight channel and is densely vegetated with cattails. Water in this ditch
ponds at the downstream manhole intake prior to its discharge into Spring Ditch.
All impacts to waters of the US have been mitigated. The proposed improvements required for
this subdivision will not impact surface waters. The WRB reviewed the proposal and
recommended approval of the subdivision with the proposed buffers and configuration as
proposed.
299
15526 Staff Report for the Four Points Ph. II Major Subdivision Page 17 of 25
38.41.060.A.2 Floodplains
The proposed subdivision site is not located within the regulated floodplain. The property is
designated in an area having no special flood hazards, and is not within the 100-year floodplain
on FEMA Map Panel No. 0804D.
38.41.060.A.3 Groundwater
Monitoring of groundwater conditions was performed across the site using 15 monitoring wells.
Monitoring between February 15th and June 24th, 2014 revealed that the majority of the site is
impacted by seasonal high groundwater within six feet of the ground surface. he average depth
to groundwater across the entire site throughout the monitoring period was 4.46 feet. The
shallowest depths to groundwater were observed in the central-western and southeastern portions
of the property, with average depths of less than three feet.
Due to high ground water conditions across the site, the construction of roads, utilities and
foundations will likely require temporary dewatering, to be determined at the time of year that
construction begins. Restrictions on crawl space depths or requirement of slab-on-grade
foundations in certain areas of the project may also be required. The plat includes note 1 on sheet
3 of 3 placing future landowners on notice of potential high groundwater tables and the need to
consult with a professional engineer prior to designing or building any structures. Subdivision
covenants will include a section on minimum finished floor elevations (above street grades) to
fully inform buyers of high groundwater conditions. In addition, Note 1 on the preliminary plat
advises of high groundwater conditions and states that the finish floor of all residential structures
shall not be less than two feet above the established elevation from the top of the curb of the
adjoining street.
Installation of municipal water and sanitary sewer services will reduce any concerns regarding
the potential of groundwater degradation from private on-site sanitation disposal systems.
38.41.060.A.4 Geology, Soils and Slopes
An Abbreviated Geotechnical Report prepared by Allied Engineering identified several
geotechnical issues related to the site’s subsurface conditions that have the potential to increase
costs of site and building development. The issues identified include: 1) high groundwater; 2)
deep gravels; and 3) very moist to wet soils. To address these issues, specific recommendations
are provided in the report related to building crawl space depth limitations, designing road beds
well above the existing ground, underground utility installation, road design, and building
foundations.
38.41.060.A.5 Vegetation
The site has over 17 acres of diverse wetland and waterways vegetated with grasses, sedges,
rushes, willows and a variety of wetland species. The balance of the property is comprised of
grassland area heavily infested with noxious weeds (largely thistle). Noxious weeds shall be
300
15526 Staff Report for the Four Points Ph. II Major Subdivision Page 18 of 25
controlled as directed by the approved Gallatin County Weed Control District Management Plan
dated July 9, 2014 that was submitted with the application.
Approximately 15 acres of the 17 acres of wetlands delineated on the property in 2013 will be
preserved. Watercourse and wetland setbacks are shown in accordance with code requirements
and have been reviewed and approved by the Wetland Review Board.
To protect vegetation and critical areas from construction impacts, construction will be
completed mid-summer following peak surface water flows and Best Management Practices
(BMPs) will be employed between the edges of rights-of-way for road construction, and any
wetlands, streams or spring ditches.
38.41.060.A.6 Wildlife
The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) reviewed the subdivision proposal
and commented that although the project is located near existing development, there may be
deer, foxes, raptors, pheasants and other birds present. The agency’s primary concern is related
to impacts on fish and potential harm to local waterways. FWP recommends avoiding any road
or infrastructure construction activity near surface waters, or disturbance of riparian or wetland
vegetation, and situations that might deliver pollutants to surface waters. Drainage control is also
recommended to avoid increasing sediment or other contaminants that might be carried into local
waterways.
38.41.060.A.7 Historical Features
According to a Phase I Cultural Resource Evaluation of the proposed subdivision site performed
by Anthro Research, Inc., two cultural resource sites are (were) located in the project area: 1) the
Spring irrigation ditch system, and 2) the NPRR Low Line. These two historic sites may be
significant relative to National Register Criteria A, namely “associated with events that have
made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history” (irrigation and agricultural
development and early transportation systems). However, field reconnaissance evaluations
conducted July 16, 2014 indicated that subsequent surface, land modifications during the past
100+ years have resulted in land of “sufficient integrity to convey the significance”. Because it
was determined that no adverse impacts would result to a cultural resource, project approval was
recommended. If cultural resources are discovered during site preparation and construction, they
should be evaluated in terms of National Register significance.
38.41.060.A.8 Agriculture
There are no existing or proposed agricultural uses on this property, nor is it part of a viable farm
unit. The site was not used for agricultural production during the regular last season. The
property adjacent to the subdivision site on the north contains agricultural farm land, is used for
grazing cattle, and is fenced along its south boundary. The fence is not on the proposed
subdivision property, and will continue to be maintained by the landowner. A covenant for the
subdivision requires pets to be on a leash at all times when off the owner’s property. In addition,
301
15526 Staff Report for the Four Points Ph. II Major Subdivision Page 19 of 25
all pets must be restrained and controlled when near ponds, creeks, in open space, in parks or on
a trail system.
38.41.060.A.9 Agricultural Water User Facilities
There are existing agricultural water user facilities on the property. The Waters of the US
Delineation Report submitted with the application identifies the location, extent, and
characteristics of the jurisdictional WUS located within the site. Supplemental information
submitted by the applicant includes a correction to this report, noting that the USGS map
included in the report shows the Spring Ditch diverging from Farmer’s Canal. However, more
recent mapping and a field investigation show that Spring Ditch arises from a culvert north of
Oak Street and southeast of the Regional Park, and that it appears to be fed by historic drain tiles
located on the property south of where the channel starts. The source of the Section Line Ditch is
also the Farmer’s Canal around two miles south of the project site. Although Farmer’s Canal is
an agricultural water source, the water on site will not be used for agricultural purposes, nor will
the subdivision result in any impact to agricultural water user facilities.
38.41.060.A.10 Water and Sewer
New water and sanitary sewer infrastructure will be installed on site to serve future development.
The new infrastructure will require connection to city-owned water and wastewater facilities
installed as part of the Baxter Meadows Subdivision. here are existing water and sewer mains in
Blondie Street, Cattail Street, Kimberwicke Street, as well as running north-south through the
site. An existing sanitary sewer lift station is located just south of Cattail Street in the proposed
Lot 1, Block 3 as shown on the preliminary plat. he water and sewer facilities for Baxter
Meadows Subdivision were designed to accommodate development on the subject property;
therefore, adequate capacity has been built in to the existing system for this project. he City
Engineering and Water and Sewer Divisions have reviewed the plans and find there is adequate
capacity to serve the subdivision. Final approval of the water distribution system and sewage
collection/disposal system will be obtained through normal approval procedures of infrastructure
and final plat review by the City Engineering Division, Superintendent of Water/Sewer, and
Montana Department of Environmental Quality.
38.41.060.A.11 Stormwater Management
A preliminary stormwater management plan was provided in the application. The system is
designed to remove solids, silt, oils, grease and other pollutant from the runoff from the private
and public streets and all lots. Storm water from Phase II streets and lots development will be
collected in curbs and gutters and transported in storm sewers to a detention basins located on
Lot 2 and 3 of Block 2. These stormwater facility locations were determined during the street
improvements infrastructure review and permitting for Phase I and the extension of Blondie
Street and Cattail Street. Outlet structures control the release rate from the detention basins to
preconstruction runoff rates. The stormwater design does not satisfy all the applicable
requirements of the City of Bozeman. Conditions 7 and 8 apply to this issue.
302
15526 Staff Report for the Four Points Ph. II Major Subdivision Page 20 of 25
38.41.060.A.12 Streets, Roads and Alleys
Local Streets: Three local streets will be constructed within the subdivision to provide access to
lots on Veronica Way, Kimberwicke Street and Blondie Street. There will be no direct local
street access to Cattail Street or Davis Lane from the subdivision per plat notes on sheets 1-3
that restrict that access. The three local streets will all be 35 feet wide, Blondie Street and
Veronica Way are proposed with 65 foot right of ways to accommodate 10 foot wide shared
use pathways on one side. A roundabout is proposed at the intersection of two of the local
streets to aid in traffic flow and control. All local streets will have 6.5-foot wide boulevards and
5-foot wide sidewalks on both sides of the street where shared use pathways are not located.
On the north side of Blondie Street and on the west side of Veronica Way adjacent to Lot 4,
Block 2 a 10 foot wide concrete shared use pathway will be provided to connect an existing
shared use pathway a the southwest corner of the subdivision coming north from Baxter
Meadows phase 2C City parkland. The shared use pathway in this subdivision will extend
north to the intersection of Veronica Way and Cattail Street and west along Blondie Street to
the Four Points Phase I City Park and Chief Joseph Middle School. All roads are designed per
Montana Public Works Standard Specification with the City of Bozeman Modifications as well
as the Montana Department of Transportation Standards. All streets within the subdivision
shall have dedicated rights-of-way and be built to city standards.
Traffic Impact Studies: A Traffic Impact Study has been prepared by Marvin & Associates for
the subdivision and is provided in Section 10F. Access points for newly generated trips due to
Four Points Subdivision would be street intersections on Baxter Lane and the new street
accesses to Davis Lane. The highest traffic volumes would occur on Davis Lane between
Kimberwicke Street and Baxter Lane. The development of Four Points Subdivision properties
would add approximately 2,588 vehicle trips to the surrounding street system on the average
weekday. In addition, new apartment buildings currently under construction will add 1,297
trips to the existing traffic. While Four Points Subdivision will impact the intersection of
Davis Lane and Baxter Lane to some degree, the additional traffic would not reduce the
intersection's level of service sufficiently to warrant a change from four-way stop control
operations. An Auxiliary left turn lane on Davis Lane at Kimberwicke Street is recommended
t o mitigate safety impacts prior the development of lots adjacent to the Kimberwicke Street
303
15526 Staff Report for the Four Points Ph. II Major Subdivision Page 21 of 25
Extension. The Baxter and Davis Lanes intersection is on the City’s Capital Improvement Plan
and funding has been allocated to its imminent reconstruction and improvement in 2016-2017.
38.41.060.A.13 Utilities
There are existing private utilities in Blondie, Cattail Street, and Kimberwicke Street.
Northwestern Energy participated in review of the project as a member of the Development
Review Committee to ensure provision of electricity and natural gas service to the subdivision.
In addition, Northwestern has advised that they will work concurrently and in cooperation with
other utilities and services, including telephone, internet, and cable TV providers to provide for
their respective infrastructure in joint utility trenches. All utilities will be located underground
and per City of Bozeman Standards. Private utility easements are required on the final plat.
38.41.060.A.14 Educational Facilities
A letter from the Bozeman Public Schools Director of Facilities, Todd Swinehart, was
submitted with the application. This letter discusses the school system's ability to
accommodate the increased enrollment as a result of Four Points Subdivision.
38.41.060.A.15 Land Use
The 36.1-acre property is currently vacant land with zoning of R-4, Residential High Density
District. The preliminary plat shows six lots for residential development, three lots for common
open space that will be deed restricted wetland lots, two lots for common open space to
accommodate stormwater facilities, one lot to be deeded to the City that includes a lift station,
and one lot for a city linear park corridor.
38.41.060.A.16 Parks and Recreation Facilities
The requirement to dedicate parkland is enabled through Section 76-3-621(2), Mont. Code Ann.
and implemented pursuant to Section 38.27.020.A.1, BMC. There are both minimum and
maximum dedication requirements.
The parkland dedication required for initial subdivision when net density is known at the time of
preliminary plat is 0.03 acres per dwelling unit. The parkland shall be provided for a density up
to a limit of 12 dwelling units per acre. The applicant proposes to satisfy parkland for the
maximum 12 units per acre density allowed within the zoning district for each lot. The proposed
residential density in Phase II requires a total of 4.94 acres of parkland dedication. A 5.23 acre
park was dedicated and improved with Phase I and a parkland requirement of 1.95 acres was
required with the two lots platted in Phase I. Phase II proposes to dedicate and improve an
additional 1.66 acres of parkland as a linear park. Linear parks are not required to meet the street
frontage requirements of 38.27.060 BMC as they are meant to convey a trail corridor that may
not be adjacent to streets. A total of 6.89 acres of City Parkland is required between Phases I and
II. A total of 6.89 acres (5.23 + 1.66) of total City Parks will be provided following the
improvement of the Phase II trail corridor in the proposed linear park.
304
15526 Staff Report for the Four Points Ph. II Major Subdivision Page 22 of 25
The Recreation and Parks Advisory Board (RPAB) subdivision committee reviewed the proposal
on January 7, 2016. Based on site specific considerations the RPAB recommended the City
Commission approved the master parks plan and accept the linear park and trail corridor as
depicted in the proposed park plan. They recommend Condition 22 that way finding signage
must be placed at both the north and south ends of the proposed trail in the City Linear Park, Lot
7, Block 3. They noted that at the north end, as sign should indicate that the trail will continue
north with a slight job to the west on Cattail Street. At the south end, a sign should note that the
trail ends, as there is no connection across Davis Lane at this time. When a future trail
connection is constructed east of Davis Lane, the small gap on Kimberwicke Street will need to
be addressed. Park staff, RPAB, and Planning staff find the proposed park plan is consistent with
the Park Recreation Open Space and Trails plan, the letter and intent of Article 38.27, BMC, and
the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act.
38.41.060.A.17 Neighborhood Center Plan
A neighborhood center plan is included in the Park Master Plan submitted with the application
and reviewed and supported by the RPAB subdivision committee. The Four Points Subdivision
contains critical wetlands habitats across the subdivision, which constricts the ability to have a
neighborhood center within 600 feet of the geographic center. Instead, two neighborhood centers
are proposed: one containing a covered shelter and picnic tables on the western side of the
subdivision, and the other as an enhanced trail corridor on the eastern side of the subdivision.
This alternative neighborhood center layout has been developed in coordination with the City of
Bozeman. The proposed neighborhood center containing a covered shelter will be built in the
southeast corner of the existing 5.23 acre parkland on Lot 1 of Minor Subdivision 475. The
covered shelter is proposed to be built on a concrete slab with picnic tables. The shelter will
connect to existing public sidewalk with ADA sidewalks. This neighborhood center provides
active recreational opportunities with the open park land and passive recreational opportunities
with the covered shelter and picnic tables. This neighborhood center will serve as the
neighborhood focal point for the western side of the subdivision and be developed in Phase II.A.
It is within a public park which has 100 percent of its perimeter on public and private streets and
roads. The area dedicated to the stormwater detention facility in the northeast comer of the park
is not part of the parkland area. The proposed enhanced linear trail neighborhood center will be
located on the 1.66 acre Lot 7 Block 3 on the eastern side of the subdivision along the wetlands.
A gravel fines trail, benches, covered tables, viewing platforms and signage will be provided.
This neighborhood center provides active recreational opportunities with gravel fines trail and
passive recreation opportunities with the covered tables, viewing platforms and signage. This
will serve as the neighborhood focal point of the eastern side of the subdivision and be developed
with the first lot east of Veronica Way, excluding Lot 1 Block 3 (lift station). Public access to the
trail corridor will be provided via three points: Cattail Street on the north end of the trail, a public
mid block sidewalk at the mid-point, and Kimberwicke Street on the south end of the trail.
305
15526 Staff Report for the Four Points Ph. II Major Subdivision Page 23 of 25
38.41.060.A.18 Lighting Plan
Subdivision lighting is proposed at intersections on streets within the subdivision, and on
perimeter streets as shown on the lighting plan. Cut sheets were provided indicating proposed
lighting is in conformance with applicable code requirements. Final design of the lighting system
is required with the infrastructure plan submittal and shall be in accordance with the City’s
adopted Engineering Design Standards and Specifications.
38.41.060.A.19 Miscellaneous
The subdivision will not impact access to any public lands and there are no identified health or
safety hazards on or near the subject property.
38.41.060.A.20 Affordable Housing
At the time of preliminary plat submittal the Workforce Housing Ordinance (Ordinance 1710)
had been suspended by the City Commission; therefore workforce housing is not required with
this development.
APPENDIX A – PROJECT SITE ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY
The subject property is zoned R-4, Residential High Density District. The intent of the R-4
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 residential land use category has been assigned to the proposed subdivision property on the
Future Land Use Map in the Bozeman Community Plan. This category designates 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
306
15526 Staff Report for the Four Points Ph. II Major Subdivision Page 24 of 25
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 advance 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 B – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Project Description
This is the second phase of the Four Points Subdivision. Phase I included the subdivision of one
existing tract of land of approximately 54 acres into five lots. In Phase I, Lot 1 was dedicated as
a City Park. Lots 2 and 3 were platted and are under initial development with multi-household
housing and lots 4 and 5 were restricted and subject to further subdivision review prior to
development. This subdivision is the further subdivision of Phase I lots 4 and 5.
This Four Points Phase II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat application is to allow the
subdivision of two lots of approximately 36.1 acres into twelve lots for multi-household
development, one parkland corridor lot and associated streets and infrastructure.
Water and sewer will connect to city services. All stormwater runoff will be managed on site in
retention ponds.
APPENDIX C – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT
A subdivision pre-application was submitted on September 21, 2015. The pre-application was
reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC) on October 7, 14 and 21, 2015 and
summary review comments were forwarded to the applicant in preparation of the preliminary
plat application.
A preliminary plat application was submitted on November 4, 2015 and was deemed
unacceptable for initial review on November 13, 2015. Revised application materials were
submitted on December 3, 2015 and deemed acceptable for initial review. The preliminary plat
was reviewed by the DRC on December 16 and 23, 2105. The DRC deemed the application
inadequate for continued review on December 23, 2015. Revised application materials were
submitted on February 1, 2016 and deemed acceptable for initial review. The DRC reviewed the
application on February 17 and 24, 2016. On March 2, 2016, the DRC determined that the
application and additional supporting materials submitted were adequate for continued review
and further recommended approval with conditions and code provisions to be forwarded to the
City Commission for consideration.
Public notice was sent to property owners of record within 200 feet of the subject property via
first class mail, on March 17, 2016. Notice was posted on the site March 18, 2016. The
Bozeman Daily Chronicle posted a legal notice for the proposed subdivision on March 20, 2016.
307
15526 Staff Report for the Four Points Ph. II Major Subdivision Page 25 of 25
On March 30, 2016 this subdivision staff report with a recommendation of conditional approval
was forwarded to the Planning Board, and a public hearing was held on April 5, 2016. A public
hearing and final decision will occur at the City Commission meeting on April 18, 2016. The
final decision for a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat with less than fifty lots must be made
within 60 working days of the date it was deemed adequate for review on March 2, 2106, or in
this case by May 25, 2016.
APPENDIX D – OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF
Owner/
Applicant: Four Points, MT LLC, 5 Rimani Drive, Mission Viejo, CA 92692
Representative: Madison Engineering, 895 Technology Boulevard, Ste 203, Bozeman, MT
59718
Report By: Brian Krueger, Development Review Manager
APPENDIX E – PUBLIC COMMENT AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Two public comments have been received. One written comment received prior the Planning
Board public hearing requested additional comment time on the application. The public comment
period is open until the Commission closes the public hearing on the application. One oral comment was provided at the Planning Board hearing. The commenter noted a trail connection in the existing Cattail Creek subdivision. No action was requested as part of the trail comment.
308
Four Points Phase II Major Subdivision
1 | Page
RESOLUTION #P-15526
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD REGARDING A
MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE 31.6
ACRES INTO TWELVE (12) LOTS, ONE PARK LOT AND STREETS ON PROPERTY ADDRESSED AT 545 VERONICA STREET AND 3605 KIMBERWICKE STREET; GENERALLY SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF DAVIS LANE AND
CATTAIL STREET AND LEGALLY KNOWN AS LOTS 4 AND 5 OF THE FOUR
POINTS MINOR SUBDIVISION IN THE SE ¼ OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 1S,
RANGE 5E, CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has adopted a growth policy pursuant to Section 76-1-
601, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board has been created by Resolution of the Bozeman City Commission as provided for in Title 76-1-101, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, the property owner and applicant Four Points, MT LLC, 5 Rimani Drive,
Mission Viejo, CA 92692, represented by Madison Engineering, 895 Technology Boulevard, Ste
203, Bozeman, MT 59718 have submitted an application to subdivide 31.6 acres into twelve
(12) lots, one (1) City Park lot with the remaining area as street right of ways, located southwest of the intersection of Davis Lane and Cattail Street. The property is addressed as 545 Veronica Street and 3605 Kimberwicke Street; described as Lots 4 and 5 of the Four Points Minor
Subdivision in the SE ¼ of Section 34, Township 1S, Range 5E, City of Bozeman, Gallatin
County, Montana; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application has been properly submitted, reviewed, and advertised in accordance with the procedures of Section 38.03 of the Bozeman Unified Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board held a public hearing on Tuesday,
April 5, 2016 to review the application and any public testimony on the request for said Major
Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application; and
WHEREAS, written comment was submitted and testimony was received from the public. The public comment focused on two issues: first a request that the public comment period
be extended and second, a comment regarding the location of an adjacent trail corridor in the
Cattail Subdivision near the intersection of Cattail Street and Davis Lane; and
WHEREAS, members of the City of Bozeman Planning Board discussed the proposed preliminary plat application in regards to the character of the area and the intent of the subdivision and zoning district; and
WHEREAS, a member of the City of Bozeman Planning Board moved and seconded to
approve the Four Points Phase II subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board reviewed the application against the
309
Four Points Phase II Major Subdivision
2 | Page
requirements of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act and found that, with conditions, the
Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application would comply with those requirements; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Bozeman
Planning Board, having heard and considered public comment, adopted the findings presented in
the staff report for application 15526 and voted to recommend approval of the preliminary plat application, with the conditions as outlined in the staff report, 7:1:
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. The plat shall conform to all requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and the Uniform Standards for Subdivision Plats (Uniform Standards for Certificates of Survey
and Subdivision Plats (24.183.1104 ARM) and shall be accompanied by all required
documents, including certification from the City Engineer that as-built drawings for
public improvements were received, a platting certificate, and all required and corrected
certificates. The Final Plat application shall include three (3) signed reproducible copies on a 3 mil or heavier stable base polyester film (or equivalent); two (2) digital copies; one
(1) PDF copy; and five (5) paper prints. The Gallatin County Clerk & Recorder’s office
has elected to continue the existing medium requirements of 2 mylars with a 1½” binding
margin on one side for both plats and COS’s. The Clerk and Recorder will file the new
Conditions of Approval sheet as the final sheet of the plat.
3. The applicant must submit with the application for Final Plat review and approval, a
written narrative stating how each of the conditions of preliminary plat approval and
noted code provisions have been satisfactorily addressed, and shall include a digital copy
(pdf) of the entire Final Plat submittal. This narrative shall be in sufficient detail to direct
the reviewer to the appropriate plat, plan, sheet, note, covenant, etc. in the submittal.
4. Prior to final plat approval, in conjunction with required or offered dedications, the
subdivider (or owner of the property being subdivided if the owner is not the subdivider)
must transfer ownership to the City of all dedicated parkland and any lift station lot
proposed to be conveyed to the City and all its right, title, and interest in any
improvements made to such parkland or lift station lot. For the transfer of real property, the subdivider or owner of the property must submit with the application for final plat a
warranty deed or other instrument acceptable to the City Attorney transferring fee simple
ownership to the City. The subdivider or owner of the property must record the deed or
instrument at the time of recording of the final plat with the original of such deed
returned to the City. For personal property installed upon dedicated parkland or lift station lot, the subdivider shall provide the City an instrument acceptable to the City
Attorney transferring all its rights, title and interest in such improvements including all
applicable warranties to such improvements.
5. Prior to final plat approval, in conjunction with proposed deed restrictions and common
open space lots, the subdivider (or owner of the property being subdivided if the owner is not the subdivider) must transfer ownership to the Property Owners’ Association all
common open space lots proposed to be conveyed to the Property Owners’ Association
and all its right, title, and interest in any improvements made to such common open
310
Four Points Phase II Major Subdivision
3 | Page
space. For the transfer of real property, the subdivider or owner of the property shall
submit with the application for final plat a warranty deed, quit claim deed or other
instrument acceptable to the City Attorney transferring fee simple ownership to the City.
The subdivider or owner of the property must record the deed or instrument at the time of
recording of the final plat with the original of such deed returned to the Property Owners’ Association. For personal property installed upon dedicated parkland or lift station lot,
the subdivider shall provide the Property Owners’ Association an instrument acceptable
to the City Attorney transferring all its rights, title and interest in such improvements
including all applicable warranties to such improvements.
6. The deed restrictions for common open space lots must be recorded at the time of recording of the final plat and prior to the recording of the deed transferring ownership to
the Property Owners’ Association.
7. Any new detention or retention facilities must accommodate the requirement to capture
the first 0.5-inches of runoff per the City of Bozeman (COB) Design Standards and
Specifications Policy. This calculation was not provided for Sub-Basin B1, which feeds into the new detention pond #4. This calculation was also not provided for stormwater
from the Kimberwicke extension, which feeds into the new detention pond #5.
8. The provided stormwater calculations do not accommodate Veronica Way. The
stormwater master plan must accommodate runoff from this street.
9. The applicant must provide and file with the County Clerk and Recorder's office executed Waivers of Right to Protest Creation of Special Improvement Districts (SID’s) for the
following:
a) Street improvements to Davis Lane including paving, curb/gutter, sidewalk, and
storm drainage.
b) Street improvements to Baxter Lane including paving, curb/gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage.
c) Intersection improvements to the intersection of Davis Lane and Baxter Lane.
d) Left-turn lane improvements at the intersection of Davis Lane and Kimberwicke
Street, if not constructed by the developer.
The document filed must specify that in the event an SID is not utilized for the completion of these improvements, the developer agrees to participate in an alternate
financing method for the completion of said improvements on a fair share, proportionate
basis as determined by square footage of property, taxable valuation of the property,
traffic contribution from the development, or a combination thereof.
10. Kimberwicke Street must be constructed to a local street standard from the intersection with Caspian Avenue to the intersection with Davis Lane prior to any final site plan
approvals associated with proposed Lots 2, 3, 4 or 5 in Block 3 (BMC 38.24.010.A). A
no-build restriction will be placed on these lots until the identified section of
Kimberwicke Street is constructed.
11. Veronica Way must be constructed between Kimberwicke Street and Cattail Street prior to any site plan approvals of Lot 2-Block 1, Lot 4-Block 2, or Lots 2, 3, 4 or 5 in Block 3
311
Four Points Phase II Major Subdivision
4 | Page
(BMC 38.24.010.A). A no-build restriction will be placed on these lots until the
identified section of Veronica Way is constructed.
12. Upon construction of Kimberwicke Street, the auxiliary left-hand turn lane on Davis
Lane must be constructed as defined in the submitted traffic impact study.
13. Irrigation from the exempt wells on the project may not exceed the limits for an exempt well as defined by the Montana Department of Natural Resources. This shall be
demonstrated prior to final plat approval.
14. A water main must be constructed in the Kimberwicke Street right-of-way to the
intersection with Davis Lane to allow future extension and looping of the water system.
15. Sidewalk must be constructed on the existing local street north of Kimberwicke between Vaquero Parkway and Caspian Avenue.
16. Shared use paths must be constructed prior to final plat approval.
17. 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.
18. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, SCS, Montana Department of Environmental Quality and Army Corps of Engineer's shall be contacted regarding the
proposed project and any required permits (i.e., 310, 404, Turbidity exemption, etc.) shall
be obtained prior to final plat approval.
19. Plans and Specifications for water and sewer main extensions, streets, and storm water
improvements, prepared and signed by a professional engineer (PE) registered in the State of Montana 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 also provide professional engineering services for
construction inspection, post-construction certification, and preparation of mylar record
drawings. Construction shall not be initiated on the public infrastructure improvements until the plans and specifications have been approved and a preconstruction conference
has been conducted.
20. Any public street lighting installed by this development must be LED.
21. Subdivision lighting SILD information must be submitted to the Clerk of Commission
after Preliminary Plat approval in hard copy and digital form. The final plat will not be deemed complete until the resolution to create the SILD has been approved by the City
Commission.
22. Way finding signage must be placed at both the north and south ends of the proposed trail
in the City Linear Park, Lot 7, Block 3 subject to the review and final approval of the
City Parks, Recreation and Cemetery Department.
CODE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRING PLAT CORRECTIONS
A. None were identified.
DATED THIS DAY OF , 2016 Resolution 15526
312
Four Points Phase II Major Subdivision
5 | Page
_____________________________ ____________________________
Paul Neubauer, President Brian Krueger
City of Bozeman Planning Board Department of Community Development
313
SPECIAL Joint Planning/Zoning Meeting
Tuesday, April 05, 2016 6:00 PM
City Commission Chamber – 121 N. Rouse Ave.
A. 06:02:34 PM Call meeting to order – Zoning Commission and
Planning Board
Dan Stevenson – Present
Brianne Dugan – Present
Lauren Waterton – Present
Paul Spitler – Present
Julien Morice – Present – Zoning Commission
Jordan Zignego – Present
Paul Neubauer – Present
Erik Garberg – Present – Zoning Commission
George Thompson – Present – Planning Board
Henry Happel – Present – Planning Board
Chris Mehl – Present – Commission Liaison
B. 06:03:10 PM Changes to the Agenda – no changes to the agenda.
C. Public Comment
06:03:29 PM Blake Maxwell – 516 W. Lamme Street – with regards to the zone map change for Midtown
– states that his home and many others have been there before the rise and fall of North 7th. He states
that rezoning it will take away from the workforce housing in that area.
06:05:50 PM – Vikki – 601 N. Willson – She wanted to reiterate what the previous commenter stated.
She knows she bought in a conservation overlay district, but was not aware of zoning at the time. When
buying her home she bought it for the walk ability to downtown. The area has a mix of single family
homes and duplexes and quads. She does not want to see the density increase, she wants to see the
density decreased. She thinks the board needs to consider the effects of changing the density on the
314
neighborhood.
D. Action Items
1. 06:10:59 PM Text amendments to the Wetlands Review Board and Plan Review
procedures.
A text amendment to amend the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) to revise provisions relating to the
Wetlands Review Board and Plan Review procedures.
06:11:38 PM Tom Rogers begins presentation on Action Item #1 – Text amendments to the Wetlands
Review Board and Plan Review procedures.
Mr. Rogers states that this does not change the way development takes place in wetland areas – it
simply changes the way that Wetlands are reviewed.
Mr. Rogers explains the changes being proposed in Plan Review.
06:18:31 PM Mr. Rogers completes his presentation on Action Item #1.
06:18:48 PM – Questions for staff opened.
06:19:02 PM Paul Spitler questions if there is currently a Wetlands Review Board. Mr. Rogers states that
there was, but it has been dissolved. Mr. Spitler questions if there has been any adverse effects to
removing the board. Mr. Rogers explains that since it has been dissolved there have not been any
projects that would have gone to the board. However, if there were, they would have gone to a
consultant for review. Also, any projects that required Wetlands Review are required to include a
Wetland Re
06:21:31 PM Erik Garberg questions if the text being presented tonight is the same as last time or if it
includes suggestions from the last meeting. Mr. Rogers states that it is the same text, and their official
recommendations from tonight will be incorporated.
06:23:03 PM Commissioner Mehl questions whether a Conceptual Review has to happen before an
Informal Review. Mr. Rogers offers clarification.
06:24:09 PM Open for public comment on Action Item #1.
06:24:42 PM Motion by George Thompson – Having reviewed and considered the application
materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented
in the staff report for application 15320 and move to provisionally adopt Ordinance 1945 to WRB text
amendment
06:25:10 PM Second by Julien Morice
06:25:18 PM Mr. Thompson states he appreciates Paul Spitler’s comments that he is aware that it may
315
be hard to find individuals to staff the Wetlands Review Board, so he supports leaving it to professionals
to review.
06:26:20 PM Julien Morice stated that he thinks the process was redundant and that perhaps the
individuals were not necessarily qualified. This new process will keep individuals more qualified and less
open to opinions from the public for an issue that is more technical and not necessarily something that
should be subjective.
06:26:55 PM Mr. Garberg states that he agrees with Mr. Morice.
06:27:13 PM Board votes unanimously to approve the motion.
06:27:29 PM Motion by Julien Morice – Having reviewed and considered the application materials,
public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff
report for application 15320 and move to provisionally adopt Ordinance 1944 the Plan Review text
amendment.
06:27:49 PM Second by George Thompson
06:28:00 PM Mr. Garberg states that he received public comment that feedback from staff to applicants
should be directly tied to code, and thinks that it should be included in the motion
06:28:21 PM Mr. Morice agrees that it is a good point.
06:29:07 PM Mr. Garberg moves to amend the motion to include that staff should include language
within the site plan revision process that ties comments back to specific code elements.
Second by Julien Morice
06:29:38 PM Board unanimously approves the amendment.
Clarification by the board on the original motion and the amendment.
Discussion between Erik Garberg and Chris Mehl regarding the amendment to the motion.
06:34:00 PM Board re-votes unanimously to approve the motion.
2. 06:34:43 PM Midtown Text Amendment, Entryway Corridor text amendment, and
Midtown Zone Map Amendment.
A text amendment to amend the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) to create new zoning districts to
implement the Midtown/North 7th Avenue Corridors plans, amend the City zoning map, and modify the
Entryway Corridors. Application 15-320.
Tom Rogers begins presentation on Action Item #2 – Midtown Text Amendment, and Midtown Zone
Map Amendment.
Mr. Rogers discusses the proposed zoning for the North 7th/Midtown area and intersection with the
316
Historic Overlay District.
06:42:25 PM Mr. Rogers discusses the block frontage proposal and the proposed block frontages on a
map. The three block frontages are storefront, landscape and mixed. He provides examples of each.
06:47:26 PM Mr. Rogers discusses parking – location of parking and amount of parking required. He
states the code decreases the required parking in residential and the parking incentives for commercial
properties in the area.
06:48:52 PM Mr. Rogers discusses changes in building height – and that increases in height require step
backs.
06:49:37 PM Mr. Rogers discusses changes to density with the new zoning codes being proposed.
06:50:18 PM Mr. Rogers discusses that block frontages for each block can be changed by suggestion
from the community.
Mr. Pape enters the meeting.
06:51:41 PM Mr. Rogers completes his presentation and opens to questions for staff.
06:52:35 PM Mr. Pape states that the DOP and NCOD will stay in effect until this plan goes into effect.
He questions if this change is approved, will it retire the DOP and NCOD. Mr. Rogers explains in detail.
06:54:21 PM Mr. Spitler questions the pocket of B-3 and why it is there. Mr. Rogers explains in detail
that it is a portion of the downtown area, so they are keeping the zoning consistent.
06:55:39 PM Mr. Thompson questions the landscaped frontages for residential areas. He feels the
landscape frontage is to maintain the character of the residential areas. He is concerned about the roof
height of 45-55’ for the landscaped areas. He questions how this works. Mr. Rogers states that it is a
greater intensification. He responds in detail what the goals of infill is for the City of Bozeman.
06:58:20 PM Mr. Neubauer questions the parking regulations being proposed and whether the parking
regulations will be prohibitive. Mr. Rogers responds in detail about the goals with the new parking
regulations being proposed. There is a community goal to decrease the dependence on the automobile.
Mr. Neubauer states that he thinks the changes are good and that community members should see that
there is a lot of positive investment going into this area.
07:02:28 PM Mr. Zignego recommends that Mr. Rogers presents examples of what the goal of 8 dwelling
units per acre looks like. Mr. Rogers offered more information and states that essentially it looks more
like townhomes. Mr. Zignego states that he feels that perhaps density should be higher than the 8 units
per acres and that the building height limits should be higher.
07:07:06 PM Mr. Spitler questions if the goal of Midtown is make it look more like downtown. Mr.
317
Rogers explains in more detail what the goals are.
07:08:50 PM Mr. Rogers begins presentation on the Action Item #2 - Entryway Corridor.
07:11:36 PM Mr. Rogers completes presentation – No Questions for staff.
07:12:04 PM Public Comment – John How – KLJ – He states that he is working with two property owners
in the area. He feels Tom Rogers has done a good job with Makers and the Economic Development
team. He wanted to raise a few things that may need to be fixed. He feels that Chapter 44 suggests
encouraging more walkability – and that the reductions in parking are not enough yet. He feels there
should be more reduced parking. He feels that there needs to be some clarification on residential on
ground floor. He thinks that there should be an option for cash-in-lieu of parkland in that area. He likes
the step back for commercial store front properties. However, if your building is set back already, there
should not be that step back.
07:16:57 PM Motion by Dan Stevenson having reviewed and considered the application materials,
public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff
report for application 15320 and move to provisionally adopt Ordinance 1942 to create the R-5
(Residential High Density Mixed District) and B-2M (Community Business Mixed District) text
amendment.
07:18:22 PM Second by George Thompson
07:18:31 PM Mr. Stevenson states that he feels the plan is very well thought out and that there are a
number of opportunities for the community and ability to promote non-vehicular traffic. He feels it will
be beneficial to the surrounding community on property value. He agrees that 55’ is a great height, and
agrees that perhaps we should go a little higher.
07:19:44 PM Mr. Morice states that he agrees that any relaxation to parking would be the biggest
impact on getting commercial in that area. He agrees with the comment about having the option for
cash-in-lieu of parkland. He would like to see a plan for bikes and trails and pedestrian connectivity.
07:22:14 PM Mr. Garberg states that he is torn on the proposal. He’s concerned it does not go far
enough and that we have been tacit on parking. He questions the TIF’s position on the proposal.
David Fine states that the TIF board has not commented on this, but has had an opportunity to
comment along the way in a public form.
Mr. Garberg states that some issues hinge on phase 2. He will probably vote in favor, but hopes to go
further.
07:24:01 PM Mr. Thompson states that with respect to R5 and roof height – with a small low rise
neighborhood abutting. He states that this is a long process. The growth will happen over time and
happen within context. He expresses that the issues with parking for Bozeman is that individuals have
boats and trailers – that perhaps we need to look to store those items in other places. Mr. Thompson
318
questions the park requirements – and thinks we need to look into the affordability of adding the
parkland and that there’s only so much money that can go into the local park.
07:27:13 PM Mr. Pape states that we should interact with the undeveloped properties. Simply creating
policy will not change those undeveloped withholdings. He also feels we need to be proactive about
creating parking in advance.
07:30:34 PM Mr. Garberg adds that one does not necessarily have to come before the other.
07:31:12 PM Zoning Commission votes to approve – 4-1
In favor: Erik Garberg, George Thompson, Jordon Zignego and Dan Stevenson
Against: Julien Morice
07:31:44 PM George Thompson moves: Having reviewed and considered the application materials,
public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff
report for application 15320 and move to provisionally adopt Ordinance 1943 to Midtown zone map
amendment.
Mr. Pape leaves the meeting.
07:32:05 PM Second by Dan Stevenson
07:32:41 PM Zoning Commission approves the motion – 4-1
In favor: Erik Garberg, George Thompson, Jordon Zignego and Dan Stevenson
Against: Julien Morice
07:32:58 PM Discussion among board regarding whether or not Julien Morice can abstain from voting.
Decision by Julien Morice was to vote nay to the two motions. He expresses concerns with the proposal
for parkland, setbacks, building height, parking, etc. He would like additional discussion on the proposal.
(change in vote has been reflected in the minutes – originally he abstained from voting)
07:38:31 PM Dan Stevenson moves: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public
comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report
for application 15320 and move to provisionally adopt Ordinance 1946 modifying the N 7th Entryway
Corridor classification.
07:38:54 PM Second by Julien Morice
07:39:17 PM Board unanimously approves
07:39:41 PM E. Close meeting of the Zoning Commission. Planning Board takes a recess.
319
07:47:09 PM Meeting of the Planning Board brought back to order and roll call.
Jerry Pape reenters the meeting.
07:48:09 PM Mr. Thompson calls for any public comment – no public comment.
1. 07:48:35 PM Elect Officers for the Planning Board
07:48:50 PM Mr. Neubaurer states that he would like to be the Board Chair.
07:49:19 PM Mr. Pape states that he appreciates Mr. Thompson being the board chair and that Mr.
Neubauer taking on the role.
07:49:46 PM Mr. Pape moves to elect new officers.
07:49:59 PM Mr. Zignego moves to elect Mr. Neubauer as the board chair.
07:50:07 PM Mr. Happel Seconds.
07:50:15 PM Board Unanimously approves Paul Neubauer as the Board Chair.
07:50:30 PM Mr. Neubauer questions if anyone would like to be the Vice Chair – Mr. Neubauer moves
to elect George Thompson as Vice Chair
07:50:56 PM Mr. Happel seconds.
07:51:25 PM Board unanimously approves George Thompson as the board Vice Chair.
07:52:12 PM Mr. Pape states that he thinks the board should gauge what people from the community
are here for, and to adjust the agenda as they see fit – not just for this meeting, but for future meetings
with a lot of public attendance.
Board discussion over how to itemize the agenda – agreement to keep the agenda as it is for this
meeting.
2. 07:54:20 PM Four Points Phase II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat, Application 15526
Four Points Phase II Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat application to allow the subdivision of two lots of
approximately 36.1 acres into twelve lots for multi-household development, one parkland corridor lot
and associated streets and infrastructure southwest of the intersection of Davis Lane and Cattail Street,
Application 15526
07:54:28 PM Brian Kreuger begins presentation of the Four Points Phase II project.
Presents the layout of the project, discusses wetlands and park space and public comment received. In
addition he discusses the feedback from the Development Review Committee. The staff recommends
320
approval of the project.
08:07:04 PM Open for questions for staff.
08:07:30 PM Mr. Spitler questions how the application got to this stage. Mr. Kreuger explains in detail
the history of this particular area and the proposal for this project and the steps following the approval
of this application.
Further discussion between Mr. Kreuger and Mr. Spitler about what they are voting on within the
context of this application.
08:12:19 PM Mr. Spitler questions on where the Wetlands information came from. Mr. Kreuger
responds in detail.
08:13:33 PM Mr. Spitler questions the deed restrictions placed on the Wetlands. Mr. Kreuger responds.
Mr. Spitler rephrases the question with regards to the Wetlands – he questions the protection of the
wetlands if there is an opportunity for home owners to change them. Conversation between Mr. Spitler
and Mr. Kreuger continue conversation about restrictions on the wetlands.
08:16:45 PM Mr. Thompson questions the lighting requirements. Mr. Kreuger clarifies the lighting
requirements – that currently there is no requirement for LED’s by the city, so it was recommended by
the commission to include that as a condition on all applications.
08:17:54 PM Mr. Thompson questions if there are any other public accesses to the wetlands. Mr.
Kreuger indicates where another shared use path in the area is and possible future access.
08:21:34 PM Mr. Happel questions the R4 zoning and developable land, he questions how many units
they are looking to build. Mr. Kreuger stated he will defer the question to the applicant, but that
typically density is driven by parking.
08:22:36 PM Ms. Dugan requests more information on the Kimberwickee/Davis intersection. Mr.
Kreuger explains that Kimberwickee must be developed before further development can take place.
08:23:38 PM Mr. Budeski begins applicant presentation on the Four Points project. He states that they
agree with the conditions of approval in general.
08:24:55 PM Mr. Budeski opens up to questions from the board. Board chair recommends that he
address the density question previously presented.
08:25:08 PM Mr. Budeski states that it’s hard to determine at this time. He states it is 52 acres (phase 1
and phase 2) and when the project is complete, that there will be a combination of apartments, condos,
etc. There will be a total of about 400 units between the two phases.
08:26:36 PM Mr. Thompson states that there is a lift station being proposed, he questions about the
noise associated with that for adjoining properties. Mr. Budeski states that it is underground and should
321
not
08:27:44 PM Mr. Spitler re-questions the wetlands and whether Mr. Budeski is comfortable putting
more stringent guide lines on what can be done to them.
08:28:42 PM Discussion between Mr. Budeski and Mr. Spitler about what may or may not happen with
regards to wetlands
08:29:18 PM Mr. Pape states that this is an innovative way to use this property with three wetlands.
08:30:07 PM Mr. Budeski questions the impact on the wetlands. He states that was mitigated with the
first Phase.
08:30:38 PM Mr. Mehl questions which conditions Mr. Budeski will contest. Mr. Budeski clarifies his
concerns with regards to trail construction.
08:31:18 PM Mr. Neubauer states that he likes this project and thinks it’s a good place for density and
accommodates the wetlands. He states that infrastructure improvements will rely on SID’s. He thinks
the way that infrastructure improvements are financed is backwards. He is not comfortable with a new
homeowner being hit with an SID within the first few years. He feels that new homeowners should be
immune to SID’s within the first 5 years. New development should not be hit with SID’s. He states that
he will vote against this project simply because he does not agree with the roads being underdeveloped
and then being developed and putting that cost on the home owner.
08:34:16 PM Mr. Budeski states to some extent he agrees. The streets are not being developed with
complete roads – even though they are paying full price for the land
08:36:03 PM Mr. Budeski states there was a questions about street lights – he states that there is only
one additional street light and it will match existing street lights.
08:36:45 PM Public Comment – Rob Pritzborn expresses interest with connecting the trail from this site
to the trails in the Cattail subdivision as well.
Mr. Thompson moves: having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment,
and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application
15526 and move to recommend approval of the preliminary plat with conditions and subject to all
applicable code provisions.
08:38:35 PM Second by Mr. Pape
08:38:41 PM Mr. Thompson states he likes the development of this awkward parcel. He agrees with Mr.
Neubauer’s concerns with the SID’s and things the board should address that in the future.
08:39:53 PM Mr. Pape states that as a realtor, they often try to determine if there will be an SID, but
they are hard to determine the cost of them. It’s important to disclose to the homeowner. He feels that
322
the city should provide
08:41:36 PM Mr. Spitler agrees that the design is great and has interest in preserving the wetlands and
thinks this is being done. He does think there should be tightening up of the deed restrictions. Board
08:43:08 PM Mr. Neubauer states that he does like this project and does not want to derail it for his
reasons – he just has a history of voting against these large projects with possible SID’s and wants to
keep bringing that to attention.
08:43:51 PM Board approves the motion – 8-1
Against – Mr. Neubaurer
In favor – George Thompson, Henry Happel, Jerry Pape, Jordan Zignego, Brianne Dugan, Paul Spitler,
Lauren Waterton, Dan Stevenson
08:44:33 PM Board Recesses between projects.
08:51:22 PM Meeting brought back to order.
3. 08:51:35 PM Pine Meadow Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application. 16041
A Preliminary Plat Application to subdivide 4.104 acres into 18 single household residential lots, one (1)
common open space lot, and one (1) park with the extension of West Villard Street and improvements
to Valley Drive.
Mr. Rogers begins presentation on the Pine Meadows Major Subdivision. He states he will keep his
comments to the purview of the planning board.
Mr. Rogers states that the property has been annexed and the new owner is looking to develop it.
08:53:28 PM Mr. Rogers discusses access of the property.
Mr. Rogers states that the development is meeting minimum density. Reducing density will not meet
density standards. Mr. Rogers displays the proposed layout of the lots. Mr. Rogers indicates that there is
currently a home on one of the lots that can maintain its large lot.
08:57:08 PM Mr. Rogers displays the park plan. They are just shy of their park land and have proposed
improvements to the park to bring it above city standards.
08:58:42 PM Mr. Rogers discusses the criteria that the project is ranked against.
Mr. Rogers discusses density in surrounding areas to provide context for the proposed density of the
project.
09:03:50 PM Mr. Rogers completes presentation and opens it up to questions for staff.
09:03:57 PM Mr. Spitler questions why it is zoned R1 vs. R3 or R4. Mr. Rogers states that the
323
neighborhood requested a lower zoning classification and the city commission approved that.
09:05:08 PM Mr. Thompson questions how water and sewage will be addressed with the adjacent
county property. Mr. Rogers states that there will be a new water and sewer line developed that will
connect to city services. Mr. Thompson questions if the county properties would be able to connect to
the city services. Mr. Rogers explains that they would have to go through the annexation process, but
yes, it would be an option.
09:06:33 PM Mr. Thompson questions the basketball court and it being a public nuisance – and whether
there will be time limits. Mr. Rogers responds that there will not be lights, so it would be limited to day
light hours by default.
09:07:10 PM Commissioner Mehl questions whether Mr. Rogers agrees with the park proposal. Mr.
Rogers states that he does agree with it. Mr. Mehl questions whether they should instead request cash-
in-lieu and if this is the best thing for the residents. Mr. Rogers responds that the improvements are a
significantly higher than the cost cash-in-lieu value so, it does appear to be the best value for the
residents.
09:09:16 PM Presentation by the applicant – Rob Pertsborn – applicant begins the presentation.
09:10:01 PM Questions for the applicant – Mr. Neubauer indicates that the properties in downtown are
this size, even though people are concerned this will look squished together. He questions an alley
access to access the back of the properties. Applicant responds that that is open ended.
09:11:50 PM Mr Neubauer questions if there is a benefit to putting in water tie ins in advance for county
properties that border the properties. Applicant responds they do plan to put the tie in there for future
possible access.
09:12:43 PM Mr. Thompson questions how the applicant see the homes being constructed on the lot.
Applicant responds that he is not sure how they will develop.
09:13:55 PM Cindy Kindschi – 505 Valley Drive – Ms. Kindschi states that the proposal is not consistent
and harmonious with the existing character of their neighborhood. She thought the covenants would
protect their homes in the future. She is requesting that the developer not be required to develop to the
city minimum and instead go from 18 lots to 12.
09:17:29 PM Carolyn Powel – 315 Valley Drive – She states they built their home in 1984. She said she
bought their homes here because of the covenants – single family homes on ½ acre lots. She feels it is
the boards responsibility to maintain the covenants
09:21:54 PM Gil Stober – 305 Valley Drive – He is opposed to the development that is taking place – they
were aware that development was taking place eventually, but not to this scale. If the development
takes place, then the homeowner will face a lawsuit for breaking the covenants. He is OK with
development taking place, he just feels it should be reduced to be harmonious that is being proposed.
This would also allow for the setbacks required by the covenants to be honored. He expresses his
324
distaste with the way that he was approached by the property owner about his needing to be annexed
into the city.
09:27:03 PM Garrett Smith – 777 East Main – on behalf of William Christian Howard – States that the
City is not accountable for his being satisfied, as he is not a City resident, but they would be held
accountable if they continue to pursue this development against the covenants.
09:29:07 PM Greg Kindschi - 505 Valley Drive – States that his home is directly across the street from the
development. He is not against the development, but is against the 18 homes being across the street
from their 8 homes. The lot sizes does not allow for attractive homes being built. He disapproves of the
unfinished road on the county side which will lead to flooding. The paved road needs to be completed at
the time of development. He suggests 12 acres on this property, not the proposed 18.
09:31:45 PM Eric Staker – 549 Valley Drive – He agrees it’s an overdevelopment for this piece of
property and he disagrees with the unfinished road. He said he has only been in the home for 7 months,
but bought the home for the areas look and feel. He said that there would not be a smooth transition
from one property to another to have one side clustered and the other side more spread out.
09:33:38 PM Rachel Sive – 535 Valley Drive – She requests we grant the developer a variance for larger
lots and that the covenants be respected. She said that she hopes the City recognizes the absurdity of
only installing gutters on one side of the road. She states in terms of annexation that it is simply not
affordable. She also states she was told that the water and sewer tie ins would not be installed in
advance, so there needs to be some clarification there.
09:36:04 PM 301 Valley Drive – States that this is not a meeting about annexation, but that there are
concerns about annexation costs. Their septic is failing and he is aware that they will need to eventually
tie in to city services. He states that the cost for tying in would be too high for it to be affordable. The
City needs to find a way to make it more affordable.
09:37:41 PM Patrice Burr – 301 Valley Drive – She spoke with regards to annexation – the cost is too
high for them to annex and hopes that the City finds a solution for that.
09:39:00 PM Jecyn Bremer - 777 East Main Street – States that the 18 lots are part of the neighborhood,
it would not be a new neighborhood. She states that there would be an issue with the covenants. She
states that the covenants run with the land and developer has proposed more lots than would be
allowed. The neighbors requested to reduce the number of lots. She stated that the city can enforce
covenants if they chose to. The neighbors want assurance that the development won’t impact their
homes.
09:43:11 PM Applicant response – Applicant responds to the comments from the public. He states he
does not plan to pursue a variance and listed reasons why.
09:44:56 PM Matt Meghee from TDH engineering discusses drainage. States that he is aware drainage
could be an issue and they are working on a plan that will work for the site.
325
09:45:31 PM Mr. Pape questions the applicant reducing the number of lots. Applicant responds that the
minimu
09:46:55 PM Mr. Spitler had a question for staff. Will finish with questions for applicant first.
Mr. Happel questions if he can question the attorney for the homeowners. Commissioner Mehl states
that is not permitted.
09:48:14 PM Mr. Neubauer questions why they chose to do parkland as they did. Applicant responds in
detail.
09:49:32 PM Mr. Spitler asks Mr. Rogers to expand on the covenants and the road design. Mr. Rogers
explains that the city does not enforce covenants on private lands. The City is required to meet the
design standards outlined in their design guidelines, anything beyond that is the property owner’s
responsibility. He states that the covenants were designed a long time ago under a different context. He
states also that the city has certain cross sections for road, and that the engineer is working with the City
to ensure that the design has no impact on the current home owners.
09:51:44 PM Mr. Happel questions if Mr. Rogers is familiar with the covenants. Mr. Rogers states that he
has read the covenants. Mr. Happel states that his understanding of the covenants is that there is
nothing limiting them to ½ an acre. Mr. Rogers agrees that there is nothing outright requiring those lot
sizes. Mr. Happel states that the covenants simply state that it needs to be harmonious.
Discussion continues between Mr. Rogers and Mr. Happel regarding what is required by the covenants.
Mr. Rogers states that the discussion is starting to move away from the purview of the Planning Board.
Mr. Happel questions if there was ever a discussion about adding an alley. Mr. Rogers responds that
there was awhile ago, but that would have been a discussion/agreement with the lot behind where the
new sites are (to the east) and that application has already been submitted and the site is being
developed.
09:56:04 PM Lauren Waterton questions if there are times where only half a street is developed. Mr
Rogers responds that he is not aware of any examples.
09:57:25 PM Commissioner Mehl states that it is rare, but it has happened.
09:57:38 PM Ms. Waterton questions if the board will see the proposed plan for the road or if that will
be left to the city to review. Mr. Rogers states that it is an engineer’s job to propose a plan, and that
storm water will be managed in some fashion.
09:58:51 PM George Thompson moves – Having reviewed and considered the application materials,
public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff
report for application 16041 and move to approve the Pine Meadows Park Plan, improvements in-lieu
with conditions and subject to all applicable code provisions.
326
09:59:50 PM Second by Jerry Pape
09:59:58 PM Mr. Thompson states that having been involved in the development of other properties in
the area, he does not see a problem with the proposal.
10:00:46 PM Mr. Neubauer states there is still a demand for parkland, even though those homes on
Michael Grove have less parkland. That should not be a reason to reduce parkland.
10:01:30 PM Mr. Pape states that he supports improvements in lieu of parkland instead of cash in lieu.
10:02:07 PM Board approves the motion – 8-1
Against – Mr. Neubaurer
In favor – George Thompson, Henry Happel, Jerry Pape, Jordan Zignego, Brianne Dugan, Paul Spitler,
Lauren Waterton, Dan Stevenson
10:02:34 PM Mr Happel moves – Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public
comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report
for application 16041 and move to approve the Pine Meadows Major Subdivision with conditions and
subject to all applicable code provisions.
Mr. Thompson seconds.
10:03:07 PM Mr. Happel states that he appreciates the property owners coming in and expressing their
views. His personal view is that they will find the development a lot less aversive than they think. He
states a lot of properties down near the university have different development across the street and he
doesn’t feel it adversely affects the homes on the other side of the street. He feels it is consistent with
the city growth plan and with the development surrounding. He is optimistic that what develops there
will be favorable.
10:05:19 PM Mr. Thompson states he understands the concerns presented. He states that the home
owners’ current street is inadequate and will benefit from the street improvements that have been
proposed. He states that the cost of annexation and tying in to city services is something that
homeowners have always had to absorb – as discussed previously with regards to the SID’s.
10:07:21 PM Mr. Neubaurer extends the meeting to 10:30
10:07:40 PM Mr Neubauer questions what the side boundary setbacks would be if they had to build to
city standards. Mr. Rogers responds it is 5’. Mr. Neubauer speaks to the public that these could be nice
homes on nice lots. He also states that if they get the road built to city standards, then it could work out
favorably for them.
10:10:12 PM Commissioner Mehl states that the city changed the zoning to R-1 by their request. In
theory, it is being built to their requested density – while still building to city requirements. With regards
to street design, it is required for the applicant to propose a plan and it needs to be approved by a city
327
engineer. He states that if the homeowners are interested in installing gutters, that the homeowners
can do that. He states that historically, roads are being developed at the expense of homeowners. He
states that he will not require them to install gutters, because they are not city residents, but if they
want it they can install them. Otherwise, the City will address flooding when developing.
10:14:36 PM Mr. Pape states that this neighborhood has felt the press from the City from some time
now. He said that the neighbors are requesting relief from an institution does not represent them. As a
board member, they are expected to act on behalf of the city – his role as county representative is to
acknowledge the interface between county and City. He states he has encouraged the homeowners to
form a Neighborhood Association and they could have made annexation more affordable so that they
would have an equal voice with the people across the street. Mr. Pape states that could have formed a
HOA and annexed together with an immediate SID to cover annexation costs. He states that the
property owner has the right to develop his property. Mr. Pape said that he has driven own Valley Drive
and seen the muddy mess it can be. He states that he feels a reserve should be kept on behalf of the
builder that if the development affects the water quality, etc. that the City could remedy the situation.
He also states that there could be an increase in property value if the site was developed on larger lots.
He suggests that the City Commission should heavily consider larger lots – 12 lots vs the 18 lots
proposed.
Mr. Neubauer requests that Jerry Pape state his unfriendly amendment.
10:21:03 PM Mr. Pape moves that the city commission seriously consider reducing the density in this
area by reducing the number of lots from 18 to 12.
Ms. Waterton seconds
Jerry Pape speaks to his amendment – he feels that the board needs to adhere to the code, but that the
City Commission can stray from the code and he feels this may be a time when the commission should
consider straying from the code.
Ms. Dugan clarifies what the amendment would imply.
10:24:43 PM Mr. Spitler states that he is sensitive to the requests of the public, but that he doesn’t feel
that the density proposed would not be harmonious to the neighborhood. He supports the reasons the
City is encouraging higher density. He also doesn’t think the applicant wants to reduce the number of
lots.
10:25:43 PM Ms. Waterton states that the infill developments are different from expansion, but that the
code does not differentiate them. She is sympathetic to the requests of the public as the City has grown
out to them. She states that the applicant did not request a variance, so she doesn’t support sending
that to the commission.
10:27:21 PM Mr. Thompson states that he agrees with Ms. Waterton, as it’s not something the applicant
has explored. He encourages the homeowners to get together and form an HOA as suggested by Mr.
328
Pape.
10:28:51 PM Board votes against the motion – 8-1
Against – Mr. Neubaurer, George Thompson, Henry Happel, Jordan Zignego, Brianne Dugan, Paul
Spitler, Lauren Waterton, Dan Stevenson
In favor –Jerry Pape
10:29:13 PM Mr. Pape retracts his second amendment.
Board discusses further the water quality and flooding issues.
Board goes back to the original motion to approve the application.
10:32:16 PM Mr. Spitler states he is concerned about the runoff, but is comforted that the street design
would not allow any additional runoff.
10:32:56 PM Board approves the original motion – 8-1
In favor – Mr. Neubaurer, George Thompson, Henry Happel, Jordan Zignego, Brianne Dugan, Paul
Spitler, Lauren Waterton, Dan Stevenson
Against –Jerry Pape
E. 10:33:22 PM FYI/Discussion – Commissioner Mehl states that the City, county and
Belgrade have agreed to create a joint board and that this board needs to appoint someone.
F. 10:34:08 PM Adjournment
For more information please contact Alicia Kennedy at akennedy@bozeman.net
This board generally meets the first and third Tuesday of the month at 7:00pm
Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require
assistance, please contact our Interim ADA coordinator, Chuck Winn at 582-2307 (TDD 582-2301).
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419