HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-03-17 City Commission Packet Materials - A1. Black Olive Site PlanPage 1 of 33
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report
Date: City Commission, April 3, 2017.
Project Description: A site plan and certificate of appropriateness application for the demolition of the existing office building and the construction of a 56 unit apartment building and related site improvements that includes: 16 studio apartments, 24 one bedroom apartments, 16 two bedroom apartments, 37 parking spaces, 4 carshare vehicles. 800 square feet of commercial space is proposed on the ground floor.
Project Location: The site is located at 202 South Black Avenue. The legal description is attached to the staff report due to size. The lots combined contain a total of .4407 acres.
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness: 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 16432 and move to approve the Black Olive Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness application subject to conditions and all applicable code provisions.
Report Date: March 23, 2017
Staff Contact: Brian Krueger, Development Review Manager
Executive Summary The property owner/applicant has made application for the demolition of an existing commercial building and the construction of a mixed use building on .44 acres located at the southeast corner of South Black Avenue and East Olive Street. The site is presently developed and includes a two story commercial building that is proposed for demolition. The site is located within the B-3, Central Business District and is located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The site is not within a Historic District. The building proposed for demolition is not historic. For a discussion on the property and its zoning history please see Appendix B. For a discussion on the project background see Appendix C. The proposed five story building includes 56 apartments on floors two through five, the ground floor is composed of 800 square feet of commercial space, a leasing office, a fitness center for the residential units and a 37 space parking garage. Four of the parking spaces are proposed as parking for car share vehicles, each proposed to satisfy the parking requirement for five parking spaces.
129
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 2 of 33 The Commission must consider all the data, information, public comment (written and oral comment), deliberations and recommendations of both the Development Review Committee and the Design Review Board. This application is reviewed against the plan review criteria that apply to all site plan applications and the criteria for a certificate of appropriateness including conformance to the Bozeman Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District due to the project location within an overlay district. Overlay districts require additional design review. An application of this type is under the review authority of the Director of Community Development. On October 24, 2016 the City Commission reclaimed the review authority for the application. The project follows the same process as a project under the review authority of the Director of Community Development. The reclaim process does not change any review criteria or development standard. Under City Commission authority, the final review and approval of the project will occur at a City Commission meeting. Public comment is taken by the City Commission for all action items per Commission rules and procedures. At the discretion of the Community Development Director under the noticing provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC), notice to nearby property owners was completed twice, once in October, 2016 and again in February, 2017 and included posting on site. For summary of noticing see Appendix D. The applicant hosted neighborhood meetings prior to application in order to inform the area residents of their project and to answer questions. The applicant submitted an informal application to the City prior to formal application. A significant amount of written public comment has been received regarding the application. The written public comment received as of the date of this report can be accessed at the following links: 2016: http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/Browse.aspx?dbid=0&startid=104936 2017: http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/Browse.aspx?dbid=0&startid=116648 It is available at the Planning Division in the Community Development Department and City Clerk’s Office. Any comments received following the date of this staff report will be provided to review agencies prior to or at the City Commission public meeting. Public comments that have been received that are not in favor of the project focus on: impacts to the nearby residential neighborhood, mass and scale of the building, character/compatibility, traffic impacts, lack of parking, impacts to on street parking, and compliance with the growth policy. The comments in favor of the project focus on
130
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 3 of 33 infill, residential support for downtown, and the addition of housing options. A majority of the comments are not in favor of the project and do not recommend approval of the application. The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the initial and subsequent revised application materials four times on November 2, 2016, December 4, 2016, January 18, 2017 and February 22, 2017. Based on its evaluation of the application against the criteria, the Development Review Committee (DRC) recommends approval of the application. The Design Review Board (DRB) considered the application two times: November 9, 2016 and March 8, 2017. Following the review and detailed deliberations at both meetings, the Design Review Board action resulted in a unanimous vote on a motion recommending denial of the application to the City Commission. The applicant revised the design of the building following the November, 2016 meeting in order to address the findings of staff and the Board. The staff report provided to the Board for their March, 2017 meeting on the revised design included findings that the project met the applicable criteria and recommended approval of the application. The Board did not concur with staff findings and recommends denial of the application.
Unresolved Issues There are two unresolved issues with the application: 1) the Design Review Board recommendation on the project and 2) the proposed adjustment to the minimum residential parking requirements for car sharing.
Design Review Board recommendation. The first unresolved issue is related to the recommendation of the Design Review Board. The Design Review Board does not find that the application meets the applicable criteria for approval and recommends denial of the application to the City Commission. The Design Review Board is established to evaluate aesthetic considerations of larger and more complex proposals which are likely to produce significant community impact and to provide recommendations regarding such proposals to the review authority. The Design Review Board held a public meeting and considered the application on March 8, 2017. The audio/visual recording and minutes from this meeting can be accessed at the following link: http://media.avcaptureall.com/session.html?sessionid=dfc125e5-7b15-45f7-a444-7781f97f3c0f&prefilter=654,3835. The printed minutes from the meeting are attached to this report. Twenty two people provided public comment in opposition to the application at the meeting. There was one public comment in support of the application.
131
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 4 of 33 Following is a general summary and categorization of DRB comments and findings provided at the meeting in relation to the plan review criteria. Section 38.19.100.A BMC states that in considering applications for plan approval under this chapter (38), the review authority and advisory bodies shall consider the following criteria [38.19.100A.1-22]. Section 38.19.100.A.4.a and b: 4. Relationship of plan elements to conditions both on and off the property, including: a. Compatibility with, and sensitivity to, the immediate environment of the site and the adjacent neighborhoods and other approved development relative to architectural design, building mass and height, neighborhood identity, landscaping, historical character, orientation of buildings on the site and visual integration; b. Design and arrangement of the elements of the plan (e.g., buildings, circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) so that activities are integrated with the organizational scheme of the community, neighborhood, and other approved development and produce an efficient, functionally organized and cohesive development;
Related to this criteria the Board made comments that the mass and scale of the building is inappropriate for the location, that the building does not relate to the neighborhood context, that the building is too big in relation to the site, that the building does not respect the historic district, that the building design is not site responsive, and that the building does not enhance the connection between downtown and the residential neighborhood. The staff findings and the Design Review Board recommendation are not consistent. Both recommendations are forwarded to the City Commission for consideration.
Car sharing requirements. The second unresolved issue relates to the requirements to provide a car sharing agreement in order for the review authority to make an adjustment to the minimum residential parking requirements for the project. The City Commission is the review authority for this project. In the B-3 zoning district, one residential parking space is required per dwelling. The proposed building includes 56 dwelling units. 37 parking spaces are provided within the parking garage of the building on the ground floor. Four of the parking spaces within the garage are provided to accommodate parking for car share vehicles. The code allows adjustments to the minimum residential paring requirements to be granted by the review authority. A car sharing agreement meeting the criteria established by the planning director may be used to meet the required number of parking spaces. This option is only available for projects with more than five dwelling units. Each vehicle provided through a car sharing agreement may count as required parking at a ratio of one dedicated car share space to five standard spaces. Up to 50 percent of the total required residential parking
132
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 5 of 33 may be provide through a car sharing program. The four car share spaces proposed in this project would count towards twenty parking spaces for the building, which is the required parking for twenty dwelling units or 35% of the required residential parking. The parking calculation for the development is proposed as:
Commercial. 800 square feet of commercial space = no required parking with the adjustment to the minimum non residential parking requirement that the first 3,000 gross square feet for non residential uses is not included in the calculation of required parking.
Residential. 56 residential apartment units = 56 required parking spaces. Provided: 33 parking spaces provided in the parking garage; 3 on street parking spaces are provided on East Olive Street; 4 car share spaces are proposed in the parking garage that may count for 20 parking spaces at a ratio of one car share space to five standard parking spaces. The car sharing agreement criteria for this application are established by the Director of Community Development (Planning Director) in Administrative Policy No. 2017-01. The 2017-01 policy was adopted on January 24, 2017 and superseded and modified Administrative Policy No. 2016-01 that was originally approved on September 15, 2016. A copy of Administrative Policy No. 2017-01 is attached to this report. In determining whether to authorize a car sharing program, the review authority must consider the criteria in Administrative Policy No. 2017-01 in order to grant the adjustment to the residential parking requirement. The application provided a car sharing agreement and the required responses. The following items are related to compliance with Administrative Policy No. 2017-01 and are highlighted for the Commission’s consideration. 1. A signed statement recognizing and agreeing that a car share management plan must be approved by the Director of Community Development and in place prior to final approval of the site plan is provided. The application has acknowledged that a final car share management plan must be approved by the Director of Community Development and be in place prior to approval of the site plan. No building permits may be issued until the site plan is approved. The application indicates that they anticipate entering into a contract with a national provider for the car share program. Information from two national car share programs is provided with the application. A draft agreement from one provider related to another project is provided to demonstrate how the national car share parking spaces would be legally located on the project site. The applicant notes that they would not charge the national company to locate car share spaces within the project.
133
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 6 of 33 2. The applicant proposes to contract with a third party to provide car sharing service. The final executed agreement with that company between the property owner and car share provider must be provided prior to the final approval of the site plan and prior to building permit issuance. The vehicles must be in place and available for use at the time of building occupancy. 3. The application states that covenants conditions and restrictions will be used to structure the car sharing program. A draft of the covenants conditions and restrictions for the property that outline how the car sharing will function is provided. This method will bind residents and owners of the property to fund and operate the cars share program for the life the building. The document must be executed and recorded prior to final approval of the car sharing agreement. 4. The application notes two options for the future ownership of the apartment units. The units will be for lease initially, with an option to convert to condominium ownership. The application notes that the initial lease rates for the apartments range from $1,000 for a studio up to $2,000 for a two bedroom unit. The parking spaces located in the parking garage will lease for an additional $75-$100 monthly. Separating the lease cost for the dwelling unit and the parking spaces will allow those residents that want to utilize the car share only and not have a car onsite to have those savings available to pay for the car share. The direct costs of operating a vehicle (fuel, insurance, repair and maintenance) may also be redirected by residents without a car to the apartment unit lease rates to lower their overall cost of living. 5. The application notes that once the car share program is active, that additional individuals may be included in the proposed car sharing program, including surrounding neighbors. 6. The applicant agrees with all other provisions of Administrative Policy No. 2017-which must be incorporated into the final agreement prior to final approval, such as 24/7 availability, insurance, vehicle identification, ongoing dedication of the reserved parking spaces, annual verification and the termination and replacement provisions. The information about the car share and the responses to Administrative Policy No. 2017-01 are provided in order for the Commission to determine if the car sharing program will function to replace the off-street parking for twenty dwelling units. If the Commission does not approve the car sharing program and the allowance of the adjustment to the minimum parking, the project is deficient sixteen parking spaces and does not satisfy the parking requirements of Section 38.25.040.A.1 BMC that require one parking space per dwelling unit in the B-3 district.
134
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 7 of 33 Code provision e. in Section 4 is related to this issue and requires that all items related to the car share program including the approval of the final car sharing agreement must be approved prior to site plan approval and building permit issuance.
Alternatives 1. Approve the application with the report findings and the recommended conditions of approval; 2. Approve the application with modifications to the recommended conditions and/or modifications to the report findings; 3. Deny the application based on the City Commission’s findings of non-compliance with the applicable criteria contained within the staff report; or 4. Open and continue the review on the application with specific direction to staff or the applicant to supply additional information or to address specific items.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1
Unresolved Issues ............................................................................................................... 3
Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 7
SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES .................................................................................................... 8
SECTION 2 - REQUESTED RELAXATION / DEVIATIONS / VARIANCES .................. 11
SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL .................................... 11
SECTION 4 – REQUIRED CODE PROVISIONS ................................................................ 12
SECTION 5 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ........................................................... 13
Applicable Plan Review Criteria, Section 38.19.100, BMC. ............................................ 13
Applicable Design Standards and Guidelines, Section 38.16.050, BMC ......................... 26
APPENDIX A - PROJECT SITE ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY ............................... 26
APPENDIX B – ZONING HISTORY AND B-3 STANDARDS .......................................... 28
APPENDIX C – PROJECT BACKGROUND ....................................................................... 31
APPENDIX D- NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT ..................................................... 32
APPENDIX E - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF ............................ 33
ATTACHMENTS ................................................................................................................... 33
135
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 8 of 33
SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES
136
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 9 of 33
137
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 10 of 33
138
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 11 of 33
SECTION 2 - REQUESTED RELAXATION / DEVIATIONS / VARIANCES a. None.
SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Please note that these conditions are in addition to any required code provisions identified in this report.
Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. 2. Prior to building permit approval the applicant must provide one full size residential window proposed for the building to confirm conformance with the color and materials palette. 3. Prior to building permit approval the applicant must provide one minimum 12” by 12” sample of the full section of storefront glass proposed for the building to confirm conformance with the color and materials palette. 4. Prior to building permit approval the applicant must provide a sample of the decorative metal screen proposed for the parking garage to confirm conformance with the final building elevations.
139
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 12 of 33
SECTION 4 – REQUIRED CODE PROVISIONS a. Section 38.10.050. C BMC Yards. Minimum yards required for the B-3 district. The
project does not meet yard requirements with the underlying lot configurations.
The lots must be aggregated or otherwise configured through the applicable
subdivision exemption review process in order to meet requirements. The final
signed mylars have been provided to our office to satisfy this code requirement.
The amended plat must be filed following the Commission decision and prior to
site plan approval.
b. Section 38.23.060B BMC Easements. Private utility easements. Private utilities include, but are not limited to, natural gas, electricity, telephone, cable and fiber optic lines. The developer shall provide private utility easements necessary to extend private utilities to the development, and to provide for the construction and maintenance of private utilities within the development. Signed utility easements
are provided to accommodate the utility layout. Easements must be filed
following the Commission decision and prior to site plan approval.
c. Section 38.23.070.A.1 BMC The developer shall install complete municipal water and sanitary sewer system facilities, or a system allowed by 38.21.030.D, and may be required by the city to install municipal storm sewer system facilities. These systems shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the state department of environmental quality and the city, and shall conform with any applicable facilities plan. The city's requirements are contained in the Design Standards and Specifications Policy and the City of Bozeman Modifications to Montana Public Works Standard Specifications, and by this reference these standards are incorporated into and made a part of these regulations. The developer shall submit plans and specifications for the proposed facilities to the city and to the state department of environmental quality and shall obtain their approvals prior to commencing construction of any municipal water, sanitary sewer or storm sewer system facilities. The existing sanitary sewer system is not adequate to
accommodate the proposed project. The developer submitted plans indicating
connection of a 6-inch sanitary sewer service to a new 8-inch sanitary sewer
main in Olive Street, which has not yet been constructed. A sanitary sewer main
must be constructed from the location indicated on the plans and in Bozeman
Avenue, which includes 2-1/2 blocks of 8-inch sanitary sewer main, to the
existing 10-inch sanitary sewer main at the intersection of Main Street and
Bozeman Avenue. Per BMC 38.39.030.C, this improvement must be complete
prior to building permit issuance.
140
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 13 of 33 d. Section 38.23.180 BMC The transfer of water rights or the payment of cash-in-lieu (CIL) of water rights shall be provided. Analysis indicates a payment of $35,640 is
due prior to site plan approval.
e. Section 38.25.040.A.1.b(3) BMC Adjustment to Minimum Requirements-Car Sharing. . A car-sharing agreement meeting the criteria established by the planning director may be used to meet the required number of parking spaces. The
Commission must determine if the materials related to a car sharing agreement
meet the criteria established by the planning director in Administrative Policy
No. 2017-01. If approved, the final executed agreements and materials related
to the car share program must be approved and in place prior to site plan
approval. The site plan must be approved prior to building permit issuance. f. Section 38.27.030.A. 3 BMC Cash donation in lieu of land dedication. The city commission has determined that cash-in-lieu of land dedication is the default method to satisfy the requirements of 38.27.020.A within the B-3 zoning district.
Cash in lieu of parkland is proposed. The appraisal was provided and the
amount due approved by staff. A cash in lieu of parkland dedication payment
must be received prior to site plan approval. SECTION 5 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Analysis and resulting recommendations are based on the entirety of the application materials, municipal codes, standards, plans, public comment, and all other materials available during the review period. Collectively this information is the record of the review. The analysis in this report is a summary of the completed review.
Applicable Plan Review Criteria, Section 38.19.100, BMC. In considering applications for plan approval under this title, the advisory boards and City Commission shall consider the following:
1. Conformance to and consistency with the City’s adopted growth policy The project site has a future land use designation of Community Core and a zoning designation of B-3, central business district. The property is served by municipal services. This project is a proposed infill project to add residential housing to support the downtown core of the City. The project is in conformance to and consistent with the City’s adopted growth policy, the Bozeman Community Plan, including the following goals and objectives:
Goal LU-1: Create a sense of place that varies throughout the City, efficiently
provides public and private basic services and facilities in close proximity to where
people live and work, and minimizes sprawl.
141
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 14 of 33 The downtown neighborhood has a distinct sense of place, this project contributes to an existing and expanding vibrant urban center and allows people to live in close proximity to work, public and private basic services and minimizes sprawl.
Objective LU-1.4: Provide for and support infill development and redevelopment
which provides additional density of use while respecting the context of the
existing development which surrounds it. Respect for context does not
automatically prohibit difference in scale or design. This project is infill development and is the redevelopment of an underutilized site that provides additional density of housing in close proximity to the urban core of the City. The building has a larger scale than those seen traditionally, but that scale is allowed and anticipated in the B-3 zoning district, the Downtown Improvement plan subarea plan and the design guidelines that apply to the site.
Goal LU-2: Designate centers for commercial development rather than corridors to
encourage cohesive neighborhood development in conjunction with non-
motorized transportation options. Downtown is the preeminent commercial center for the City. This project provides additional housing density and allows residents to access services and recreation with non motorized transportation options.
Objective LU-2.3: Encourage redevelopment and intensification, especially with
mixed uses, of brownfields and underutilized property within the City consistent
with the City’s adopted standards. This project includes mixed uses and is proposed on underutilized property.
Objective LU-3.2: Encourage the use and redevelopment of underutilized and
brownfield sites to provide employment and housing which will help to maintain
the vibrancy and vitality of the Historic Core area. This project provides new housing to support and help maintain the vibrancy and vitality of the Historic Core area.
Objective LU-3.3: Encourage a traditional mix of diverse commercial and
residential uses within the downtown to instill an active atmosphere and twenty-
four hour presence. This project will increase the number of residential uses downtown to instill an active atmosphere and twenty four hour presence.
Objective LU-3.4: Give particular emphasis to encourage living opportunities
within walking distance of the downtown employment, retail, and neighborhood
services.
142
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 15 of 33 This project will provide living opportunities within walking distance of downtown employment, retail uses, and neighborhood services.
Objective C-1.3: Support compatible infill within the existing area of the City rather
than developing land requiring expansion of the City’s area. This project is compatible with the B-3 zoning district, the downtown neighborhood and is an infill project within the City.
Objective H 1.1 - Encourage and support the creation of a broad range of housing
types in proximity to services and transportation options. This project provides new smaller apartment housing options for singles or couples that do not exist in the housing market today. The location is in proximity to services and transportation options.
Objective E-4.2: Promulgate efficient land use practices. This project promulgates efficient land use practices and provides a high floor area ratio. The project complies with the adopted subarea plan for this area. The site is located within the limits of the study area of the Downtown Improvement Plan, an adopted subarea plan of the Bozeman Community Plan. The proposed project is located in the South Village area of the downtown plan, which is designated for Commercial and Mixed Uses including residential uses. The plan states “The presence of significant housing is the most critical missing piece of Bozeman’s downtown, and for it to be vital and sustainable over time, housing should be developed in great numbers and varieties, at all price points, both rental and for-sale… The very future of downtown is dependent upon the successful development of housing – both for people in the community who wish to stay but downsize, as well as for newcomers.” This project supports dense housing and provides a variety of smaller sized apartments that do not exist in the downtown housing market. The Downtown Improvement Plan indicates that the Downtown District must meet a higher level of design. It states, “Design standards and guidelines should supplement these basic standards and are best written in a way that offers choices and allows for projects that are innovative, creative, and of superior design as individual buildings while also contributing to a cohesive Downtown District.” The project complies with this and the other guiding principles in the Downtown Improvement Plan including:
1. Downtown Bozeman should be the location of buildings of the greatest height
and intensity in the community.
4. The scale and character of the historic core should be protected but other
downtown districts should be able to accommodate contemporary development
of greater height and density.
143
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 16 of 33
8. Housing – for all income levels – should be encouraged by a variety of methods.
9. Sustainable methods and techniques should be applied to infrastructure,
street design and redevelopment to contribute to a healthier and greener
community.
10. New buildings should be designed to the level of permanence and quality
appropriate for a downtown setting. In May of 2015 the City Commission approved new design guidelines for the halo of B-3 zoned properties outside of the B-3 core area that apply to this site in the South Village. The project complies with the guidelines for all properties and those guidelines for B-3 commercial character areas outside of the downtown core area and historic district. The findings in the Section 5 analysis for the Plan Review criteria and the Applicable Design Standards and Guidelines related to Section 38.16.050 below are incorporated by reference into this criterion analysis. DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PLAN SOUTH VILLAGE
N
2. Conformance to this chapter, including the cessation of any current violations There are no current violations existing on the subject property. 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 (BMC) or state law. The project conforms to the chapter referenced in the BMC, Chapter 38.
Project
Location
144
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 17 of 33
3. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations The proposed uses of the site are consistent with the allowed uses of the B-3 district. No specific conflicts have been identified. Additional steps will be required including but not limited to final payment for cash in lieu of water rights, final payment for cash in lieu of parkland, recordation of the amended plat for the reconfiguration of the property, recordation of the utility easements, construction of offsite sewer infrastructure, final implementation and approval of the car share plan, final plan documents and approval and building permits. The Building Division of the Department of Community Development will review the requirements of the International Building Code for compliance at the time of application. Condition of approval 1 requires full compliance with all applicable code requirements.
4. Relationship of site plan elements to conditions both on and off the property The development is compatible with and sensitive to the immediate environment of the site and the adjacent neighborhoods and other approved development relative to, building mass and height, landscaping, orientation of parking and building placement on the site. The building complies with permanence in building materials, building quality, architectural integration, neighborhood identity, and orientation of service areas. The findings in the section analysis for the Applicable Design Standards and Guidelines, Section 38.16.050 below are incorporated by reference into this criterion analysis. The building front is orientated to East Olive Street and South Black Avenue and the building is placed near the minimum setback line. Access to the building is from the adjacent local streets and street fronting sidewalks. The parking is internal to the building and is screened from public view. A mix of uses is provided including residential and commercial. For this plan review criterion the guidelines for All Properties and the B-3 Commercial Areas within the Bozeman Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District provide more granular standards for site plan and building design in this location. Staff finds that the project meets the guidelines for street patterns, streetscape, landscape design, building form solid to void ration, materials, architectural character, parking location, buffers and site lighting. The project is within the zoning envelope for setbacks and height, exceeding yard requirements along the south property line with a ten foot setback provided. The guidelines for the B-3 Commercial Areas within the Bozeman Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District do not have requirements for transitions in height for projects wholly within the area of the B-3 zoning district nor do they require an analysis or guidelines regarding the built environment directly around the project site if within the B-3 district and not abutting another residential zoning
145
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 18 of 33 district. This project is within the limits of the B-3 district, outside of the historic core and does not directly border a residential zoning district.
5. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking
conditions A traffic study was required by the Engineering Division for this project due to its proposed uses and the increase in trip generation anticipated. The study analyzed the adequacy of the existing street network to accommodate the increased traffic generation. No offsite improvements to the existing network were identified. Onsite parking is provided for 37 parking spaces. Four of those are carshare vehicle parking spaces, each proposed to satisfy the requirement for five parking spaces. Three parking spaces are proposed on street. The parking complies with dimensional standards as configured. The total amount of carshare spaces proposed in lieu of twenty parking spaces and the proposed carshare program is required to be considered and approved by the City Commission during the final review and decision of the project. A majority of the public comments note a concern with the project not providing adequate off street parking. The parking required for the project may only be met with review authority approval of a car sharing agreement satisfying the criteria outlined by the Director of Community Development in Administrative Policy No. 2017-01. The materials provided by the application regarding car sharing include a Car Share Agreement and Commitment and Car Management plan from March 2017, a letter dated February 13, 2017 outlining that applicant’s intent to comply with Administrative Policy No. 2017-01 and brief responses on how the project will comply, information from two national car share providers, a draft example parking agreement from a national car share company and a memorandum from Rick Williams dated February 9, 2017 that discusses car sharing. The City Commission is the review authority for this project. In the B-3 zoning district, one residential parking space is required per dwelling. The proposed building includes 56 dwelling units. 37 parking spaces are provided within the parking garage of the building on the ground floor. Four of the parking spaces within the garage are provided to accommodate parking for car share vehicles. The code allows adjustments to the minimum residential paring requirements to be granted by the review authority. A car sharing agreement meeting the criteria established by the planning director may be used to meet the required number of parking spaces. This option is only available for projects with more than five dwelling units. Each vehicle provided through a car sharing agreement may count as required parking at a ratio of one dedicated car share space to five standard spaces. Up to 50 percent of the total required residential parking may be provide
146
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 19 of 33 through a car sharing program. The four car share spaces proposed in this project would count towards twenty parking spaces for the building, which is the required parking for twenty dwelling units or 35% of the required residential parking. The parking calculation for the development is proposed as:
Commercial. 800 square feet of commercial space = no required parking with the adjustment to the minimum non residential parking requirement that the first 3,000 gross square feet for non residential uses is not included in the calculation of required parking.
Residential. 56 residential apartment units = 56 required parking spaces. Provided: 33 parking spaces provided in the parking garage; 3 on street parking spaces are provided on East Olive Street; 4 car share spaces are proposed in the parking garage that may count for 20 parking spaces at a ratio of one car share space to five standard parking spaces. The car sharing agreement criteria for this application are established by the Director of Community Development (Planning Director) in Administrative Policy No. 2017-01. The 2017-01 policy was adopted on January 24, 2017 and superseded and modified Administrative Policy No. 2016-01 that was originally approved on September 15, 2016. A copy of Administrative Policy No. 2017-01 is attached to this report. In determining whether to authorize a car sharing program, the review authority must consider the criteria in Administrative Policy No. 2017-01 in order to grant the adjustment to the residential parking requirement. The application provided a car sharing agreement and the required responses. The following items are related to compliance with Administrative Policy No. 2017-01 and are highlighted for the Commission’s consideration. 1. A signed statement recognizing and agreeing that a car share management plan must be approved by the Director of Community Development and in place prior to final approval of the site plan is provided. The application has acknowledged that a final car share management plan must be approved by the Director of Community Development and be in place prior to approval of the site plan. No building permits may be issued until the site plan is approved. The application indicates that they anticipate entering into a contract with a national provider for the car share program. Information from two national car share programs is provided with the application. A draft agreement from one provider related to another project is provided to demonstrate how the national car share parking spaces would be legally located on the project site. The applicant notes that they
147
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 20 of 33 would not charge the national company to locate car share spaces within the project. 2. The applicant proposes to contract with a third party to provide car sharing service. The final executed agreement with that company between the property owner and car share provider must be provided prior to the final approval of the site plan and prior to building permit issuance. The vehicles must be in place and available for use at the time of building occupancy. 3. The application states that covenants conditions and restrictions will be used to structure the car sharing program. A draft of the covenants conditions and restrictions for the property that outline how the car sharing will function is provided. This method will bind residents and owners of the property to fund and operate the cars share program for the life the building. The document must be executed and recorded prior to final approval of the car sharing agreement. 4. The application notes two options for the future ownership of the apartment units. The units will be for lease initially, with an option to convert to condominium ownership. The application notes that the initial lease rates for the apartments range from $1,000 for a studio up to $2,000 for a two bedroom unit. The parking spaces located in the parking garage will lease for an additional $75-$100 monthly. Separating the lease cost for the dwelling unit and the parking spaces will allow those residents that want to utilize the car share only and not have a car onsite to have those savings available to pay for the car share. The direct costs of operating a vehicle (fuel, insurance, repair and maintenance) may also be redirected by residents without a car to the apartment unit lease rates to lower their overall cost of living. 5. The application notes that once the car share program is active, that additional individuals may be included in the proposed car sharing program, including surrounding neighbors. 6. The applicant agrees with all other provisions of Administrative Policy No. 2017-which must be incorporated into the final agreement prior to final approval, such as 24/7 availability, insurance, vehicle identification, ongoing dedication of the reserved parking spaces, annual verification and the termination and replacement provisions. The information about the car share and the responses to Administrative Policy No. 2017-01 are provided in order for the Commission to determine if the car sharing program will function to replace the off-street parking for twenty dwelling units. If the Commission does not approve the car sharing program and the allowance of the adjustment to the minimum parking, the project is deficient sixteen parking spaces and does not satisfy the parking requirements of Section 38.25.040.A.1 BMC that require one parking space per dwelling unit in the B-3 district.
148
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 21 of 33 Code provision e. in Section 4 is related to this issue and requires that all items related to the car share program including the approval of the final car sharing agreement must be approved prior to site plan approval and building permit issuance.
6. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress Pedestrian access is provided by multiple access locations on both South Black Avenue and East Olive Street. The proposed street frontage sidewalks conform to code requirements. Adequate pedestrian ingress and egress is provided. One vehicular access location is proposed to the parking garage from East Olive Street. The vehicular access complies with code requirements.
7. Landscaping, including the enhancement of buildings, the appearance of
vehicular use, open space, and pedestrian areas, and the preservation or
replacement of natural vegetation The yards are landscaped per code requirements. Foundation landscaping is provided along the front elevation along South Black Avenue. The ten foot yard provided between the building and south property line is landscaped in conformance to requirements. Street frontage landscaping complies with requirements. Tree protection is proposed during construction. All existing street trees are proposed to be retained. Four trees interior to the lot are proposed for removal. Irrigation for new plantings is proposed, in part, to be provided by collected stormwater on site.
8. Open space. Residential open space is provided per code requirements. The application proposes to utilize individual balconies for each unit to satisfy requirements. 6250 square feet of open space is required, 6250 square feet is provided. Cash in lieu of dedication is proposed for the parkland requirement. Based upon the maximum density of 12 units to the acre: .1587 acres or 6, 912 square feet of parkland is required. The payment of the cash in lieu is required prior to site plan approval. Code provision f. is related to this issue.
9. Building location and height In the B-3 district in this location there are no yard requirements. The application proposes a varying setback at or close to the property line along East Olive Street and South Black Avenue. A five foot setback is proposed along the east property line to accommodate a pedestrian egress and a five foot utility easement for underground private utilities and communications. A ten foot landscaped yard is proposed along the south property boundary to accommodate landscaping and a ten foot utility easement for an underground gas line.
149
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 22 of 33 The building is proposed with a flat roof with a parapet. The building is proposed with a maximum parapet height of 62’ 2”. An architectural element on the front of the building in one location is proposed at a maximum height of 68’2”’. The project complies with the maximum height requirement of 70.’ The commercial ground floor of a building in the B-3 District is required to be 12’ in height from floor to ceiling. The proposed ground floor is proposed at 14’ floor to ceiling and 15’ floor to floor and complies with standards.
10. Setbacks The project complies with all setbacks.
11. Lighting Wall mounted lighting is proposed. Lighting complies with code requirements.
12. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities New water and sewer connections are proposed. A water service and fire line service are proposed from a main in East Olive Street. A new sewer connection is proposed at South Black Avenue. Adequate water capacity exists to serve the building. A cash in lieu of water rights payment is due prior to site plan approval per code provision d. The Engineering Division made findings during the Development Review Committee review that additional sewer capacity is needed to serve the project. Off site sewer upgrades are required prior to building permit issuance. Code provision c. is related to this issue. NorthWestern Energy can provide services to accommodate the project and a connection to the existing utility grid for both gas and electric connections. Two new transformers are required. The existing overhead electrical service on the site must be reconfigured underground to accommodate the project. Adequate easements have been provided to accommodate utilities per code requirements. The easements must be recorded prior to site plan approval. Code provision b. is related to this issue.
13. Site surface drainage The site surface drainage has been reviewed and approved by Engineering Division. Stormwater storage is proposed in an underground cistern within the parking facility. The project complies with Engineering Division standards.
14. Loading and unloading areas No loading area is proposed or required.
15. Grading Minor site grading is proposed to allow the proper functioning of the stormwater facilities. The site grading for the project conforms to code requirements.
150
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 23 of 33
16. Signage Building identification signage is shown. No new commercial signage is proposed at this time. Based upon the building frontage dimensions of the building, the allowable maximum signage amount for the building is 250 square feet. Future sign locations are identified on the building elevations for the commercial space in accordance with code requirements.
17. Screening Mechanical screening is provided on the rooftop to screen mechanical units. The building architecture screens the interior structured parking. A shrub landscape buffer is proposed along the south foundation of the building.
18. Overlay district provisions The site lies within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The criteria are met with the project design. See the findings in the following review criteria section.
19. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties 108 public comments were received in 2016 and 37 comments have been received to date in 2017. The majority of the public comments (112) were received prior to the redesign of the site plan and the building. The public comments recommending to not approve the project focus on impacts from the project on the following major topic areas, staff responses are provided below each item:
a. Mass, bulk and scale of the building in relation to the current adjacent
buildings. a. Staff response: The project is in conformance to site plan criteria and standards related to building location and maximum height and setbacks. The project is in conformance with the Bozeman Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District that provide design direction and guidelines for the building and site. The Design Review Board does not concur with staff findings and does not find the project in conformance and recommends denial of the application.
b. The aesthetics of the building in relation to historic districts and downtown
development. a. Staff response: The project is in conformance to the site plan criteria and standards related to building character. The project is in conformance with the Bozeman Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District that provide design direction and guidelines for the building and site including the following guideline topics noted as not being in compliance with the initial building design that are addressed to comply with guidelines: building mass and scale
151
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 24 of 33 (floor to floor heights, architectural order and composition, design narrative), building quality (building permanence, sustainable methods and techniques), site design (connections to sub districts/transparency on South Black Ave.), parking facilities (parking garage locations on the exterior of the façade) and utilities and services areas(trash enclosure location). The Design Review Board does not concur with staff findings and does not find the project in conformance and recommends denial of the application.
c. Inadequate parking, lack of the availability of the proposed on street parking. a. 3 on street parking spaces are allowed to be counted towards this project based upon code requirements. The Commission must review the information provided and the responses to the car sharing criteria in Administrative Policy No. 2017-01 in order to determine if the car sharing program will function to replace the off street parking for twenty dwelling units. Without the approval of the car sharing program and the allowance of the adjustment to the minimum parking, the project is deficient sixteen parking spaces and does not satisfy the parking requirements of Section 38.25.040.A.1 that require one parking space per dwelling unit in the B-3 district.
d. Questions about the viability of the car share proposal. a. The Commission must review the information provided and the responses to the car sharing criteria in Administrative Policy No. 2017-01 in order to determine if the car sharing program will function to replace the off street parking for twenty dwelling units. Without the approval of the car sharing program and the allowance of the adjustment to the minimum parking, the project is deficient sixteen parking spaces and does not satisfy the parking requirements of Section 38.25.040.A.1 that require one parking space per dwelling unit in the B-3 district.
e. .Impact on the immediate neighborhood during construction. a. The city has a noise ordinance and general nuisance provisions within the municipal code that mitigate impacts related to construction. Some inconvenience is always a part of urban construction and may include street closures, sidewalk closures or temporary loading and unloading of vehicles. The Public Works Department reviews and approves encroachment permits for closures to minimize disruptions while accommodating construction.
f. Impact on traffic flows along Olive Street. a. A traffic study was required by the Engineering Division for this project due to its proposed uses and the increase in trip generation anticipated. The study analyzed the adequacy of the existing street network to accommodate
152
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 25 of 33 the increased traffic generation. No required offsite improvements to the existing network were identified.
g. Loss of privacy due to views from the building overlooking adjacent
properties. a. Development in the B-3 zoning district is anticipated to be the most intense development within the City limits. The B-3, central business zoning district allows the greatest building heights within the City. The design guidelines that apply to this project location encourage windows on buildings and no special regulations are in place to limit windows that may overlook other properties.
h. Light trespass from the building on adjacent properties. a. The application provided site and building mounted lighting information that conforms to City standards. No light trespass is anticipated based upon the information provided in the application.
i. Shading by the building on adjacent streets and properties. a. The City standards do not include provisions that require an analysis of the anticipated shading by the building. The B-3, central business zoning district allows the greatest building heights within the City.
20. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for
circulation or other means of addressing requirement of this title, whether the lots
are either:
Configured so that the sale of individual lots will not alter the approved
configuration or use of the property or cause the development to become
nonconforming
or
Are the subject of reciprocal and perpetual easements or other agreements to
which the City is a party so that the sale of individual lots will not cause one or more
elements of the development to become nonconforming. The site includes multiple parcels, lots, easements and utilities. A subdivision exemption application is required to consolidate or otherwise adjust the site to accommodate the project. The subdivision exemption application has been approved and signed documents have been received by the City. Final recording of the amended plat is required prior to site plan approval. Code provision a. is related to this issue.
21. Compliance with article 43 of chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code The application states that no affordable housing is proposed.
153
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 26 of 33
22. Phasing of development No phasing is proposed.
Applicable Design Standards and Guidelines, Section 38.16.050, BMC The property under consideration is located within an area designated as the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The site is not located within a historic district. The building proposed for demolition does not have a historic inventory form. Administrative Design Review staff has reviewed the application against Section 38.16.050 and the Bozeman Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and find that the plan is in compliance with the requirements and guidelines. The project is in conformance with the following required guidelines: Introduction, Subchapter 2 Guidelines for All Properties and Subchapter 4-B Guidelines for the B-3 Commercial Character Area, and Appendix. Three conditions are recommended related to the COA approval in order to confirm important design elements as the project moves to a full design and construction documents: Staff recommends the following design related conditions:
• Prior to building permit approval the applicant must provide one full size residential window proposed for the building to confirm conformance with the color and materials palette.
• Prior to building permit approval the applicant must provide one minimum 12” by 12” sample of the full section of storefront glass proposed for the building to confirm conformance with the color and materials palette.
• Prior to building permit approval the applicant must provide a sample of the decorative metal screen proposed for the parking garage to confirm conformance with the final building elevations.
APPENDIX A - PROJECT SITE ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY
Zoning Classification The subject property is zoned “B-3” (Central Business District). The intent of the B-3 District is to provide a central area for the community's business, government services and cultural activities. Uses within this district should be appropriate to such a focal
154
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 27 of 33 center, with inappropriate uses being excluded. Room should be provided in appropriate areas for logical and planned expansion of the present district.
Adopted Growth Policy Designation The property is designated as “Community Core” in the Bozeman Community Plan. This area is described as “The traditional core of Bozeman is the historic downtown. This area has an extensive mutually supportive diversity of uses, a strong pedestrian and multi-modal transportation network, and a rich architectural character. Essential government services, places of public assembly, and open spaces provide the civic and social core of town. Residential development on upper floors is well established. New residential uses should be high density. The area along Main Street should be preserved as a place for high pedestrian activity uses, with strong pedestrian connectivity to other uses on nearby streets. Users are drawn from the entire planning area and beyond. The intensity of development is high with a Floor Area Ratio well over 1. Future development should continue to be intense while providing areas of transition to adjacent areas and preserving the historic character of Main Street.”
Subject Property
155
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 28 of 33
This property is located within the boundaries of the Downtown Bozeman
Improvement Plan, which is an adopted sub-area (neighborhood) plan of the
Bozeman Community Plan. See number 1 in Section 5 of this report.
APPENDIX B – ZONING HISTORY AND B-3 STANDARDS
1956 zoning map Bus-1 was downtown and C-2 was a residential district.
1958 zoning map – Brown is C district residential, black is CB Central Business district – This
is a preliminary map
156
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 29 of 33
http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/0/doc/42696/Electronic.aspx
Final zoning map in 1960 – Ordinance No 818. Corner of Olive and Black now in the CB Central Business district. Due to the lack of parcel lines hard to tell how far south it went but it looks like it is about in the same spot as today with Black Olive and property immediately to the south included. The online ordinances don’t have the supporting development standards. Ordinance 818, page 4, Section VIII, http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/0/doc/9715/Page1.aspx, established a transition zone with specific limitations on mixed use, setbacks, buffers. Height.
Ordinance 935,
1973 http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=9840&dbid=0. Current B-3 title is put in place replacing the CB designation. Page 283 begins the description of the B-3 district. No required yards except along Mendenhall and Babcock. Expansion areas mentioned. No building height restriction listed at all. Other districts do have a height restriction. The Property immediately south of Black Olive site is also included in B-3 zone.
157
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 30 of 33
Ordinance 1332, Sept
1991, http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/0/doc/50349/Electronic.aspx, Chapter 18.32 sets standards for B-3. Building height of 55 feet set for entire B-3 district.
Ordinance 1513, April 2000 New permanent zoning after the City/County separated. No change to B-3 standards.
158
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 31 of 33
Ordinance 1514, May 2000 Multiple amendments and complete replacement. No change to B-3 standards for dimensions, changes do occur for uses. Ordinance 1516, May 2000 Multiple amendments and complete replacement. No changes to B-3 Standards, one change for conditional use for fuel sales
Ordinance 1565, July 2002 Substantial update for 2001 growth policy compliance, entire text replaced. B-3 height standard changed to be 55 feet in core and 70 feet elsewhere in B-3.
Ordinance 1604, January 1, 2004 Unified Development Ordinance. No change in B-3 height. Percentage reductions allowed for parking based on district and use added. Zoning map shows change 2nd property south of Black Olive to be included in B-3 district. Last map change. Ordinance 1645 Oct 2005 Replacement of zoning text to reflect multiple amendments throughout. No change in B-3 height or parking requirements. Ordinance 1693 Feb 2007 Amend B-3 for a 7 foot front yard along Babcock and Mendenhall instead of 15 feet. Ordinance 1769 Dec 2009 No change to B-3 height. Added car-sharing option, Mixed use building option, transit access reduction, structured parking access reductions, 3,000 sq. ft. reduction for provision of parking.
Resolution 4230 – Adopts Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan as neighborhood plan under the overall growth policy.
Ordinance 1816 – Codification – no change in text substance but entire UDC was renumbered. Since the Black Olive site was zoned as B-3 in 1960 the City has processed: Total zone map amendments: 223 map amendments Total zone code amendments: 238 text amendments Total zoning text replacements – 13 since 1960
APPENDIX C – PROJECT BACKGROUND An informal application was submitted on April 27, 2016 as the Olive and Black Apartments informal, application 16185. The informal application outlined a six story building with 62 dwelling units with 45 onsite parking spaces, five on street spaces and three car share spaces. The formal site plan application was submitted on October 5, 2016. The Black and Olive site plan was proposed as a 55 unit apartment building with 35 parking spaces onsite, five on street spaces and three car share vehicles. The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and found that the application required code corrections and that it was inadequate for continue review on November 2, 2016. The Design Review Board reviewed the application at their meeting on November 9, 2016 and voted to recommend denial to the City Commission.
159
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 32 of 33 A subdivision exemption application to aggregate the underlying lots on the property was submitted on November 9, 2016. Site plan revisions were submitted November 30, 2016. This revision included a new building design in response to the Design Review Board meeting on November 9, 2016. The Development Review Committee reviewed the revised application and found that the application required code corrections and that it was inadequate for continue review on December 4, 2016. Site plan revisions were submitted on December 28, 2016. The Development Review Committee reviewed the revised application and found that the application required code corrections and that it was inadequate for continue review on January 18, 2017. Site plan revisions were submitted on February 14, 2017. The revised application included the current 56 unit apartments, 37 parking spaces onsite, three on street spaces and four car share vehicles. The Development Review Committee reviewed the revised application and found that the application satisfied code requirements and recommend that the application proceed in the review with a recommendation of conditional approval and with code provisions that must be satisfied prior to site plan approval on February 22, 2017. The Design Review Board reviewed the revised application at their March 8, 2017 and recommended denial of the application to the City Commission.
APPENDIX D- NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT Noticing was provided pursuant to Section 38.40.030, BMC. Notice was sent to property owners within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property via USPS first class mail October 13, 2016, at least 15 and not more than 45 days prior to the expected decision. The public comment period was initially noticed to close on November 14, 2016. Notice in the
Bozeman Daily Chronicle is not required. Notice was posted on site on October 14, 2016. A second notice was provided February 28, 2017 to adjoining property owners and posted on site and is open until the scheduled City Commission decision on April 3, 2017. Public comment is being received in regard to this project. See item number19 in Section 5 of this report. A significant amount of written public comment has been received regarding the application. The written public comment received as of the date of this report can be accessed at the following links: 2016: http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/Browse.aspx?dbid=0&startid=104936 2017: http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/Browse.aspx?dbid=0&startid=116648 and is available at the Planning Division in the Community Development Department and City Clerk’s Office.
160
16432 Black Olive Site Plan Staff Report Page 33 of 33 A staff response to the general topic areas of the public comment is located under plan review criteria 19 in Section 5 Staff Analysis and Findings. The City Commission voted to reclaim review authority jurisdiction of this project from the Director of Community Development on October 24, 2016. The public comment period will remain open until the Commission acts on the application on April 3, 2017.
APPENDIX E - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF
Owner: Olive and Black, LLC 20 N. Tracy Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715
Applicant/Representative: Andy Holloran 20 N. Tracy Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715
Report By: Brian Krueger, Development Review Manager
ATTACHMENTS Administrative Policy 2017-01 Design Review Board Minutes 3-22-17 Application Materials Narrative and Summary Car Share Agreement Administrative Policy 2017-01 Response Civil Plans Landscape Plan Floor Plans and Section North and West Elevation South and East Elevation Car Share Report Memorandum Zip Car Agreement Zip Car and Enterprise Car Share Public Comment via Laserfiche link The full application and file of record can be viewed at the Community Development Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715.
161
162
163
164
Design Review Board
Wednesday, March 8, 2017 5:30 pm, City Hall, City Commission Room
A. 05:32:25 PM (00:02:05) Call meeting to order and Roll Call (Hufstetler)
Board Members Present Were:
• Peter Costanti
• Kiersten Iwai
• Charlie Franklin
• Vice Chair Mark Hufstetler
• Lessa Racow
• Brady Ernst
• Deputy Mayor Cindy Andrews
B. 05:33:33 PM (00:03:13) Changes to the Agenda (none)
C. 05:33:43 PM (00:03:23) Minutes (none)
D. 05:34:35 PM (00:04:15) Public Comment
Please state your name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record. This is the time for
individuals to comment on matters falling within the purview of the Committee. There will also be an
opportunity in conjunction with each action item for comments pertaining to that item. Please limit
your comments to three minutes.
05:35:21 PM (00:05:01) Scott Dreblow addressed concerns including size of the shadow footprint,
clarity of information for laypeople, height and scale of the project and parking.
05:38:04 PM (00:07:44) Jackie Persons addressed concerns including traffic congestion with narrow
streets, parking, height of building, loss of character to the building, diminished privacy for neighbors
and noise pollution.
05:40:49 PM (00:10:29) Daryl Bahrent addressed concerns including building scale, parking and traffic,
particularly during winter months with snow.
05:41:52 PM (00:11:32) Loretta Domocheski addressed concerns including the green space and trees on
the south side of the building if they are removed for utility use, building height with five stories,
building materials focusing on façade rather than entire structure, and parking.
166
05:44:40 PM (00:14:20) Thea Barens addressed concerns including increased traffic with narrow streets
in winter, alternative transportation being unrealistic and the city adhering to the citizens’ opinions vs.
developers.
05:46:34 PM (00:16:14) Clarissa Wary addressed concerns including public safety and traffic impact with
narrow streets and parking becoming more difficult for downtown visitors as residential parking spreads
further from people’s homes.
05:48:35 PM (00:18:15) Curtis Johnson addressed concerns including limited housing availability, and
parking.
05:50:28 PM (00:20:08) Tyler Naiman addressed concerns including building height, building character
with neighborhood and parking while supporting vertical development and increasing community
downtown.
05:53:01 PM (00:22:41) Zach McQueu addressed concerns including building height, parking, and the
transition from a high rise to a single family home.
05:55:02 PM (00:24:42) Susan Stevens supported the concerns of the other public comments received
05:55:44 PM (00:25:24) Rob Edwards addressed concerns including the impact on the city’s
infrastructure in order to meet the needs of this project and who will bear the cost.
05:56:32 PM (00:26:12) Al Kesselheim addressed concerns including the transition between zones and
parking/traffic in the downtown corridor.
05:57:55 PM (00:27:35) Mary Pat Zitler addressed concerns including Longfellow school being able to
accommodate increased population, building height, parking and finding a solution that works for the
community.
06:00:08 PM (00:29:48) End of Public Comment. Additional Public Comment will be taken at the end of
the meeting.
E. 06:01:14 PM (00:30:54) Action Items
1. Black Olive Site Plan Revisions (Krueger)
202 South Black Avenue. Southeast corner of the intersection of Olive Street and Black Street. A
revised site plan application for the demolition of the existing office building and the construction of
a 56 unit apartment building and related site improvements that includes: 16 studio apartments, 24
one bedroom apartments, 16 two bedroom apartments, 37 parking spaces, 4 car-share vehicles. 800
square feet of commercial use is proposed on the ground floor.
167
06:01:32 PM (00:31:12) Krueger summarized the Black Olive Site Plan, noting that there have been
changes since the initial review on November 9, 2016.
06:02:21 PM (00:32:01) Proposal is to demolish existing building and construct a new mixed use building
appropriate for the B-3 zone’s commercial character area which overlaps the historical conservation
overlay.
06:04:15 PM (00:33:55) Krueger pointed out that the project now conforms to requirements for both
the B-3 zoning and conservation overlay district.
06:05:17 PM (00:34:57) Krueger noted that the Black Olive property is part of the downtown
neighborhood and while it is adjacent to historic district, it is part of the downtown growth policy, which
points to infill for the downtown area, intensifying underutilized sites.
06:05:53 PM (00:35:33) Krueger stated that there is not a historic inventory card for the existing
structure. Because of this, the demolition is standard under site plan criteria.
06:07:08 PM (00:36:48) Krueger reviewed changes to site plan noting that the footprint is the same and
that the garage entrance sits on Olive. The elevations, including building materials, glass, and overall
architecture have changed more significantly.
06:08:31 PM (00:38:11) Krueger reviewed Level 1 floor plan, which includes seating area and parking.
06:09:43 PM (00:39:23) Krueger reviewed landscape plan, which proposes to keep all of the existing
trees on the site.
06:11:02 PM (00:40:42) Krueger reviewed elevations and visual changes to the project along with
building materials.
06:15:12 PM (00:44:52) Krueger displayed a quick-shot of the building, which provides a sense of how
the different elements will appear. The changes in the materials do meet standards for downtown area.
06:17:26 PM (00:47:06) Krueger displayed some perspectives showing how the building compares to
adjacent properties. Krueger also noted that the single family homes within B-3 are considered legal
non-conforming structures as the code does not allow single detached residences. Those properties will
be developed over time to conform to B-3 zoning.
06:19:39 PM (00:49:19) Krueger addressed the question of whether the city’s guidelines require a
transition between B-3 properties. The code does require an air-space setback between B-3 and
residential, which is provided in this project.
168
06:21:06 PM (00:50:46) Krueger reviewed the public comments received thus far. The project was re-
noticed to allow for additional comment. Krueger noted that many of the comments received have
been in support of infill and height.
06:23:06 PM (00:52:46) Krueger stated that the findings in relation to the Certificate of Appropriateness
for this project are that this project is in conformance with the Bozeman Guidelines for Historic
Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay. As a result, the city is recommending
approval with some conditions of approval to confirm some of the building materials and their transition
around the structure.
06:24:51 PM (00:54:31) City Planning is requesting a motion and a recommendation in the affirmative or
negative. The staff report is recommending affirmative. A staff report will be prepared for the City
Commission. The applicant is required to provide a narrative as to how the project has changed.
06:26:48 PM (00:56:28) Krueger stated that they would be open for questions after the applicant
presentation.
06:27:08 PM (00:56:48) Board member Racow asked for clarification on recommendations from
Planning. Krueger stated that they’re recommending a commercial wrap of the parking garage and are
concerned about the material transition on the ground floor between the denser split face CMU
material and more traditional brick veneer on the front of the building. The city is also looking for
recommendation from the board on the perforated metal material on balcony in addition to the
material color palette.
06:28:42 PM (00:58:22) Applicant Presentation:
Andy Hollerin and Tobias Stroll provide a presentation on behalf of the applicant, noting that they’ve
made significant changes to the exterior of the building. They also pointed out that the exterior seating
on Black Ave. will be open to neighbors and will provide an active community space. They envision a
coffee shop going into the space. Hollerin addressed the balcony material, stating that due to
comments they received, they changed to a more closed material, but are open to change.
06:32:26 PM (01:02:06) Stroll presented the original design in comparison to the current design, trying
to provide a more historic feel with masonry and traditional materials. Stroll also noted their
attempted to make the building more inviting at the street level.
06:37:40 PM (01:07:20) Vice Chair Hufstetler stated that the Design Review Board will now have the
opportunity to ask questions of the developer’s representatives or city staff. Hufstetler requested that
the DRB keep the questions to the areas of the design where the DRB has been asked to provide input
and has jurisdiction.
169
06:38:34 PM (01:08:14) Board Member Lessa Racow asked the applicants to review the future B-3
building, which was provided as an example (not a planned project). The applicants explained that the
comparison is to show what this area could look like in this zoning area.
Racow continued to ask about the balconies along Olive on the North elevation and how they will affect
the seating area below – particularly with water dripping and whether that would be addressed in the
design. The applicant responded that they would investigate that further.
06:43:51 PM (01:13:31) Board member Ernst asked the applicants to show a transition of the CMU split
face to the brick veneer. Stroll stated that they would investigate the material transition.
Ernst directed a question to Krueger asking whether the open space was solely satisfied through
balconies. Krueger responded yes. Ernst then asked about the non-conforming homes in B-3 and if
those were to be re-developed whether they would maintain the historic overlay guidelines. Krueger
responded that the two properties to the south, zoned B-3, may be mixed use, but that because they’re
in the conservation overlay, those guidelines would apply.
06:50:01 PM (01:19:41) Board Member Charlie Franklin brought up the scale of the building and that in
previous meetings, it was found to be too large for the area. Franklin asked the applicants how they are
addressing that concern through building articulation. Stroll responded that they attempted to address
those concerns through more opaque sections of the buildings and through warmer materials such as
wood. Stroll also stated that on the south side, they pulled the building back through setbacks to
provide separation and privacy for existing properties.
06:52:36 PM (01:22:16) Board Member Kiersten Iwai asked for clarification on what input Krueger
requested in regards to the parking garage being wrapped. Krueger stated that through regulations,
they’re required to wrap the parking garage and are asking about the façade. The applicant would be
allowed to leave it blank, but that a portion of the wrap could provide additional commercial space as
intended. The city attorney stated that the outdoor seating space meets the requirement for outdoor
commercial space, but the concern is whether the seating area is the best use of that space and that
they are looking for comments from the DRB.
Iwai also asked whether the bike racks were covered. Krueger responded that they are not.
06:56:21 PM (01:26:01) Board Member Peter Constanti asked how, when and why the B-3 zoning line
was drawn. Krueger responded that this area has been a planned growth area of the city since the
1950s, but that the growth and intensification of the outer limits of the B-3 areas have not been seen
until recently.
Constanti also asked if the applicant considered utilizing the roof space as a public outdoor area.
Hollerin responded that they are still planning on exploring that and that there are many factors to
consider.
06:59:08 PM (01:28:48) Deputy Mayor Cindy Andrews asked whether a sample of the window and store
front glass will be provided. Stoll responded that they would be able to provide that. Krueger clarified
170
that those would be required prior to building permit approval, but that it may be possible to present
that to the commission prior to that point.
Andrews also requested anything that would provide more detail on the building materials. She
continued to ask about the seating area outside of the proposed coffee shop and what would happen if
that space were not utilized by a coffee shop and particularly what would happen to the area in the
winter. Stroll responded that the space is covered and would provide weather protection and that they
looked into heating the area.
07:03:10 PM (01:32:50) Vice Chair Hufstetler asked for clarification regarding the commercial wrap
guidelines and if there is a certain percentage of space to be used commercially and if there is a
distinction between office or retail. Krueger responded that there are no requirements for which type of
commercial space.
07:04:54 PM (01:34:34) Hufstetler asked how high the ground floor windows would be with the
unbroken pane of glass.
07:05:42 PM (01:35:22) Hufstetler asked about the balcony wrap material and if that was the best
choice. Stroll responded that they are exploring opacity and are open to ideas.
07:07:13 PM (01:36:53) Hufstetler asked how high this rendering is in comparison to the proposal last
year. Hollerin responded that it was 2 feet taller than last rendering to comply with ground floor
requirements.
07:07:42 PM (01:37:22) Hufstetler asked about shadow footprint and how the neighborhood to the
south would be impacted during certain times of the year. He also asked if they’ve done any night
renderings to show how much light would be emitted. Stroll responded that they did look at the
shadow footprint and that the properties to the south would not be impacted due to how the sun
moves. He stated that they have not done a night time rendering.
07:09:44 PM (01:39:24) Hufstetler asked Krueger about city requirements for articulation on second
level elevations. Krueger responded that the regulations are very broad for B-3 to allow for a wide
variety of designs.
07:10:48 PM (01:40:28) Hufstetler asked about the secretary of interior’s guidelines and how designs
impact the NCOD and visual impacts for historic districts. Krueger responded that they follow the City’s
historic guidelines and that they are aspiring to meet the Secretary of Interior’s requirements with the
design guidelines, depending on the Commission’s desires. Currently, visual impacts are not a significant
part of the deliberation, but they are researching this.
07:14:06 PM (01:43:46) Iwai asked Krueger about public comments received in support of infill. Krueger
responded that they are looking at public comment that addresses this project specifically. Krueger
stated that they would like to look more closely, but that it’s not uncommon to receive comments
supporting and opposing a project.
171
07:16:33 PM (01:46:13) Racow asked Krueger about Rob Edwards’ public comment and about how this
project will impact the city overall and who will bear the cost. Krueger responded that the engineering
division has identified an offsite sewer that will be required and that the applicant is working directly
with engineering to find a solution.
07:18:46 PM (01:48:26) Constanti asked about the design process and asked how the applicants
determined that 37 parking spaces were adequate for a project this size. Hollerin stated that they felt
parking and transportation trends would change rapidly and that more and more people would not have
a car and are interested in the car sharing program.
07:21:11 PM (01:50:51) Public Comment Re-opened (Hufstetler)
07:22:06 PM (01:51:46) Randy Peters stated that he is opposed to the current design, but that he would
support with appropriate design and balance to adjacent neighborhood. He referred to the code’s
statement of ‘protecting neighborhoods’ and continued to discuss the downtown neighborhood. He
asked the board to reject the proposal until issues are resolved.
07:25:50 PM (01:55:30) Paul Neubauer stated that his comments do not represent the Planning Board
on which he serves. Neubauer addressed concerns with parking including allowing space downtown for
tourism. He continued with concern for maintaining the historic neighborhood character. He called for
the City Commission to represent the citizens concerns when determining an outcome for this project.
07:29:15 PM (01:58:55) Brian Segal stated that he opposes the project due to the setbacks, using the
Element hotel as an example. He requested underground parking and removing one story while
increasing the setbacks.
07:33:01 PM (02:02:41) Stuart Mitchell stated that he opposes the project, but supports infill. Segal
stated he would like to see growth supported by everyone and requested a smaller structure.
07:36:16 PM (02:05:56) Margaret Benett addressed concern for homes to the east of the development,
particularly with privacy. She also expressed support for Mitchell’s statements and argued that the UDC
exists to protect neighborhoods.
07:38:25 PM (02:08:05) Richard Brown stated opposition for the project due to its size and parking
issues. Brown stated he would be in support of a smaller structure.
07:41:19 PM (02:10:59) Laura Fedro stated she opposes this project and sold her home as a result. She
addressed concerns with the building not fitting in with its surrounding and with parking.
07:42:38 PM (02:12:18) Genie Wilkinson addressed concern with the project’s compliance with the
Bozeman guidelines for historic preservation and Neighborhood Conservation Overlay. Wilkinson read
some excerpts from the historic guidelines.
07:46:17 PM (02:15:57) Kate Bryan stated she is not anti-growth or infill and feels that if the project
were scaled down, it would be appropriate. She continued to address concern that the NCOD guidelines
172
are being focused on a specific section developed without much public input and not the overall
document. Bryan continued to argue that at one time there was intent to have transition zoning, but
that it was later changed.
07:49:36 PM (02:19:16) Tyler Brugman stated that he felt this was a positive and necessary
improvement for students in Bozeman and that this project will help with the housing demand in the
city. He stated that this will provide quality housing without the responsibility of a single family home.
07:51:33 PM (02:21:13) Vice Chair Hufstetler closed public comment opportunity.
08:01:01 PM (02:30:41) Board Discussion Continued (Hufstetler)
08:01:59 PM (02:31:39) Racow thanked applicant for taking board comments into consideration and
implementing them into the updated design. She supported the seating area at the corner if there were
to be a coffee shop or small eatery and felt it would be highly utilized.
08:03:34 PM (02:33:14) Racow commended the ground floor parking exterior wall treatment as a great
improvement over previous design, adding more detail to ground level. She also supported the matte
metal screening for balcony areas adding a modern touch. Racow also commended the applicant on
opening the car share program to neighbors and not only tenants.
08:05:32 PM (02:35:12) Racow addressed concerns from an aesthetic perspective stating that she felt
the windows on the north elevation were random. Racow requested that more thought be put into the
arrangement of windows. Racow stated she felt the building looks dark and ominous.
08:08:35 PM (02:38:15) Racow commented on the table area on the west elevation that she didn’t feel
it was a good solution for that area of the building and may encourage loitering. She recommended
adding bike parking in this area and adding an entrance for residents. Racow requested a bike spot for
every resident where a parking spot was not available. Racow also requested that the glazed windows
go to the ground.
08:11:52 PM (02:41:32) Racow stated that the loss of glazing on NW corner of the building took away
something from the character of the structure.
08:13:06 PM (02:42:46) Racow requested to see the east elevation addressed as it felt neglected and
empty. She requested to see something on the ground floor that would break up the wall.
08:14:57 PM (02:44:37) Ernst stated that he felt the building was too large for this site and noted that
he’d prefer that they would look at site context as opposed to zoning that was established in the 1950s.
Ernst continued to discuss the building height in comparison to the Federal building. Ernst argued that
the residential properties would always be significantly shorter than the structure and this building
would feel looming and ominous as a result.
08:19:30 PM (02:49:10) Ernst stated support for commercial development and walk-ability within a
couple of blocks off Main street, but does not feel that this building is appropriate for its surrounding
173
area. Ernst concluded by stating great site, wrong building, wrong size. Ernst agreed with all staff
comments, but does not approve the building’s height in this context.
08:23:33 PM (02:53:13) Franklin stated that the building is starting to move in a direction that is more
historically appropriate with the brick and north elevation. Franklin supported Ernst’s comments on
mass and scale of the design for the neighborhood context.
08:25:42 PM (02:55:22) Franklin discussed the pros and cons of balcony material and transparency.
08:26:49 PM (02:56:29) Franklin feels that the south side of the structure does not relate to the area it is
adjacent to. He recommended that a level be removed on the Southside and suggested something like a
rooftop garden for the residents.
08:28:03 PM (02:57:43) Franklin agreed with the comment of B-3 impact on R-2 zone. Franklin argued
that this structure does not pay respect to the historical single family neighborhood.
08:29:00 PM (02:58:40) Franklin supported Racow’s comment that the sitting space could be abandoned
over time. He recommended some garage door so that the space can be opened or closed. Franklin felt
the scale and articulation of the building had not been addressed per previous comments.
08:30:49 PM (03:00:29) Iwai supported Racow’s statement regarding the randomly placed windows on
one side of the building and recommended more uniformity. Iwai stated she is not opposed to the
outdoor seating, but that she felt more bike parking would be a better use. Iwai spoke in support of the
car share and felt it would be more utilized for her generation.
08:32:37 PM (03:02:17) Iwai commended the use of more brick and masonry to provide more Bozeman
character, but did not feel the height of the building was appropriate. She also felt that the color
scheme felt too dark.
08:33:19 PM (03:02:59) Constanti stated he travels by the property site every day and commented that
a good design should be site responsible. He did not feel that the scale was appropriate. Constanti
stated that he had opinions on the minor changes, but felt the major issues of size and parking had not
been addressed. He supported the balcony material, but felt the seating area would collect more leaves
and snow than people.
08:35:54 PM (03:05:34) Constanti felt that the east façade was the least interesting and was more
noticeable as a result.
08:38:23 PM (03:08:03) Vice Chair Hufstetler addressed the commercial wrap and stated that the
guideline was hard to quantify, but was minimally attempted. Hufstetler stated the space on the east is
narrow and thought it would not be used.
08:40:22 PM (03:10:02) Hufstetler was not in support of the balcony material as it would be visually
prominent and could overshadow the brick.
174
08:42:20 PM (03:12:00) Hufstetler argued that the only attempt made by the developer was to meet the
quantitative requirements set in the design code and that the objective was efficiency rather than
quality architecture.
08:43:33 PM (03:13:13) Hufstetler asked that the city look at the broader intent of the project and the
neighborhood when making determinations on this project. Hufstetler argued that we should look at
how the building itself will interface with the neighborhood and how the areas will interact with each
other.
08:46:48 PM (03:16:28) Hufstetler spoke to the NCOD and historic conservation. He argued that this
building is not compatible with the historic overlay and explained his reasoning.
08:49:16 PM (03:18:56) Hufstetler recommended that any building older than 50 years old should be
considered for historic context.
08:50:23 PM (03:20:03) MOTION:
Lessa Racow motioned to approve item 16432 Black Olive Site Plan with modifications to
recommended conditions to report findings.
Kiersten Iwai seconds the motion
08:52:07 PM (03:21:47) Vice Chair Hufstetler calls for vote
• In Favor (None)
• Opposed (Unanimous)
• Motion Fails
08:53:15 PM (03:22:55) MOTION:
Lessa Racow motioned to deny item 16432 Black Olive Site Plan based on Design Review
Board’s findings of non-compliance with applicable criteria contained within the staff report.
Charles Franklin seconds the motion
08:54:25 PM (03:24:05) Racow withdrew motion
08:56:44 PM (03:26:24) Iwai commented that while she agrees with staff findings overall, she
feels an obligation to the citizens who have participated to address the design of the project.
08:58:17 PM (03:27:57) Krueger commented that in past meetings, if a motion has failed to
pass, it could be interpreted as a denial. Krueger continued to explain that he would be able to
put together the notes to provide to the commission.
175
08:59:16 PM (03:28:56) MOTION:
Brady Ernst motioned to recommend denial of the application with modifications to the staff
report to include a reduced height building.
08:59:44 PM (03:29:24) Lessa Racow seconds motion
08:59:54 PM (03:29:34) The board requests guidance from staff on appropriateness of motion.
Krueger stated that the motion is not specific enough to implement.
09:01:10 PM (03:30:50) Ernst withdrew motion
09:01:14 PM (03:30:54) MOTION:
Lessa Racow motioned to deny item 16432 Black Olive Site Plan based on the DRBs comments
during the course of the meeting.
Peter Costanti seconds the motion
09:01:49 PM (03:31:29) Racow commented that these apartments will not be affordable for the
general population for college aged students based on a public comment received earlier in the
evening.
09:02:44 PM (03:32:24) Vice Chair Hufstetler calls for vote
• In Favor (Unanimous)
• Opposed (None)
Motion to deny application passes
F. FYI/Discussion (none)
G. 09:03:17 PM (03:32:57) Adjournment
For more information please contact Brian Krueger at bkrueger@bozeman.net
This board generally meets the second and fourth Wednesday of the month at 5:30pm
Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance,
please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray at 406-582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
BLACK OLIVE
110 E. OLIVE STREET
BOZEMAN, MT 59715
Black & Olive, LLC
Bozeman, MT
SITE PLAN (SP1) REV 3
24 JANUARY 2017
183
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Downtowns are evolving and after years of moving away from city centers,
residents are returning in a pattern seen throughout the country. Our approved
Downtown Improvements Plan accurately predicts this migration and prescribes ways
to accommodate this evolution for the benefit of this community.
Redevelopment is and will take place in many forms. Whole block projects are
the exception, as smaller parcels are more likely to be the norm and will require
forward thinking to assess the overall influence of each project towards the wider goals,
plans and evolving urban patterns for downtown.
This project site (202 S. Black Ave.) is located on the south east corner of S.
Black Ave & E. Olive St., two blocks south of Main St. The property is designated
“Community Core” in the growth policy and falls within the “South Village”
Designation in the Downtown Improvement Plan. The site is zoned B-3 (Central
Business District) which allows a mix of commercial and/or higher density (five or more
attached units) residential apartments.
This application proposes the redevelopment of the existing property into a 5
story building. 1st floor, parking garage, commercial space and residential lobby with
floors 2-5 residential apartment. The building respectfully fits within the adjacent
existing building mass with the 4 story apartment building across the street and the 80’
tall federal building caddy corner. The first floor sidewalks on Black Ave. & Olive St
engage the street with tall expansive storefront windows giving transparency in and out
of the building. With no setbacks required next to the adjacent B-3 zoned properties,
setbacks are provided along the east and south sides. To be respectful to the south B-
3 zoned site, although it is not required, BLACK OLIVE is stepped back 45 degrees at
44’-0” above level 1 as required for B-3 properties adjacent to a residential zone.
The South Village currently has a wide mix of conforming and non-conforming
residential and commercial uses. The Downtown improvement plan states: “Numerous
larger underutilized parcels in this area can be infilled with primary housing
redevelopment… identified potential accommodations of as many as 500 units over
five to fifteen years.
An informal application was reviewed by the DRC on May 20, 2016. Comments
from this review have been addressed and responded to within this (SP1) – REV 3,
01.24.2017 resubmittal. Comments have all been addressed to compliance within the
code in this zoning district.
Please refer to the following application material for more detailed discussions
as well as the attached exhibits and drawing set for additional information.
184
“The presence of significant housing is the most critical
missing piece of Bozeman’s downtown, and for it to be
vital and sustainable over time, housing should be
developed in great numbers and varieties, at all price
points, both rental and for-sale. This recommendation is a
“cornerstone” of this plan. The very future of downtown
is dependent upon the successful development of
housing…”
- Development Improvement Plan, Page 16
185
DOWNTOWN MAP
Site
186
VICINITY MAP
Subject Property
187
DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PLAN MAP
Subject Property
188
DESIGN
All streets and sidewalks in downtown should be designed to make the experience of
pedestrians and bicyclists safe, comfortable and visually appealing… The scale and character
of the historic core should be protected but other downtown districts should be able to
accommodate contemporary development of greater height and density… Housing – for
all income levels – should be encouraged by a variety of methods…
- Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan, Pages 12-13
Black Olive’s design reflects its context, between the high density community core
district with natural, strong materials and the lower density neighborhoods to the south
with warmer materials respecting the buildings’ residential aspects with a human touch.
The material palette provides connectivity and respectful contrast, between the
different neighborhoods in Bozeman.
The geometry of the building incorporates solids and voids, evoking a subtle
abstraction of geological and other natural forms along the building facades.
Mountains, rock formations and urban influences inspire a contrast-full, timeless color
palette that reflects its setting.
The prominent tall, flat roof draws a connection to the setting, in both the
natural and urban context along Main St.
Lightness and contrast of the finishes breaks the scale, while the glazed ground
floor spaces engage the sidewalk in a pedestrian friendly manner connecting the
exterior and interior.
View from E. Olive Ave
189
DESIGN GUIDELINES, SUBCHAPTER 4-B
– GUIDELINES FOR THE B-3 COMMERCIAL CHARACTER AREA
“Downtown Bozeman should be the location of buildings of greatest height
and intensity in the community. The following guidelines apply to properties
zoned B-3 (Central Business District) that serves as a transition between the Main
Street Historic District and residentially zoned neighborhoods.
Underdevelopment of this transitional zone is a major concern. The downtown
district is planned for continued intensification over time with building
additions as well as new construction replacing dilapidated and
underutilized older structures on underdeveloped properties. Housing – for
all income levels – should be encouraged by a variety of methods to support the
continued economic viability of the Downtown Bozeman business district, which
is broadly recognized as one of Bozeman’s strongest assets.”
- NCOD Design Guidelines, Chapter 4-B
A. Mass & Scale
1. Provide density to meet the goals and objectives of the Downtown
Bozeman Improvement Plan: With 56 total apartment units on .4407
acres, Black Olive has a FAR ratio of 3.55. As a mixed use building, the
floor to floor height is 15’-0” with large storefront windows to engage the
sidewalks.
2. Innovative development and diversity of design is encouraged: Black
Olive incorporates a varied material palette of brick, panelized composite
corrugated metal and wood siding to relate and contrast to the high
density Community Core, B-3 zone and respect the lower density
residential zones of Bozeman. The brick coursing reflects Bozeman’s Main
Street history, while the wood siding gives the residential units a warm
feel similar to the residential neighborhoods close to the site. The
corrugated metal transitions between the dense urban area and lower
density areas within Bozeman and blends well with the vernacular of the
area.
3. A new building should exhibit clear order and comprehensive
composite on all elevations: Black Olive’s hierarchy is composed with a
strong, pedestrian friendly base and vertical elements that reflects the
surrounding urban districts massing and scale. Secondary materials of
metal/wood in combination with private unit balconies, provide solids
190
and voids along the façade to break up the building along with providing
great open spaces for the residents.
4. Building interface with residential zone properties: Black Olive’s site is
not adjacent to residentially zoned properties, but provides a setback
along the south and east elevations to provide a nice relief and respect to
the adjacent properties. The south elevation steps back again from the 2-
5 floors above the 1st floor step back. RE: Floorplans and elevations.
B. Building Quality
1. New buildings shall be designed to
the level of permanence and quality
appropriate for Downtown Bozeman:
Black Olive’s strong and varied material
palette of brick, corrugated metal and
wood siding, reflects the urban, high
density surroundings of downtown
Bozeman. The strong and transparent
pedestrian brick base of the building,
relates to other strong, engaging
buildings along Main Street, while also
relating to the softer residential aspects
of the community with wood siding to
give the building a warm touch.
2. Sustainable methods and techniques shall be applied to building
design but also integrated with site layout and infrastructure design:
i. Insulation: Being in a colder winter climate zone, Black Olive uses
continuous exterior rigid insulation to maximize building envelope
efficiency. Continuous insulation covers the entire exterior wall and
not just the spaces between studs, which fully bridges cold joints
and gaps that are usually created in buildings without exterior
continuous insulation. This technique provides long-term thermal
performance and protection against air infiltration and moisture
penetration – all while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This
tight building envelope, reduces the mechanical system energy
demand, which reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
ii. Mechanical System: The apartment units ‘split system’ is
commonly used for multi-family applications. It uses R410A
191
refrigerant which is the most widely used refrigerant because
R410A does not contain any chemicals that can damage ozone and
less refrigerant is required in the system due to the high heat
transfer capabilities of the R410A. Split systems are efficient at
cooling, reduce energy usage, and meet the requirements of the
International Energy Code.
iii. Density: 56 units / .4407 acres allows for many people to live in the
“Community Core” which reduces the need and use for cars in
the area.
iv. Car Share: 4 car share cars are provided which reduce the amount
of cars required by residents. This reduces reducing carbon
emissions as well as overall car traffic in the area. The car share
program will be open to up to 100 neighborhood members.
*(1) Data suggests that each car share can accommodate up to
40 members. Each member of the car share program can
anticipate to save between $135 - $435 a month as well.
v. *(2) A long-term study of City CarShare members found that 30
percent of households that joined sold a car; others delayed
purchasing one. Transit use, bicycling, and walking also
increased among members.[13] A study of driving behavior of
members from major carsharing organizations found an
average decline in 27% of annual vehicle kilometres travelled
(VKT)
vi. 75% of the trees and shrubs will be drought tolerant.
vii. Black Olive Building utilizes a storm water detention/irrigation
reuse system to mitigate storm water impacts. The storm water
detention system consists of a large underground tank located
beneath the building that will collect building runoff. This system
will reduce peak flows leaving the site as well as provide water for
landscape irrigation. The detention tank captures the same
volume as a green roof, but its design allows this water to supply
landscape irrigation which lowers overall potable water demands
of the site. The dual benefits of this system made this the best
choice for sustainability.
C. Building Roof Form
1. Use flat roof lines as the primary roof form: Black Olive’s flat roof
192
design blends with the other B3 zoned buildings and allows for the
mechanical equipment to be located on the roof.
2. Use of other roof forms: The primary vertical brick element, with flat roof
extending above the main flat roof, reflects the other building roof forms
of Main Street Bozeman.
D. Site Design
1. Create strong connections between downtown’s sub-districts and
between downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods: Black Olive’s
street presence has at least 50% of the building’s façade located within 3’
of the property line to create a strong pedestrian street level presence
and quality public landscaped areas along the buildings north façade.
Along S. Black Ave. & E. Olive St., transparent windows make up 50% of
the 1st floor façade to fully engage the street.
2. Public spaces should be made active through programming or
utilizing opportunities with adjacent uses that promote vitality and
safety: The 1st floor northwest corner and west side have been
programmed as “retail” with the opportunity for a small coffee shop to
use the public plazas, activating the properties corner and street front.
This creates a very vibrant area for the community.
E. Parking Facilities
1. Enclosed parking, integrated into individual new buildings as well as
additions (if feasible), is preferred whenever possible to surface
parking lots: Black Olive has an enclosed parking garage, located on the
1st floor, screened from the public with access from Black & Olive.
2. Shared parking structures are preferred to surface parking lots. A
parking structure should be designed so that it creates a visually
attractive and active street edge: The enclosed parking garage is
internal to the building’s 1st floor allowing the retail, leasing and fitness to
activate and engage the street edge. The car share program will be
open to as many as 100 neighborhood members. *(1) Data suggests
that each car share can accommodate up to 40 members. Each
member of the car share program can anticipate to save between
$135 - $435 a month as well.
3. For residential projects, enclosed parking is preferred to surface
parking lots: Enclosed 1st floor parking garage is designed to be
193
screened from E Olive St. & S. Black Ave.
F. Signs
1. Commercial and Mixed Use projects should include a variety of
creative and clear signage: Black Olive’s main building signage, along
E. Black St., provides a clear presence and acknowledgement for the
building’s primary entrance. RE: North Elevation. Areas for future
commercials signage, also identified on elevations.
2. Residential projects are encouraged to include building identification
signage to add to Bozeman’s overall sense of place: The main Black
Olive building identification signage prominently adds a sense of place to
the building as a point of reference.
3. All signs should be developed with the overall context of the building
and the area in mind. The placement or location of a sign is a critical
factor in maintaining the order and integrity of a building. Consistent
placement of signs according to building type, size, location and
even building materials creates a visual pattern that enhances the
streetscape experience: RE: North elevations for building identification
signage. The building’s main identification signage does not over impose
on the building or area, while providing a very prominent place
recognition for the community.
G. Street Patterns
1. Alleys: No alleys on site.
2. Streetscape: Detached street paving sidewalks are maintained to
preserve the neighborhood’s design and continuity from adjacent sites,
meeting at the corner of S. Black Ave & E. Olive St.
3. Planting strips: Existing planting strips are maintained to keep the
existing design of the streetscape.
4. Pattern of street trees: Existing trees within planting strips along S. Black
Ave. & E. Olive St. are to be preserved.
H. Landscape Design
1. Preserve and maintain mature trees and significant vegetation that
are a direct enhancement of the pedestrian streetscape environment:
Existing trees on site will be preserved to maintain the pedestrian feel of
the streetscape.
194
i. RE: Sheets L01.01 for landscape design for entire site. 13 points
are required for B-3 zoning, while 15 total points will be provided.
I. Utilities and service areas
1. Orient service entrances, waste disposal areas and other similar uses
toward service lanes away from major streets: The waste disposal, trash
room is located adjacent to the parking garage entrance so all services
are in one area. With no ally on site, the trash room is internal to the
building, just off E. Olive St., screened from the publics’ view.
2. Position service areas to minimize conflicts with other abutting uses:
Trash room is located next to garage entrance, away from other building
uses to limit noise and programming conflicts within building.
J. Site Furniture
1. Site furniture should be simple in character: Bike racks and quarried
boulder seats are used as site furniture to engage and activate the
streetscape.
195
PARKLAND
It is very unusual for development within any downtown to be charged a fee for parks.
This is for several reasons. First, parkland is most usually needed on the outer edge of a
community where families with children are settling. Downtowns do not typically attract
that demographic and thus if development is charged such a fee, in a sense it is
subsidizing edge development. This is contrary to planning principles involving infill.
Second, downtowns usually already have, or are close to, existing parks with sufficient
capacity for more use; rarely are entirely new parks needed. Finally, the people who
live in, work in, and visit downtowns use public space differently. They tend to use the
sidewalks, cafes and coffeehouses for relaxing, passive recreation and socializing. In
some ways parks are superfluous. We recommend this fee be specifically dedicated to
the downtown district and used as a funding source for the “green” strategies outlined
in this plan; improving sidewalks, greening streets and alleys, creating small parks
along Bozeman Creek, and creating or improving other public spaces and facilities
within the downtown.
- Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan, Page 39
Being a downtown infill residential project in the B3 Zoning district, parkland is
proposed to be provided through cash-in-lieu as identified in 38.27.030.
See PROJECT MATRIX for further parkland requirement breakdown. 6912 sqft of
parkland required.
196
OPEN SPACE
Connections between indoor and outdoor spaces are integral to the overall design.
Code requirement for open space, Sec. 38.27.020.E, “dwelling units which do not have
ground floor access to a landscaped rear yard.” All units in Black Olive have an
individual balcony with minimum size of 100 sqft for studios and 1-bedrooms and 150
sqft for all 2-bedrooms.
197
LIGHTING
Building entry lights provided at entrances to safely light building access points while
limiting excessive light that will negatively impact the neighborhood. RE: Photometric
Plan, Lighting details and light cut sheet.
Fixture WS: (Lumiere, 303-W1-LEDB2) Wall mounted exterior light, located at building
entrances.
Fixture SD: (Halo, SLD6128xxWH) Ceiling mounted light, located a parking garage
entrance.
Fixture WS
Fixture SD
198
References:
*(1) “Growth in Worldwide Carsharing, An International Comparison.” Susan A. Shaheen and
Adam P. Cohen.
http://tsrc.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/Worldwide%20Carsharing%20Growth%20-
%20Shaheen.pdf
*(2) “The Impact of Carsharing on Household Vehicle Ownership.” Elliot Martin and Susan
Shaheen. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7w58646d?query=Impact%20of%20Carsharing
199
BLACK OLIVE – PROPOSED VS. MAX ENVELOPE CUBIC FT.
DATE: January 24, 2017
Maximum envelope cubic ft on site: 1,260,000 cubic ft
Propose cubic ft of building: 952,320 cubic ft
Proposed building is only 75% Cubic ft of max envelope Cubic ft on site.
200
project sections
north-south section
east-west section
201
202
203
Car Share Agreement and Commitment
And Car Share Management Plan
Olive and Black, LLC, a Montana limited liability company, with address of 20 North Tracy
Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715 is the owner of Tract A of Amended Plat of Block C
of Black's Addition to the City of Bozeman, in Section 7, Township 2 South, Range 6 East,
P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana ("Owner").
Pursuant to Administrative Policy No. 2017-01, City of Bozeman, Owner will be
establishing a contract for car sharing for the Tract A described above.
As of the execution of this Agreement and Commitment, Owner has not executed a contract
to provide car sharing services. Owner, hereby agrees and acknowledges it will,
simultaneous with the execution of a car share contract, ensure the following requirements
are within this contract as part of the Car Share Management Plan:
1. The car share contract will be maintained by the Owner and provide to any
manager for the site;
2. The car share contract shall include a clause that prohibits termination of the
contract until the Department of Community Development is notified and
agreement from the City, via the Department of Community Development with
one of the following remedies:
a. Providing or entering into a contract with a comparable car sharing
service;
b. Entering into a City of Bozeman approved parking agreement with
nearby property owner(s);
c. Construction of additional parking spaces on site or off site; and/or
d. Demonstrate compliance with the City of Bozeman parking
regulations i n another manner.
3. The car sharing parking spaces shall be identified on-site, the site plan and
shall be reserved for the car share vehicle(s) on-site;
4. The owner shall install signage designating on-site car share vehicle parking stalls;
5. Off-street parking area and reservation process will be made accessible to car
share members at all times of the day through self-service features;
6. All vehicles used for the car-share program shall be clearly marked with no less
than a sticker of not less than 3 inches x 3 inches affixed to the rear bumper
or lower corner of the windshield. The text background shall have at least
70% contrast;
7. The owner shall file an annual report of the car share service use no later than
December 31st of each year;
8. It is anticipated the owner will contract with a national provider for the car
share program.
Agreed and executed this 27th day of March, 2017.
Olive and Black, LLC
204
City of Bozeman Acceptance:
The City of Bozeman, by and through the Department of Community
Development, reviewed the above Car Share Agreement and Commitment and Car Share
Management Plan and accepts the agreements, covenants, comments thereof.
Dated this _ day of , 2017.
City of Bozeman / Department of Community Development
By: _______________________________________________________
Its: _______________________________________________________
2
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
EAST OLIVE STREET(58'-6" -60'-0" R.O.W.)SOUTH BLACK AVENUE
(57'-6" R.O.W.)PROPERTY LINE210'BIKE RACKSEX. TREE TOREMAIN, TYP.BOULDER/SEATING,TYP.EDGE OF EX.ASPHALT DRIVEWAYCIP CONCRETERETAINING WALLEX. WOOD PANELFENCE TO REMAINCONCRETESIDEWALKEX. SHED TOREMAINVISION TRIANGLETREE WELLSTEEL EDGINGCONCRETE PAVERS,TYP.PROPERTY LINESCOREJOINT, TYP.SPACE EQUALLY BETWEENBUILDING ENTRANCES.PROVIDE 1' SCOREJOINTBAND TO FRAME CONCRETEPAVERS AT BUILDINGENTRANCES, TYP.5' CONCRETE SIDEWALKTYP., SEE CIVIL PLANSGARAGE ACCESSPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESEATING AREABIKE RACKSVISION TRIANGLEEXISTING TREES IN SITEVISIBILITY TRIANGLESMUST BE LIMBED UP TOA HEIGHT OF 10' ABOVETHE CENTERLINE GRADEOF THE INTERSECTIONEXISTING TREES IN SITEVISIBILITY TRIANGLESMUST BE LIMBED UP TOA HEIGHT OF 10' ABOVETHE CENTERLINE GRADEOF THE INTERSECTIONSEATING AREABUILDINGFACADEBUILDINGFACADE10' UTILITYEASEMENT3TREESSHRUBSSYMB.BOTANICAL NAMESIZETYPESPACING#COMMON NAMEPLANT SCHEDULEACER RUBRUMRED ROCKET MAPLE2.5" CALB & BPER PLAN15 GALPOTPER PLANPERENNIALS & GRASSESACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM***'MOONSHINE' YARROW1 GALPOTPER PLAN15JUNIPERUS VIRGINIANA'SKYROCKET' JUNIPER26DESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA ***TUFTED HAIRGRASS1 GALPOTPER PLAN37ECHINACEA PURPUREA***'MAGNUS' ECHINEACEA1 GALPOTPER PLAN8RATIBIDA COLUMNIFERA***'MEXICAN HAT' CONEFLOWER1 GALPOTPER PLAN14OTHERQUARRIED GRANITE BOULDER, Min 3' DIAMETER5FESCUE BLEND SOD2,432sqft*** DROUGHT TOLERANT SPECIESMATUREHEIGHT30'-40'15'-20'2'2'-3'3'2'MATURESPREAD10'-20'2'-3'2'2'-3'1.5'2'EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN1 12" ROCK BARK1,378sqft7CONCRETE PAVERS659sqftEXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED5LANDSCAPE POINTS - BLACK OLIVE13 REQUIRED LANDSCAPE POINTS - (B-3)POINTS15 TOTAL LANDSCAPE POINTS 5GREATER THAN 75% OF TREES AND SHRUBS ARE DROUGHT TOLERANT 51 POINT AWARDED FOR EACH STONE BOULDER NOT SMALLER THAN 3' INDIAMETER WHICH IS INTEGRATED WITH OTHER LANDSCAPING.5 PROVIDEDSTREET FRONTAGE LANDSCAPINGREQUIRED: ONE LARGE CANOPY TREE FOR EVERY 50 FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE .-OLIVE STREET 200'-1" LINEAR FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE, (4 TREES REQUIRED) - 4 PROVIDED-BLACK STREET 95'-0" LINEAR FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE, (2 TREES REQUIRED) - 2 PROVIDEDTOTAL SITE PROVIDED: 8 LARGE CANOPY TREES ( 7 EXISTING + 1 NEW) 5FIVE POINTS ARE AWARDED IF THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING IS LOCATED ON THE SITE SOTHAT 50 PERCENT OR MORE OF THE STREET FACADE OF THE BUILDING IS WITHIN ADISTANCE OF THREE FEET OR LESS FROM THE REQUIRED FRONT BUILDING LINE, I.E.,FRONT YARD SETBACK LINE. 177.67' OF THE 276.6' OF FRONTAGE ARE WITHIN 3' OF THESETBACK LINE. (64% OF THE FRONTAGE IS WITHIN 3' SETBACK LINE.)LANDSCAPE INSTALL NOTES1.PLACE TREES, SHRUBS, AND PLANT MATERIAL WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRESENT.2.ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK3.VERIFY ALL QUANTITIES. ILLUSTRATED PLAN SHALL DICTATE COUNT.4.NO SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ALLOWED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. ALLREQUESTS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO DESIGN 5 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE. 406-587-4873 ORTROY@DESIGN5LA.COM5.ALL SOD AND SEED AREAS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 4" TOPSOIL6.ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 12" OF PREPARED, AMENDED SOIL TO PROMOTE PLANT GROWTH7.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL MEET WITH LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR ON SITE, AT PREDETERMINED INTERVALS TODISCUSS PROGRESS, QUESTIONS AND PRODUCT PLACEMENT.8.ALL EDGING SHALL BE 316"x4" NATURAL STEEL (OR AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN DETAILS). TAC WELD TO #4 REBARDRIVEN MIN. 18" DEEP.9.ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL HAVE A WEED BARRIER INSTALLED BETWEEN THE SOIL AND COVERING LAYER OF ROCKOR MULCH PER PLAN.10.ALL TREES SHALL BE STAKED FOR MIN. 2 YEARS. REMOVE STAKES AFTER 2 YEARS.11.ALL AREAS ON SITE DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES NOT INDICATED ON LANDSCAPE PLAN ARE TO BERECLAIMED AND RE-ESTABLISHED TO PRE-DISTURBANCE CONDITION, WITH APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.12.PERMANENT UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE INSTALLED AT TIME OF LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION.IRRIGATION TO BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL STATE AND LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES.PROJECT DATA - BLACK OLIVEPROJECT ADDRESSBLACK OLIVE202 South Black AvenueBozeman, MT 59715PROJECT OWNERBLACK & OLIVE, LLC20 North Tracy AvenueBozeman, MT 59715(406) 404 -1788LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTDESIGN 5, LLCTroy Scherer4249 East Cover StreetBozeman, MT 59718(406) 587 -4873EAST OLIVE STREET(58'-6" -60'-0" R.O.W.)SOUTH BLACK AVENUE
(57'-6" R.O.W.)PROPERTY LINEF.pennsylvanica,5.5" DBHA.rubrum,15" DBHP. pungens,20" DBHF.pennsylvanica, 9" DBHF.pennsylvanica, 10" DBHF.pennsylvanica, 7" DBHA.rubrum,14" DBHA.rubrum,10" DBHA.rubrum,16" DBHA.rubrum,16" DBHA.rubrum,7" DBHF.pennsylvanica,25" DBH4L01.011/2"=1'Bike Rack1'-8"2'-10"2'-6"2'BIKE RIB 2.0 BYBIKERACK.COM ORAPPROVED EQ. COLOR TO BEBRONZE SEMI GLOSS.INSTALL PERMANUFACTURER'SSPECIFICATIONSFINISH GRADERACKS ARE TO BE PLACED AMIN. 30" ON CENTER.24"MIN.TO NEAREST OBJECT30" MIN TO NEAREST OBJECT3L01.011/2"=1'Tree ProtectionTREE PROTECTION FENCE:GALVANIZED CHAIN LINKFENCING, STEEL POSTSINSTALLED AT 8' O.C.2" X 8' STEEL POSTSOR APPROVED EQUAL.5" THICKLAYER OF MULCH.MAINTAIN EXISTINGGRADE WITH THE TREEPROTECTION FENCEUNLESS OTHERWISEINDICATED ON THE PLANSCROWN DRIP LINE OR OTHER LIMIT OF TREE PROTECTION AREA. SEETREE PRESERVATION PLAN FOR TREES THAT ARE TO BE PROTECTED.6'KEEP OUTTREEPROTECTIONAREA8.5" X 11" SIGNLAMINATED IN PLASTICSPACED EVERY 50'ALONG THE FENCENOTES:1.SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS.2.IF THERE IS NO EXISTING IRRIGATION, SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATERINGREQUIREMENTS.3.NO PRUNING SHALL BE PERFORMED EXCEPT BY APPROVED ARBORIST.4.NO EQUIPMENT SHALL OPERATE INSIDE THE PROTECTIVE FENCING INCLUDINGDURING FENCE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL.5.SEE SITE PLAN FOR ANY MODIFICATIONS WITH THE TREE PROTECTION AREA.6.DETAIL COURTESY OF THE URBAN TREE FOUNDATION ̹͖͔͕͘105020N1L01.011"=10'-0"Landscape PlanSHEET TITLEISSUES/REVISIONSSTAMPSHEET NUMBERZ:\Clients\Black and Olive\Autocad\01_Sheets
BLACK & OLIVE, LLC
BLACK OLIVE
110 EAST OLIVE STREET,
BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715NOT FORCONSTRUCTION#DateDescription10/04/2016SITE PLAN#DateDescription21/04/2017SITE PLAN REV 231/24/2017SITE PLAN REV 3L01.01LANDSCAPEPLAN2L01.011"=20'-0"Tree Protection Plan2010040N222
1/2 MILE RADIUS1/2 MILE RADIUS1/2 MILE RADIUS1/2 MILE RADIUSB-3
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-2
R-1
R-4
R-4
R-4
R-4
B-2M
R-3
R-3R-5
R-5
M-1
PL1
R-0
B-2
2.5
2.10
2.9
2.6
2.12
2.7
2.4
2.11
ZONING LEGEND
1" = 200'-0"1 SITE PLAN - VICINITY MAP
PROJECT
COPYRIGHT BY JOHNSONNATHAN STROHE (JNS). ALLDRAWN AND WRITTENINFORMATION APPEARINGHEREIN SHALL NOT BEMODIFIED, DUPLICATED,DISCLOSED, USED FORANOTHER PROJECT, OROTHERWISE USED WITHOUTTHE WRITTEN CONSENT ANDINDEMNIFICATION OF JNS
SHEET TITLE
ISSUES/REVISIONS
STAMP
SHEET NUMBER
PRINTED ON1600 Wynkoop St., Suite 100 | Denver, CO 80202303.892.7062WWW.JNS.DESIGN1/23/2017 3:54:01 PMP:\1611\05-Design Drawings\08-Local Workstation\Kevin\1611_Black Olive_KEVIN.rvtA00.90BLACK & OLIVE, LLCBLACK OLIVE #1611
VICINITY MAP 110 E. OLIVE STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715NORTH
KEYNOTES
2.4 LONGFELLOW ELEMENTRAY SCHOOL
2.5 BEALL PARK
2.6 LINDLEY PARK
2.7 PEETS HILL / BURKE PARK
2.9 BOZEMAN PUBLIC LIBRARY
2.10 BOZEMAN FIRE DEPARTMENT
2.11 SOUTHSIDE PARK
2.12 BOGART POOL
# Date Description
10/04/2016 SITE PLAN
1 11/30/2016 SITE PLAN - REV 1
2 01/04/2017 REV 2
3 01/24/2017 REV 3
223
RETAIL
101
LEASING
102
STAIR 01
001-01
STAIR 02
001-02
TRASH
108
FITNESS
112
ELEV LOBBY
111
ELECTRICALROOM
107
RESTROOM
105 INOUTTELECOMM
103
WATERENTRY
104
TRASH
220
PARKING
3
PROJECT
COPYRIGHT BY JOHNSONNATHAN STROHE (JNS). ALLDRAWN AND WRITTENINFORMATION APPEARINGHEREIN SHALL NOT BEMODIFIED, DUPLICATED,DISCLOSED, USED FORANOTHER PROJECT, OROTHERWISE USED WITHOUTTHE WRITTEN CONSENT ANDINDEMNIFICATION OF JNS
SHEET TITLE
ISSUES/REVISIONS
STAMP
SHEET NUMBER
PRINTED ON1600 Wynkoop St., Suite 100 | Denver, CO 80202303.892.7062WWW.JNS.DESIGN2/14/2017 9:00:42 AMP:\1611\05-Design Drawings\08-Local Workstation\Kevin\1611_Black Olive_KEVIN.rvtA01.00BLACK & OLIVE, LLCBLACK OLIVE #1611
ARCHITECTURAL SITEPLAN110 E. OLIVE STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 1" = 10'-0"1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN NORTH
KEYNOTES
# Date Description
09/12/2016 100% SCHEMATICDESIGN
09/22/2016 100% SCHEMATICDESIGN (ARCHUPDATE)
10/04/2016 SITE PLAN
1 11/30/2016 SITE PLAN - REV 1
2 01/04/2017 REV 2
3 01/24/2017 REV 3
PROJECT MATRIX
224
625AT625AT625AT625AT16250ADJUSTABLEBENCHUTILITY BENCHA03.021
A03.02
A03.01
A03.01
1
2
2
B
C
D
A
1 2 5 7
E
9
1
A04.01__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2
A04.01
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8643
RETAIL
101
STAIR 01
001-01
5 1/2"19' - 0 1/2"12' - 1"15' - 11"1' - 9"7' - 2"19' - 1"14' - 0"14' - 0"19' - 1"8' - 11"7"24' - 1"1' - 4"10' - 9 3/4"8' - 8 1/4"15' - 8"
TRASH
108
6' - 6 7/8"23' - 10 1/8"18' - 4"27' - 0"28' - 0"45' - 9"26' - 0"15' - 6"1' - 8"
ELEV
01
PROPERTY LINE
192' - 8"
FITNESS
112
STAIR 02
001-02ELEV LOBBY
111 INOUTADA ADA
1
E. OLIVE ST.S. BLACK AVEWATERENTRY
104
ELECTRICALROOM
107
8.3211.26
14.6
TYP.3.3
ST
1.4
31' - 7"17' - 8"7' - 2"33' - 1"33' - 1"9' - 6"24' - 1"36' - 6"
RESTROOM
105
TYP.4.8TYP.3.3
TYP.26.1
TYP.22.4
TYP.22.4 PROPERTY LINETYP.22.4
TYP.13.7
TYP.13.7
31' - 7"17' - 8"7' - 2"33' - 1"33' - 1"9' - 6"24' - 1"36' - 6"
3.28
24' - 0"24' - 0"20' - 5"10' - 7 1/2"6 1/2"17' - 8"7' - 2"33' - 1"33' - 1"9' - 5"1"24' - 1"36' - 6"
1' - 1 1/8"5' - 7"1' - 10 7/8"11' - 10"8"9' - 11 1/2"6 1/2"1' - 5 3/8"10' - 0"3' - 2 5/8"3' - 0 1/8"5' - 6"1' - 8 1/8"3' - 0"6' - 0"2' - 7"12' - 2 1/2"9' - 3 1/2"1' - 7 1/8"12' - 8 1/8"1' - 2 7/8"16' - 6"1' - 0 7/8"9' - 5"
1"
19' - 5"4' - 8"17' - 10"18' - 8"5' - 10"34' - 0"6' - 0"34' - 0"5' - 10"34' - 0"6' - 0"29' - 0"5' - 0"2' - 0"5' - 10"7' - 3 3/4"26' - 8 1/4"3' - 2"2' - 10"5 1/8"8"4' - 11 1/2"1' - 4"10' - 0"1' - 6"8' - 4"1' - 9 3/8"5' - 0"2' - 0"34' - 0"6' - 0"34' - 0"5' - 10"4' - 10 1/4"20' - 3 1/2"8' - 10 1/4"6' - 0"21' - 2"5' - 0"7' - 10"79' - 10"TRASH
220
TELECOMM
103
CAR
SHARE 242730
34
26
15
14
29 23
4 5 6 10987
11
2 3
25
13
28
36
12
35 33 32
31
16
17
21 20 19 18
22
PARKING
8.32
LEASING
102
TYP.10.22
TYP.10.2
TYP.10.2TYP.10.2
TYP.10.2
10.3
CAR
SHARE
CAR
SHARE
CAR
SHARE
3
37
ELEC.
200h
GENERAL NOTES
A. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON FLOOR PLANS ARE TO FACE OFSTUD, FACE OF CONCRETE OR CENTERLINE OF STRUCTURE.
B. "ALIGN" AS USED IN THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL MEAN TOACCURATELY LOCATE FINISH FACES IN THE SAME PLANE. THECONNECTION OF ALIGNED PLANES SHALL BE WITHOUT VISIBLEJOINTS OR SURFACE IRREGULARITIES UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE.
C. PROVIDE BLOCKING IN PARTITIONS AS REQUIRED FOR ALLITEMS ATTACHED TO WALLS INCLUDING ITEMS PROVIDED BY
OWNER.
D. ALL GYPSUM BOARD TO BE 5/8" TYPE "X". MOISTURE ANDMILDEW RESISTANT GYP AT ALL BATHROOM WET AREAS, RE:PLANS.
E. ALL PENETRATIONS AND JOINT AT DEMISING WALLS, CORRIDORWALLS AND EXTERIOR WALLS SHALL BE ACOUSTICALLY SEALED.
F. DETAILS ARE USUALLY KEYED ONLY ONCE THROUGHOUT THESET (ON PLANS OR ELEVATIONS) WHERE THEY OCCUR FIRST ANDARE TYPICAL FOR SIMILAR CONDITIONS UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE.
G. "TYPICAL" MEANS FOR ALL SIMILAR CONDITIONS UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE
H. VERIFY ALL CONDITIONS IN FIELD. NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANYDISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION
I. DRYWALL SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO REPAIRAND REFINISH ALL DRYWALL WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN DAMAGED,CUT AWAY, OR REMOVED BY OTHER TRADES INCLUDINGMECHANICAL, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL AND FIRE PROTECTION.
J. ALL WORK SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN COMFORMANCE WITH
THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.
K. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT PLACED ON ROOFING SHALL BESUPPORTED ON 8 INCH CURBS OR LEGS, WHICH SHALL BEFLASHED TO THE ROOFING AND MADE WATERTIGHT.
L. ALL PROJECTIONS THROUGH THE ROOF SURFACE SHALL BEPROPERLY FLASHED TO PREVENT MOISTURE ENTRY.
M. CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH THE NATIONAL ROOFINGCONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION MANUAL (NRCA), AND THE SHEETMETAL AND AIR CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS NATIONALASSOCIATION (SMACNA).
PROJECT
COPYRIGHT BY JOHNSONNATHAN STROHE (JNS). ALLDRAWN AND WRITTENINFORMATION APPEARINGHEREIN SHALL NOT BEMODIFIED, DUPLICATED,DISCLOSED, USED FORANOTHER PROJECT, OROTHERWISE USED WITHOUTTHE WRITTEN CONSENT ANDINDEMNIFICATION OF JNS
SHEET TITLE
ISSUES/REVISIONS
STAMP
SHEET NUMBER
PRINTED ON1600 Wynkoop St., Suite 100 | Denver, CO 80202303.892.7062WWW.JNS.DESIGN2/8/2017 11:58:02 AMP:\1611\05-Design Drawings\08-Local Workstation\Kevin\1611_Black Olive_KEVIN.rvtA01.01BLACK & OLIVE, LLCBLACK OLIVE #1611
LEVEL 1 PLAN 110 E. OLIVE STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715KEYNOTES
1.4 EXISTING TO REMAIN
3.3 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE COLUMN
3.28 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE PAVING, RE: CIVIL
4.8 8" CMU - GROUND FACE ARCHITECTURAL FINISH
8.32 OVERHEAD COILING GRILL WITH MOTORIZED OPERATOR
10.2 'COMPACT CAR PARKING ONLY' SIGN. PERMANENTLY AFFIXEDIN FRONT OF COMPACT PARKING STALLS. PROVIDE POST
WHERE APPLICABLE
10.3 'CAR SHARE PARKING ONLY' SIGN. PERMANENTLY AFFIXED INFRONT OF CAR SHARE PARKING STALLS. PROVIDE POSTWHERE APPLICABLE
10.22 MAILBOX (MODEL: FLORENCE 4C10D-18CS), FRONT LOADING
11.26 9'-0" GARAGE HEADACHE BAR; CONFIRM MINIMUM HEIGHT
13.7 BIKE RACK, RE: LANDSCAPE
14.6 HYDRAULIC ELEVATOR; MACHINE ROOM-LESS, STRETCHERCAPABLE
22.4 AREA DRAIN
26.1 TRANSFORMER
1/8" = 1'-0"1 LEVEL 1 PLAN NORTH
ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATION 100'-0" = 4819.50', RE:CIVIL
# Date Description
09/12/2016 100% SCHEMATICDESIGN
09/22/2016 100% SCHEMATICDESIGN (ARCHUPDATE)
10/04/2016 SITE PLAN
1 11/30/2016 SITE PLAN - REV 1
2 01/04/2017 REV 2
3 01/24/2017 REV 3
225
A03.021
A03.02
A03.01
A03.01
1
2
2
B
C
D
A
1 2 5 7
5' - 10"5' - 0"5' - 0"24' - 0"6' - 0"24' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"2' - 0"6' - 0"14' - 0"11' - 7"17' - 8"7' - 2"11' - 7"12' - 6"9' - 0"2' - 6"12' - 6"18' - 1"9' - 6"11' - 7"12' - 5"11' - 7"25' - 0"
E
9864
6' - 0"14' - 0"11' - 7"12' - 5"5' - 3"6' - 4"10"11' - 7"11' - 7"9' - 11"8' - 0"25' - 1"9' - 6"11' - 7"12' - 5"1"11' - 6"25' - 0"
3
UNIT A-1b
204
UNIT A-1b
206
UNIT S-1a
208
UNIT S-1d
210
UNIT S-1b
212
UNIT A-1b
213
UNIT S-1c
207
UNIT A-1a
203
31' - 7"17' - 8"7' - 2"33' - 1"33' - 1"9' - 6"24' - 1"36' - 6"
UNIT B-1b
20274' - 0"UNIT B-2b
214
STAIR 2
002-02
STAIR 1
002-01
TRASH
216
ELEVCONTROL
215
5' - 10"5' - 6"28' - 6"6' - 0"28' - 6"5' - 6"5' - 10"74' - 0"31' - 7"17' - 8"7' - 2"33' - 1"33' - 1"9' - 6"24' - 1"36' - 6"
ELEV
02
CORRIDOR
200e STORAGE
218ELEC217
220 SF
BALCONY
202a
146 SF
BALCONY
208a
124 SF
BALCONY
204a
126 SF
BALCONY
206a
132 SF
BALCONY
210a
134 SF
BALCONY
212a
133 SF
BALCONY
213a
259 SF
BALCONY
214a
UNIT A-1c
205
UNIT A-2TYPE A
209
UNIT B-3TYPE A
211
115' - 0"
115' - 0"
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINETYP.14.11
TYP.5.26
TYP.23.12
102 SF
BALCONY
203a
100 SF
BALCONY
205a 105 SF
BALCONY
207a
102 SF
BALCONY
209a
151 SF
BALCONY
211a
2' - 10"3' - 2"4' - 1 1/2"6' - 2"3' - 8 1/2"5' - 9 1/2"5' - 9 1/2"4' - 10"7' - 7"5' - 0 1/2"
2 1/2"
6' - 4"10"4' - 0"7' - 7"5' - 11"5' - 8"4' - 2"7' - 2"6' - 7"3' - 7"7' - 2"10' - 2"4' - 2"3' - 0"6' - 6"5' - 6 1/2"6' - 0 1/2"7' - 7"4' - 10"
1"
5' - 8"5' - 10"7' - 10"5' - 6"7' - 0"4' - 8"
3' - 0"3' - 0"4' - 1 1/2"5' - 6"4' - 4 1/2"5' - 1"6' - 6"5' - 3"6' - 5"6' - 0"1' - 4"5' - 10"6' - 0"5' - 7"7' - 7"4' - 11"5' - 11"3' - 1"2' - 6"7' - 7"4' - 11"4' - 3 3/4"7' - 8"6' - 1 1/4"9' - 6"6' - 0"5' - 7"7' - 7"4' - 10"5' - 9 1/2"5' - 9 1/2"9' - 10 5/8"4' - 3 1/2"6' - 8"4' - 1 7/8"5' - 10"5' - 0"2' - 6"2' - 6"2' - 8"15' - 7"4' - 6"1' - 3"3' - 0"3' - 0"3' - 6 5/8"5' - 8"11' - 6 3/8"3' - 3"2' - 6"2' - 6"5' - 0"1' - 6"6"3' - 0 3/4"1 1/8"UNIT B-1a
201
152 SF
BALCONY
201a
A01.03
4
4.8
A01.03
7
4' - 10"1' - 0"5' - 6"7' - 9"5' - 7"14' - 3"11"3' - 0"3' - 0"3' - 5"13' - 8 1/8"8' - 6"2' - 11"5' - 6"1' - 3"8' - 4 7/8"11' - 11 3/8"11' - 7 1/4"8' - 6 7/8"16' - 10 7/8"6' - 2 7/8"8' - 4 7/8"11' - 11 3/8"24' - 9 1/4"6' - 1 1/4"11' - 3 1/4"6' - 2 7/8"19' - 9 1/4"
5' - 8 7/8"
GENERAL NOTES
A. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON FLOOR PLANS ARE TO FACE OFSTUD, FACE OF CONCRETE OR CENTERLINE OF STRUCTURE.
B. "ALIGN" AS USED IN THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL MEAN TO
ACCURATELY LOCATE FINISH FACES IN THE SAME PLANE. THECONNECTION OF ALIGNED PLANES SHALL BE WITHOUT VISIBLEJOINTS OR SURFACE IRREGULARITIES UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE.
C. PROVIDE BLOCKING IN PARTITIONS AS REQUIRED FOR ALLITEMS ATTACHED TO WALLS INCLUDING ITEMS PROVIDED BYOWNER.
D. ALL GYPSUM BOARD TO BE 5/8" TYPE "X". MOISTURE ANDMILDEW RESISTANT GYP AT ALL BATHROOM WET AREAS, RE:PLANS.
E. ALL PENETRATIONS AND JOINT AT DEMISING WALLS, CORRIDORWALLS AND EXTERIOR WALLS SHALL BE ACOUSTICALLY SEALED.
F. DETAILS ARE USUALLY KEYED ONLY ONCE THROUGHOUT THESET (ON PLANS OR ELEVATIONS) WHERE THEY OCCUR FIRST ANDARE TYPICAL FOR SIMILAR CONDITIONS UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE.
G. "TYPICAL" MEANS FOR ALL SIMILAR CONDITIONS UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE
H. VERIFY ALL CONDITIONS IN FIELD. NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANYDISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION
I. DRYWALL SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO REPAIRAND REFINISH ALL DRYWALL WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN DAMAGED,CUT AWAY, OR REMOVED BY OTHER TRADES INCLUDINGMECHANICAL, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL AND FIRE PROTECTION.
J. ALL WORK SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN COMFORMANCE WITHTHE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.
K. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT PLACED ON ROOFING SHALL BESUPPORTED ON 8 INCH CURBS OR LEGS, WHICH SHALL BEFLASHED TO THE ROOFING AND MADE WATERTIGHT.
L. ALL PROJECTIONS THROUGH THE ROOF SURFACE SHALL BEPROPERLY FLASHED TO PREVENT MOISTURE ENTRY.
M. CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH THE NATIONAL ROOFINGCONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION MANUAL (NRCA), AND THE SHEETMETAL AND AIR CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS NATIONALASSOCIATION (SMACNA).
PROJECT
COPYRIGHT BY JOHNSONNATHAN STROHE (JNS). ALLDRAWN AND WRITTENINFORMATION APPEARINGHEREIN SHALL NOT BEMODIFIED, DUPLICATED,DISCLOSED, USED FORANOTHER PROJECT, OROTHERWISE USED WITHOUTTHE WRITTEN CONSENT ANDINDEMNIFICATION OF JNS
SHEET TITLE
ISSUES/REVISIONS
STAMP
SHEET NUMBER
PRINTED ON1600 Wynkoop St., Suite 100 | Denver, CO 80202303.892.7062WWW.JNS.DESIGN1/23/2017 3:55:28 PMP:\1611\05-Design Drawings\08-Local Workstation\Kevin\1611_Black Olive_KEVIN.rvtA01.02BLACK & OLIVE, LLCBLACK OLIVE #1611
LEVEL 2 PLAN 110 E. OLIVE STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 1/8" = 1'-0"1 LEVEL 2 PLAN
KEYNOTES
4.8 8" CMU - GROUND FACE ARCHITECTURAL FINISH
5.26 DECORATIVE METAL BRACING
14.11 TRASH CHUTE - 36"
23.12 MECH CHASE
NORTH
# Date Description
09/12/2016 100% SCHEMATICDESIGN
09/22/2016 100% SCHEMATICDESIGN (ARCHUPDATE)
10/04/2016 SITE PLAN
1 11/30/2016 SITE PLAN - REV 1
2 01/04/2017 REV 2
3 01/24/2017 REV 3
226
A03.021
A03.02
A03.01
A03.01
1
2
2
B
C
D
A
1 2 5 7
E
98643
UNIT B-1a
301
UNIT B-1b
302
UNIT A-1b
304 UNIT A-1b
306 UNIT S-1a
308
UNIT S-1d
310
UNIT S-1b
312
UNIT A-1b
313
UNIT B-2b
314
UNIT A-1a
309
UNIT S-1c
307
UNIT A-1c
305UNIT A-1a
303
TRASH
316
TELECOMM
315
TELECOMM317STAIR 2
003-02
STORAGE
318
ELEV
03
CORRIDOR
300
STAIR 1
003-01
UNIT B-2a
311
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINETYP.14.11
TYP.14.6
TYP.23.12
153 SF
BALCONY
314a
100 SF
BALCONY
313a
102 SF
BALCONY
312a157 SF
BALCONY
312b
103 SF
BALCONY
308a
101 SF
BALCONY
310a100 SF
BALCONY
306a100 SF
BALCONY
304a
152 SF
BALCONY
301a 151 SF
BALCONY
311a102 SF
BALCONY
309a105 SF
BALCONY
307a
100 SF
BALCONY
305a
102 SF
BALCONY
303a
6' - 0"14' - 0"11' - 7"17' - 8"7' - 2"11' - 7"12' - 5"9' - 1"2' - 6"12' - 6"18' - 1"9' - 6"11' - 7"12' - 6"11' - 6"25' - 0"
31' - 7"17' - 8"7' - 2"33' - 1"33' - 1"9' - 6"24' - 1"36' - 6"5' - 10"34' - 0"6' - 0"34' - 0"5' - 10"5' - 6"28' - 6"6' - 0"28' - 6"5' - 6"31' - 7"17' - 8"7' - 2"33' - 1"33' - 1"9' - 6"24' - 1"36' - 6"
6' - 0"14' - 0"11' - 7"12' - 5"5' - 3"6' - 4"10"11' - 7"11' - 6"10' - 0"8' - 0"17' - 4"7' - 9"9' - 6"1"11' - 6"12' - 6"11' - 6"25' - 0"5' - 10"5' - 0"5' - 0"24' - 0"6' - 0"24' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 10"34' - 0"6' - 0"34' - 0"4' - 10"1' - 0"5' - 6"7' - 9"5' - 7"14' - 3"11"3' - 0"3' - 0"3' - 5"13' - 8 1/8"8' - 6"2' - 11"5' - 6"1' - 3"2' - 10"3' - 2"4' - 1 1/2"6' - 2"3' - 8 1/2"5' - 9 1/2"5' - 9 1/2"4' - 10"7' - 7"5' - 0 1/2"2 1/2"6' - 4"
10"
4' - 0"7' - 7"5' - 11"5' - 7"4' - 3"5' - 9"1' - 5"6' - 7"3' - 7"7' - 2"6' - 7"3' - 7"4' - 2"3' - 0"6' - 6"1"5' - 5 1/2"6' - 0 1/2"7' - 7"4' - 11"5' - 8"5' - 10"7' - 10"5' - 6"7' - 0"4' - 8"9' - 8 5/8"5' - 10"5' - 0"2' - 6"2' - 6"24' - 0"3' - 0"3' - 0"24' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"2' - 0"A01.032 A01.03
3
A01.03
5
A01.03
6
3' - 0"3' - 0"4' - 1 1/2"5' - 6"4' - 4 1/2"5' - 1"5' - 11 1/2"
6 1/2"
2' - 6"7' - 2"8' - 0"
1' - 4"
5' - 10 1/8"
5 1/2"
5' - 6 1/2"5' - 7"7' - 7"4' - 10"6' - 0"3' - 1"2' - 6"7' - 7"4' - 11"4' - 3"7' - 8"6' - 2"9' - 6"6' - 0"5' - 7"7' - 7"4' - 11"5' - 8 1/2"5' - 9 1/2"9' - 10 5/8"4' - 3 1/2"6' - 11"3' - 10 7/8"
11' - 11 3/8"8' - 4 7/8"11' - 7 1/4"8' - 6 7/8"6' - 2 7/8"16' - 10 7/8"
11' - 11 3/8"8' - 4 3/4"6' - 1 1/4"24' - 9 1/4"
24' - 4 1/4"6' - 3 1/4"8' - 4 7/8"11' - 11 3/8"16' - 8 1/4"6' - 0 7/8"16' - 7"6' - 0 7/8"17' - 0 1/4"6' - 0 7/8"8' - 4 7/8"11' - 11 3/8"11' - 11 3/8"8' - 4 7/8"19' - 4 1/2"
5' - 9 3/8"11' - 4 1/4"6' - 9 1/4"GENERAL NOTES
A. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON FLOOR PLANS ARE TO FACE OF
STUD, FACE OF CONCRETE OR CENTERLINE OF STRUCTURE.
B. "ALIGN" AS USED IN THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL MEAN TOACCURATELY LOCATE FINISH FACES IN THE SAME PLANE. THECONNECTION OF ALIGNED PLANES SHALL BE WITHOUT VISIBLEJOINTS OR SURFACE IRREGULARITIES UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE.
C. PROVIDE BLOCKING IN PARTITIONS AS REQUIRED FOR ALLITEMS ATTACHED TO WALLS INCLUDING ITEMS PROVIDED BYOWNER.
D. ALL GYPSUM BOARD TO BE 5/8" TYPE "X". MOISTURE AND
MILDEW RESISTANT GYP AT ALL BATHROOM WET AREAS, RE:PLANS.
E. ALL PENETRATIONS AND JOINT AT DEMISING WALLS, CORRIDORWALLS AND EXTERIOR WALLS SHALL BE ACOUSTICALLY SEALED.
F. DETAILS ARE USUALLY KEYED ONLY ONCE THROUGHOUT THESET (ON PLANS OR ELEVATIONS) WHERE THEY OCCUR FIRST ANDARE TYPICAL FOR SIMILAR CONDITIONS UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE.
G. "TYPICAL" MEANS FOR ALL SIMILAR CONDITIONS UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE
H. VERIFY ALL CONDITIONS IN FIELD. NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANYDISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION
I. DRYWALL SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO REPAIRAND REFINISH ALL DRYWALL WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN DAMAGED,CUT AWAY, OR REMOVED BY OTHER TRADES INCLUDINGMECHANICAL, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL AND FIRE PROTECTION.
J. ALL WORK SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN COMFORMANCE WITHTHE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.
K. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT PLACED ON ROOFING SHALL BE
SUPPORTED ON 8 INCH CURBS OR LEGS, WHICH SHALL BEFLASHED TO THE ROOFING AND MADE WATERTIGHT.
L. ALL PROJECTIONS THROUGH THE ROOF SURFACE SHALL BEPROPERLY FLASHED TO PREVENT MOISTURE ENTRY.
M. CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH THE NATIONAL ROOFINGCONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION MANUAL (NRCA), AND THE SHEETMETAL AND AIR CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS NATIONALASSOCIATION (SMACNA).
152 SF
BALCONY
301a
5' - 0 3/8"4' - 11 5/8"1' - 3 1/4"19' - 9 1/4"
5' - 9"14' - 0 3/8"
3
A04.01__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2 7/8"11' - 11 3/8"3 7/8"
102 SF
BALCONY
303a
3
A04.01__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________5' - 3 5/8"3' - 1 1/4"8' - 4 7/8"3' - 1 1/4"5' - 3 5/8"2 7/8"11' - 11 3/8"3 7/8"
102 SF
BALCONY
209a
3
A04.01__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________8' - 4 7/8"6' - 0 7/8"102 SF
BALCONY
312a
3
A04.01
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
16' - 8 1/4"3 7/8"4' - 4 5/8"1' - 8 1/4"151 SF
BALCONY
211a
24' - 9 1/4"
3
A04.01
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________6' - 1 1/4"151 SF
BALCONY
311a
24' - 9 1/4"
3
A04.01__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________6' - 1 1/4"PROJECT
COPYRIGHT BY JOHNSONNATHAN STROHE (JNS). ALLDRAWN AND WRITTENINFORMATION APPEARINGHEREIN SHALL NOT BEMODIFIED, DUPLICATED,DISCLOSED, USED FORANOTHER PROJECT, OROTHERWISE USED WITHOUTTHE WRITTEN CONSENT ANDINDEMNIFICATION OF JNS
SHEET TITLE
ISSUES/REVISIONS
STAMP
SHEET NUMBER
PRINTED ON1600 Wynkoop St., Suite 100 | Denver, CO 80202303.892.7062WWW.JNS.DESIGN1/23/2017 3:55:45 PMP:\1611\05-Design Drawings\08-Local Workstation\Kevin\1611_Black Olive_KEVIN.rvtA01.03BLACK & OLIVE, LLCBLACK OLIVE #1611
LEVEL 3 PLAN 110 E. OLIVE STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 1/8" = 1'-0"1 LEVEL 3 PLAN
KEYNOTES
14.6 HYDRAULIC ELEVATOR; MACHINE ROOM-LESS, STRETCHERCAPABLE
14.11 TRASH CHUTE - 36"
23.12 MECH CHASE
NORTH
# Date Description
09/12/2016 100% SCHEMATICDESIGN
09/22/2016 100% SCHEMATICDESIGN (ARCHUPDATE)
10/04/2016 SITE PLAN
1 11/30/2016 SITE PLAN - REV 1
2 01/04/2017 REV 2
3 01/24/2017 REV 3
1/4" = 1'-0"2 UNIT B-1 TYP. ENLARGED BALCONY PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"3 UNIT A-1 TYP. ENLARGED BALCONY PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"4 UNIT A-2 TYP. ENLARGED BALCONY PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"5 UNIT S-1 TYP. ENLARGED BALCONY PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"7 UNIT B-3 TYP. ENLARGED BALCONY PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0"6 UNIT B-2 TYP. ENLARGED BALCONY PLAN
227
A03.021
A03.02
A03.01
A03.01
1
2
2
B
C
D
A
1 2 5 7
E
98643
UNIT A-1b
404 UNIT A-1b
406
UNIT S-1a
408
UNIT B-1a
401
UNIT B-1b
402
UNIT S-1d
410
UNIT S-1b
412
UNIT A-1b
413
UNIT B-2b
414
UNIT B-2a
411
UNIT A-1a
409
UNIT S-1c
407
UNIT A-1c
405
UNIT A-1a
403
6' - 0"14' - 0"11' - 7"17' - 8"7' - 2"11' - 7"12' - 6"9' - 0"2' - 6"12' - 6"18' - 1"9' - 6"11' - 7"12' - 6"11' - 6"25' - 0"
31' - 7"17' - 8"7' - 2"33' - 1"33' - 1"9' - 6"24' - 1"36' - 6"5' - 10"34' - 0"6' - 0"34' - 0"TELECOMM
415
STAIR 1
004-01
ELEC417STAIR 2
004-02
5' - 10"5' - 6"28' - 6"6' - 0"28' - 6"5' - 6"31' - 7"17' - 8"7' - 2"33' - 1"33' - 1"9' - 6"24' - 1"36' - 6"
6' - 0"14' - 0"11' - 7"12' - 5"5' - 3"6' - 4"10"11' - 7"21' - 6"8' - 0"17' - 4"7' - 9"9' - 6"1"11' - 6"12' - 6"11' - 6"25' - 0"
STORAGE
418
ELEV
04
4' - 10"1' - 0"5' - 6"7' - 9"5' - 7"14' - 3"11"3' - 0"3' - 0"17' - 1 1/8"8' - 6"2' - 11"5' - 6"1' - 3"CORRIDOR
400
TRASH
416
136' - 4"
136' - 4"
136' - 4"
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINETYP.23.12
TYP.14.11
5' - 10"5' - 0"2' - 6"2' - 6"24' - 0"3' - 0"3' - 0"20' - 9"3' - 3"5' - 0"5' - 0"2' - 0"5' - 10"5' - 0"5' - 0"24' - 0"6' - 0"24' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 10"34' - 0"6' - 0"34' - 0"TYP.14.6
152 SF
BALCONY
401a
102 SF
BALCONY
403a
100 SF
BALCONY
405a 105 SF
BALCONY
407a
102 SF
BALCONY
409a
151 SF
BALCONY
411a
153 SF
BALCONY
414a
101 SF
BALCONY
413a
101 SF
BALCONY
412a101 SF
BALCONY
410a103 SF
BALCONY
408a101 SF
BALCONY
406a
102 SF
BALCONY
404a
157 SF
BALCONY
402a
2' - 10"3' - 2"4' - 1 1/2"6' - 2"3' - 8 1/2"5' - 9 1/2"5' - 9 1/2"4' - 10"7' - 7"5' - 0 1/2"2 1/2"6' - 4"10"4' - 0"7' - 7"5' - 11"9' - 10"5' - 9"1' - 5"6' - 7"3' - 7"7' - 2"6' - 7"3' - 7"4' - 2"3' - 0"6' - 6"1"5' - 10 1/2"5' - 7 1/2"7' - 7"4' - 11"5' - 8"5' - 10"7' - 10"5' - 6"7' - 0"4' - 8"
3' - 0"3' - 0"4' - 1 1/2"5' - 6"4' - 4 1/2"5' - 1"6' - 6"2' - 6"12' - 6 3/4"2' - 7 1/4"4' - 2 1/8"2' - 11 7/8"6' - 0"5' - 7"7' - 7"4' - 11"5' - 11"3' - 1"10' - 1"9' - 2"7' - 8"6' - 2"9' - 6"6' - 0"5' - 7"7' - 7"4' - 11"5' - 8 1/2"5' - 9 1/2"9' - 10 5/8"4' - 3 1/2"6' - 11"3' - 10 7/8"
11' - 11 3/8"8' - 4 7/8"8' - 6 7/8"11' - 7 1/4"
16' - 10 7/8"6' - 2 7/8"11' - 11 3/8"8' - 4 7/8"6' - 1 1/4"24' - 9 1/4"
24' - 4 1/4"6' - 3 1/4"11' - 11 3/8"8' - 4 7/8"16' - 8 1/4"6' - 0 7/8"16' - 7"6' - 0 7/8"17' - 0 1/4"6' - 0 7/8"11' - 11 3/8"8' - 4 7/8"11' - 11 3/8"8' - 4 7/8"6' - 9 3/8"11' - 4 1/2"19' - 4 1/2"
5' - 9 3/8"11' - 3 3/8"6' - 2 7/8"19' - 9 3/8"
5' - 9"
GENERAL NOTES
A. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON FLOOR PLANS ARE TO FACE OFSTUD, FACE OF CONCRETE OR CENTERLINE OF STRUCTURE.
B. "ALIGN" AS USED IN THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL MEAN TOACCURATELY LOCATE FINISH FACES IN THE SAME PLANE. THECONNECTION OF ALIGNED PLANES SHALL BE WITHOUT VISIBLEJOINTS OR SURFACE IRREGULARITIES UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE.
C. PROVIDE BLOCKING IN PARTITIONS AS REQUIRED FOR ALLITEMS ATTACHED TO WALLS INCLUDING ITEMS PROVIDED BYOWNER.
D. ALL GYPSUM BOARD TO BE 5/8" TYPE "X". MOISTURE ANDMILDEW RESISTANT GYP AT ALL BATHROOM WET AREAS, RE:PLANS.
E. ALL PENETRATIONS AND JOINT AT DEMISING WALLS, CORRIDORWALLS AND EXTERIOR WALLS SHALL BE ACOUSTICALLY SEALED.
F. DETAILS ARE USUALLY KEYED ONLY ONCE THROUGHOUT THESET (ON PLANS OR ELEVATIONS) WHERE THEY OCCUR FIRST ANDARE TYPICAL FOR SIMILAR CONDITIONS UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE.
G. "TYPICAL" MEANS FOR ALL SIMILAR CONDITIONS UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE
H. VERIFY ALL CONDITIONS IN FIELD. NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANYDISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION
I. DRYWALL SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO REPAIRAND REFINISH ALL DRYWALL WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN DAMAGED,CUT AWAY, OR REMOVED BY OTHER TRADES INCLUDINGMECHANICAL, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL AND FIRE PROTECTION.
J. ALL WORK SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN COMFORMANCE WITHTHE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.
K. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT PLACED ON ROOFING SHALL BESUPPORTED ON 8 INCH CURBS OR LEGS, WHICH SHALL BEFLASHED TO THE ROOFING AND MADE WATERTIGHT.
L. ALL PROJECTIONS THROUGH THE ROOF SURFACE SHALL BEPROPERLY FLASHED TO PREVENT MOISTURE ENTRY.
M. CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH THE NATIONAL ROOFINGCONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION MANUAL (NRCA), AND THE SHEETMETAL AND AIR CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS NATIONALASSOCIATION (SMACNA).
PROJECT
COPYRIGHT BY JOHNSONNATHAN STROHE (JNS). ALLDRAWN AND WRITTENINFORMATION APPEARINGHEREIN SHALL NOT BEMODIFIED, DUPLICATED,DISCLOSED, USED FORANOTHER PROJECT, OROTHERWISE USED WITHOUTTHE WRITTEN CONSENT ANDINDEMNIFICATION OF JNS
SHEET TITLE
ISSUES/REVISIONS
STAMP
SHEET NUMBER
PRINTED ON1600 Wynkoop St., Suite 100 | Denver, CO 80202303.892.7062WWW.JNS.DESIGN1/23/2017 3:55:57 PMP:\1611\05-Design Drawings\08-Local Workstation\Kevin\1611_Black Olive_KEVIN.rvtA01.04BLACK & OLIVE, LLCBLACK OLIVE #1611
LEVEL 4 PLAN 110 E. OLIVE STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 1/8" = 1'-0"1 LEVEL 4 PLAN
KEYNOTES
14.6 HYDRAULIC ELEVATOR; MACHINE ROOM-LESS, STRETCHERCAPABLE
14.11 TRASH CHUTE - 36"
23.12 MECH CHASE
NORTH
# Date Description
09/12/2016 100% SCHEMATICDESIGN
09/22/2016 100% SCHEMATICDESIGN (ARCHUPDATE)
10/04/2016 SITE PLAN
1 11/30/2016 SITE PLAN - REV 1
2 01/04/2017 REV 2
3 01/24/2017 REV 3
228
A03.021
A03.02
A03.01
A03.01
1
2
2
B
C
D
A
1 2 5 7
E
9
1
A04.01__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2
A04.01__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8643
UNIT B-1b
502 UNIT A-1b
504
UNIT A-1b
506 UNIT S-1b
512
UNIT A-1b
513
UNIT B-2b
514
UNIT B-2a
511
UNIT A-1a
509
UNIT S-1c
507
UNIT A-1c
505
UNIT B-1a
501
STAIR 1
005-01
STAIR 2
005-02
TELECOM
515
TRASH
516 TELECOM517STORAGE
518
ELEV
05
UNIT S-1a
508
UNIT S-1d
510
147' - 0"
147' - 0"
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINETYP.23.12
TYP.14.11
6' - 0"14' - 0"11' - 7"17' - 8"7' - 2"11' - 7"12' - 6"9' - 0"2' - 6"12' - 6"18' - 1"9' - 6"11' - 7"12' - 6"11' - 6"25' - 0"
31' - 7"17' - 8"7' - 2"33' - 1"33' - 1"9' - 6"24' - 1"36' - 6"5' - 10"34' - 0"6' - 0"34' - 0"5' - 10"5' - 6"28' - 6"6' - 0"28' - 6"5' - 6"31' - 7"17' - 8"7' - 2"33' - 1"33' - 1"9' - 6"24' - 1"36' - 6"5' - 10"5' - 0"5' - 0"24' - 0"6' - 0"24' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 10"34' - 0"6' - 0"34' - 0"5' - 10"5' - 0"2' - 6"2' - 6"2' - 8"15' - 7"4' - 6"1' - 3"3' - 0"3' - 0"3' - 6 5/8"5' - 8"11' - 6 3/8"3' - 3"2' - 6"2' - 6"5' - 0"4' - 10"1' - 0"5' - 6"7' - 9"5' - 7"14' - 3"11"3' - 0"3' - 0"3' - 5"13' - 8 1/8"8' - 6"2' - 11"5' - 6"1' - 3"TYP.14.6
TYP.8.26152 SF
BALCONY
501a
UNIT A-1a
503
105 SF
BALCONY
509a
151 SF
BALCONY
511a
155 SF
BALCONY
514a
104 SF
BALCONY
508a102 SF
BALCONY
506a
102 SF
BALCONY
504a
157 SF
BALCONY
502a
6' - 0"4' - 1 1/2"5' - 6"4' - 4 1/2"5' - 1"6' - 6"2' - 6"8' - 7 1/2"6' - 6 5/8"1' - 4"5' - 10"6' - 0"5' - 7"7' - 7"4' - 11"5' - 11"3' - 1"10' - 1"4' - 11"4' - 3"7' - 8"6' - 2"9' - 6"6' - 0"5' - 7"7' - 7"4' - 11"5' - 8 1/2"5' - 9 1/2"9' - 11 5/8"4' - 2 1/2"6' - 11 1/8"3' - 10 3/4"
102 SF
BALCONY
513a
102 SF
BALCONY
512a101 SF
BALCONY
510a
100 SF
BALCONY
505a 105 SF
BALCONY
507a
102 SF
BALCONY
503a
CORRIDOR
500
6' - 0"25' - 7"12' - 5"5' - 3"6' - 4"10"11' - 7"11' - 6"10' - 0"8' - 0"17' - 4"7' - 9"9' - 6"1"11' - 6"12' - 6"11' - 6"25' - 0"
2' - 10"3' - 2"4' - 1 1/2"6' - 2"9' - 6"5' - 9 1/2"4' - 10"7' - 7"5' - 0 1/2"2 1/2"6' - 4"10"4' - 0"7' - 7"5' - 11"5' - 7"4' - 3"5' - 9"1' - 5"6' - 7"3' - 7"7' - 2"6' - 7"3' - 7"4' - 2"3' - 0"6' - 6"1"5' - 5 1/2"6' - 0 1/2"7' - 7"4' - 11"5' - 8"5' - 10"7' - 10"5' - 6"7' - 0"4' - 8"6' - 1 1/4"16' - 8 1/4"6' - 1 1/4"24' - 9 1/4"8' - 4 7/8"2 7/8"11' - 11 3/8"
16' - 10 7/8"6' - 2 7/8"11' - 7 1/4"11' - 11 3/8"8' - 4 7/8"24' - 9 1/4"6' - 3 1/4"8' - 4 7/8"11' - 11 3/8"17' - 0 1/4"6' - 1 1/4"8' - 4 7/8"8' - 4 7/8"11' - 11 3/8"11' - 11 3/8"8' - 6 7/8"16' - 7"6' - 1 1/4"19' - 9 3/8"
5' - 9 3/8"11' - 4 1/4"6' - 9 3/8"19' - 9 3/8"
5' - 9"11' - 3 3/8"6' - 3"GENERAL NOTES
A. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON FLOOR PLANS ARE TO FACE OFSTUD, FACE OF CONCRETE OR CENTERLINE OF STRUCTURE.
B. "ALIGN" AS USED IN THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL MEAN TOACCURATELY LOCATE FINISH FACES IN THE SAME PLANE. THECONNECTION OF ALIGNED PLANES SHALL BE WITHOUT VISIBLEJOINTS OR SURFACE IRREGULARITIES UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE.
C. PROVIDE BLOCKING IN PARTITIONS AS REQUIRED FOR ALLITEMS ATTACHED TO WALLS INCLUDING ITEMS PROVIDED BYOWNER.
D. ALL GYPSUM BOARD TO BE 5/8" TYPE "X". MOISTURE ANDMILDEW RESISTANT GYP AT ALL BATHROOM WET AREAS, RE:PLANS.
E. ALL PENETRATIONS AND JOINT AT DEMISING WALLS, CORRIDORWALLS AND EXTERIOR WALLS SHALL BE ACOUSTICALLY SEALED.
F. DETAILS ARE USUALLY KEYED ONLY ONCE THROUGHOUT THESET (ON PLANS OR ELEVATIONS) WHERE THEY OCCUR FIRST ANDARE TYPICAL FOR SIMILAR CONDITIONS UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE.
G. "TYPICAL" MEANS FOR ALL SIMILAR CONDITIONS UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE
H. VERIFY ALL CONDITIONS IN FIELD. NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANYDISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION
I. DRYWALL SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO REPAIRAND REFINISH ALL DRYWALL WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN DAMAGED,CUT AWAY, OR REMOVED BY OTHER TRADES INCLUDINGMECHANICAL, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL AND FIRE PROTECTION.
J. ALL WORK SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN COMFORMANCE WITHTHE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.
K. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT PLACED ON ROOFING SHALL BESUPPORTED ON 8 INCH CURBS OR LEGS, WHICH SHALL BEFLASHED TO THE ROOFING AND MADE WATERTIGHT.
L. ALL PROJECTIONS THROUGH THE ROOF SURFACE SHALL BEPROPERLY FLASHED TO PREVENT MOISTURE ENTRY.
M. CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH THE NATIONAL ROOFINGCONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION MANUAL (NRCA), AND THE SHEETMETAL AND AIR CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS NATIONALASSOCIATION (SMACNA).
PROJECT
COPYRIGHT BY JOHNSONNATHAN STROHE (JNS). ALLDRAWN AND WRITTENINFORMATION APPEARINGHEREIN SHALL NOT BEMODIFIED, DUPLICATED,DISCLOSED, USED FORANOTHER PROJECT, OROTHERWISE USED WITHOUTTHE WRITTEN CONSENT ANDINDEMNIFICATION OF JNS
SHEET TITLE
ISSUES/REVISIONS
STAMP
SHEET NUMBER
PRINTED ON1600 Wynkoop St., Suite 100 | Denver, CO 80202303.892.7062WWW.JNS.DESIGN1/23/2017 3:56:10 PMP:\1611\05-Design Drawings\08-Local Workstation\Kevin\1611_Black Olive_KEVIN.rvtA01.05BLACK & OLIVE, LLCBLACK OLIVE #1611
LEVEL 5 PLAN 110 E. OLIVE STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 1/8" = 1'-0"1 LEVEL 5 PLAN
KEYNOTES
8.26 METAL ROOF ALTERNATING TREAD DEVICE
14.6 HYDRAULIC ELEVATOR; MACHINE ROOM-LESS, STRETCHERCAPABLE
14.11 TRASH CHUTE - 36"
23.12 MECH CHASE
NORTH
# Date Description
09/12/2016 100% SCHEMATICDESIGN
09/22/2016 100% SCHEMATICDESIGN (ARCHUPDATE)
10/04/2016 SITE PLAN
1 11/30/2016 SITE PLAN - REV 1
2 01/04/2017 REV 2
3 01/24/2017 REV 3
229
A03.021
A03.02
A03.01
A03.01
1
2
2
B
C
D
A
1 2 5 7
E
9
1
A04.01__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2
A04.01__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8643
31' - 7"17' - 8"7' - 2"33' - 1"33' - 1"9' - 6"24' - 1"36' - 6"5' - 10"34' - 0"6' - 0"34' - 0"5' - 10"34' - 0"6' - 0"34' - 0"31' - 7"17' - 8"7' - 2"33' - 1"33' - 1"9' - 6"24' - 1"36' - 6"
TYP.22.10
TYP.22.9
TYP.7.18
156' - 2"
PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINETYP.7.24
1/4" / 12"TYP.8.23
TYP.23.1
156' - 2"156' - 2"SLOPE 1/4" / 12"SLOPE 1/4" / 12"SLOPE 1/4" / 12"SLOPE 1/4" / 12"SLOPE 1/4" / 12"SLOPE 1/4" / 12"SLOPE 1/4" / 12"SLOPE 1/4" / 12"SLOPE 1/4" / 12"SLOPE 1/4" / 12"A.MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT PLACED ON ROOFING SHALL BESUPPORTED ON 8 INCH CURBS OR LEGS, WHICH SHALL BEFLASHED TO THE ROOFING AND MADE WATERTIGHT.B.ALL PROJECTIONS THROUGH THE ROOF SURFACE SHALL BEPROPERLY FLASHED TO PREVENT MOISTURE ENTRY.C.CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH THE NATIONAL ROOFING
CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION MANUAL (NRCA), AND THESHEET METAL AND AIR CONDITIONING CONTRACTORSNATIONAL ASSOCIATION (SMACNA).D.COORDINATE LANDSCAPE PAVER TRAYS LAYOUT WITHLANDSCAPE PLANS.
GENERAL ROOF NOTES
PROJECT
COPYRIGHT BY JOHNSONNATHAN STROHE (JNS). ALLDRAWN AND WRITTENINFORMATION APPEARINGHEREIN SHALL NOT BEMODIFIED, DUPLICATED,DISCLOSED, USED FORANOTHER PROJECT, OROTHERWISE USED WITHOUTTHE WRITTEN CONSENT ANDINDEMNIFICATION OF JNS
SHEET TITLE
ISSUES/REVISIONS
STAMP
SHEET NUMBER
PRINTED ON1600 Wynkoop St., Suite 100 | Denver, CO 80202303.892.7062WWW.JNS.DESIGN1/23/2017 3:56:18 PMP:\1611\05-Design Drawings\08-Local Workstation\Kevin\1611_Black Olive_KEVIN.rvtA02.01BLACK & OLIVE, LLCBLACK OLIVE #1611
ROOF LEVEL PLAN110 E. OLIVE STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 1/8" = 1'-0"1 ROOF PLAN NORTH
KEYNOTES
7.18 BLACK TPO, SLOPE 1/4" / 12", TO DRAIN
7.24 2' X 2' ROOF WALKWAY MAT
8.23 ROOF ACCESS HATCH, 48" X 48" WITH INTEGRAL GUARD RAIL
22.9 ROOF DRAIN
22.10 OVERFLOW ROOF DRAIN
23.1 CONDENSER UNIT, LOCATE TO AVOID ROOF PENETRATIONS
# Date Description
10/04/2016 SITE PLAN
1 11/30/2016 SITE PLAN - REV 1
2 01/04/2017 REV 2
3 01/24/2017 REV 3
230
LEVEL 1100' - 0"
LEVEL 2115' - 0"
LEVEL 3125' - 8"
ROOF LEVEL156' - 2"
1257
T.O. PARAPET160' - 2"
LEVEL 4136' - 4"
LEVEL 5147' - 0"
9
15' - 0"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"9' - 2"4' - 0"3' - 10"2
A04.01__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8 6 4 3
31' - 7"17' - 8"7' - 2"33' - 1"33' - 1"9' - 6"24' - 1"36' - 6"
STAIR 02
001-02
LEASING
102
STAIR 01
001-01 RETAIL
101
UNIT B-2a
411
UNIT B-2a
511
UNIT A-1a
309
UNIT A-1a
409
UNIT A-1a
509
UNIT S-1c
207
UNIT S-1c
307
UNIT S-1c
407
UNIT S-1c
507
STAIR 2
002-02
STAIR 2
003-02
STAIR 2
004-02
STAIR 2
005-02
UNIT A-1c
305
UNIT A-1c
405
UNIT A-1c
505
UNIT A-1a
203
UNIT A-1a
303
UNIT A-1a
403
STAIR 1
002-01
STAIR 1
003-01
STAIR 1
004-01
STAIR 1
005-01
UNIT B-1a
301
UNIT B-1a
401
UNIT B-1a
501
192' - 8"60' - 2"70' - 0" MAX BUILDING HEIGHTFITNESS
112
UNIT B-2a
311
UNIT B-3TYPE A
211
UNIT A-2TYPE A
209 UNIT A-1c
205
TYP.3.3
TYP.3.1
14.6
TYP.3.4
TYP.7.41
TYP.8.17
TYP.8.23 TYP.8.26
14' - 0"1' - 0"70'-0" MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTper 38.10.060A.4.b
UNIT B-1a
201
UNIT A-1a
503
23.1
4.19
7.20 7.18
LEVEL 1100' - 0"
LEVEL 2115' - 0"
LEVEL 3125' - 8"
ROOF LEVEL
156' - 2"
BCD A
T.O. PARAPET
160' - 2"
LEVEL 4136' - 4"
LEVEL 5147' - 0"
E
1
A04.01__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5' - 10"34' - 0"6' - 0"34' - 0"15' - 0"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"9' - 2"4' - 0"79' - 10"
CORRIDOR
400
CORRIDOR
300
CORRIDOR
200e 60' - 2"TYP.3.3
RC1A
TYP.5.26
UNIT B-2b
514
UNIT B-2b
414
UNIT B-2b
314
UNIT B-2b
214
UNIT B-3TYPE A
211
UNIT B-2a
311
UNIT B-2a
411
UNIT B-2a
511
TYP.8.32
TYP.11.26
CORRIDOR
500
3' - 6"15' - 0"70'-0" MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTper 38.10.060A.4.b
5.9
7.20
1/4" / 12"
STEEL BALCONY RAILING
WATERPROOFING MEMBRANECONTINUOUS OVER SHEATHING
TOPPING CONCRETE SLOPED AT1/4" / FT. OVER DRAINAGE MAT
WOOD FRAMING PER STRUCTURAL,JOISTS RIPPED TO SLOPE AT 1/4" / FT.
BALCONY DOOR
EXTERIOR GYP. SHEATHING WITHSEAMLESS FINISH
SPRAY APPLIED CLOSED CELLINSULATION R-20 MIN.
WALL FINISH BEYOND
FACE OF BUILDING BEYOND
RAILING RETURN ATCANTILEVER BALCONY
RAILING RETURN AT CANTILEVERBALCONY, INFILL RAILING WITH 4"MAX OPENING
VERTICAL BALCONY SUPPORTS,ALIGN WITH BOTTOM OF SOFFIT
FACE OF FINISH
DEPTH OF BALCONY
3/4"
2"
PERFORATED METAL INFILLBETWEEN RAILINGS
BALCONY MIN OPEN SPACE SQFTEITHER 100 OR 150 SQFT FROMFACE OF FINISH.
PROJECT
COPYRIGHT BY JOHNSONNATHAN STROHE (JNS). ALLDRAWN AND WRITTENINFORMATION APPEARINGHEREIN SHALL NOT BEMODIFIED, DUPLICATED,DISCLOSED, USED FORANOTHER PROJECT, OROTHERWISE USED WITHOUTTHE WRITTEN CONSENT ANDINDEMNIFICATION OF JNS
SHEET TITLE
ISSUES/REVISIONS
STAMP
SHEET NUMBER
PRINTED ON1600 Wynkoop St., Suite 100 | Denver, CO 80202303.892.7062WWW.JNS.DESIGN1/23/2017 3:58:12 PMP:\1611\05-Design Drawings\08-Local Workstation\Kevin\1611_Black Olive_KEVIN.rvtA04.01BLACK & OLIVE, LLCBLACK OLIVE #1611
BUILDING SECTION110 E. OLIVE STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715KEYNOTES
3.1 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE WALL
3.3 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE COLUMN
3.4 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE SLAB
4.19 (2) STACKED, MODULAR BRICK VENEER SOLDIER COURSE
5.9 DECORATIVE METAL SCREEN
5.26 DECORATIVE METAL BRACING
7.18 BLACK TPO, SLOPE 1/4" / 12", TO DRAIN
7.20 PREFINISHED METAL CAP FLASHING, PAINT TO MATCH.
7.41 VERTICAL CORRUGATED METAL M-PANEL
8.17 VINYL COMPOSITE WINDOW
8.23 ROOF ACCESS HATCH, 48" X 48" WITH INTEGRAL GUARD RAIL
8.26 METAL ROOF ALTERNATING TREAD DEVICE
8.32 OVERHEAD COILING GRILL WITH MOTORIZED OPERATOR
11.26 9'-0" GARAGE HEADACHE BAR; CONFIRM MINIMUM HEIGHT
13.7 BIKE RACK, RE: LANDSCAPE
14.6 HYDRAULIC ELEVATOR; MACHINE ROOM-LESS, STRETCHERCAPABLE
23.1 CONDENSER UNIT, LOCATE TO AVOID ROOF PENETRATIONS
1/8" = 1'-0"1 LONGITUDINAL SECTION @ GL A/B
1/8" = 1'-0"2 TRANSVERSE @ GL 8
# Date Description
09/12/2016 100% SCHEMATICDESIGN
1 11/30/2016 SITE PLAN - REV 1
2 01/04/2017 REV 2
3 01/24/2017 REV 3
1" = 1'-0"3 BALCONY DETAIL SECTION
231
LEVEL 1100' - 0"
LEVEL 2115' - 0"
LEVEL 3125' - 8"
ROOF LEVEL156' - 2"
B C DA
T.O. PARAPET160' - 2"6' - 2"2' - 0"4' - 0"9' - 2"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"15' - 0"LEVEL 4136' - 4"
LEVEL 5147' - 0"
E
34' - 0"6' - 0"34' - 0"5' - 10"
79' - 10"8' - 2"60' - 2"4.12
TYP.5.26
70'-0" MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTper 38.10.060A.4.b
TYP.10.1
7.22
7.20
4.19
4.12
5.7
7.41
4.19
FUTURE POTENTIAL SIGNAGELOCATION PER SIGNAGECALUCLATIONS, A03.01
7.41
135.00°25' - 0"45 DEGREE ANGLED SETBACK44' - 0" ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING3
LEVEL 1100' - 0"
LEVEL 2115' - 0"
LEVEL 3125' - 8"
ROOF LEVEL156' - 2"
1257
T.O. PARAPET160' - 2"15' - 0"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"9' - 2"4' - 0"2' - 0"6' - 2"LEVEL 4136' - 4"
LEVEL 5147' - 0"
9 8 6 4 3
31' - 7"17' - 8"7' - 2"33' - 1"33' - 1"9' - 6"24' - 1"36' - 6"
192' - 8"60' - 2"8' - 2"8.32 4.12TYP.11.26 TYP.5.26TYP.13.7
70'-0" MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTper 38.10.060A.4.b
TYP.3.4
TYP.8.29
A03.01
4
4.12
7.20
8.17
6.35
7.20
4.19
4.19
7.20
5.7
8.7
7.41
6.18
FUTURE POTENTIAL SIGNAGELOCATION PER SIGNAGECALUCLATIONS, A03.01
1' - 10"1' - 10"6' - 7 5/8"9' - 4"AREA CALULATION:56.33 sqftRE: SIGNAGE CALCULATION, A03.01
10.1
SIGNAGE CALULATION TABLE 38.28.060
KEYNOTES
1.4 EXISTING TO REMAIN
3.4 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE SLAB
4.12 MODULAR BRICK VENEER - BS1
4.19 (2) STACKED, MODULAR BRICK VENEER SOLDIER COURSE
5.7 STEEL BALCONY - GUARDRAIL, PERFORATED METAL INFILL
5.26 DECORATIVE METAL BRACING
6.18 VERTICAL WOOD SIDING
6.35 WOOD SIDING SOFFIT, RUN IN SAME DIRECTION AS WALLBELOW
7.20 PREFINISHED METAL CAP FLASHING, PAINT TO MATCH.
7.22 METAL OVERFLOW SCUPPER
7.41 VERTICAL CORRUGATED METAL M-PANEL
8.7 ALUMINUM FRAMED STOREFRONT SYSTEM GLAZING
8.17 VINYL COMPOSITE WINDOW
8.29 VINYL SLIDING PATIO DOOR
8.32 OVERHEAD COILING GRILL WITH MOTORIZED OPERATOR
10.1 EXTERIOR SIGNAGE, MOUNTED WITH CONCEALEDFASTENERS. WITH INTERNAL LIGHTING. PROVIDE ELECTRICAL
11.26 9'-0" GARAGE HEADACHE BAR; CONFIRM MINIMUM HEIGHT
13.7 BIKE RACK, RE: LANDSCAPE
1/8" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION
PROJECT
COPYRIGHT BY JOHNSONNATHAN STROHE (JNS). ALLDRAWN AND WRITTENINFORMATION APPEARINGHEREIN SHALL NOT BEMODIFIED, DUPLICATED,DISCLOSED, USED FORANOTHER PROJECT, OROTHERWISE USED WITHOUTTHE WRITTEN CONSENT ANDINDEMNIFICATION OF JNS
SHEET TITLE
ISSUES/REVISIONS
STAMP
SHEET NUMBER
PRINTED ON1600 Wynkoop St., Suite 100 | Denver, CO 80202303.892.7062WWW.JNS.DESIGN2/8/2017 12:04:10 PMP:\1611\05-Design Drawings\08-Local Workstation\Kevin\1611_Black Olive_KEVIN.rvtA03.01BLACK & OLIVE, LLCBLACK OLIVE #1611
NORTH & WESTELEVATION110 E. OLIVE STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 597153 NORTH WEST PERSPECTIVE
1/4" = 1'-0"4 BUILDING ADDRESS
# Date Description
10/04/2016 SITE PLAN
1 11/30/2016 SITE PLAN - REV 1
2 01/04/2017 REV 2
3 01/24/2017 REV 3
45 ANGLED SET BACK IS SELF IMPOSED, NOT REQUIRED, TORESPECT SOUTHERN PROPERTIES. THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TOTHE SOUTH IS ZONED B-3, NOT REQUIRING THIS SETBACK.
232
LEVEL 1100' - 0"
LEVEL 2115' - 0"
LEVEL 3125' - 8"
ROOF LEVEL156' - 2"
1 2 5 7
T.O. PARAPET160' - 2"4' - 0"9' - 2"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"15' - 0"LEVEL 4136' - 4"
LEVEL 5147' - 0"
98643
31' - 7"17' - 8"7' - 2"33' - 1"33' - 1"9' - 6"24' - 1"36' - 6"
192' - 8"60' - 2"70'-0" MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTper 38.10.060A.4.b
TYP.7.41
TYP.8.17
TYP.4.12
3' - 6"1' - 9 1/2"13' - 2 1/2"6.18
8.29
4.8
7.20
4.19
7.20
7.41
1.4
5.9
5.7
7.20
4.12
4.19
LEVEL 1
100' - 0"
LEVEL 2
115' - 0"
LEVEL 3
125' - 8"
ROOF LEVEL156' - 2"
BCD A
T.O. PARAPET160' - 2"2' - 0"4' - 0"9' - 2"10' - 8"10' - 8"10' - 8"15' - 0"LEVEL 4
136' - 4"
LEVEL 5
147' - 0"
E
5' - 10"34' - 0"6' - 0"34' - 0"60' - 2"79' - 10"
7.41
4.12
70'-0" MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTper 38.10.060A.4.b
TYP.8.17
3' - 6"15' - 0"TYP.7.20
4.12
7.41
TYP.4.20
TYP.4.19
7.20
13.7
4.8
26.9
45 DEGREE ANGLED SETBACK44' - 0" ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING135.00°PROJECT
COPYRIGHT BY JOHNSONNATHAN STROHE (JNS). ALLDRAWN AND WRITTENINFORMATION APPEARINGHEREIN SHALL NOT BEMODIFIED, DUPLICATED,DISCLOSED, USED FORANOTHER PROJECT, OROTHERWISE USED WITHOUTTHE WRITTEN CONSENT ANDINDEMNIFICATION OF JNS
SHEET TITLE
ISSUES/REVISIONS
STAMP
SHEET NUMBER
PRINTED ON1600 Wynkoop St., Suite 100 | Denver, CO 80202303.892.7062WWW.JNS.DESIGN2/8/2017 11:59:26 AMP:\1611\05-Design Drawings\08-Local Workstation\Kevin\1611_Black Olive_KEVIN.rvtA03.02BLACK & OLIVE, LLCBLACK OLIVE #1611
SOUTH & EASTELEVATION110 E. OLIVE STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715 1/8" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH ELEVATION
KEYNOTES
1.4 EXISTING TO REMAIN
4.8 8" CMU - GROUND FACE ARCHITECTURAL FINISH
4.12 MODULAR BRICK VENEER - BS1
4.19 (2) STACKED, MODULAR BRICK VENEER SOLDIER COURSE
4.20 MODULAR BRICK ROWLOCK
5.7 STEEL BALCONY - GUARDRAIL, PERFORATED METAL INFILL
5.9 DECORATIVE METAL SCREEN
5.26 DECORATIVE METAL BRACING
6.18 VERTICAL WOOD SIDING
7.20 PREFINISHED METAL CAP FLASHING, PAINT TO MATCH.
7.41 VERTICAL CORRUGATED METAL M-PANEL
8.17 VINYL COMPOSITE WINDOW
8.29 VINYL SLIDING PATIO DOOR
13.7 BIKE RACK, RE: LANDSCAPE
26.9 WALL SCONCE; RE: ELEC. ALIGN FIXTURES IN ELEVATION,CENTER HORIZONTALLY ON WALL
1/8" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION
# Date Description
09/12/2016 100% SCHEMATICDESIGN
09/22/2016 100% SCHEMATICDESIGN (ARCHUPDATE)
10/04/2016 SITE PLAN
1 11/30/2016 SITE PLAN - REV 1
2 01/04/2017 REV 2
3 01/24/2017 REV 3
45 ANGLED SET BACK IS SELF IMPOSED, NOT REQUIRED, TORESPECT SOUTHERN PROPERTIES. THE PROPERTY ADJACENTTO THE SOUTH IS ZONED B-3, NOT REQUIRING THIS SETBACK.
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290