Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-06-20 City Commission Packet Materials - A1. Appeal 20096 by The Etha Hotel LLC
Commission Memo Armory Hotel Modification Appeal by The Etha Hotel, LLC Appeal number 20096 March 31, 2020 Report To: Mayor and City Commission From: Marty Matsen, Community Development Director Subject: Appeal #20096 Filed by The Etha Hotel, LLC Regarding Covering Portions of the EIFS Condition of Approval Meeting Date: April 6, 2020 Agenda Type: Action Project Location: 24 West Mendenhall, Bozeman, MT CITY COMMISSION ACTION: At the conclusion of consideration of the appeal, the City Commission may uphold, amend, or overturn the administrative project decision for Modification to Approved Site Plan Application 19410. The decision may be overturned or amended upon the finding that such final administrative decision was erroneous. Report Date: March 31, 2020 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This appeal seeks to amend the Community Development Director’s decision conditionally approving Appellant’s application for modification of an approved site plan (decision) by removing one condition of approval: Phase 2 condition number 5, requiring Applicant to submit a new plan to cover a portion of the exterior insulation finish system (EIFS) exterior building materials to comply with section 38.530.060.C.3.a of the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) (2020). The project at issue is a 19,319 square foot hotel commonly referred to as the Armory Hotel located in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) in downtown Bozeman. The application for appeal was submitted by: Cory Lawrence on behalf of The Etha Hotel, LLC, P.O. Box 1795, Bozeman, MT 59771-1795 (Appellant or Applicant). Appeals of administrative project decisions are governed by 380.250.030 BMC. For a discussion of the procedures governing this appeal, see below. 127 Page 2 of 9 According to the appeal application materials submitted, Appellant bases its appeal on several grounds: 1. That “it is unfair and improper to require [the Applicant] to change what was approved” under 2015 building plans; 2. “[C]hanging or covering the EIFS, as suggested by the EIFS Condition, would be dangerous to the public, impractical and very expensive;” 3. “[T]he proposed EIFS Condition would undermine the integrity of existing construction, thereby ensuring future failure of a construction component that would otherwise have a life expectancy of many decades,” and; 4. “[T]he scope, style and color of the EIFS is consistent with other neighboring buildings.” Only “aggrieved persons” may appeal an administrative decision in accordance with 38.250.030.A, BMC. The City agrees that Appellant qualifies as an “aggrieved person” for purposes of this appeal. At the conclusion of consideration of the appeal, the City Commission may uphold, amend, or overturn the administrative project decision for Modification to Approved Site Plan Application 19410. The decision may be overturned or amended upon the finding that such final administrative decision was erroneous. Consider the Recommended Motion: Having reviewed and considered Appeal number 20096 of the decision of the Director of Community Development regarding modifications to the Armory Hotel, the Director’s decision dated March 4, 2020, the record of review, the presentation of staff and the Appellant, public comment, and all information presented, I move to uphold the decision of the Director of Community Development reflected in his March 4, 2020 letter. 128 Page 3 of 9 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: ........................................................................................................................................ 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS: .......................................................................................................................................... 3 BACKGROUND:……………………………………………………………………………………………………….….4 Modification to Approved Site Plan, Application 19410………………………………………….4 Timeline of the Armory Hotel Site Plan Approval and Modification Request…………...4 Staff Evaluation and Director’s Conditional Approval of the Modification……………….5 APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION:…………………………………………………………...6 BASIS OF THE APPEAL:………………………………………………………………………………………………6 APPEAL PUBLIC NOTICE:……………………………………………………………………………………………7 APPEAL PUBLIC COMMENT:……………………………………………………………………………………….7 EVALUATION OF THE APPEAL:…………………………………………………………………………………..7 Authority of the City Commission under the Bozeman Municipal Code…………………..7 City Commission May Act as a Board of Adjustment………………………………………………7 APPEAL PROCEDURE:………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 UNRESOLVED ISSUES:………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 ALTERNATIVES:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………8 FISCAL EFFECT:………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9 ATTACHMENTS:………………………………………………………………………………………………………...9 129 Page 4 of 9 BACKGROUND: Modification to Approved Site Plan, Application 19410 The original site plan for the Etha Hotel was approved by the City Commission in 2013, with the final site plan approval in December 2014 under application Z13064. The application was for a conditional use permit, certificate of appropriateness and deviations. A building permit was issued in 2014 based on this approved site plan. In 2015, Appellant submitted modified building plans to the City Building Department. The plans were reviewed by a third-party reviewer and, after finding the plans in compliance with the Building Code, the Building Department stamped the 2015 building plans “approved for construction.” The Appellant did not submit an application to the City’s planning division for a modification of the original site plan at that time, and it appears the 2015 building plans were not routed to the Planning Department. Included in the 2015 building plans was a building elevation showing exterior building materials labeled “TAFS”, a type of EIFS material. Property owner and Applicant, The Etha Hotel, LLC, submitted an application to the Community Development Division to modify several aspects of its approved site plan on September 10, 2019 (Application 19410). At the City’s suggestion, the application was divided so the requested modifications were addressed in two phases.1 The DRB recommended approval of the Phase 1 modifications. The Phase 2 modification requests included changes to the exterior building materials. Among other changes, Applicant proposed that the exterior siding building materials for the Tower change to a synthetic insulating finishing system known as TAFS (“EIFS”). Timeline of the Armory Hotel Site Plan Approval and Modification Request Final Site Plan approval, Application Z13064 December 8, 2014 Building permit Issued November 21, 2014 Submission of modified building plans to Building Division 2015 Handwritten date on “approved for construction” stamp on revised building plans August 8, 2015 19410 Modification Application Submitted September 10, 2019 Incomplete Application notice and request for more information October 1, 2019 Modification revision and correction 1 submitted October 9, 2019 Meeting between City and Applicant October 22, 2019 Letter from Director to Applicant regarding deficiencies October 25, 2019 1 A list of the requested modifications included in Phase 1 and Phase 2 are described in the Staff Memorandum to the DRB dated February 12, 2020, which is attached to this memorandum. 130 Page 5 of 9 Modification revision and correction 2 submitted October 30, 2019 Inadequacy determination by City November 14, 2019 Modification revision and correction 3 submitted November 26, 2019 Inadequacy determination by City December 19, 2019 Modification revision and correction 4 submitted December 26, 2019 Modification revision and correction 5 submitted January 7, 2019 Adequacy determination by City January 13, 2020 Public comment period February 5 – 27, 2020 Staff memorandum to the Design Review Board February 12, 2020 Design Review Board meeting February 12, 2020 Final staff report prepared for Director March 2, 2020 Director issues decision conditionally approving application March 4, 2020 Appeal period open March 4, 2020 Appeal 20096 submitted by The Etha Hotel, LLC March 17, 2020 Appeal 20099 submitted by 5 West Residential, LLC March 18, 2020 Appeal period closed March 18, 2020 Notice of appeal hearing and public comment period March 19, 2020 to April 6, 2020 Commission Hearing April 6, 2020 Staff Evaluation and Director’s Conditional Approval of the Modification As described in the Staff Report to the Director, Staff determined that use of EIFS as an exterior building material does not comply with applicable standards under both Article 5 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD)2 finding the EIFS is not compatible with the character of the Armory, does not appear similar to those building materials used traditionally in the area, and does not contribute to the traditional sense of scale of the block. The DRB concurred in Staff’s analysis and voted to deny the entirety of the proposed modifications in Phase 2, including use of EIFS. Section 38.530.060 BMC provides that no more than 25% of a building’s total façade may be EIFS material. EIFS is intended to be used as a decorative accent to be incorporated with other permitted materials. To bring the project into compliance with applicable code, the decision includes the following condition: Applicant must submit a new plan to cover EIFS exterior building materials so that no more than 25% of the entire exposed building façade (calculated by combining the exterior surface area of the Tower and the Armory, including windows) is EIFS, 2 For more information about applicable Article 5 and NCOD standards, see Staff’s February 12, 2020 Memorandum to the DRB, Staff’s March 2, 2020 Staff Report to the Director, and the Director’s Decision Letter Conditionally Approving the Modifications, all of which are attached to this memorandum. 131 Page 6 of 9 in compliance with 38.530.060.C.3.a BMC (2020). Some leeway on the strict percentage limitation will be considered. The Applicant’s plan to cover portions of the EIFS on the exterior of the building will be subject to a 15 day public comment period, after which the Director of the Community Development Division must issue a decision on the new plan to cover exterior EIFS material. The decision letter suggests that Applicant’s originally approved design, including perforated brushed metal panels with motifs, would be compatible with the historic Armory building and satisfy the provisions of 38.530.060, but it does not require reverting to the originally approved design. Because this requirement can be met in multiple ways, the condition of approval regarding EIFS leaves it up to the Applicant to propose a plan to cover the EIFS exterior building materials, subject to the Director’s approval of the plan after a public comment period. APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION: The deadline for submission of an appeal application for the Conditional Approval was March 18, 2020. On March 17, 2020, the Community Development Division received an appeal from The Etha Hotel, LLC, pursuant to Section 38.250.030 BMC, “Administrative project decision appeals.” Staff reviewed the appeal application materials and found that the application met all submittal requirements for processing the appeal. The Appellant was notified on March 18, 2020 that the appeal was complete and that a hearing on the appeal before the City Commission on April 6, 2020 was scheduled. BASIS OF THE APPEAL: By this appeal, Appellant seeks to remove Phase 2 condition of approval number 5 of the Director’s decision. As described in the appeal application materials, appellant provides a summary of the ground for their appeal to remove the EIFS condition: The scope, style and color of the EIFS is what the City of Bozeman reviewed and approved in 2015. The Etha respectfully submits that it is unfair and improper to require it to change what was approved. In addition, changing or covering the EIFS, as suggested by the EIFS Condition, would be dangerous to the public, impractical and very expensive. Moreover, the proposed EIFS Condition would undermine the integrity of existing construction, thereby ensuring future failure of a construction 132 Page 7 of 9 component that would otherwise have a life expectancy of many decades. Finally, the scope, style, and color of the EIFS is consistent with other neighboring buildings. Appellant contends that it received approval from the City of Bozeman Building Department in 2015 to install EIFS material as depicted on building plans it submitted at the time. During construction and installation of the EIFS, the City conducted several on- site building inspections. As noted above, the 2015 building plans were not reviewed by the Planning Department for compliance with Bozeman’s Unified Development Code (Chapter 38, BMC). The December 8, 2014 Final Site Plan approval letter specifically states, “Please be informed that ANY changes from the final plan or final building elevations will need to be reviewed by the Department of Community Development,” (emphasis in original). APPEAL PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the appeal hearing was completed in conformance with 38.220 BMC, “Applications and Noticing.” Notice was posted on the site, mailed to property owners within 200 feet, and published in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on March 22, 2020 and March 29, 2020. The notice on the project site was posted on March 20, 2020 and will remain posted until the City Commission hearing on April 6, 2020. APPEAL PUBLIC COMMENT: The City has received seven comments from the public at the time of this staff report. Any further public comment received will be forwarded to the City Clerk’s office for Commission consideration. Public comment relating to this modification application and appeal are available at: http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/0/fol/204607/Row1.aspx EVALUATION OF THE APPEAL: Authority of the City Commission under the Bozeman Municipal Code The City Commission has the authority to uphold, amend, or overturn the Director’s decision expressly in section 38.250.030.J BMC. City Commission May Act as a Board of Adjustment The City of Bozeman does not have a Board of Adjustment as described in Montana Code Annotated section 76-2-321. Rather, the City Commission has reserved for itself the powers of a board of adjustments through Resolution 4419 in 2012. The City Commission may choose to exercise its powers as a Board of Adjustments3, separate from those expressly provided under the BMC. 3 Section 76-2-323, Montana Code Annotated provides: 133 Page 8 of 9 APPEAL PROCEDURE: The City Commission must comply with the procedures for appeal as set forth in section 38.250.030.I BMC. During the appeal, the Commission will first hear from the administrative staff who are required to give an “explanation of the application and nature of the appeal.” Next, the appellants will have an opportunity to present their position. Here, the appellant is the landowner. Then, the Commission will hear public comment regarding the appeal from any proponent or opponent. At the close of public comment, the Commission must consider the merits of the appeal, including considering motions, discussion, and taking a vote. During the process, no person making a presentation may be subject to cross-examination. However, Commission members and the City Attorney may ask questions for the purpose of eliciting information or clarifying information presented. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None. ALTERNATIVES: The City Commission has the following alternative actions available: 1. Uphold the condition of approval as written in the Director’s Conditional Approval of Armory Hotel Modification to Approved Plan, Application 19410. 2. Amend the condition of approval after making findings as to which of the criteria are met or not met, modify the condition of approval, and approve the amended Conditional Approval of Armory Hotel Modification to Approved Plan, Application 19410. Appellant recommends the following motion: 76-2-323. Powers of board of adjustment. (1) The board of adjustment shall have the following powers: (a) to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of this part or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto; (b) to hear and decide special exceptions to the terms of the ordinance upon which such board is required to pass under such ordinance; (c) to authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from the terms of the ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship and so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. (2) In exercising the above-mentioned powers, such board may, in conformity with the provisions of this part, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement, decision, or determination as ought to be made and to that end shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken. 134 Page 9 of 9 Having reviewed and considered the appeal of the decision of the Director of Community Development dated March 4, 2020 regarding modification of Application number 19410 (Armory Hotel), Appellants’ March 17, 2020 letter, applicable materials, the presentation of the Appellant, public comment and all information presented, I move to amend the decision of the Director of Community Development reflected in his March 4, 2020 letter to remove the condition regarding EIFS discussed on page 8 as condition 5, but to otherwise approve the March 4, 2020 decision. 3. Overturn the condition of approval. Find that the Director’s decision was in error, make alternative findings, and deny the Applicant’s modification request regarding use of EIFS as exterior building material in its Armory Hotel Modification to Approved Plan, Application 19410. FISCAL EFFECT: Costs of potential litigation for further appeals. An estimate of those costs is not possible at this time. ATTACHMENTS: 20096 Appeal filed by The Etha, LLC – submission materials and communications 19410 Director’s Decision Letter Conditionally Approving the Armory Hotel Modification to Approved Plan March 2, 2020 Staff Report for Application 19410 19410 Design Review Board Minutes – February 12, 2020. AV Capture Link: https://www.bozeman.net/services/city-tv-and-streaming-audio Bozeman Municipal Code Sections February 12, 2020 Staff Memorandum to Design Review Board (see http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/0/fol/206300/Row1.aspx for attachments to Staff Memorandum) Full application and file record: available to view by contacting the Community Development Division, 20 E. Olive, Bozeman, MT 59715. Please contact Brian Krueger at bkrueger@bozeman.net or 406-582-2259 to make arrangements to view the file. 135 THE ETHA HOTEL, LLCP.O. BOX 1795BOZEMAN, MT 59771(406) 414-8930coryl(%offthebeatenpath.com|D)Bl[nj^!^iE^AR172020 ||!J|JLI//;"DEPARTMa^'i OF |COMM U Ni TY^ DEVELOPMENTjMarch 17, 2020BY HANDDepartment of Community DevelopmentCity of Bozeman20 East Olive St.P.O. Box 1230Bozeman,MT 59715Re: Appeal of March 4, 2020 Conditional Approval of Armory HotelModification to Approved Plan, Application No. 19410To Department of Community Development:The Etha Hotel, LLC, (the "Etha" or "Appellant") hereby appeals a portion of thedecision by the Director of Community Development issued on March 4, 2020 related to theArmory Hotel modification, Application No. 19410 (the "Decision"). The Etha is the developerof the project in downtown Bozeman commonly referred to as the Armory HotelThis appeal to the Bozeman City Commission is made in accordance the BozemanMunicipal Code. In addition, this appeal, if necessary, seeks relief from the Bozeman CityCommission sitting in its capacity as a board of adjustment. Pursuant to CommissionResolution No. 4410 date December 3, 2012, the Bozeman City Commission dissolved andsuspended the City ofBozeman Zoning Board of Adjudgment and reserved to itself the powersonce held by the Board of Adjustment.In accordance with §38.250.030.E and §38.220.140 BMC, the Appellant provides thefollowing information in support of the appeal.Name and address of Appellant: The Etha Hotel, LLC P.O. Box 1795 Bozeman, MT59771.Legal description, street address and project number: Tracy 1 Add, S07, T02 S,R06 E, Block A, Lot 19A, Plat C-17-A. City ofBozeman, Gallatin County, MT; 24 WestMendenhall Street, Bozeman, MT 59715; project number 19410.Description of the project: Development of a hotel commonly referred to as theArmory Hotel.•136 APPEAL OF MARCH 4, 2020 DECISIONPROJECT 19410Page 2Evidence that appellant is an assrieved person per 38.700.020: Appellant is theowner and the developer of the project that is the subject of this appeal. Therefore, theAppellant has a personal and legal interest in the Decision.Names and addresses of property owners and envelopes per 38.220.040.D - The listof names and addresses, along with envelopes, are enclosed herewith per 38.220.040.Appeal Fee- Enclosed please find a check for $1,838 ($1,638 base fee + $200 notice) asset forth in Bozeman City Commission Resolution 5119, Ex. A effective January 1,2020.Grounds, allesations and evidence for appeal. Appellant appeals that portion of theDecision imposing upon the Appellant the following condition of approval:•(the "EIFS Condition").Applicant must submit a new plan to cover EIFS exterior building materials sothat no more than 25% of the entire exposed building fa9ade (calculated bycombining the exterior surface area of the Tower and the Armory, includingwindows) is EIFS, in compliance with 38.530.060.c.3.a BMC (2020). Someleeway on the strict percentage limitation will be considered. The Applicant'splan to cover portions ofEIFS on the exterior of the building will be subject to a15 day public comment period, after which the Director of the CommunityDevelopment Division must issue a decision on the new plan to cover exteriorEIFS material.^ 1I.SUMMARY OF GROUNDS FOR APPEALThe Armory Hotel Project repurposed an abandoned building in downtown Bozeman intoa hotel that will employ more than 150 individuals. This appeal is focused on that part of theDecision that requires the Etha to change or cover the EIFS on the exterior surface of the ArmoryHotel after it was approved and installed. The Appellant requests that the Bozeman CityCommission amend the Decision to remove the EIFS Condition.The scope, style and color of the EIFS is what the City ofBozeman reviewed andapproved in 2015. The Etha respectfully submits that it is unfair and improper to require it tochange what was approved. In addition, changing or covering the EIFS, as suggested by theEIFS Condition, would be dangerous to the public, impractical and very expensive. Moreover,the proposed EFIS Condition would undermine the integrity of existing construction, therebyensuring future failure of a construction component that would otherwise have a life expectancyof many decades. Finally, the scope, style and color of the EIFS is consistent with otherneighboring buildings. For the foregoing reasons, as discussed more fully below, the Etharequests the Bozeman City Commission remove the EIFS Condition.IEIFS - Exterior Insulation Finish System137 APPEAL OF MARCH 4, 2020 DECISIONPROJECT 19410Page 3II.THE ETHA BUILT WHAT THE CITY APPROVED IN 2015The City approved the Armory Hotel Project plans in December 2014. As the projectevolved, and before construction, the Etha submitted revised plans to the City. In 2015, the Cityapproved the revised plans, which included the scope, style and color of the EFIS (the "2015approved plans"). Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a copy of that portion of the 2015 approvedplans that shows a City ofBozeman's approval stamp that notified the Etha, in part:APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTIONPer Approved Third Party Plan Review:Date: 8-8-15 By: CD .Revised - 2nd SetAttached hereto as Exhibit 2 is one drawing of several in those 2015 approved plans detailing thescope, style and color of the EIFS approved by the City.In reliance upon the City's express approval, the Etha began construction of the ArmoryHotel Project 2018, once it had completed securing the necessary financing package. When itcame time to work on the exterior of the building in 2018 and 2019, it installed the EIFS inaccordance with the 2015 approved plans.The Etha has recently been advised that only the Building Department approved the 2015plans and it had not forwarded the same to the Planning Department. However, sinceconstruction on the Armory Project commenced in 2018 the City conducted several dozen on-site inspections. Every inspection was managed in reference to the plans the City approved in2015. There was, therefore, no reasonable basis to believe that the Planning department had notapproved the 2015 plans in 2015. Once it had received approved construction plans from theCity in 2015, the Etha devoted significant funds and resources to construct the buildingaccording to those 2015 approved plans. At no time during the construction of the EIFS wasthere any mention from the City that the Etha was not installing the EIFS according to theapproved plans.Despite this, the Decision makes no mention of the City's 2015 approval, leading one tobelieve the that the Etha may have acted secretively when installing the EFIS and contrary towhat had been approved. As explained above, the Etha did not act secretively, but rather builtwhat the City approved in 2015 and hosted dozens of inspections by City officials in the interim.The Etha acted in good faith and respectfully requests that the City Commission remove theEIFS Condition as being an unfair, improper and unnecessary condition.138 APPEAL OF MARCH 4, 2020 DECISIONPROJECT 19410Page 4III. THE PROPOSED CONDITION IS DANGEROUS, IMPRACTICAL,EXPENSIVE AND, IF ALTERED, WOULD DRAMATICALLYREDUCE THE EXPECTED LIFE OF THE BUILDING ENVELOPEThe EIFS is the Armory Hotel's building envelope, which is comprised of a multi-layer system. See Exhibit 3. The EIFS serves as a separator between conditioned (interior) andunconditioned (exterior) spaces. A structure's building envelope is crucial to properly protect abuilding from air, water, heat, light and noise transfer. In this way, it functions much like theskin on a human being and is fundamental to the health and longevity of the building.The EIFS Condition suggests the Etha can apply a metal panel or rainscreen system(collectively, "metal panels") over the finished EIFS system to meet the EIFS Condition.However, the suggestions are dangerous, not feasible and will produce a compromised buildingenvelope system.The EIFS the City approved in 2015, and that the Etha constructed, was not designed toaccommodate the metal panels suggested in the EIFS Condition. Had metal panels coveringEIFS been a requirement during construction, a suitable substrate (3/4" plywood or additionalframing members) would have been installed to provide proper attachment locations for thesystem. Additionally, provisions for maintaining the waterproof membrane would have beeninstalled (additional flashing) and coordinated with the EIFS manufacturer to protect thewarranty. As discussed below, unnecessarily retrofitting the EIFS with metal panels nowdestroys the integrity of the EIFS, defeats its purpose, shortens the lifespan of the Armory andcreates a potential public safety issue due to the significant challenges in properly fasteningpanels above public spaces.For metal panels to be installed, they would need to be fastened to, or through, theexisting EIFS. Fastening metal panels to EIFS (itself) would result in a fastener that ends in themiddle of foam - which is unsound and unsafe. Fastening metal panels through the EIFS wouldrequire fasteners to be anchored to the metal studs behind the EIFS. Without cutting through andremoving the EIFS (destroying its integrity), there is no reasonable expectation a mechanicalfastener would engage the metal stud. In addition, there would have to be numerous penetrationsthrough the waterproof membrane that would inevitably lead to water migration into the wallcavities and promote future mold growth within the wall assembly. Thus, attaching metal panelsto the EIFS would destroy the EIFS, defeat its purpose and compromise the very elements thatensures the longevity of the building. It would also void the current warranty provided with theproduct.Finally, any fasteners that might be found would ultimately have to be approved by themetal panel manufacturer because of the unusual application and the distance spanned, whichmay range from 5"-11" (outside of panel to metal stud). With that length of a mechanicalfastener, a structural analysis would be required and the results of which are, at best, uncertain.It is also uncertain if there is even a metal panel manufacturer that would approve, and warranty,use of its product in the manner proposed in the EIFS Condition. Installing metal panels in thisfashion would result in a metal system looming high above public rights of ways which would139 APPEAL OF MARCH 4, 2020 DECISIONPROJECT 19410Page5pose a public safety risk that would otherwise not be present. In short, the EIFS Conditionunnecessarily increases risk to public safety.In sum, trying to install metal panels over the top of the EIFS is unnecessary, improperand dangerous because the panels cannot be securely attached. Even if they could be securelyinstalled, installation would compromise the integrity of the building envelop and void thewarranty, not to mention being very expensive. The EIFS Condition should, therefore, beremoved.IV. THE EIF8JS£ONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORING BUILDINGSThe Armory Hotel Project is in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District("NCOD"). The BMC clearly articulates the intent and purpose of the NCOD as follows:The intent and purpose of the conservation district designation is to stimulate therestoration and rehabilitation of structures, and all other elements contributing to thecharacter and fabric of established residential neighborhoods and commercial orindustrial areas. New construction will be invited and encouraged provided primaryemphasis is given to the preservation of existing buildings and further provided thedesign of such new space enhances and contributes to the aesthetic character andfunction of the property and the surrounding neighborhood or area. Contemporarydesign will be encouraged, provided it is in keeping with the above-stated criteria, as anacknowledged fact of the continuing developmental pattern of a dynamic, changingcommunity.Per 38.340.010.C. As set forth in the Decision, because the Armory Hotel Project is within theNCOD, "the provisions of [the NCOD] of the 2013 Bozeman Municipal Code control."Decision at 2. Under the NCOD design standards, there is no discussion of the amount, style orcolor EIFS on any building - it is simply silent on such a topic. Nevertheless, the EIFSCondition seeks to impose an approximately 25% limitation on EIFS after the fact. The Etharespectfully submits that such a limitation is not only improper (see Section II above), dangerous,impractical and expensive {see Section III above), the limitation is unwarranted in that theArmory Hotel Project -as built- meets the purpose and intent of the NCOD and is consistent withother buildings in the area.With respect to materials, there are Design Guidelines that describe materials to be usedin the NCOD. Those guidelines state that "Building Materials of new structures and additions toexisting structures should contribute to the visual continuity of the neighborhood. They shouldappear similar to those seen traditionally to establish a sense of visual continuity." DesignGuidelines, at 50 §H. Six (6) of the nine (9) buildings directly adjacent to the armory use stuccoor EIFS (modern-day stucco for cold climates) as their primary exterior material (75%-95% ofthe facade). The scope, style and color of the EIFS is entirely consistent with the neighboringbuildings and, with the additional Art Deco features, enhances aesthetic character of the buildingwhile recognizing the buildings' origins.140 APPEAL OF MARCH 4, 2020 DECISIONPROJECT 19410Page 6One need only drive by the Armory Hotel Project to know that it has restored, repurposedand rehabilitated the old Armory, while complementing the neighborhoods and adjacent areas.The EIFS Condition is unnecessary and unwarranted. It should be removed.V.AUTHORITY TO REMOVE THE EIFS CONDITIONThe City Commission has the authority to amend or overturn the Decision under Section28.250.030 of the Bozeman Code. For the reasons set forth above, the Etha requests that theCity Commission amend the Decision by removing the EIFS Condition.Separate from its authority under the Bozeman Code, the Etha submits that the CityCommission can remove the EIFS Condition sitting as a Board of Adjustment. As noted above,the City Commission reserved for itself the powers of the Board of Adjustment in 2012 inResolution No. 4410. See also 38.250.010.C.A board of adjustment has long been vested with broad general powers to determine"whether in any specific case unusual hardships might result if the strict letter of the ordinancewere complied with." Freeman v. Bd. of Adjustment of City of Great Falls, 97 Mont. 342, 34P.2d 534, 537 (1934). Legitimate zoning ordinances must be based "on public health, safety,morals, and general welfare of a community" in order to have legitimacy. See id. at 538. "It iswell established that a police power regulation must be reasonably adapted to its purpose andmust injure or impair property rights only to the extent reasonably necessary to preserve thepublic welfare." Yellowstone Valley Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Ostermiller, 187 Mont. 8, 15, 608 P.2d491,496(1980)<.<..The Montana Supreme Court, in Freeman, noted that practically all zoning ordinancesvests an appellate board with the power,on appeal to authorize, in specific cases, such variance from the terms of the ordinance aswill not be contrary to the public interest, where, owing to special conditions, a literalenforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship, andwhere the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done/^., 537.In the absence of such a board vested with power to prevent the inequalities andinjustices which might otherwise result from a strict enforcement of the zoningordinance, there would be grave doubts as to the constitutionality of the [zoning]ordinance and the statute under which it was enacted.Id.These concepts are not only reflected in the case law in Montana but have also beencodified by the Montana legislature. Section 76-2-323, MCA describes the powers of a board ofadjustment - powers that have been reserved to the Bozeman City Commission. In pertinentpart, that section provides that a board of adjustment shall have the power:141 APPEA1. OF MARCH 4, 2020 DECISIONPROJECT 19410Page?(c) to authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from the terms of theordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, where, owing to specialconditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result inunnecessary hardship and so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed andsubstantial justice done.(2) In exercising the above-mentioned powers, such board may, in conformity with theprovisions of this part, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or modify the order,requirement, decision, or determination appealed from and may make such order,requirement, decision, or determination as ought to be made and to that end shall have allthe powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken.§76-2-323 (l)(c) and (2), MCA.The Etha believes that the Bozeman City Commission can properly amend the Decisionto remove the EIFS Condition pursuant to 38. 250.030 (J). However, the Bozeman CityCommission could also grant the relief the Etha requests (removal of the EIFS Condition") as aboard of adjustment and based upon the specific facts of this case. The Etha requested Cityapproval for the EIFS in 2015, received that approval as part of the 2015 approved plans and, ingood faith reliance upon the City's approval, built what the City had approved. These specialconditions - a building constructed with EIFS approved by the City - also support removal of theEIFS Condition.The Etha further notes that removing the EIFS Condition would not be contrary to thepublic interest. Rather, the limitation on the amount ofEIFS appears to be a purely aestheticissue and not one in play when the Armory Project was approved. Moreover, most of theadjacent buildings have similar exteriors.Literal enforcement of what the Decision proposes by way of the EIFS Condition wouldresult in unnecessary hardship, particularly since the EIFS has already been installed consistentwith the approval. As discussed above, the proposed changes are not only unnecessary, butdangerous, impractical and very expensive. Further delays of the Armory Hotel Project wouldalso interfere with completion of the project, opening of the hotel and hiring over 150 employeesto staff the hotel.Finally, the Etha believes the spirit of the NDOC, as expressed in its intent and purpose,continues to be met without the EIFS Condition. The Armory Hotel Project repurposed anabandoned vacant property and has transformed it into a vibrant building in the downtown core.It has done so while honoring the existing Armory and the Art Deco style. No meaningfulpolicy is harmed by removing the EIFS Condition and no meaningful policy is advanced bymaintaining it.For all of the reasons set forth above, the Etha respectfully requests the Bozeman CityCommission grant its appeal and remove the EIFS Condition.142 APPEAL OF MARCH 4, 2020 DECISIONPROJECT 19410Page8The Etha understands that this appeal will be heard by the Bozeman City Commission.Under the BMC, it will be allowed to present following the staffs introduction. After the Ethapresents, there will be an opportunity for members of the public to speak on this appeal - for oragainst. The Etha requests the Bozeman City Commission allow it a brief rebuttal to publiccomments - no more than 5 minutes - should rebuttal be necessary. For your convenience, wehave also prepared (and enclosed) a proposed motion for your consideration and request that itbe included in any staff report related to this appeal.We appreciate your consideration of this matter and look forward to appearing before youas soon as practical.Sincerely,^^-^--<Cory j/a\vrenceThe Btfed, LLCEnd.c.John M. Kauffman (email only)Greg Sullivan (email only)143 PROPOSE MOTIONConsider the motion Having reviewed and considered the appeal of the decision of theDirector of Community Development dated March 4, 2020 regarding modification of ApplicationNo. 19410 (Armory Hotel), Appellant's March 17, 2020 letter, applicable materials, thepresentation of the Appellant, public comment and all information presented, I move to amendthe decision of the Director of Community Development reflected in his March 4, 2020 letter toremove the condition regarding EIFS discussed on page 8 as condition 5, but to otherwiseapprove the March 4, 2020 decision.144 VIUINIIYMAH NTS^JNote; This prefect will not bereviewed for ccnformance with theAmer.c-^n', with Disabnitips Act (ADA).Compliance v,'iTt' this act 15 -iheresponsibility of f;iG nwn-.'r, dsvetoper,C0i:i!-acior, and Architect.xTURALRALGENERAL NOTES"ES AND SCHEDULESNSPECTIONSION DEMOLITION & UPGRADE PLANTRUCTURAL DEMOLITION & UPGRADE PUWTRUCTURAL DEMOLITION & UPGRADE PLANTRUCTURAL DEMOUTION & UPGRADE PLANFORAGE TANK PLAN & DETAILSSTRUCTURALTHIRD PARTY PLANREVIEWERPERFORATED STAMPcu4-303:0-a.<-T;inw01•-:-3I-%^=<riLU^<u-©0r:^%0c:u5CJ^E<b.^(U0-N0•ttolGOr\iION PLANRAMINGPLANRAMINGPLANRAMINGPLANFRAMING PtANi, 6 & 7 FRAMING PLANRAI^FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM(SPRINKLERS AND ALARMS)REQUIRS5\MlN/IOM.EV/CITY OFBOZEMANSTAMPTAILSEVATION AT GRID CEVATIONS>NNECTION;SfNNECTIONSMN SCHEDULE3 STAIR PLANS3 STAIR PLANSACOUSTICAL:BIG SKY ACOUSTICS, LLCSEAN CONNOLLY620 DEARBORN AVENUEHELENA, MT 59601PH.406.467.S4W-CONTPACTORIhci;. PLANS S-'.--; .;:. OM JOB SITEFcrAl.i ;-.';-FC"C'NSANYCHA'JC^ •:• ;-:[;^ PlANS SHALLBe RESUSM'nr:? f'.:^ APF'.'OVAI BY THEBU]LD,..^CiV^ON,Approved for ConstructionPer Approved Third Party Plan Review:Date:<r"',•^ 's'A^,\^<-Y S^^LANDSCAPE;zBy:,^ (t>>.,( ')CUSTOM EARTH DEStGNS-CHAOREMPFER859 JESSIE WAYBQZ£MAN,MT 59715PH.406.539J030in1I.yl!lteltill Is. iL ^ cc wlso|i~~ Q.. CODESCRIPTIONDATEBUILDING DEPARTIUENTBID DOCUMENTS08.28.1303.16.15IPROJECT DATE11- 26 - 2012COVERf/<•^^.^"i///^/^ /145 LEGENDuNOTESDSCREE^ W1L. SEE DETAILSCHAtlPASNEUETAlPtWLESCEh'TUC TAFSLULUMCK —- hO:<i20\"AL SAN3S 'Q 5EALUM:\jy METAL- W!SOQW SLL S. HEADER TO BE ALUMINUMMATC^KG W;\OOW- BASE ^AYER OF COhTi,'WOUS »<SULAT;(^(C^'.IS'.5-THiCKELEVATUh-S REFLECTAOC£C ''"KlC^iESS AREAS OF CEXAMPLE .0- E'lUAtS 1,5- --rt'CK C;. M-EQJALS5.5'THCKCiUJ =>I- zDH D80AR2 P El£IPAISTCOtORTBC)Riseen METAI. SJOWGCHAUPASNEME7AUJCTAFSPEARLESCENTnyUJuU:LL-I—z0IUFSAN BRONZE TAPS(SHOWING REVEAL 1?<ES)BLACK TAPSV/RAPPEO STRUCTUREIPAh'taX UJLUUT£0 ANTIQUE 3LACK1I Iucrtu a: w>5Q < <t13SOUTHW!L.SOh.ST£280^EMA^MOhTW<A 59715TEL 436 213.0712A3.3SEE BLOW-UP OF THIS AREA, NEXT PAGECOPYRIGHT e 2C15URBfW 8RONZETAFS- -r^ —ASl|(RS('EC.:(rff'|^O.RQOf,ttlt<I**IJJ"".,^•"CHAMPAGNE UETWJC TAF6PEARLEAil£RSI>H;^(T».(' .~LiJiA^..-..ltl_I"\.^+ys,{."S;iiltic WC nti^;^-^,4|/-f7^;^j'-"|i..-v: ?/-"'^ y ^sc°^WRAPS CORNER, TYPrREU-SASPERSTOUCTUIW+4-T.0. STEEL BEAM+4"*(r+4'ELEV, 19CT^-CHAMPAGNE METALLIC TAFS PEARLESCEMAS PER SPCC fTYP.iCHAMPAGNE METALl'C TAtS FEAffi.ESCE^ASPERSPEC.rTYP.)tlS-<-1/2"'",,.-*^'*ltll)t»<1MES^_J._Ji::r:jEBLACK TAFS.TlTALUMI(i!UM'hi£TAL,TY'(:).@Lr&ANOS""^*4*^-s'^8-«4-!H^UR8W BRONZE TAPSAS PER SPEC. Off.)CHAMPAGNE MET^.LiC TAPS PEAP.LESCENT WREVEAi. OErAltAS PER SPEC., FTP BETWEEN WtNDOWSg s§,3i:$JUI--B-IL.JHtss*0"*4*+4- +r ; +4-*4' : +OT +4"+4' ; +r : +4*+4- i +<r+4'KTSsURBAN BRONZE TAPSCOLUMN WRAPPEDURBAN BRONZEAS PER SPEC fIWy<» ^o. cm FIOCRffS IMIZ'-FtPJLAJLB.IIJSssj^0)+->AcillilALUMINUM WINDOW SiLl AND HEADER TO MATCH WINDOW COLORREFERENCE WALLS£CTiO^S POR DETAIL, PifP.I^<ieI• NEW FLAG POLE; SEE 5fA5.10ssHs€ILUIcu-fl-.a-ji.juuisHIa. c^ CDAL'JMIMjM METAL. 1W g BANDST.0.3RD FLOORBLACK TAPS, TYP. BELOW LOWEST WiNDOWALUMiNUM PARAPET CAP AS PER SPEC. fU'P.)DATEDESCRIPTIONSEE5,'A£.tS|SEE 4/AS.1^L.a.^-A-as'ELEV 127^"*+4T6y;LDNQDEPAR-ME^B'D DOCUMEf-TSSlSODA BLASTS) KTERIOR EXiSTNG BOARO.FORMCONCRETE THAT REMANS t IS LEFT EXPCBEDITyP.j1T.0- CONC. ROOF (E'j$br'.d-;1ELEV. 122'^-sriSCREEN WALL; 6'TALL TYP(HIDDEN FW CLAR!TY;S5E•ISXtl.[:^w-•iiiiLy?s-XI-l-ffliALUMINUM PARAPET CAPAS PER SPEC. fTiT.Ett;ffi±l±-ii^>ELEV nr-^'LO. CONC. ROOF (Ei.L-L..-^JI-a0'TTf*T!W±rffi^tHECANOPY: SEE DETAILS CRA5.3C-35 W|±^|EH"|BRB•€)iu—iIIELEV.S4'-13tl(VERIFY V/.C;ViL;BEG^NING OF EAST RAMPLEVEt W; SIDEWALK£lPROJECT DATE11 . 26-2012TO.CONC, BASEMENT SU181E1.LEV 8T-3-ELEVATION^>;„MSNORTH ELEVATION1);8- = r-o-^'.OCONC. BASEMENT SUB [Ei;l.EV. ST-ffA2.1REVIEWEB rail a3DE'COUPU^.C:.{j^^/^/y ^146 +(T-IIJL+4"n^^:s"*K-II'K!-B-tel—.11........ii'"iS]3+4',L-^+()•4-frB-B-O-Bmy4.1!h44-i-iJ.-.tlL(--Bliml"^ 1'(HMMHl-ln n n n frtB-frB-Bfr&B El D B&n a o gru— —u— —LT-^1Ei ' E:-Ir?3aprh'l i^llffllla-TRELLiS AS PER STRUCTURAL4 GHWAGNE METALLIC TAFS PEARLESCENTAS PER SPEC. fTTP.)4flUCKTAFS.nP.ALUMINUM METAL, P/P.@ BANDSOBBMI BRONZE TAFSASPERSPEC.fTYP.'-(SlWAGtffiMETALUC TAFS PEARLESCENT W REVEAL DETAILAS PER SPEC., rfP. BETWEEN WINDOWS-- TRELLIS, PAINTED BLACK (nP.)4 URBAN BRONZETOR"COLUMN WRAPPEDALUMINUM WINDOW SILL AND HEADER TO MATCH WINDOW COLOR.REFERENCE WALL SECTIONS FOR DETAIL, HP,—NEW FLAG POLE; SEE 5/A5.10- BLACK TAPS. TYP. BELOW LOWEST WINDOWALUMINUM PARAPET CAP AS PER SPEC. (TfP.)-SOOA BLASTEOEXTERIOR EXISTIN£aOARO.EORM.CONCRETE THATREMAINS.&IS^.EFTEXPOSED(IYP.)SCREEN WALL; ff TALL TYP.(HIDDEN FOR CLARIFf)ALUMINUM PARAPET CAPASPERSPEC.fTf'P.)TO. 2ND FLOOR JE)^1,-^NELEV.111'-1^'T.0. CONC. ROOF (E).ELEV.111'-0"CANOPY; SEE DETAILS ONA5.30-35/^~^\; ..:^,^?^4y'\ / '^a<^r \ •^/ ^/^4^<|/"/., J^KJ//'"",,^^sI^Ill$5 ^1-scCN? ^020-^4-3cI<ILUCDra^0^j <;?13 Lutid: J-?0)wi^:1^-cn xIllr- a. mE<uMf's.11illIllillQ- CM CDJliiDESCRIPTIONDATEBUILDING OEPARThENTBID DOCUMENTS08,28.131^- _.03.16.15.._{.......4-^^-/^/^ ^A147 •WATERPROOF MEMBRANE OVERFLASHINGGYPSUM BOARDGYPSUM BOARDJ-BEADSEALANT AS PER WINDOWMFG. REQUIREMENTSE4INSULATION BOARDTAFS^WINDOWBACKER ROD AND SEALANTWITH WEEPGYPSUM BOARDGYPSUM BOARDJ-BEADSEALANT AS PER WINDOWMFG. REQUIREMBiTSE4SULATION BOARDWINDOWWATERPROOF MEMBRANE OVERFLASHING18 as. METAL FLASHING-COLORTO MATCH PERF. METAL PANELBACKER ROD AND SEALANTWITH WEEP2WINDOW HEAD DETAILTAPS FINISH1-1/2'= r-o"9WINDOW HEAD DETAIL@ PERFORATED METALPANEL1-1/2" = r-o"GYPSUM BOARDJ-BEADSEALANT AS PER WINDOWMFG. REQUIREMENTSowBACKER ROD AND SEALANTTAFSBGYPSUM BOARDJ-BEADSEALANT AS PER WINDOWMFG. REQUIREMENTSI"^E^/WINDOWBACKER ROD AND SEALANT-1" HORIZONTAL HAT CHANNEL.TAFSPEARLESCENTFINISHWINDOW JAMB DETAIL6 LIMESTONE PLASTER1-1/2" =r-o'8WINDOW JAMB DETAIL! TAF5 PEARLESCENT FINISH1-1/2' = r-o"SEALANT AS PER WINDOWMFG. REQUIREMENTSPROVIDE WINDOW SILL FLASHINGAS PER TAPS MFR. REQUIREMENTSAND RECOMMENDATIONS: COLORTO MATCl^ WINDOWS10WINDOWSo<J2-TAFS FINISHSEALANT AS PER WIN80WMFG.REQUISILL, AS PER 1NTERIOIFINISH SCHEDULESEALANTGYPSUM BOARDJ-BEADINSULATION BOARD SILLauSEALANT A3 PER WINDOWMFG. REQUIREMENTSSILL, AS PER INTERIORFINISH SCHEDULESEALANTGYPSUM BOARDJ-BEADWINDOW SILL D^ti<-<,WINDOW SILL DETAIL-WINDOWBACKER ROD AND SEALANT•PROVIDE WINDOW SILL FLASHINGAS PER TAPS MFR, REQUIREMENTSAND RECOMMENDATIONS; COLORTO MATCH PEARLESCENT FINISHTAPS PBWLESCENT FINISHE4@ TAFS PEARLESCENT FINISH-v-<^ i-1/2- = r-o-1-1/2- = r-o-GYPSUM BOARDGYPSUM BOARDJ-BEADSEALANT AS PER WINDOWMFG. REQUIREMENTS^-TAFSPEARLESCENT FINISH. BACKER ROD AND SEALANTWITH WEEP.18 BB. METAL FLASHING WRAPPINGINSULATION BOARD - COLOR TOMATCH WINDOW FRAME.INSULATION BOARDHEADERiAGKER ROD AND SEALANT-WINDOWE1EXISTING CONC. WALLMETAL FLASHING OVEREXISTING CONC. SILL/ 11GYPSUM BOARDGYPSUM BOARDJ-BUDWINDOWBACKER ROD AND SEALANTSEALANT AS PER WINDOWMFG. REQUIREMENTS6WINDOW HEAD DETAIL©WINDOWS BETWEENTAFS FINISHi.i/2"=r-o-5WINDOW HEAD DETAIL@ EXISTING CONC. WALLWINDOW OPENINGSi-1/2-=r-o-GYPSUM BOARDJ-BEADSEALANT AS PER WINDOWMFG. REQUIREMENTSWINDOWAF5BBACKER ROD AND SEALANTGYPSUM BOARDJ.BBAD\BACKER ROD AND SEALANTESEALANT AS P3< WINDOWMFG, REQUIREWENTSWINDOW5WINDOW JAMB DETAIL©WINDOWS BETWEENTAFS FINISH1-1/2- = r-o"2WINDOW JAMB DETAIL•DOSTINGCONC.WALL6 EXISTING CONC. WALLWINDOW OPENINGSi.1/2-= r-o"2-SEALANT AS PER WINDOWMFG. REQUIREMENTSSILL, AS PER INTERIORFINISH SCHEDULESEALANTGYPSUM BOARDJ-BEAD4WINDOW SILL DETAIL.WINDOW, BACKER ROD AND SEAIANT.18 ga, METAL FLASHING WRAPPINGINSULATION BOARD SILL - COLORTO MATCH WINDOW FRAMEILATION BOARD SILLWSPEARLESCENTWITH CHEVRON DETAILREVEAL@ WINDOWS BETWEEN TAPS &OVER/UNDER TAFS PEARLESCENTSEALANT AS PER WINDOWMFC. REQUIREMENTS18g8. ALUMINUM ANODIZED-METAL SILL TO MATCHWINDOW CASINGSEALANT-GYPSUM BOARDJ. BEADWINDOW SILL DETAIL^ WINDOW1^ SEALANT1^18 ga. METAL SILL PAN FLASHINGOVER AND CEMENTED TOEXISTING CONC. SILL: TO MATCHWINDOW CASING COLOR; D(TENDT01" FROM END OF SILL• EXISTING CONC. SILL- EXISTING CONC. WALLa EXISTING CONC.WN.LWINDOW OPENINGSi-i/2-=r-o-1-1/2'= r-o"LU^1=) °LUZE>§<u]_ LU zIllItsL" 3: uj> U I-LU a: coa «13 SOUTH WILLSON.STEZBOZEMAN, MONTANA 59715TEL 406.219.0712COPYRIGHT @ 2018^'""""""".,..^..A/?cURLBETs^OF'"<Ills.ssItl^ Q-y^ s3b3:<&,jlllli•Ipsa- )— i~~lislIsg.Lu(DIsill.11sillDESCRIPTIONDATEBUILDING DEPARTMENTBID DOCUMENTS08.28.1310.31,17FOR CONSTRUCTION SET05.02.18PROJECT DATE11 - 26 - 2012WINDOW DETAILSA6.21E^^/^/^r 3148 OPMD 0.0.13IFRAMING BY OTHERSDRYVIT AQUAFLASH® SYSTEM(SEE NOTES 2 AND 3)PROVIDE AIR SEAL, BY OTHERS,AROUND INTERIOR OF WINDOWPER WINDOW MANUFACTURER'SREQUIREMENTSSILL PAN FLASHING^BY OTHERS-3/4"(19MM)MIN.3/4"(19 MM) MIN.^DRYVIT DETAIL MESHWRAPPED TO BACKSIDEOF EPS MIN. 2" (51 MM)DRYVIT ADHESIVE IN VERTICALNOTCHED TROWELCONFIGURATIONAPPROVED SUBSTRATEDRYVIT AIRWVATER-RESISTIVEBARRIER COATINGDRYVIT ADHESIVE IN VERTICALNOTCHED TROWEL CONFIGURATIONAPPLIED TO BACK OF EPSDRYVIT DETAIL MESH® WRAPPED TOBACKSIDE OF EPS MIN, 2" (51 MM)EPS INSULATIONDRWIT BASE COATDRYVIT REINFORCING MESHEMBEDDED IN DRYVIT BASE COATDRYVIT FINISHDRYVIT COMPATIBLE SEALANT,BY OTHERSDRYVIT DEMANDIT® OR COLOR PRIME™ON SURFACE(S) TO RECEIVE SEALANTEPS SHAPE (OPTIONAL)^w.MTRANSITION FLASHING,BY OTHERSDRYVIT AQUAFLASHSYSTEM (SEE NOTE 2)DRYVIT COMPATIBLESEALANT, BY OTHERS^sv^Outsulation^ Plus MD System®Self Flashing Window Sill - JambNOTE:1. DRYVIT RECOMMENDS THAT GROUNDFLOOR APPLICATIONS AND ALL FACADESEXPOSED TO ABNORMAL STRESS. HIGHTRAFFIC. OR DELIBERATE IMPACT HAVE THEBASE COAT REINFORCED WITH PANZER®MESH PRIOR TO STANDARD OR STANDARDPLUS MESH. LOCATION OF HIGH IMPACTZONES SHOULD BE INDICATED ONCONTRACT DRAWINGS.2. DRYVIT FLASHING TAPE SURFACECONDITIONER™ AND DRYVIT FLASHINGTAPE™ MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF DRYVITAQUAFLASH SYSTEM.©Dryvit Systems, Inc.Issued: 10/20163. DRYVIT BACKSTOP® NT™-TEXTURE OVERDRYVIT GRID TAPE™ IS AN ALTERNATIVEOPTION AT JAMB AND HEAD CONDITION PERDETAIL OPMD 0.0.04.4. ADHESIVE ONLY APPLICATION IS ACCEPTABLEWHEN USING DRYVIT AQUAFLASH SYSTEM.5. EDGE WRAPPING METHOD IS ACCEPTABLE INLIEU OF BACK WRAPPING. DRYVIT REINFORCINGMESH MUST BE FULLY EMBEDDED IN DRYVITBASE COAT AT EPS EDGE AND EXTEND ONTOSUBSTRATE 2" (51 MM) MIN.The architecture, engineering, and design of the project using theDryvit products is the responsibility of the project's designprofessional. All systems must comply with local building codes andstandards. This detail is for general information and guidance onlyand Dryvit specifically disclaims any liability for the use of this detailand for the architecture, design, engineering or workmanship of anyproject. The project design professional determines, in its solediscretion, whether this detail or a functionally equivalent detail isbest suited for the project. Use of a functionally equivalent detail doesnot violate Dryvit's warranty. This detail is subject to change withoutnotice. Contact Dryvit to ensure you have the most recent version.^/^//^/^v^149 BOZEMANPlanningMTMarch 4, 2020Kyle DornbergerVenue Architects, LLP13 South Willson Ave, Suite 02Bozeman,MT59715RE: CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF ARMORY HOTEL MODIFICATION TOAPPROVED PLAN, APPLICATION NO. 19410Dear Mr. Dornberger:I have carefully considered your application to modify the approved final plan for the ArmoryHotel Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Deviations. As the Director of the CommunityDevelopment Department of the City ofBozeman, I have the authority to review and issue adecision for this modification application. I write to inform you that the modificationapplication is approved with conditions, as outlined below.My decision is based on the application materials submitted, the administrative design reviewstaff (Staff) analysis found in the Febmary 12, 2020 memorandum to the Design Review Board(DRB), Staff analysis presented in the March 2, 2020 staff report (see attached), the advisoryopinion of the DRB', and public comment2 provided regarding this proposed modification.Public comment on this matter was open from Febmary 5, 2020 through February 27, 2020.At the City's suggestion, you divided the requested modifications into two phases. I addresseach phase separately. In addition, my findings distinguish between the historic Armory Building(the "Armory") and the hotel tower placed above the Armory (the "Tower"). Where I do notdistinguish between the two the finding is applicable to both aspects of the project.The Phase 1 modification requests include:1. The addition of 19 additional hotel guest rooms for a total of 121 hotel guest rooms.I adopt Staffs findings and approve this requested modification.2. The ballroom was modified to include a stage and a serving bar.I adopt Staffs findings and approve this requested modification.* Find the agenda and a video recording of the February 12, 2020 Design Review Board meetmg athttps://media.avcaptureall.com/session.html?sessionid=b7ac8286-a36f-4816-bb27-7f2e6e5e79bf&prefilter=654,38352 Find all public comment relating to this modification application athtto://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/0/fol/204607/Rowl.asDXP.O. Box 1230® 20 East Olive Street ® B^eiiSn^? 59771-1230 I ©406-582-2260 | ©406-582-2263 | www.bozeman.netTDD: 406-582-2301THE MOST LIVABLE PLACE.150 3. Remove stairs and outdoor terrace and add rooftop mechanical units on the second floorrooftop along the west elevation of the historic Armory.I conditionally approve this requested modification. See below for my findings andconditions of approval.4. Third level exterior terrace and pool replaced with rooftop mechanical units on theArmory.I conditionally approve this requested modification. See below for my findings andconditions of approval.5. A new ninth floor is proposed for the building.I adopt Staffs findings and approve this requested modification.6. Minor changes to the floorplans occur throughout the building related to the types ofhotel rooms, balconies, restaurant seating areas and kitchen areas, back of houseoperations, office, closets, stairs, storage areas, etc. as outlined in detail on pages sixthrough eight of the applicant's narrative and shown on the architectural plans Al.0-5.I adopt Staffs findings and approve this requested modification.Phase 1 Director Findings:As noted in the Staff report findings, removing the outdoor terrace and pool from the third floorrooftop of the Armory and relocating them to the ninth floor of the Tower meets standards.Relevant portions of the Secretary of Interior design guidelines (SOI Standards) provide thatinstalling mechanical and service equipment on the roof when required for a new use is allowedso long as the equipment is "inconspicuous on the site and from the public right-of-way anddo[es] not damage or obscure character-deflning historic features." See the Secretary of theInterior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (2017), p. 101. Therefore,placement of the mechanical equipment on the second and third floor rooftop of the Armory ispermissible.However, requirements in the City's Unified Development Code (the "code") requireconcealment of the equipment. Because this building is located in the NeighborhoodConservation Overlay District (NCOD), the provisions of section 38.16 ofthe 2013 BozemanMunicipal Code control. The applicable standard from the NCOD code states, "Whenconsidering the appropriateness and compatibility of proposed alterations with original designfeatures and with neighboring structures and properties, focus shall be given to the concealmentofnon-period appurtenances, such as mechanical equipment." See section 38.16.050.B.8 BMC(2013). Other sections also address rooftop mechanical equipment. Section 38.21.050.F.1, inrelevant part, states: "Rooftop mechanical equipment should be screened. Screening should beincorporated into the roof form when possible. . . ." 38.21.050.F.1 BMC (2013).The mechanical equipment is not currently concealed as required by code. The mechanicalequipment is visible from neighboring structures and properties as well as by travelers onMendenhall Street. In the public comments we received, several people who live in neighboringbuildings commented on the view of the mechanical equipment from their homes.Page | 2151 I agree with staff that the mechanical equipment must be screened from the view of neighboringproperties and from the public way and that the proposed modification does not meet the expressrequirements in the code. The condition of approval for Phase 1 must be met in order for thescreening of the mechanical equipment to be approved.Phase 1 Condition of Approval1. Applicant must submit a new plan to screen the rooftop mechanical equipment located onthe second and third floor rooftop of the Armory to comply with requirements of section38.21.050.F BMC (2013). Specifically, applicant's new plan must provide full screeningof the sides of the rooftop mechanical equipment and a proposal to address the visualimpacts of the top of the equipment to shield it from view of adjacent properties and thepublic way. The applicant's plan will be subject to a 15 day public comment period, afterwhich the Director of the Community Development Division must issue a decision on theproposed plan to screen the second and third floor rooftop mechanical equipment.Phase 2 modification requests:Although the Staff report determines several modification requests in Phase 2 do not complywith applicable standards, I determine the conditions of approval outlined below, if met, willbring the Phase 2 into compliance and allow approval of all proposed modifications in Phase 2.Phase 2 modification requests include the following:1. Remove stairs and outdoor terrace and add rooftop mechanical units on the secondfloor rooftop along the west elevation of the Armory.This modification request was addressed above with Director Findings andConditions of Approval for Phase 1.2. Third level rooftop mechanical units of the Armory and screening added to areapreviously approved with pool and terrace.This modification request was addressed above with Director Findings andConditions of Approval for Phase 1.3. The exterior lighting package for the project is proposed to change fixtures, lightingtypes and intensities.a. With respect to proposed fixtures L6, L18, L19, L21, and L28,1conditionally approve the requested modification. See my findings andconditions of approval, below.b. Fixtures L7, L17, L23, L24, D15 and Ml(4) conform to standards in38.23.150 BMC (2013). I adopt Staffs findings and approve thismodification.4. The exterior building materials for the building:a. The exterior siding building materials for the Tower are proposed to change.The proposed siding is a synthetic insulating finishing system known as TAPS(EIFS).Page | 3152 5.I conditionally approve the requested modification. See my findings andconditions of approval, below.b. The proposed modifications to the exterior building materials on the ninthfloor include a shed roof, mostly glass windows with a black metal fascia andsoffit, small areas of wood siding, and a stone outdoor fireplace, and a glassguardrail.I adopt Staffs findings and approve this modification.c. The art deco markings on the Armory are proposed to change, specifically thatthe art deco chevrons will not be infilled with brushed aluminum strips.I adopt Staffs findings and approve this modification.The windows in the Armory are proposed to change.See my alternative findings and approval below.Phase 2 Director Findings:The procedures for amendments to approved plans are set out in 38.230.150 (Amendments toplans) BMC (2020). The intent of this section is "to assure that issues of community concern areaddressed during the redevelopment, reuse or change in use of existing facilities in thecommunity." 38.230.150.A BMC (2020). "Specific areas of community concern include publicsafety, mitigation ofoff-site environmental impacts and site character in relation tosurroundings." 38.230.150.A BMC (2020).Any amendment to a plan approved under the ordinance codified in division 38.230 (September3, 1991 - Ordinance 1332) must be submitted to the community development director.38.230.150.B BMC (2020). Modifications to an approved plan are reviewed applying theversion of the uniform development code (UDC) in effect at the time the site plan was originallydeemed adequate for review, except the design standards within article 5 of the current UDCapply for "building additions and/or remodels." 38.230.150.D BMC (2020).Article 5 in turn provides that for "sites within the city's established neighborhood conservationoverlay district, the provisions of division 38.340 [Overlay district standards] supersede theprovisions of this article. However, the [director] may apply the provisions of this article in theevent of a conflict, where the [director] determines that the provisions herein help newdevelopment better meet the purpose and intent of neighborhood conservation overlay districtper section 38.340.010." 38.500.020 (Applicability and compliance) BMC (2020). Section38.340.010 requires all alterations to existing structures in the NCOD to be subject to designreview, and the recommendations of the design review board or administrative design reviewstaff must be given careful consideration in the final action of the director. 38.340.010.A BMC(2020).Staff has provided me an analysis of the proposed modifications under both the standards ofArticle 5 and the NCOD as the development is located within the NCOD boundaries. Thisapplication for modifications was reviewed by the DRB, who concurred with Staff inrecommending Phase 2 of the application be denied by the director.Page | 4153 NCOD design standards: The intent of the NCOD designation is tostimulate the restoration and rehabilitation of structures, and all other elementscontributing to the character and fabric of established residential neighborhoods andcommercial or industrial areas. New constmction will be invited and encouragedprovided primary emphasis is given to the preservation of existing buildings and furtherprovided the design of such new space enhances and contributes to the aesthetic characterand function of the property and the surrounding neighborhood or area. Contemporarydesign will be encouraged, provided it is in keeping with the above-stated criteria, as anacknowledged fact of the continuing development pattern of a dynamic, changingcommunity.38.340.010.C BMC (2020).A certificate of appropriateness ("COA") is required for alterations undertaken upon anystructure in the NCOD. The criteria for granting a COA are set out and discussed below.First, the list ofCOA criteria in the UDC incorporates the standards of the Secretary of theInterior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings ("SOI Standards"). Allmodifications requiring a COA must be done in conformance with the SOI standards.In considering the appropriateness and compatibility of proposed alterations with original designfeatures of subject structures, and with neighboring stmctures, the director must be guided by thedesign guidelines for the NCOD. The COA criteria provide that contemporary, non-period andinnovative design of additions to existing structures is encouraged "when such new constructionor additions do not destroy significant historical, cultural or architectural structures or theircomponents and when such design is compatible with the foregoing elements of the structure andsurrounding structures."??I will address three areas included in your Phase 2 application: lighting, windows, and exteriorsurfaces of the Tower.Lighting. The proposed lighting package subject to this modification request includes some lightfixtures that are compliant with the requirements of code and others that are not. Relevantsubsections of 38.23.150 BMC (2013) plainly prohibit lights that change color and lights thatilluminate broad portions of the building.Three purposes of the regulations of lighting are to: "protect neighbors and the night sky fromnuisance glare and stray light from poorly aimed, placed, applied, maintained or shielded lightsources"; "protect and maintain the character of the city," and; "prevent excessive lighting andconserve energy." 38.23.150.A BMC (2013). Modifications that require a certificate ofappropriateness, as this project does, "will necessitate compliance for all existing and proposedlighting on the site." 38.23.150.B.2 BMC (2013). The code allows lighting to "accentarchitectural elements, but not to illuminate entire portions of buildings." 38.23.150.D.7.g BMCPage | 5154 (2013). The code specifically prohibits lights that "vary in intensity or color." 38.23.150.D.7.hBMC (2013).I agree with the findings in the staff report that several of the proposed light fixtures vary in colorand will illuminate entire portions of the building, contrary to the requirements of the code.Further, you provided a handout to the DRB that admits ". .. The lights will be white absent anevent to celebrate special occasions with the community (e.g. holidays or special events"). Onthose rare instances there is the ability to change the color displayed to celebrate the event.. .."(emphasis added). The same handout stated, "L18 & L19 direct light on vertical columns .of thehistoric armory & new tower, making the two structures work in unison;.. ."55See Phase 2 conditions of approval for conditions that must be met in order for the noncompliantlight fixtures to be approved.Windows. With respect to the windows proposed for the Armory, the SOI Standards advise"identifying, retaining, and preserving windows and their functional and decorative features thatare important in defining the overall historic character of the building."The NCOD guidelines relevant to windows provide that decorative features of a historic windowbe preserved, and includes muntins as a feature important to the character of a historic window.The guidelines also provide that in a replacement window, materials that appear similar to theoriginal should be used. The same material is preferred, but windows may consist of substitutematerial "if the appearance of the window components will match those of the original indimension, profile and finish." (Staff memorandum to DRB at page 13-14, emphasis added).You indicate the windows have not changed since the original site plan application materialswere provided to the City. However, a graphic cross-section of the proposed windows youprovided in conjunction with the original site plan application show muntins on both sides of thereplacement windows in order to provide a similar appearance to the historic windows. Based onthis, it appears you represented to the City you intended to use windows with muntins on theexterior of the glass.I agree with Staff that replicating the historic windows in the Armory is important to the historiccharacter of the building, and the use of windows without muntins on both sides of the windowglass of the Armory would not meet COA standards. However, other than the graphic youincluded in your submittal materials for the original site plan, I can find no written specificationdescribing the exterior muntins in the original application, nor a specific, written requirement forexterior muntins in the subsequent site plan approval. Therefore, I find that it was theresponsibility of the City to specifically spell out this requirement in the original approval of thisproject. Having failed to do so, it is my determination that while we would encourage the projectto install exterior muntins on windows in the historic Armory, I cannot find sufficient writtenevidence to determine that the windows currently installed represent a substantial modificationfrom those originally approved. For this reason, I cannot agree with Staffs findings with regardPage | 6155 to the proposed modification to the Armory windows and no changes to the installed windowsare required.EIFS exterior building materials.The staff report determined the proposed use ofEIFS exterior building materials does notconform to the COA criteria or to the design standards in Article 5 of the UDC.With respect to the NCOD design guidelines, the staff report found the proposed exteriorbuilding materials of the Tower are not compatible with the character of the Armory, do notappear similar to those building materials used traditionally in the area, and do not contribute tothe traditional sense of the scale of the block. (Staff memorandum to DRB at pages 14-15).While I must be guided by the NCOD guidelines, strict compliance with the guidelines is notrequired. As stated above, the intent of the NCOD encourages contemporary design so long asprimary emphasis is given to the preservation of existing buildings and further provided thedesign of such new space enhances and contributes to the aesthetic character and function of theproperty and the surrounding neighborhood or area. When reviewing a contemporary design foran addition to an existing structure, the director must be guided by the NCOD guidelines todetermine whether the proposal is compatible with existing or surrounding structures.As explained above, I may also rely on the standards of Article 5 if I find those standards willhelp the new addition better meet the intent of the NCOD.Taken as a whole, I find this development continues to emphasize the Armory. Except for theArmory windows discussed above, you have largely preserved the Armory. The Tower is de-emphasized by being set back. While expansive use ofEIFS can appear monochromatic, herethe application proposes to use different color EIFS, some of which is embellished withdecorative chevrons that evoke the Art Deco character of the Armory. While the codespecifically prohibits rough textured EIFS, it does not define this texture or give anymeasurement standards. My research has produced evidence ofEIFS products that are muchrougher in texture. You have indicated the proposed product is on the smoother end of theroughness scale and I agree. In addition, I find the proposed use of EIFS is compatible with otherstructures on the block, most particularly the Element Hotel and 5 West buildings acrossMendenhall Street.However, I am also guided by the Article 5 standards, in particular 38.530.060, Buildingmaterials. While this development does not include the use ofEIFS on the ground floor, theproportion of the total facade area proposed to be EIFS exceeds the 25 percent limitation in38.520.060.C.3. This limitation is intended to ensure EIFS is used as a decorative accent to beincorporated with other permitted materials.Art Deco buildings are traditionally highly decorated with such ornamentation as chevrons,zigzags, and other geometrical motifs. I find that the Tower would be more compatible with thePage | 7156 Armory if it included certain decorative components proposed by you with your originalsubmittal. These components included perforated brushed metal panels with motifs.As conditioned below, I find the use ofEIFS on the Tower to be compatible with the historicArmory.Phase 2 Conditions of Approval:1. Proposed light fixtures L 18 and L 19 must not, during operation of the building, change orvary in color to comply with 38.23.150D.7.h. BMC (2013).2. Proposed light fixtures L6, LI 9 10 degree accent light, and L21 must not, duringoperation of the building, illuminate the entire facade of the Armory to comply with38.23.150.D.7.aBMC (2013) and 38.23.150.D.7.gBMC (2013).3. Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy, proposed light fixture L28 Canopy lightmust meet "full-cutoff criteria, which means the light source and associated lenses shallnot protrude below the edge of the light fixture, and shall not be visible from adjacentstreets or properties in compliance with 38.23.150.F BMC (2013).4. Proposed light fixture L28 Canopy light must not, during operation of the building, emithorizontal light from a 90 degree plane, in compliance with 38.23.150.D.7.b BMC(2013).5. Applicant must submit a new plan to cover EIFS exterior building materials so that nomore than 25% of the entire exposed building fa9ade (calculated by combining theexterior surface area of the Tower and the Armory, including windows) is EIFS, incompliance with 38.530.060.c.3.a BMC (2020). Some leeway on the strict percentagelimitation will be considered. The Applicant's plan to cover portions ofEIFS on theexterior of the building will be subject to a 15 day public comment period, after whichthe Director of the Community Development Division must issue a decision on the newplan to cover exterior EIFS material.Compliance with the conditions of approval included in this decision do not restrict the issuanceof a building permit. As such, based on this approval, I determine the stop work order for the 9floor can be lifted upon the issuance of a building permit. I will immediately advise the ChiefBuilding Official he may issue the building permit and lift the stop work order. Please be adviseda Certificate of Occupancy for the project will not be issued until all conditions of approval havebeen satisfied.You have the right to appeal this decision of the Community Development Director pursuant tothe provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code and Resolution 4419 . Please note this decisionmay also be appealed by other aggrieved parties as defined by section 38.700.020 BMC. Suchappeals must be filed pursuant to the provisions of section 38.250.030 BMC. An appeal must befiled within ten (10) working days following the date of this decision. If a valid appeal is filed,based on the facts of this application, I interpret the construction hold provisions of38.250.030.K3Available at httD://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/0/doc/50408/Electronic.asDXPage | 8157 to only affect the aspects of the project for which an appeal is taken. During the time of theappeal, no further construction on the aspects of the project which are subject to the appeal mayproceed until a decision on the appeal is made. 38.250.030.K BMC (2020). The CommunityDevelopment Department and Building Division will not approve any building permits whichcontain aspects of the project subject to appeal or to perform any inspections of such itemsduring the time of the appeal.If you have any questions, or if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact meat 406-582-2262 or mmatsen@bozeman.netSincerely, / /^J^M- —Marty Matsen, AICPDirector, Division of Community DevelopmentEnc.Page | 9158 BOZEMANCommunity DevelopmentMTStaff ReportArmory Hotel Modification to Approved Plan ReviewApplication: 19410March 2, 2020Application No.Project NameSummary19410Type Modification to approved planZoningOverlay District(s)Street AddressLegal DescriptionOwnerApplicantRepresentativeStaffNoticingRecommendationArmory Hotel ModificationTwo phase modification to approved plan application for modifications to the Armory Hotel CUP,COA, DEV, Application Z13064, including multiple modifications as outlined in the applicationincluding, but not limited to, the addition of a ninth floor, the addition of nineteen hotel rooms, achange in location of the pool, a change in location of mechanical units, the addition of a ninthfloor restaurant, a change to the exterior building materials, and a change to the windowsproposed in the Armory building.B-3Parcel Size 19,319 square feetGrowth Community CorePolicyNeighborhood Conservation Overlay District, Armory Building Individually Listed on National Register ofHistoric Places24 West Mendenhall Street, Bozeman, MT 59715TRACYS 1ST ADD, 807, T02 S, R06 E, BLOCK A, Lot 19A, PLAT C-17-A, City of Bozeman,Gallatin County, MT.The Etha Hotel LLC ,PO Box 1795, Bozeman, MT 59771Venue Architects LLP, 13 South Willson Avenue, Suite 2, Bozeman, MT 59715Venue Architects LLP, 13 South Willson Avenue, Suite 2, Bozeman, MT 59715Planner Brian Krueger Engineer Anna RussellPublic Comment Period Site Posted Adjacent Owners Newspaper Legal Ad2-5-20to2-27-20 2-5-20 2-5-20 Not required.Phase 1: Staff finds that Phase 1 of the application, except the 2nd and 3rd floor rooftop mechanicalequipment locations and screening, does comply with the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Codeand Phase 1 of the modification is sufficient for approval.Phase 2: The staff review finds that Phase 2 of the application does not comply with the requirements ofthe Bozeman Municipal Code and Phase 2 of the modification is not sufficient for approval.Advisory Bodies Design Review BoardDecision Authority Director of Community DevelopmentDate: 2-12-20DateFull application and file of record: Community Development Department, 20 E. Olive St, Bozeman, MT 59715Page 1 of 8159 BOZEMANCommunity DevelopmentMTStaff Report/4rmo/y Hotel Modification to Approved Plan ReviewApplication: 19410March 2, 2020PROJECT BACKGROUNDThe Armory Hotel developer has submitted an application to modify the final plan for the Armory Hotel Site Plan, ConditionalUse Permit, and Deviations application. The hotel development was approved in 2013 by the City Commission underApplication Z13064, Armory Hotel. The final plan for the development was approved in December of 2014. The modificationapplication was submitted on September 19,2019 and deemed inadequate for review on November 14, 2019. Six additionalrevisions have been submitted in response to inadequacy determinations from the City. The application was deemedadequate for review on January 13,2020.The original application approved by the City Commission was a Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriatenesswith Deviations Application. It allowed the adaptive reuse of an existing building and the construction of an eight story, 102room hotel, and associated site improvements including on premise consumption of alcohol. The property is located at 24West Mendenhall Street, which is zoned B-3, Central Business District.This property is located outside of the Main Street Historic District, but is located within the Bozeman NeighborhoodConservation Overlay District. The intent and purpose of the conservation district is to stimulate the restoration andrehabilitation of structures contributing to the historic character of established residential neighborhoods and commercialareas. New construction will be invited and encouraged provided primary emphasis is given to the preservation of existingbuildings. It is further the purpose of the conservation district designation to protect and enhance significant architecturalcharacter and historic landmarks for the education, cultural, economic benefit or enjoyment of the Bozeman citizens asarticulated in Section 38.16.010 of the 2013 Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC). Adaptive reuse of historic structures isanticipated within the Bozeman Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.The Bozeman Armory is one of 50 buildings individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places for the City ofBozeman. When determining a site or building's quality of significance, the National Register evaluates using four criteria:A.Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; orB. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; orC. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of amaster, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whosecomponents may lack individual distinction; orD. Yield, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.The Bozeman Armory embodies architectural, social, cultural, and historical significance at the national, state, and local level.The building is associated with social and historical events, including the Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal agenda and theWorks Progress Administration program. The building is associated with the lives of persons, including the National Guard's163rd Infantry Regiment and architect Fred F. Willson. And finally, the building portrays a distinctive Art Deco architecturalstyle and National Guard Armory method of construction.The other uses associated with the hotel include conference/event space, restaurants, and bars including on premises salesand consumption of alcohol. Parking was approved to be provided offsite in the downtown parking garage through a long termparking agreement. Loading zone only parking spaces are proposed along the Mendenhall Street frontage of the project. Themajority of vehicular access to the site will occur at a valet station in front of the hotel that will facilitate the movement ofvehicles from the loading spaces to the parking garage.Three deviations were granted from the Bozeman Municipal Code as follows for the project:Page 2 of 8160 BOZEMANCommunity DevelopmentMTStaff ReportArmory Hotel Modification to Approved Plan ReviewApplication: 19410March 2, 20201. Section 38.10.050.B.1 BMC (2013) Minimum yards required in the B-3 district- No minimum yards prescribed for the B-3district except a seven-foot front yard shall be required on Mendenhall and Babcock Streets. Deviation was requested to allowa new primary entrance canopy and a secondary entrance canopy along Mendenhall Street to extend 10'6 and 6'6 feetrespectively beyond the property line towards the street curb.2. Section 38.10.060.A.3 BMC (2013) Building Height Maximum building height for the B-3 commercial district outside of thecore area is 70 feet. A deviation was requested to allow the maximum height of the hotel to extend up eight stories to 110feet.3. Section 38.23.150.D.7.b (2013) BMC requires that all outdoor lighting fixtures shall be shielded in such a manner that nolight is emitted above a horizontal plane passing through the lowest point of the light emitting element, so that direct lightemitted above the horizontal plane is eliminated. A deviation was requested to allow the use of the historic exterior buildingmain entrance lights that do not comply with this standard.The application was approved with deviation number 2 above to allow a significant vertical addition to the Bozeman Armorythat includes the majority of the project's hotel rooms. The addition was approved as a rooftop addition to the Armory buildingset back significantly from the front facade. The tower is set back between 24 and 36 feet from the front facade, whichreinforces the historic massing of the Armory along West Mendenhall Street. A pool was approved on top of the Armorybuilding in front of the addition. The top of the addition provided a barrel roof shape to mimic the historic feature of the barrelvaulted roof over the gymnasium in the Armory building. The gymnasium space is now the ballroom of the hotel.MODIFICATION APPLICATION PROCESS AND APPLICABLE STANDARDSThe changes to the project proposed for the site, singly or cumulatively, do not increase lot coverage by buildings, storageareas, parking areas or impen/ious surfaces and/or do not result in an increase in intensity of use as measured by parkingrequirements, traffic generation or other measurable off-site impacts by ten percent or more; as stated in section 38.230.160.C.2.BMC (2020). This application may be processed as a modification to approved plan and is not a significant alteration of theprevious use and site that requires the submittal of a new application.For site plan modifications not requiring a new site plan application, the proposed changes are reviewed against the Citystandards in place at the time that the original application Z13064 received adequacy, which was May 1,2013. Therefore, mostproposed modifications will be evaluated using the 2013 Bozeman Municipal Code. One exception to this rule, which isapplicable here, is that when the modification involves a building addition or remodel the current standards in 38.500.020 BMC(2020) regarding the applicability and compliance requirements for Article 5 of the Unified Development Code as related toproject design apply. See 38.230.150.D. BMC (2020). Three different thresholds have been established to gauge how theproject design standards in Article 5 are applied to different applications. Based upon the thresholds in 38.500.020 BMC (2020),this modification application is a Level I improvement. Level I improvements include all exterior remodels, building additions,and/or site improvements commenced within a three-year period (based on the date of permit issuance) that affect the exteriorappearance of the building/site and/or increase the building's area by up to 20 percent. "The requirement for such improvementsis that the proposed improvements meet the standards and do not lead to further nonconformance with the standards. Forexample, if a property owner decides to replace a building fagade's siding, then the siding must meet the applicable exteriorbuilding material standards, but elements such as building articulation would not be required." 38.500.020.B.1. BMC (2020).Because this modification application involves a building addition and proposes changes to the exterior materials of the building,current Article 5 standards apply.Article 5 additionally provides that "For sites within the city's established neighborhood conservation overlay district, theprovisions of division 38.340 supersede the provisions of this article. However, the review authority may apply the provisions ofthis article in the event of a conflict, where the review authority determines that the provisions herein help new developmentbetter meet the purpose and intent of neighborhood conservation overlay district per section 38.340.010." 38.500.020.A.1.BMC. Therefore, where the standards of Article 5 and division 38.340 (Overlay District Standards) conflict, the director mayPage 3 of 8161 BOZEMANCommunity DevelopmentMTStaff Report-Armory Hotel Modification to Approved Plan ReviewApplication: 19410March 2, 2020determine to apply the standards of Article 5. Staffs memo to the Design Review Board provides analysis of the application'sconformance with both Article 5 and the criteria in division 38.340.The definition of development in BMC 38.700.050 is "Any manmade change to improve or alter real estate, including, but notlimited to, subdivision of land, buildings or other structures, mining, filling, grading, paving, excavation, or drilling operations."The Design Review Board (DRB) review thresholds provided in BMC 38.230.040.C are for developments that require designreview. The proposed modification application is a manmade change to alter real estate. The modification application proposeschanges to the entire building, interior and exterior. The Armory Hotel building meets the thresholds because it is more thanfour stories tall. See 38.230.040.C.3. BMC (2020). Therefore, the DRB is the proper design review advisory body and mustconduct the design review for the application.The Director of Community Development is the review and decision authority for this modification application.DESIGN REVIEW BOARDThe Design Review Board reviewed the application at a public meeting held on February 12, 2020. The Design Review Boardis the advisory body to the Director of Community development on this modification application. The Design Review Boardproceedings can be viewed at the following link under the date February 12, 2020: https://www.bozeman.net/services/citv-tv-and-streaming-audioPublic comment was received at the meeting on this agenda item. Three people provided public comment at the meeting. Twowere in support of the application, one was in opposition.The Design Review Board provided two recommendations to the Director of Community Development. The Design ReviewBoard members did not concur with staff findings for Phase 1 and recommended approval of Phase 1 of the application includingthe 2nd and 3rd floor rooftop mechanical equipment locations and screening. The Design Review Board did not present findingsfor the motion to include the 2nd and 3rd floor rooftop mechanical equipment locations and screening in their recommendationfor approval of Phase 1 .The Design Review Board members did agree with staff findings for Phase 2 and recommended denial of Phase 2 of theapplication.The staff findings and the Design Review Board recommendation for Phase 1 are not consistent. Both recommendations areforwarded to the Director of Community Development for consideration.Materials were distributed and oral testimony were provided to the Design Review Board members by the owners and applicantrepresentatives referencing a 2015 building permit issued by the City of Bozeman for this property. Building permits andstandards, and building permit issuance is included in chapter 10 of the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC). Chapter 38 of theBozeman Municipal Code includes the regulations that apply to the modification application. The fact that a building permit wasissued in 2015 for improvements to the Armory Hotel does not alter the zoning review process or findings for application 19410.The approved final plan for application Z13064 in place in 2015 was signed and dated by the Director of CommunityDevelopment on November 22, 2014. Application 19410 received on September 10, 2019 is the first application for site planmodification the Planning Division has received to the Z13064 approved plan.In addition, at the February 12 Design Review Board meeting Applicants provided a handout to the Board containing writtenresponses to staff comments; this handout was received by the Planning Division on February 21 , 2020. Applicant's responsesaddressed five topics: EIFS, Windows, Mechanical Equipment Location, Mechanical Equipment Screening, and Lighting. Staffoffers the following responses to the individual issues without restating the applicant's position asserted in the handout.EIFS (applicability of Article 5). The proposed EIFS (TAFS) in this modification application 19410 is a new material proposedfor the building that was not included in the Z13064 final site plan building materials for the building. As explained in Staffsmemorandum to the Design Review Board and above in this Staff Report, the regulations regarding applicability of Article 5 inplace on the date that the modification application 19410 received adequacy, January 13,2020, apply.EIFS (compliance with COA criteria for building materials). Applicants assert EIFS meets NCOD H. Materials guidelines. Forthe reason set forth in Staffs analysis provided to DRB, Staff disagrees.Page 4 of 8162 BOZEMANCommunity DevelopmentMTStaff ReportArmory Hotel Modification to Approved Plan ReviewApplication: 19410March 2, 2020Windows. Applicant asserts the windows proposed in the 2014 approved site plan have not changed. However, Applicant'sapplication materials provided with the Z13064 approved final plan showed muntins on both sides of the replacement windowsin the Armory building. The Armory Hotel CUP COA DEV Application Z13064 approved final plan included the documententitled "Armory Hotel Historic Building Elements" that includes a section on "Windows and Doors of the Armory." Thatdocument includes a cross section through the proposed windows for the Armory that includes muntins on both sides of thereplacement windows in order to provide a similar appearance to the historic windows in design and pane dimensions. CrossSection 2 in the exhibit for this section shows the proposed muntins on both sides of the window. Staff provided analysisregarding compliance with the Certificate of Appropriateness criteria in its memorandum to the Design Review Board.Mechanical Equipment Location. As explained in Staffs memorandum to the Design Review Board, the mechanicalequipment locations on the second and third floor rooftops in phase 1 and in phase 2 do not meet COA criteria. The edition ofthe Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (SOI) (published 1995) within the Planning Division required by the BMC andutilized for this review does not have a section on page 101 that references the language provided in Applicant's handout.Staff does not know the provenance of that language related to "Alterations and Additions for a New Use."Mechanical Equipment Screening. As described in Staffs memorandum to the Design Review Board, the mechanicalequipment screens in phase 2 do not meet COA criteria. The screening is not incorporated into the roof form when possible asthe second and third floor rooftop units are placed on top of the roofs with detached screens surrounding the equipment.Some of the rooftop mechanical equipment screening includes transparency. The rooftop mechanical unit screens proposedalong the west side of the building are transparent and are not proposed to have a solid materials backing the installedperforated screens. A large gap between the bottom of the mechanical screening and the rooftop is present and shown on theproposed building elevations provided by the applicant for the proposed modification application.Lighting. Color fixtures. The proposed color light fixtures in the modification application are designed to vary in color. Pursuantto 38.23.150.D.7.h. BMC (2013), lights that flash, move, revolve, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker, vary in intensity or color, oruse intermittent electrical pulsation are prohibited. Applicant asserts this standard is met because the proposed lights are aconstant, single color at any particular time. However, because the lights' color is changeable, they do not comply with thisstandard.Lighting. Light Spread Note Direct Toward Architectural Element. Fixtures proposed in the modification lighting plan do notmeet the standard referenced by Applicant in their handout. Staff incorporates the findings in the February 12,2020 DesignReview Board memorandum on pages 7-10 by reference.Lighting. Exceed 5.0 average foot-candles on vertical surface. The staff findings do not state that the photometric plan in theproposed modification application is not in compliance with the 5.0 average foot-candle standard in 38.23.150.D.7.g BMC(2013). The staff does find that the photometric plan in the proposed modification application is not in compliance with otherlanguage in 38.23.150.D.7.9 BMC (2013). Staff incorporates the findings in the February 12,2020 Design Review Boardmemorandum on pages 7-10 by reference.No information received through the Design Review Board review process changes the staff findings and recommendation forthe project.PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTA public notice period for the modification application was conducted. Notice of the modification application was posted at theproject site and the adjoining property owners within 200 feet of this project were mailed a notification. The notice period wasfrom February 5 through February 27, 2020. Public comment was received regarding the application. The written publiccomment received is provided via a laser fiche link. Here, is a link to the public comment folder for application 19410, ArmoryHotel Modification. Copies of the public comment are in the planning file for the application.Public comments that were received are both in favor and not in favor of the project. The comments in opposition of themodification focus on: the addition of a ninth floor, change in exterior building materials, removal of second floor pool, mechanicalequipment locations and the lack of screening on the mechanical equipment, windows, and lack of notice for changes. ThePage 5 of 8163 BOZEMANCommunity DevelopmentMTStaff ReportArmory Hotel Modification to Approved Plan ReviewApplication: 19410March 2, 2020comments in support of the modification focus on: friendships with the owner and applicants, support for downtown, jobs to beprovided by hotel, the economic boom to be provided by hotel, city process, errors and the addition of community space. Amajority of the comments are in support of the project and recommend approval of the application. The comments in support ofthe recommendation do not directly state how the proposed modifications meet standards, but reference issues not directlyrelated to the zoning criteria.Staff has considered all public comment received to date. No information received through the public notice and commentprocess changes the staff findings and recommendation for the project.DEPARTURES OR VARIANCESThe Applicant requested no departures or variances with the application. Nonetheless, staff analyzed whether the proposedmodification would qualify for a departure and determined that it would not qualify for a departure because the modificationdoes not meet the express intent of the standards.CONDITIONS OF APPROVALPlease note that these conditions are provided only for Phase 1. Phase 2 is found to be insufficient for approval and is notrecommended for approval.Recommended Conditions of Approval Phase 1:1. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions ofapproval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman MunicipalCode or state law.Page 6 of 8164 BOZEMANCommunity DevelopmentMTStaff ReportArmory Hotel Modification to Approved Plan ReviewApplication: 19410March 2, 2020s•^k^ts;a^rI^•-?li--K;('•'.E&T1^p,D-(^f'"I•»^I.^,•wv4••>»;pi-y-•:<-»t->• 4"s<•»>•^SfSf ^"':*1:"'Th.: aI—;("c^JFF/^!J*—»«»rt•*<<s<t It^f••(:1«.^4r-ts.{»• ••1\{,?•.^*F^^•:;1•I»>•-CJi:;'•w•^^,-c,»3<.1?1•<-•^.1•••<J<•it•a=t—A*miV1r;»;^•^X£ttM-Ltr»tas-*..&•ilJESilit0y•dvtI.Mm^sl^^€^.f4 TBaFigurel: Vicinity MapANALYSIS AND FINDINGSAnalysis 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 recordof the review. The analysis in this report is a summary of the completed review.The findings for the staff recommendation are incorporated by reference into this document from the Design Review Boardmemorandum dated February 12, 2020. The findings for Phase 1 begin on page 4 and the findings for Phase 2 begin onpage 6 of that memorandum.No information received through the Design Review Board review process or since the issuance of the February 12, 2020Design Review Board memorandum changes the staff findings and recommendation for the project.ATTACHMENTSDesign Review Board Proceedings February 12,2020Design Review Board Memorandum February 12,202019410 Application and Documents19410 PlansPage 7 of 8165 BOZEMANCommunity DevelopmentMTStaff ReportArmory Hotel Modification to Approved Plan ReviewApplication: 19410March 2, 202019410 Color and Material PaletteZ13064 Approved Final PlansZ13064 DRB Staff ReportPublic Comment via Laserfiche link HereThe full application and file of record can be viewed at the Community Development Department at 20 E. Olive Street,Bozeman,MT59715.Page 8 of 8166 Staff Report Armory Hotel Modification to Approved Plan Review Application: 19410 March 2, 2020 Page 1 of 8 Application No. 19410 Type Modification to approved plan Project Name Armory Hotel Modification Summary Two phase modification to approved plan application for modifications to the Armory Hotel CUP, COA, DEV, Application Z13064, including multiple modifications as outlined in the application including, but not limited to, the addition of a ninth floor, the addition of nineteen hotel rooms, a change in location of the pool, a change in location of mechanical units, the addition of a ninth floor restaurant, a change to the exterior building materials, and a change to the windows proposed in the Armory building. Zoning B-3 Growth Policy Community Core Parcel Size 19,319 square feet Overlay District(s) Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, Armory Building Individually Listed on National Register of Historic Places Street Address 24 West Mendenhall Street, Bozeman, MT 59715 Legal Description TRACYS 1ST ADD, S07, T02 S, R06 E, BLOCK A, Lot 19A, PLAT C-17-A, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, MT. Owner The Etha Hotel LLC ,PO Box 1795, Bozeman, MT 59771 Applicant Venue Architects LLP, 13 South Willson Avenue, Suite 2, Bozeman, MT 59715 Representative Venue Architects LLP, 13 South Willson Avenue, Suite 2, Bozeman, MT 59715 Staff Planner Brian Krueger Engineer Anna Russell Noticing Public Comment Period Site Posted Adjacent Owners Mailed Newspaper Legal Ad 2-5-20 to 2-27-20 2-5-20 2-5-20 Not required. Recommendation Phase 1: Staff finds that Phase 1 of the application, except the 2nd and 3rd floor rooftop mechanical equipment locations and screening, does comply with the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and Phase 1 of the modification is sufficient for approval. Phase 2: The staff review finds that Phase 2 of the application does not comply with the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and Phase 2 of the modification is not sufficient for approval. Advisory Bodies Design Review Board Date: 2-12-20 Decision Authority Director of Community Development Date ____________ Full application and file of record: Community Development Department, 20 E. Olive St., Bozeman, MT 59715 167 Staff Report Armory Hotel Modification to Approved Plan Review Application: 19410 March 2, 2020 Page 2 of 8 PROJECT BACKGROUND The Armory Hotel developer has submitted an application to modify the final plan for the Armory Hotel Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Deviations application. The hotel development was approved in 2013 by the City Commission under Application Z13064, Armory Hotel. The final plan for the development was approved in December of 2014. The modification application was submitted on September 19, 2019 and deemed inadequate for review on November 14, 2019. Six additional revisions have been submitted in response to inadequacy determinations from the City. The application was deemed adequate for review on January 13, 2020. The original application approved by the City Commission was a Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations Application. It allowed the adaptive reuse of an existing building and the construction of an eight story, 102 room hotel, and associated site improvements including on premise consumption of alcohol. The property is located at 24 West Mendenhall Street, which is zoned B-3, Central Business District. This property is located outside of the Main Street Historic District, but is located within the Bozeman Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The intent and purpose of the conservation district is to stimulate the restoration and rehabilitation of structures contributing to the historic character of established residential neighborhoods and commercial areas. New construction will be invited and encouraged provided primary emphasis is given to the preservation of existing buildings. It is further the purpose of the conservation district designation to protect and enhance significant architectural character and historic landmarks for the education, cultural, economic benefit or enjoyment of the Bozeman citizens as articulated in Section 38.16.010 of the 2013 Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC). Adaptive reuse of historic structures is anticipated within the Bozeman Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The Bozeman Armory is one of 50 buildings individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places for the City of Bozeman. When determining a site or building’s quality of significance, the National Register evaluates using four criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Yield, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history. The Bozeman Armory embodies architectural, social, cultural, and historical significance at the national, state, and local level. The building is associated with social and historical events, including the Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal agenda and the Works Progress Administration program. The building is associated with the lives of persons, including the National Guard’s 163rd Infantry Regiment and architect Fred F. Willson. And finally, the building portrays a distinctive Art Deco architectural style and National Guard Armory method of construction. The other uses associated with the hotel include conference/event space, restaurants, and bars including on premises sales and consumption of alcohol. Parking was approved to be provided offsite in the downtown parking garage through a long term parking agreement. Loading zone only parking spaces are proposed along the Mendenhall Street frontage of the project. The majority of vehicular access to the site will occur at a valet station in front of the hotel that will facilitate the movement of vehicles from the loading spaces to the parking garage. Three deviations were granted from the Bozeman Municipal Code as follows for the project: 168 Staff Report Armory Hotel Modification to Approved Plan Review Application: 19410 March 2, 2020 Page 3 of 8 1. Section 38.10.050.B.1 BMC (2013) Minimum yards required in the B-3 district – No minimum yards prescribed for the B-3 district except a seven-foot front yard shall be required on Mendenhall and Babcock Streets. Deviation was requested to allow a new primary entrance canopy and a secondary entrance canopy along Mendenhall Street to extend 10’6 and 6’6 feet respectively beyond the property line towards the street curb. 2. Section 38.10.060.A.3 BMC (2013) Building Height Maximum building height for the B-3 commercial district outside of the core area is 70 feet. A deviation was requested to allow the maximum height of the hotel to extend up eight stories to 110 feet. 3. Section 38.23.150.D.7.b (2013) BMC requires that all outdoor lighting fixtures shall be shielded in such a manner that no light is emitted above a horizontal plane passing through the lowest point of the light emitting element, so that direct light emitted above the horizontal plane is eliminated. A deviation was requested to allow the use of the historic exterior building main entrance lights that do not comply with this standard. The application was approved with deviation number 2 above to allow a significant vertical addition to the Bozeman Armory that includes the majority of the project’s hotel rooms. The addition was approved as a rooftop addition to the Armory building set back significantly from the front façade. The tower is set back between 24 and 36 feet from the front façade, which reinforces the historic massing of the Armory along West Mendenhall Street. A pool was approved on top of the Armory building in front of the addition. The top of the addition provided a barrel roof shape to mimic the historic feature of the barrel vaulted roof over the gymnasium in the Armory building. The gymnasium space is now the ballroom of the hotel. MODIFICATION APPLICATION PROCESS AND APPLICABLE STANDARDS The changes to the project proposed for the site, singly or cumulatively, do not increase lot coverage by buildings, storage areas, parking areas or impervious surfaces and/or do not result in an increase in intensity of use as measured by parking requirements, traffic generation or other measurable off-site impacts by ten percent or more; as stated in section 38.230.160.C.2. BMC (2020). This application may be processed as a modification to approved plan and is not a significant alteration of the previous use and site that requires the submittal of a new application. For site plan modifications not requiring a new site plan application, the proposed changes are reviewed against the City standards in place at the time that the original application Z13064 received adequacy, which was May 1, 2013. Therefore, most proposed modifications will be evaluated using the 2013 Bozeman Municipal Code. One exception to this rule, which is applicable here, is that when the modification involves a building addition or remodel the current standards in 38.500.020 BMC (2020) regarding the applicability and compliance requirements for Article 5 of the Unified Development Code as related to project design apply. See 38.230.150.D. BMC (2020). Three different thresholds have been established to gauge how the project design standards in Article 5 are applied to different applications. Based upon the thresholds in 38.500.020 BMC (2020), this modification application is a Level I improvement. Level I improvements include all exterior remodels, building additions, and/or site improvements commenced within a three-year period (based on the date of permit issuance) that affect the exterior appearance of the building/site and/or increase the building's area by up to 20 percent. “The requirement for such improvements is that the proposed improvements meet the standards and do not lead to further nonconformance with the standards. For example, if a property owner decides to replace a building façade's siding, then the siding must meet the applicable exterior building material standards, but elements such as building articulation would not be required.” 38.500.020.B.1. BMC (2020). Because this modification application involves a building addition and proposes changes to the exterior materials of the building, current Article 5 standards apply. Article 5 additionally provides that “For sites within the city’s established neighborhood conservation overlay district, the provisions of division 38.340 supersede the provisions of this article. However, the review authority may apply the provisions of this article in the event of a conflict, where the review authority determines that the provisions herein help new development better meet the purpose and intent of neighborhood conservation overlay district per section 38.340.010.” 38.500.020.A.1. BMC. Therefore, where the standards of Article 5 and division 38.340 (Overlay District Standards) conflict, the director may 169 Staff Report Armory Hotel Modification to Approved Plan Review Application: 19410 March 2, 2020 Page 4 of 8 determine to apply the standards of Article 5. Staff’s memo to the Design Review Board provides analysis of the application’s conformance with both Article 5 and the criteria in division 38.340. The definition of development in BMC 38.700.050 is “Any manmade change to improve or alter real estate, including, but not limited to, subdivision of land, buildings or other structures, mining, filling, grading, paving, excavation, or drilling operations.” The Design Review Board (DRB) review thresholds provided in BMC 38.230.040.C are for developments that require design review. The proposed modification application is a manmade change to alter real estate. The modification application proposes changes to the entire building, interior and exterior. The Armory Hotel building meets the thresholds because it is more than four stories tall. See 38.230.040.C.3. BMC (2020). Therefore, the DRB is the proper design review advisory body and must conduct the design review for the application. The Director of Community Development is the review and decision authority for this modification application. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board reviewed the application at a public meeting held on February 12, 2020. The Design Review Board is the advisory body to the Director of Community development on this modification application. The Design Review Board proceedings can be viewed at the following link under the date February 12, 2020: https://www.bozeman.net/services/city-tv- and-streaming-audio Public comment was received at the meeting on this agenda item. Three people provided public comment at the meeting. Two were in support of the application, one was in opposition. The Design Review Board provided two recommendations to the Director of Community Development. The Design Review Board members did not concur with staff findings for Phase 1 and recommended approval of Phase 1 of the application including the 2nd and 3rd floor rooftop mechanical equipment locations and screening. The Design Review Board did not present findings for the motion to include the 2nd and 3rd floor rooftop mechanical equipment locations and screening in their recommendation for approval of Phase 1. The Design Review Board members did agree with staff findings for Phase 2 and recommended denial of Phase 2 of the application. The staff findings and the Design Review Board recommendation for Phase 1 are not consistent. Both recommendations are forwarded to the Director of Community Development for consideration. Materials were distributed and oral testimony were provided to the Design Review Board members by the owners and applicant representatives referencing a 2015 building permit issued by the City of Bozeman for this property. Building permits and standards, and building permit issuance is included in chapter 10 of the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC). Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code includes the regulations that apply to the modification application. The fact that a building permit was issued in 2015 for improvements to the Armory Hotel does not alter the zoning review process or findings for application 19410. The approved final plan for application Z13064 in place in 2015 was signed and dated by the Director of Community Development on November 22, 2014. Application 19410 received on September 10, 2019 is the first application for site plan modification the Planning Division has received to the Z13064 approved plan. In addition, at the February 12 Design Review Board meeting Applicants provided a handout to the Board containing written responses to staff comments; this handout was received by the Planning Division on February 21, 2020. Applicant’s responses addressed five topics: EIFS, Windows, Mechanical Equipment Location, Mechanical Equipment Screening, and Lighting. Staff offers the following responses to the individual issues without restating the applicant’s position asserted in the handout. EIFS (applicability of Article 5). The proposed EIFS (TAFS) in this modification application 19410 is a new material proposed for the building that was not included in the Z13064 final site plan building materials for the building. As explained in Staff’s memorandum to the Design Review Board and above in this Staff Report, the regulations regarding applicability of Article 5 in place on the date that the modification application 19410 received adequacy, January 13, 2020, apply. EIFS (compliance with COA criteria for building materials). Applicants assert EIFS meets NCOD H. Materials guidelines. For the reason set forth in Staff’s analysis provided to DRB, Staff disagrees. 170 Staff Report Armory Hotel Modification to Approved Plan Review Application: 19410 March 2, 2020 Page 5 of 8 Windows. Applicant asserts the windows proposed in the 2014 approved site plan have not changed. However, Applicant’s application materials provided with the Z13064 approved final plan showed muntins on both sides of the replacement windows in the Armory building. The Armory Hotel CUP COA DEV Application Z13064 approved final plan included the document entitled “Armory Hotel Historic Building Elements” that includes a section on “Windows and Doors of the Armory.” That document includes a cross section through the proposed windows for the Armory that includes muntins on both sides of the replacement windows in order to provide a similar appearance to the historic windows in design and pane dimensions. Cross Section 2 in the exhibit for this section shows the proposed muntins on both sides of the window. Staff provided analysis regarding compliance with the Certificate of Appropriateness criteria in its memorandum to the Design Review Board. Mechanical Equipment Location. As explained in Staff’s memorandum to the Design Review Board, the mechanical equipment locations on the second and third floor rooftops in phase 1 and in phase 2 do not meet COA criteria. The edition of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (SOI) (published 1995) within the Planning Division required by the BMC and utilized for this review does not have a section on page 101 that references the language provided in Applicant’s handout. Staff does not know the provenance of that language related to “Alterations and Additions for a New Use.” Mechanical Equipment Screening. As described in Staff’s memorandum to the Design Review Board, the mechanical equipment screens in phase 2 do not meet COA criteria. The screening is not incorporated into the roof form when possible as the second and third floor rooftop units are placed on top of the roofs with detached screens surrounding the equipment. Some of the roof top mechanical equipment screening includes transparency. The roof top mechanical unit screens proposed along the west side of the building are transparent and are not proposed to have a solid materials backing the installed perforated screens. A large gap between the bottom of the mechanical screening and the rooftop is present and shown on the proposed building elevations provided by the applicant for the proposed modification application. Lighting. Color fixtures. The proposed color light fixtures in the modification application are designed to vary in color. Pursuant to 38.23.150.D.7.h. BMC (2013), lights that flash, move, revolve, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker, vary in intensity or color, or use intermittent electrical pulsation are prohibited. Applicant asserts this standard is met because the proposed lights are a constant, single color at any particular time. However, because the lights’ color is changeable, they do not comply with this standard. Lighting. Light Spread Note Direct Toward Architectural Element. Fixtures proposed in the modification lighting plan do not meet the standard referenced by Applicant in their handout. Staff incorporates the findings in the February 12, 2020 Design Review Board memorandum on pages 7-10 by reference. Lighting. Exceed 5.0 average foot-candles on vertical surface. The staff findings do not state that the photometric plan in the proposed modification application is not in compliance with the 5.0 average foot-candle standard in 38.23.150.D.7.g BMC (2013). The staff does find that the photometric plan in the proposed modification application is not in compliance with other language in 38.23.150.D.7.g BMC (2013). Staff incorporates the findings in the February 12, 2020 Design Review Board memorandum on pages 7-10 by reference. No information received through the Design Review Board review process changes the staff findings and recommendation for the project. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT A public notice period for the modification application was conducted. Notice of the modification application was posted at the project site and the adjoining property owners within 200 feet of this project were mailed a notification. The notice period was from February 5 through February 27, 2020. Public comment was received regarding the application. The written public comment received is provided via a laser fiche link. Here, is a link to the public comment folder for application 19410, Armory Hotel Modification. Copies of the public comment are in the planning file for the application. Public comments that were received are both in favor and not in favor of the project. The comments in opposition of the modification focus on: the addition of a ninth floor, change in exterior building materials, removal of second floor pool, mechanical equipment locations and the lack of screening on the mechanical equipment, windows, and lack of notice for changes. The 171 Staff Report Armory Hotel Modification to Approved Plan Review Application: 19410 March 2, 2020 Page 6 of 8 comments in support of the modification focus on: friendships with the owner and applicants, support for downtown, jobs to be provided by hotel, the economic boom to be provided by hotel, city process, errors and the addition of community space. A majority of the comments are in support of the project and recommend approval of the application. The comments in support of the recommendation do not directly state how the proposed modifications meet standards, but reference issues not directly related to the zoning criteria. Staff has considered all public comment received to date. No information received through the public notice and comment process changes the staff findings and recommendation for the project. DEPARTURES OR VARIANCES The Applicant requested no departures or variances with the application. Nonetheless, staff analyzed whether the proposed modification would qualify for a departure and determined that it would not qualify for a departure because the modification does not meet the express intent of the standards. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Please note that these conditions are provided only for Phase 1. Phase 2 is found to be insufficient for approval and is not recommended for approval. Recommended Conditions of Approval Phase 1: 1. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. 172 Staff Report Armory Hotel Modification to Approved Plan Review Application: 19410 March 2, 2020 Page 7 of 8 Figure 1: Vicinity Map 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. The findings for the staff recommendation are incorporated by reference into this document from the Design Review Board memorandum dated February 12, 2020. The findings for Phase 1 begin on page 4 and the findings for Phase 2 begin on page 6 of that memorandum. No information received through the Design Review Board review process or since the issuance of the February 12, 2020 Design Review Board memorandum changes the staff findings and recommendation for the project. ATTACHMENTS Design Review Board Proceedings February 12, 2020 Design Review Board Memorandum February 12, 2020 19410 Application and Documents 19410 Plans 173 Staff Report Armory Hotel Modification to Approved Plan Review Application: 19410 March 2, 2020 Page 8 of 8 19410 Color and Material Palette Z13064 Approved Final Plans Z13064 DRB Staff Report Public Comment via Laserfiche link Here The full application and file of record can be viewed at the Community Development Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715. 174 Design Review Board Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 5:30 pm City Hall, Commission Room | 121 N. Rouse Ave., 59715 A. 05:34:11 PM (00:00:09) Call meeting to order and Roll Call Present Were: Lotus Grenier Ethan Barlow Brady Ernst (Vice Chairman) Peter Constanti Troy Scherer Cyndy Andrus (Commission Liaison) Brian Krueger (City Staff) B. 05:34:36 PM (00:00:34) Changes to the Agenda - None C. Minutes Approval 01.08.20 Minutes (PDF) o 01.08.20 Video Link 05:34:52 PM (00:00:50) MOTION: To approve the minutes of the January 8th meeting. Peter Constanti 05:34:58 PM (00:00:56) MOTION SECONDED: Ethan Barlow 05:35:00 PM (00:00:58) VOTE: All in Favor, Motion passes unanimously D. 05:35:28 PM (00:01:26) 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. None E. 05:35:42 PM (00:01:40) Disclosures Lotus Grenier stated that she is a personal friend of the owner of the Armory Project, but does not feel that will conflict with her role on the board. Brady Ernst disclosed that he worked on Phase 1 of the Armory Project in 2013/2014 and will recuse himself for this part of the meeting. Ethan Barlow served as Acting Chairman for the remainder of the meeting. F. ACTION ITEMS: 175 1. 19410 Armory Project Modification (Krueger) Two phase site plan modification application for a hotel development on a 19,310 square foot site in the B- 3 zoning district at 24 West Mendenhall Street. 19410 Armory Project Modification Staff Report 19410 Armory Project Modification Application 19410 Armory Project Modification Phase 1 Plans 19410 Armory Project Modification Phase 2 Plans 19410 Armory Project Phase 2 Color and Material Palette 19410 Original Z13064 Report and Plans 05:36:29 PM (00:02:27) City Development Review Manager Brian Krueger presented an overview of the project, which is a modification of the entire building originally approved in 2014. Due to the modifications, the Design Review Board will be the advisory board to the Director of Community Development on this project. The decision will be with the Director and will not go to the City Commission. Mr. Krueger went over the portions of the project that the current application is requesting as modification of the originally approved project. The proposal is a two-phase project. In general, the proposed changes in Phase 1, excluding the mechanical equipment locations and screening, are recommended for approval by staff. They meet standards, parking has been analyzed and they have updated the traffic study. Phase 2 of the proposal covers adding mechanical equipment to the rooftop and lighting changes. This part of the proposed plan, as submitted in the proposal, is not recommended by staff for approval. 06:00:51 PM (00:26:49) Mr. Krueger went into further explanation of Phase 2 changes proposed. The lighting plan is not sufficient for approval. 06:13:25 PM (00:39:23) Applicant representative, Cory Lawrence, presented his overview of the project. Mr. Lawrence offered a binder to the board members that covered his presentation. He presented documentation of approved plans from the project from 2015 that was not included in the Staff presentation. He stated that it was not fair for the current modification request to be compared to the 2013 plans and the staff report not include any reference to a set of 2015 plans. Mr. Lawrence stated that there is little change from the current proposed modification from the 2015 approved plans. He also stated that the materials on the exterior of the building were previously approved by the city in the 2015 plans. 06:28:12 PM (00:54:10) Mr. Lawrence described the requested lighting for the project. 06:34:28 PM (01:00:26) Staff and the applicant’s representatives answered questions from the Board Members concerning the major changes from the 2015 design and the 2019 application, which building codes apply to this project and the routing of building plans between the Building department and the Planning Department. Board members asked the applicant if they felt that they had any responsibility to go to the Planning with the changes in the 2015 design. The applicant clarified changes in the exterior materials and the changes in lighting. 176 Public Comment: 07:25:41 PM (01:51:39) Andy Holloran, 5 W. Mendenhall, as a developer commented on the responsibilities of a property developer. As a neighbor to the building, he commented on the changes proposed for the project. 07:29:03 PM (01:55:01) Erin Whitten, new Bozeman resident, and works for the management company that will operate the hotel. Feels that this is a good project for the community. 07:34:40 PM (02:00:38) Tyler Delaney, Bozeman, expressed his support for the project. 07:36:39 PM (02:02:37) Board members had additional questions for staff about the public notification process and if there is an established process for approval of modifications to approved site plans. 07:39:45 PM (02:05:43) MOTION: For Phase 1: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff memorandum for application 19410. Troy Scherer 07:41:09 PM (02:07:07) MOTION SECONDED: Lotus Grenier 07:41:19 PM (02:07:17) Discussion: 07:45:51 PM (02:11:49) VOTE: All in Favor, Motion passes unanimously 07:46:56 PM (02:12:54) MOTION: For Phase 2: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff memorandum for application 19410 and move to recommend denial of Phase 2 of the application. Troy Scherer 07:47:19 PM (02:13:17) MOTION SECONDED: Peter Constanti 07:47:24 PM (02:13:22) Discussion: 07:59:20 PM (02:25:18) VOTE: 3 votes for the Motion, 1 vote against, Motion passes to recommend denial of Phase 2 of the application. 2. 19394 Home 2 Suites Hotel Site Plan (Rosenberg) A proposed 4-story, 103 room hotel on the south side of Baxter Lane. Project to be built in 2 phases. 177 19394 Home 2 Suites Hotel SP Plan Staff Report 19394 Home 2 Suites Hotel SP Plans 19394 Home 2 Suites Hotel SP Exterior Plans 19394 Home 2 Suites Hotel SP Landscape Plans 08:05:51 PM (02:31:49) City Staff Planner, Sarah Rosenberg described the proposed project in the B-2 zoning district on Baxter Lane. 08:11:46 PM (02:37:44) Don Cape, 3623 Stanford Drive, Developer of this property presented his project proposal. 08:13:29 PM (02:39:27) Lowell Springer and Gene Mickolio, Springer Architects, representing the applicant, answered questions from the board members concerning the project. Ms. Rosenberg responded to questions about commercial open space. Phase 2 has not been submitted, so that phase of the design cannot be considered under this review. 08:38:03 PM (03:04:01) Public Comment: None 08:38:18 PM (03:04:16) MOTION: 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 19394 and move to recommend approval of the site plan application subject to conditions and all applicable code provisions. Troy Sherer 08:38:44 PM (03:04:42) MOTION SECONDED: Peter Constanti 08:38:48 PM (03:04:46) Discussion: 08:45:06 PM (03:11:04) VOTE: All in Favor, Motion passes unanimously. G. 08:45:56 PM (03:11:54) FYI/Discussion H. 08:47:49 PM (03:13:47) 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). 178 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 16. ‐ NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT ARTICLE 16. ‐ NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT Sec. 38.16.010. - Intent and purpose. Sec. 38.16.020. - Design review board and administrative design review staff powers and duties within conservation districts. Sec. 38.16.030. - Conservation district designation or recision. Sec. 38.16.040. - Certificate of appropriateness. Sec. 38.16.050. - Standards for certificates of appropriateness. Sec. 38.16.060. - Application requirements for certificates of appropriateness in conservation districts. Sec. 38.16.070. - Deviations from underlying zoning requirements. Sec. 38.16.080. - Demolition or movement of structures or sites within the conservation district. Sec. 38.16.090. - Appeals. Sec. 38.16.010. - Intent and purpose. A. All new construction, alterations to existing structures, movement of structures into or out of the neighborhood conservation overlay district, hereinafter referred to as the conservation district, or demolition of structures by any means or process will be subject to design review unless specifically exempted. The recommendations of the design review board or administrative design review staff shall be given careful consideration in the final action of the review authority. B. This article defines and sets forth standards which apply to the conservation district. C. The intent and purpose of the conservation district designation is to stimulate the restoration and rehabilitation of structures, and all other elements contributing to the character and fabric of established residential neighborhoods and commercial or industrial areas. New construction will be invited and encouraged provided primary emphasis is given to the preservation of existing buildings and further provided the design of such new space enhances and contributes to the aesthetic character and function of the property and the surrounding neighborhood or area. Contemporary design will be encouraged, provided it is in keeping with the above-stated criteria, as an acknowledged fact of the continuing developmental pattern of a dynamic, changing community. The neighboring community shall be provided notice and opportunity to comment upon the proposed property improvements in accordance with article 40 of this chapter. In addition, aggrieved persons shall have the right to appeal any design review decision made under the provisions of this article, in accordance with article 35 of this chapter. D. In view of the fact that most of the area included within the boundaries of the conservation district was developed and built out prior to the adoption of zoning and contemporary subdivision regulations, the construction, development pattern and range of uses is highly diverse and may not be in compliance with conventional regulatory requirements. This article recognizes that this diversity is a major contributing element of the historic character of these neighborhoods or areas. The provisions of this article shall be applied in a manner that will encourage the protection and enhancement of the many diverse features for future generations. E. The conservation district boundary is largely coterminous with the area surveyed in the effort that led to the listing of nine historic districts and 40 additional landmark structures in the National Register of Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 109 179 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 16. ‐ NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT Historic Places, and includes the nine designated historic districts and 40 individual landmarks. This article sets forth the means of protecting and enhancing the conservation district. F. It is further the purpose of the conservation district designation to protect and enhance neighborhoods or areas of significant land planning or architectural character, historic landmarks or other built or natural features for the educational, cultural, economic benefit or enjoyment of citizens of the city. It will be the policy and responsibility of the administrative entities of this article to: 1. Protect, preserve, enhance and regulate structures, archaeological or cultural sites, and areas that: a. Are reminders of past eras, events or persons important in local, state or national history; b. Provide significant examples of land planning or architectural styles, or are landmarks in the history of land planning and architecture; c. Are unique or irreplaceable assets to the city and its neighborhoods; d. Provide examples of physical surroundings in which past generations lived; or e. Represent and express the unique characteristics of small agricultural-based, western city developmental patterns; 2. Enhance property values through the stabilization of neighborhoods and areas of the city, increase economic and financial benefits to the city and its inhabitants, and promote tourist trade and interests; 3. Develop and maintain the appropriate environment for buildings, structures, sites and areas, that reflect varied planning and architectural styles and distinguished phases of the city's history and prehistory; 4. Stimulate an enhancement of human life by developing educational and cultural dimensions, which foster the knowledge of the city's heritage, and cultivate civic pride in the accomplishments of the past; 5. Seek to maintain and enhance the many private and public elements that are unique to the fabric, theme and character of each neighborhood and area, including, but not limited to, lighting, pathways, street trees, natural areas and other features that may, from time to time, be identified by the citizens and property owners of neighborhoods, areas and subsections thereof; and 6. Provide the neighboring community with notice and opportunity to comment upon the proposed property improvements in accordance with article 40 of this chapter, with the exception of certain sketch plan applications with potentially little neighborhood impact, and to further provide aggrieved persons with the right to appeal review decisions made under the provisions of this article, in accordance with article 35 of this chapter. (Ord. No. 1645, § 18.28.010, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1693, § 9(18.28.010), 2-20-2007; Ord. No. 1709, § 7(18.28.010), 7-16-2007; Ord. No. 1761, exh. D(18.28.010), 7-6-2009; Ord. No. 1804, § 2, 7-11-2011) Sec. 38.16.020. - Design review board and administrative design review staff powers and duties within conservation districts. A. The DRB and administrative design review staff will review and make recommendations to the review authority regarding development within the neighborhood conservation district in order to maintain the underlying and desirable characteristics of structures and areas within such districts, Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 110 180 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 16. ‐ NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT while recognizing the need for innovation and individual expression in the development of these districts. B. In carrying out this mission, in addition to the duties established in article 33 of this chapter, the design review board and administrative design review staff shall have the duty to review any tax abatement or other incentive programs being considered by the city commission that are designed to stimulate preservation and rehabilitation of structures and properties, and to review any proposed action or development utilizing these abatement or incentive programs. (Ord. No. 1645, § 18.28.020, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1693, § 9(18.28.020), 2-20-2007; Ord. No. 1709, § 7(18.28.020), 7-16-2007; Ord. No. 1761, exh. D(18.28.020), 7-6-2009; Ord. No. 1828, § 13, 9-10-2012) Sec. 38.16.030. - Conservation district designation or recision. A site, structure, object, area or district may be designated or rescinded as a landmark, or added to or removed from the conservation district by the city commission upon recommendation of the Historic Preservation Advisory Board subject to the provisions of division 6, Historic Preservation Advisory Board of article 5, chapter 2, and articles 36 and 37, Text Amendments and Zoning Map Amendments, of this chapter. Property owner concurrence is necessary for the designation or recision of landmark status. (Ord. No. 1645, § 18.28.030, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1693, § 9(18.28.030), 2-20-2007; Ord. No. 1709, § 7(18.28.030), 7-16-2007; Ord. No. 1761, exh. D(18.28.030), 7-6-2009) Sec. 38.16.040. - Certificate of appropriateness. A. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required before any and all alteration(s) other than those specifically exempted in subsection 1. of this section or repair as defined in article 42 of this chapter, are undertaken upon any structure in the conservation district. The review authority for certificates of appropriateness is established in article 34 of this chapter. Compliance with the terms of the final decision is required. The Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory Form shall be reviewed and, if necessary, updated by the historic preservation staff to reflect current conditions on the site, prior to the review of the proposal. Application procedures are as follows: 1. No building, demolition, conditional use, sign or moving permit shall be issued within the conservation district until a certificate of appropriateness has been issued by the appropriate review authority, and until final action on the proposal has been taken. a. Limited exceptions. The following construction located within the neighborhood conservation overlay district, within an established historic district, or at a site which is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Preservation, does not require a certificate of appropriateness if the project satisfies the following standards: (1) Fences meeting all other provisions of this chapter (e.g. height limitations, street vision triangle, finished side out, etc. per section 38.23.130) which are built of wood, wrought-iron, or any other nonsynthetic material and whose construction allows "transparency" as set forth in Chapter 3, Section F of the design guidelines referenced in section 38.16.050.D. Chain link fencing is not included in this exception. (2) Basement egress windows whose window material and configuration is present elsewhere in the structure, and whose window wells are not on the front or corner-side yard elevation of the structure, and which do not establish or provide egress from an illegal dwelling unit. Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 111 181 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 16. ‐ NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT (3) Accessory structures under 120 square feet as measured from the outer edge of the exterior walls, which meet the setback requirements, are not more than 14 feet to their highest point and which do not require a building permit. (4) Alterations in roofing material, if installing wood shingle, slate, tile, or asphalt shingle material, and no changes are made to the roof shape, pitch or slope. 2. Application, review and public notice procedures for proposals located within the conservation district are set forth in article 19, Review Procedures for Site Development, article 33, Development Review Committee, Design Review Board, Administrative Design Review and Wetlands Review Board and article 40, Noticing, of this chapter. If the demolition or movement of structures or sites subject to the conservation district requirements is proposed, the procedures in section 38.16.080 shall apply. 3. A denial of a certificate of appropriateness shall be accompanied by a written statement of reasons for the denial. 4. The architectural designs of individual workforce housing units used to satisfy the requirements of section 10.08.040 and meeting the requirements of section 10.08.070A.1.m are exempt from the review requirements of this article. This exemption does not extend to removal or alterations of existing structures. (Ord. No. 1645, § 18.28.040, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1693, § 9(18.28.040), 2-20-2007; Ord. No. 1709, § 7(18.28.040), 7-16-2007; Ord. No. 1761, exh. D(18.28.040), 7-6-2009; Ord. No. 1804, § 3, 7-11-2011) Sec. 38.16.050. - Standards for certificates of appropriateness. A. All work performed in completion of an approved certificate of appropriateness shall be in conformance with the most recent edition of the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (published 1995), published by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services, Washington, D.C. (available for review at the planning department). B. Architectural appearance design guidelines used to consider the appropriateness and compatibility of proposed alterations with original design features of subject structures, or properties and with neighboring structures and properties, shall focus upon the following: 1. Height; 2. Proportions of doors and windows; 3. Relationship of building masses and spaces; 4. Roof shape; 5. Scale; 6. Directional expression, with regard to the dominant horizontal or vertical expression of surrounding structures; 7. Architectural details; 8. Concealment of nonperiod appurtenances, such as mechanical equipment; and 9. Materials and color schemes (any requirements or conditions imposed regarding color schemes shall be limited to the prevention of nuisances upon abutting properties and prevention of Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 112 182 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 16. ‐ NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT degradation of features on the property in question. Color schemes may be considered as primary design elements if a deviation from the underlying zoning is requested). C. Contemporary, nonperiod and innovative design of new structures and additions to existing structures shall be encouraged when such new construction or additions do not destroy significant historical, cultural or architectural structures or their components and when such design is compatible with the foregoing elements of the structure and surrounding structures. D. When applying the standards of subsections A through C of this section, the review authority shall be guided by the design guidelines for the neighborhood conservation overlay district which are hereby incorporated by this reference. Application of the design guidelines may vary by property as explained in the introduction to the design guidelines. When reviewing a contemporary, non-period, or innovative design of new structures or addition to existing structure, the review authority shall be guided by the design guidelines for the neighborhood conservation overlay district to determine whether the proposal is compatible with any existing or surrounding structures. E. Conformance with other applicable development standards of this chapter. F. Tax abatement certificate of appropriateness applications are also reviewed with the procedures and standards established in chapter 2, article 6, division 2. (Ord. No. 1645, § 18.28.050, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1660, § 1, 2-6-2006; Ord. No. 1693, § 9(18.28.050), 2-20-2007; Ord. No. 1709, § 7(18.28.050), 7-16-2007; Ord. No. 1761, exh. D(18.28.050), 7-6-2009) Sec. 38.16.060. - Application requirements for certificates of appropriateness in conservation districts. Applications for certificates of appropriateness shall be made in conjunction with applications for site plan approval in accordance with article 19 of this chapter. Where development projects in the conservation district require only sketch plan review as per article 19 of this chapter (i.e., single-household, two-household, three-household and four-household residential structures, each on individual lots; signs; fences; property alterations; and certain amendments to site plans), applications for certificates of appropriateness shall be made on a form provided by the planning department, and shall include the information and material as set forth in article 41 of this chapter. (Ord. No. 1645, § 18.28.060, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1693, § 9(18.28.060), 2-20-2007; Ord. No. 1709, § 7(18.28.060), 7-16-2007; Ord. No. 1761, exh. D(18.28.060), 7-6-2009) Sec. 38.16.070. - Deviations from underlying zoning requirements. A. Because the development of much of historic Bozeman preceded zoning, subdivision and construction regulations, many buildings within the conservation district do not conform to contemporary zoning standards. In order to encourage restoration and rehabilitation activity that would contribute to the overall historic character of the community, deviations from underlying zoning requirements may be granted as described in article 35 of this chapter. The criteria for granting deviations from the underlying zoning requirements are: 1. Modifications shall be more historically appropriate for the building and site in question and the adjacent properties, as determined by the standards in section 38.16.050, than would be achieved under a literal enforcement of this chapter; 2. Modifications will have minimal adverse effect on abutting properties or the permitted uses thereof; and Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 113 183 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 16. ‐ NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT 3. Modifications shall assure the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. Approvals may be conditioned to assure such protection, and such conditions may include a time period within which alterations will be completed; landscaping and maintenance thereof; architectural, site plan and landscape design modifications; or any other conditions in conformity with the intent and purpose set forth in this article. (Ord. No. 1645, § 18.28.070, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1693, § 9(18.28.070), 2-20-2007; Ord. No. 1709, § 7(18.28.070), 7-16-2007; Ord. No. 1761, exh. D(18.28.070), 7-6-2009; Ord. No. 1804, § 4, 7-11-2011) Sec. 38.16.080. - Demolition or movement of structures or sites within the conservation district. A. The demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district shall be subject to the provisions of this article and section. The review procedures and criteria for the demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district are as follows: 1. Applications for the demolition or movement of structures within the conservation district will not be accepted without a complete submittal for the subsequent development or treatment of the site after the demolition or movement has occurred. The subsequent development or treatment must be approved before a demolition or moving permit may be issued. 2. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structures or sites, which are designated as intrusive or neutral elements by the state historical and architectural inventory, and that are not within recognized historic districts or in other ways listed on the National Register of Historic Places, shall be subject to review per articles 19 and 34 of this chapter, and the standards outlined in 38.16.050. The state historical and architectural inventory form shall be reviewed and, if necessary, updated by a qualified professional acceptable to the state historic preservation office to reflect current conditions on the site, prior to the review of the demolition or movement proposal. The review authority for the demolition or movement of structures or sites described within this section shall be coordinated with the larger project when demolition or movement is proposed in conjunction with a deviation, variance, conditional use permit or planned unit development application. 3. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structures or sites, which are designated as contributing elements by the state historical and architectural inventory, and all properties within historic districts and all landmarks, shall be subject to public notice. Notice shall be provided in accordance with article 40 of this chapter. Prior to any final action on the application the review authority shall receive a recommendation from the historic preservation office; and if the demolition does not conform to the criteria below a recommendation from the historic preservation advisory board. The state historical and architectural inventory form shall be reviewed and, if necessary, updated by a qualified professional acceptable to the state historic preservation office to reflect current conditions on the site prior to the review of the demolition or movement proposal. The review authority for the demolition or movement of structures or sites described within this section shall be coordinated with the larger project when demolition or movement is proposed in conjunction with a deviation, variance, site plan, conditional use permit or planned unit development application. The review authority shall base its decision on the following: a. The standards in 38.16.050 and the architectural, social, cultural and historical importance of the structure or site and their relationship to the district as determined by the state historic preservation office and the planning department. Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 114 184 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 16. ‐ NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 115 b. If the review authority finds that the criteria of this section are not satisfied, then, before approving an application to demolish or remove, the review authority must find that at least one of the following factors apply based on definitive evidence supplied by the applicant, including structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment: (1) The structure or site is a threat to public health or safety, and that no reasonable repairs or alterations will remove such threat; any costs associated with the removal of health or safety threats must exceed the value of the structure. (2) The structure or site has no viable economic or useful life remaining. 4. If an application for demolition or moving is denied, issuance of a demolition or moving permit shall be stayed for a period of two years from the date of the final decision in order to allow the applicant and city to explore alternatives to the demolition or move, including, but not limited to, the use of tax credits or adaptive reuse. The two-year stay may be terminated at any point in time if an alternate proposal is approved or if sufficient additional evidence is presented to otherwise satisfy the requirements of subsection 2 or 3 of this section. 5. All structures or sites approved for demolition or moving shall be fully documented in a manner acceptable to the historic preservation planner and administrative design review staff prior to the issuance of demolition or moving permits. 6. In addition to the remedies in article 34 of this chapter, the owner of any structure or site that is demolished or moved contrary to the provisions of this section, and any contractor performing such work, may be required to reconstruct such structure or site in a design and manner identical to its condition prior to such illegal demolition or move, and in conformance with all applicable codes and regulations (Ord. No. 1645, § 18.28.080, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1693, § 9(18.28.080), 2-20-2007; Ord. No. 1709, § 7(18.28.080), 7-16-2007; Ord. No. 1761, exh. D(18.28.080), 7-6-2009; Ord. No. 1828, § 14, 9-10-2012) Sec. 38.16.090. - Appeals. Aggrieved persons, as defined in article 42 of this chapter, may appeal a final decision of the review authority pursuant to the provisions of article 35 of this chapter. In such event, the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness shall be stayed until the appeal process has been satisfied. (Ord. No. 1645, § 18.28.090, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1693, § 9(18.28.090), 2-20-2007; Ord. No. 1709, § 7(18.28.090), 7-16-2007; Ord. No. 1761, exh. D(18.28.090), 7-6-2009; Ord. No. 1804, § 5, 7-11-2011) 185 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 19. ‐ PLAN REVIEW ARTICLE 19. ‐ PLAN REVIEW [59] Sec. 38.19.010. - Introduction. Sec. 38.19.020. - Classification of plans. Sec. 38.19.030. - Special development proposals—Additional application requirements, review procedures and review criteria. Sec. 38.19.040. - Review authority. Sec. 38.19.050. - Application of plan review procedures. Sec. 38.19.060. - Special temporary use permit. Sec. 38.19.070. - Sketch plan review. Sec. 38.19.080. - Certificates of appropriateness—Additional review procedures and review criteria. Sec. 38.19.090. - Plan review procedures. Sec. 38.19.100. - Plan review criteria. Sec. 38.19.110. - Conditional use permit. Sec. 38.19.120. - Final plan. Sec. 38.19.130. - Amendments to plans. Sec. 38.19.140. - Reuse, change in use or further development of sites developed prior to the adoption date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived. Sec. 38.19.150. - Improvements to existing developed sites independent of site plan review. Sec. 38.19.160. - Building permits based upon approved sketch or site plans. Sec. 38.19.170. - Appeals. Sec. 38.19.010. - Introduction. A. All non-subdivision development proposals within the city will be subject to plan review and approval except repair, maintenance, grading below the minimum defined limits of this chapter, and interior remodeling, or other items specifically exempted in this chapter. Depending on the complexity of development and status of proposed use in the applicable zoning district, either sketch plans, site plans, master site plans, or conditional use permits (referred to herein as a "plan") will be required as specified in this article. Although work may be exempt from zoning review it may require review for other permits before construction may begin. B. Special development proposals (e.g., PUDs, CUPs, variances, etc.) require other information to be submitted in conjunction with plans and are subject to requirements specific to the type of proposal. These additional submittal requirements and review procedures are outlined in section 38.19.030 C. When a development is proposed within a neighborhood conservation or entryway corridor overly district, or proposes signs which do not specifically conform to the requirements of this chapter, design review is required in conjunction with plan review per the authority in section 38.33.010. In such cases, additional submittal requirements and review procedures apply as outlined in section 38.41.090 Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 123 186 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 19. ‐ PLAN REVIEW D. Conditional uses. Certain uses, while generally not suitable in a particular zoning district, may, under certain circumstances, be acceptable. When such circumstances can be demonstrated by the applicant to exist, a conditional use permit may be granted by the review authority. Conditions may be applied to the issuance of the permit and periodic review may be required. No conditional use permit shall be granted for a use which is not specifically designated as a conditional use in this chapter. E. Approval shall be granted for a particular use and not for a particular person or firm. F. This article is provided to meet the purposes of section 38.01.040 and all other relevant portions of this chapter. G. Applications subject to this article shall be reviewed under the authority established by article 34 of this chapter. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011) Sec. 38.19.020. - Classification of plans. A. All developments, as defined in article 42 of this chapter, within the city shall be subject to plan review procedures and criteria of this chapter and the applicable submittal requirements of article 41 of this chapter. For the purposes of this chapter, plans will be classified as either a site plan or a master site plan. 1. Exception. Those developments specified in section 38.19.070 and other development proposals when so specifically identified require only sketch plan review. B. A master site plan is a generalized development plan that establishes building envelopes and overall entitlements for complex, large-scale projects that will require multiple years to reach completion. Use of a master site plan is not required unless necessary to address phasing of a proposed development (see section 38.19.090.B.3) or if required as part of the residential emphasis mixed-use district or North 19th Avenue/West Oak Street entryway corridors. A master site plan involves one or more of the following: 1. One hundred or more dwelling units in a multiple household structure or structures; 2. Fifty thousand or more square feet of office space, retail commercial space, service commercial space or industrial space; 3. Multiple buildings located on multiple contiguous lots and/or contiguous city blocks; 4. Multiple owners; 5. Development phasing projected to extend beyond two years; or 6. Parking for more than 200 vehicles. C. Any planned unit development shall be reviewed according to the regulations in article 20 of this chapter, in addition to this article. D. Telecommunication facilities shall be reviewed according to the regulations in article 29 of this chapter, in addition to this article. E. Uses identified in article 22 of this chapter shall be reviewed according to the standards and regulations contained in article 22 of this chapter, in addition to this article. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011; Ord. No. 1832, § 1, 6-18-2012) Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 124 187 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 19. ‐ PLAN REVIEW Sec. 38.19.030. - Special development proposals—Additional application requirements, review procedures and review criteria. A. Application requirements. Applications for special development proposals (e.g. PUD, CUP, flood plain development permits, variances, etc.) shall include: 1. The required information for plans described in section 38.41.080 2. Any additional application information required for specific reviews as listed in the following articles of this chapter: a. Article 20, Planned Unit Development; b. Article 22, Standards for Specific Uses; c. Article 29, Telecommunications; d. Article 31, Bozeman Floodplain Regulations; and e. Article 35, Appeals, Deviations and Variance Procedures. B. Review procedures and review criteria. Additional review procedures and review criteria for specific development proposals are defined in the following sections and articles of this chapter: 1. Section 38.19.080, Certificate of appropriateness; 2. Section 38.19.110, Conditional use; 3. Article 20, Planned Unit Development; 4. Article 22, Standards for Specific Uses; 5. Article 29, Telecommunications; 6. Article 31, Floodplain Regulations; and 7. Article 35, Appeals, Deviations and Variance Procedures. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011) Sec. 38.19.040. - Review authority. A. The review authorities are established in 38.34.010 and as may be specified elsewhere in this chapter. B. The development review committee, design review board, administrative design review staff, and wetlands review board have the advisory authority established in article 33 of this chapter. C. Plan design review thresholds. When a development is subject to design review and meets one or more of the following thresholds the design review board shall have responsibility for conducting the design review: 1. Twenty or more dwelling units in a multiple household structure or structures; 2. Thirty thousand or more square feet of office space, retail commercial space, service commercial space or industrial space; 3. Twenty thousand or more square feet of exterior storage of materials or goods; 4. Parking for more than 90 vehicles; or 5. Large scale retail per 38.22.180 Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 125 188 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 19. ‐ PLAN REVIEW (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011; Ord. No. 1830, § 11, 9-24-2012) Sec. 38.19.050. - Application of plan review procedures. A. These procedures shall apply to all developments within the city unless explicitly exempted in this chapter. B. The preliminary plan shall be submitted and approved, and final plan approval received, prior to the issuance of any building permit. C. No occupancy permits shall be issued for any development for which plan review is required until certification has been provided under section 38.39.030 demonstrating that all terms and conditions of plan approval have been complied with. D. Unless a deviation or variance is explicitly sought and granted in association with a plan, all standards of this chapter apply whether explicitly mentioned in the record of the review or not. An omission or oversight of a nonconformity with the standards of this chapter in the site plan shall not constitute approval of such nonconformance. Any nonconformance which was not the subject of an explicitly approved deviation or variance may be required to be cured at such time the city becomes aware of the nonconforming condition's existence. E. In the event that the volume of site development applications submitted for review exceeds the ability of the city to process them simultaneously, preference in order of scheduling will be given to those projects which provide the most affordable housing in excess of minimum requirements, as measured by the total number of affordable units. F. When a development subject to this article is located within an overlay district established by articles 16 or 17 of this chapter a certificate of appropriateness is required in addition to other required review procedures. G. Public notice of development proposals and approvals subject to this article shall be provided as required by article 40 of this chapter. H. Improvements depicted on an approved plan shall be installed subject to the requirements of article 39 of this chapter. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011) Sec. 38.19.060. - Special temporary use permit. A. Generally. Uses permitted subject to a special temporary use permit are those temporary uses which are required for the proper function of the community or are temporarily required in the process of establishing a permitted use, constructing a public facility or providing for response to an emergency. Such uses shall be so conducted that they will not be detrimental in any way to the surrounding properties or to the community. Uses permitted subject to a special temporary use permit may include: 1. Carnivals, circuses, special events of not over 72 consecutive hours; 2. Tent revival meetings; 3. Swap meets; or 4. Such other uses as may be deemed to be within the intent and purpose of this section. B. Exception: Functions held within a park and which are subject to a park user agreement are not required to obtain a special temporary use permit. Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 126 189 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 19. ‐ PLAN REVIEW C. Application and filing fee. Application for a special temporary use permit may be made by a property owner or his authorized agent. A copy of the fees are available at the planning department. Such application shall be filed with the planning director who shall charge and collect a filing fee for each such application, as provided in article 34 of this chapter. The planning director may also require any information deemed necessary to support the approval of a special temporary use permit, including site plans per this article. D. Decision. Approval or conditional approval shall be given only when in the judgment of the review authority such approval is within the intent and purposes of this article. E. Conditions. In approving such a permit, the approval shall be made subject to a time limit, not to exceed one year per approval, and other conditions deemed necessary to assure that there will be no adverse effect upon adjacent properties. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Regulation of parking; 2. Regulation of hours; 3. Regulation of noise; 4. Regulation of lights; 5. Requirement of financial security or other guarantees for cleanup or removal of structure or equipment; and/or 6. Such other conditions deemed necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this section. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011; Ord. No. 1828, § 18, 9-10-2012) Sec. 38.19.070. - Sketch plan review. A. Sketch plan submittal requirements. 1. Certain independent development proposals (i.e., not in conjunction with other development) are required to submit only sketch plans which include the information specified in section 38.41.110 2. Separate construction plans are necessary for building permits when the proposal requires such permits. Additional information is also necessary when the proposal requires the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness (see sections 38.19.080 and 38.41.090). 3. Examples of independent projects which qualify for sketch plan review are: individual single-household including manufactured homes on individual lots, two-household, three-household, and four-household residential units, each on individual lots and independent of other site development; accessory dwelling units in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 districts; fences; signs in compliance with the requirements of this chapter; regulated activities in areas with regulated wetlands not in conjunction with a land development proposal; grading of sites disturbing more than one-eighth but less than one-half acre, or movement of more than 30 but less than 100 cubic yards of material, or cut or fill of less than one cumulative foot, whichever is less; special temporary uses; reuse, change in use, or further development of sites per section 38.19.150; and accessory structures associated with these uses. Other similar projects may be determined by the planning director to require only sketch plan review. The planning director may determine submittal requirements in addition to those in section 38.41.110. Projects which do not require sketch plan review may still require review and permitting for nonzoning issues. B. Sketch plan review procedures. Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 127 190 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 19. ‐ PLAN REVIEW 1. No certificate of appropriateness required. Sketch plans for projects which do not require a certificate of appropriateness shall be submitted to the planning department for a determination of compliance with the requirements of this chapter. Once compliance is achieved, the application will be approved for construction or referred to the appropriate permitting authorities. In determining whether compliance is achieved the planning department shall consider the individual circumstances of the site when the development is subject to 38.19.150 2. Certificate of appropriateness required. Sketch plans, including the material required by 38.41.090, and such additional information as may be required for projects which require a certificate of appropriateness as per 38.19.080 shall be submitted to the planning department, who shall review the proposal for compliance with this chapter, including compliance with the applicable overlay district requirements. Once compliance is achieved, the application will be approved for construction or referred to the appropriate permitting authorities. C. Sketch plan review criteria. Sketch plans shall be reviewed for compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter including overlay district requirements and the cessation of any current violations of this chapter, exclusive of any legal nonconforming conditions. Plan changes may be required. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011; Ord. No. 1828, § 19, 9-10-2012) Sec. 38.19.080. - Certificates of appropriateness—Additional review procedures and review criteria. A. Sign proposals which do not specifically conform to the requirements of this chapter. Independent sign proposals (i.e., not in conjunction with other development) which do not specifically conform to the requirements of this chapter, are required to submit full site plans. Additional site design information, in sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance with the design objective plan, encompassing the property's location shall be provided. B. Review procedures and criteria for certificates of appropriateness. 1. Certificates of appropriateness shall be issued according to procedures and criteria specified in articles 16, 17, 20 and 33, in addition to this chapter. 2. Sign proposals which specifically conform to the requirements of this chapter shall be reviewed according to procedures and criteria outlined in article 28 of this chapter. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011) Sec. 38.19.090. - Plan review procedures. A. Acceptability and adequacy of application. 1. The planning department shall review the application for acceptability within five working days to determine if the application is does not omit any of the submittal elements required by this chapter. If the application does not contain all of the required elements, the application, review fee and a written explanation of what the application is missing shall be returned to the property owner or their representative. The five working day review period will be considered met if the letter is dated, signed and placed in the outgoing mail within the five-day review period. 2. After the application is deemed to contain the required elements and to be acceptable, it shall be reviewed for adequacy. A determination of adequacy means the application contains all of the required elements in sufficient detail and accuracy to enable the applicable review agency to make a determination that the application either does or does not conform to the requirements Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 128 191 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 19. ‐ PLAN REVIEW of this chapter and any other applicable regulations under the jurisdiction of the City of Bozeman. The review for adequacy shall be conducted by the appropriate agency with expertise in the subject matter. The adequacy review period shall begin on the next working day after the date that the planning department determines the application to contain all the required elements and shall be completed within not more than 15 working days. The 15 working day review period will be considered met if the letter is dated, signed and placed in the outgoing mail within the 15 working day review period. If the application is inadequate, a written explanation of why the application is inadequate will be returned to the property owner. Upon a determination of adequacy the review of the development will be scheduled. a. In the event the missing information is not received by the city within 15 working days of notification to the property owner of inadequacy, all application materials and one-half of the review fee shall be returned to the property owner or their representative. Subsequent resubmittal shall require payment of a review fee as if it were a new application. b. A determination that an application is adequate does not restrict the city from requesting additional information during the site plan review process. 3. Should the property owner choose not to provide the required information after an application has been found unacceptable, nor to accept return of the application and accompanying fee, the application may be processed by the city with the recognition by the property owner that unacceptability is an adequate basis for denial of the application regardless of other merit of the application. 4. The DRC may grant reasonable waivers from submittal of application materials required by these regulations where it is found that these regulations allow a waiver to be requested and granted. If in the opinion of the final approval authority the waived materials are necessary for proper review of the development, the materials shall be provided before review is completed. 5. In order to be granted a waiver the applicant shall include with the submission of the preliminary plan a written statement describing the requested waiver and the reasons upon which the request is based. The final approval body shall then consider each waiver at the time the preliminary site plan is reviewed. All waivers must be identified not later than initial submittal of the preliminary site plan stage of review. B. Plans shall be reviewed by the review bodies established by article 33 of this chapter and according to the procedures established by this chapter. After review of the applicable submittal materials required by article 41 of this chapter, and upon recommendation by the appropriate advisory bodies, the review authority shall act to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application, subject to the appeal provisions of article 35 of this chapter. The basis for the review authority's action shall be whether the application, including any required conditions, complies with all the applicable standards and requirements of this chapter, including section 38.01.050 1. Plan. The review authority shall provide an opportunity for the public to comment upon development proposals. The duration of the initial comment period shall be included in any notice required by article 39 of this chapter. The comment period shall be from the date of the first consideration of the complete preliminary plan and supplementary materials by the DRC until 5:00 pm on the third working day after DRC and other review bodies as may be appropriate have taken action regarding the proposal. a. The review authority after receiving the recommendations of the, advisory bodies and considering any public comment shall act to approve, approve with conditions or deny an application within ten working days of the close of the public comment period. The decision shall be in writing and shall include any special conditions which are to be applied to the development. Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 129 192 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 19. ‐ PLAN REVIEW (1) After formal notice of a project review has been given, interested parties may request in writing to receive a copy of the decision regarding an application. Persons making such a request shall provide an addressed envelope for use in delivering their copy of the decision. 2. Plan with deviations or variances or conditional use permits. The review authority shall provide an opportunity for the public to comment upon a proposed plan. The comment period shall be from the date of the first consideration of the complete preliminary plan and supplementary materials by the DRC until the decision is made. a. The review authority, after receiving the recommendations of the, advisory bodies and considering any public comment shall act to approve, approve with conditions or deny an application. The decision shall be in writing and shall include any special conditions which are to be applied to the development. 3. Phasing. The entitlement period for which a final plan is valid is specified in section 38.19.120. Preliminary single phase plan applications will only be accepted for development that can occur under building permits issued within this final plan approval period. a. Any development that includes phases/buildings that would extend past the final plan approval period shall proceed under the master site plan application process with a first phase plan for those portions that can be constructed under the single phase final plan approval. The master site plan and first phase site plan may be reviewed concurrently as a single application. Each future project phase must submit a stand-alone site plan application following initial master site plan approval. b. Each phase of a plan must not include more buildings than will be constructed within a one-year timeframe. These subsequent site plan applications may be expedited through the review process if they are consistent with the master site plan. Independent fees will be assessed for each required application. c. A preliminary site plan application may be received where it is unclear whether the buildings/units can be constructed under building permits issued within one year of final site plan approval. In this case the planning director may request proof of a construction financing commitment prior to accepting the application for review. Applications, where it is clear that the buildings/units cannot be constructed under building permits issued within one year of final site plan approval, will be deemed unacceptable for review and directed to proceed through a master site plan with first phase site plan process. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011; Ord. No. 1828, § 20, 9-10-2012) Sec. 38.19.100. - Plan review criteria. A. In considering applications for plan approval under this chapter, the review authority and advisory bodies shall consider the following criteria. When considering the criteria for future phases of a master site plan, other than those for criteria 1—3, the evaluation shall be of a more generalized demonstration of compliance, recognizing that a subsequent site plan shall be submitted in the future which shall provide evidence of specific compliance. The level of detail submitted and review conducted shall be equal with the level of entitlement being sought with the application. See article 41 of this chapter for required submittal materials. 1. Conformance to and consistency with the city's adopted growth policy. 2. Conformance to this chapter, including the cessation of any current violations; 3. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances and regulations; Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 130 193 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 19. ‐ PLAN REVIEW 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; c. Design and arrangement of elements of the plan (e.g., buildings circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) in harmony with the existing natural topography, natural water bodies and water courses, existing vegetation, and to contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of the site configuration; and d. If the proposed project is located within a locally designated historical district, or includes a locally designated landmark structure, the project is in conformance with the provisions of article 16 of this chapter; 5. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions; 6. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress, egress and circulation, including: a. Design of the pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems to assure that pedestrians and vehicles can move safely and easily both within the site and between properties and activities within the neighborhood area; b. Non-automotive transportation and circulation systems design features to enhance convenience and safety across parking lots and streets, including, but not limited to, paving patterns, grade differences, landscaping and lighting; c. Adequate connection and integration of the pedestrian and vehicular transportation systems to the systems in adjacent developments and general community; and d. Dedication of right-of-way or easements necessary for streets and similar transportation facilities; 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; 8. Open space, including: a. The enhancement of the natural environment; b. Precautions being taken to preserve existing wildlife habitats or natural wildlife feeding areas; c. If the development is adjacent to an existing or approved public park or public open space area, have provisions been made in the plan to avoid interfering with public access to and use of that area; d. Is any provided recreational area suitably located and accessible to the residential units it is intended to serve and is adequate screening provided to ensure privacy and quiet for neighboring residential uses; e. Open space shall be provided in accordance with article 27 of this chapter; f. Park land shall be provided in accordance with article 27 of this chapter; 9. Building location and height; Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 131 194 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 19. ‐ PLAN REVIEW 10. Setbacks; 11. Lighting; 12. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities; 13. Site surface drainage and stormwater control; 14. Loading and unloading areas; 15. Grading; 16. Signage; 17. Screening; 18. Overlay district provisions; 19. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties; and 20. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation or other means of addressing requirements of this chapter, whether the lots are either: a. Configured so that the sale of individual lots will not alter the approved configuration or use of the property or cause the development to become nonconforming; or b. The subject of reciprocal and perpetual easements or other agreements to which the city is a party so that the sale of individual lots will not cause one or more elements of the development to become nonconforming. 21. Compliance with article 8 of chapter 10 of this Code; 22. Phasing of development. B. If the review authority, after recommendation from the applicable advisory bodies shall determine that the proposed plan will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the community, is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter and is in harmony with the purposes and intent of this chapter and the Bozeman growth policy, approval shall be granted, and such conditions and safeguards may be imposed as deemed necessary. Notice of action shall be given in writing. C. Plan approval may be denied upon a determination that the conditions required for approval do not exist. Persons objecting to the recommendations of review bodies carry the burden of proof. A denial of approval shall be in writing. D. Following approval of a master site plan, the applicant shall submit to the planning department, sequential individual site plans for specific areas within the master site plan. Each subsequent application for a site plan shall be consistent with the approved master site plan and subject to the review criteria set forth in subsection A above. Evidence that the review criteria have been met through the master site plan review process may be incorporated by reference in order to eliminate duplication of review. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011) Sec. 38.19.110. - Conditional use permit. A. The person applying for a conditional use permit shall fill out and submit to the planning department the appropriate form with the required fee. The request for a conditional use permit shall follow the procedures and application requirements of this article. Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 132 195 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 19. ‐ PLAN REVIEW B. In consideration of all conditional use permit applications, a public hearing shall be conducted by the review authority. Notice of the public hearing shall be provided in accordance with article 40 of this chapter. C. If a rezoning is required prior to approval of a conditional use permit, the application for rezoning and the conditional use permit may be filed and acted upon simultaneously, however the conditional use permit shall not be effective until the rezoning has been implemented by ordinance. D. The review authority, in approving a conditional use permit, shall review the application against the review requirements of section 38.19.090 E. In addition to the review criteria of section 38.19.100, the review authority shall, in approving a conditional use permit, determine favorably as follows: 1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and topography to accommodate such use, and all yards, spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading and landscaping are adequate to properly relate such use with the land and uses in the vicinity; 2. That the proposed use will have no material adverse effect upon the abutting property. Persons objecting to the recommendations of review bodies carry the burden of proof; 3. That any additional conditions stated in the approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to: a. Regulation of use; b. Special yards, spaces and buffers; c. Special fences, solid fences and walls; d. Surfacing of parking areas; e. Requiring street, service road or alley dedications and improvements or appropriate bonds; f. Regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress; g. Regulation of signs; h. Requiring maintenance of the grounds; i. Regulation of noise, vibrations and odors; j. Regulation of hours for certain activities; k. Time period within which the proposed use shall be developed; l. Duration of use; m. Requiring the dedication of access rights; and n. Other such conditions as will make possible the development of the city in an orderly and efficient manner. F. In addition to all other conditions, the following general requirements apply to every conditional use permit granted: 1. That the right to a use and occupancy permit shall be contingent upon the fulfillment of all general and special conditions imposed by the conditional use permit procedure; and 2. That all of the conditions shall constitute restrictions running with the land use, shall apply and be adhered to by the owner of the land, successors or assigns, shall be binding upon the owner of the land, his successors or assigns, shall be consented to in writing, and shall be recorded as such with the county clerk and recorder's office by the property owner prior to the issuance of any building permits, final plan approval or commencement of the conditional use. Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 133 196 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 19. ‐ PLAN REVIEW G. Applications for conditional use permits may be approved, conditionally approved or denied by motion of the review authority. If an application is denied, the denial shall constitute a determination that the applicant has not shown that the conditions required for approval do exist. H. The applicant shall be notified in writing of the final action taken within seven working days of the action. If the conditional use permit has been granted the notification shall include any conditions, automatic termination date, period of review or other requirements. If the conditional use permit has been granted, the permit shall be issued upon the signature of the planning director after completion of all conditions and final plan. I. Termination/revocation of conditional use permit approval. 1. Conditional use permits are approved based on an analysis of current local circumstances and regulatory requirements. Over time these things may change and the use may no longer be appropriate to a location. A conditional use permit will be considered as terminated and of no further effect if: a. After having been commenced, the approved use is not actively conducted on the site for a period of two continuous calendar years; b. Final zoning approval to reuse the property for another principal or conditional use is granted; c. The use or development of the site is not begun within the time limits of the final site plan approval in 38.19.120 2. A conditional use which has terminated may be reestablished on a site by either, the review and approval of a new conditional use permit application, or a determination by the planning director that the local circumstances and regulatory requirements are essentially the same as at the time of the original approval. A denial of renewal by the planning director may not be appealed. If the planning director determines that the conditional use permit may be renewed on a site then any conditions of approval of the original conditional use permit are also renewed. 3. If activity begins for which a conditional use permit has been given final approval, all activities must comply with any conditions of approval or code requirements. Should there be a failure to maintain compliance the city may revoke the approval through the procedures outlined in section 38.34.160 (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011; Ord. No. 1828, § 21, 9-10-2012; Ord. No. 1830, § 12, 9-24-2012) Sec. 38.19.120. - Final plan. A. No later than six months after the date of approval of a preliminary plan, the applicant shall submit to the planning department a final plan with accompanying application form and review fee. The number of copies of the final plan to be submitted shall be established by the planning director. The final plan shall contain the materials required in sections 38.41.080 and 38.71.090 and whatever revisions to the preliminary site plan or master site plan are required to comply with any conditions of approval. Prior to the passage of six months, the applicant may seek an extension of not more than an additional six months from the planning director. B. In addition to the materials required in subsection A of this section, the owner shall submit a certification of completion and compliance stating that they understand any conditions of approval and the submitted final plans have complied with any conditions of approval or corrections to comply with code provisions. C. In addition to the materials required in subsections A and B of this section, the owner shall submit a statement of intent to construct according to the final plan. Such statement shall acknowledge that Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 134 197 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 19. ‐ PLAN REVIEW construction not in compliance with the approved final plan may result in delays of occupancy or costs to correct noncompliance. D. Following approval of a final site plan, the final site plan shall be in effect for one year. Prior to the passage of one year, the applicant may seek an extension of not more than one additional year from the planning director. In such instances, the planning director shall determine whether the relevant terms of this chapter and circumstances have significantly changed since the initial approval. If relevant terms of this chapter or circumstances have significantly changed, the extension of the approval shall not be granted. E. Following approval of a final master site plan, the final master site plan shall be in effect for not less than three but not more than five years with the initial duration to be specified during the final action of the review authority. Owners of property subject to the master site plan may seek extensions to not exceed five years in a single extension. Approval of an extension shall be made by the planning director. Approval shall be granted if the planning director determines that the criteria of subsection F of this section are met. F. Any request for an extension must be in writing and be dated and signed by the owner of the undeveloped area or incomplete development for which the extension is sought. More than one extension may be requested for a particular development. Each request shall be considered on its individual merits. An extension of the development approval under this article does not extend other city or non-city agency approvals, e.g. for design of infrastructure extensions, necessary to complete the project. When evaluating an extension request, the city shall consider: 1. Changes to the development regulations since the original approval and whether the development as originally approved is compliant with the new regulations; 2. Progress to date in completing the development as a whole and any phases; 3. Phasing of the development and the ability for existing development to operate without the delayed development; 4. Dependence by other development on any public infrastructure or private improvements to be installed by the development; 5. For extensions of approval greater than one year, the demonstrated ability of the developer to complete the development; 6. Overall maintenance of the site; 7. Whether mitigation for impacts of the development identified during the preliminary plan review remain relevant, adequate, and applicable to the present circumstances of the development and community. G. Upon approval of the final plan by the planning director the applicant may obtain a building permit as provided for by article 34 of this chapter. 1. Subsequent site plan approvals are required to implement a master site plan, and approval of a master site plan only does not entitle an applicant to obtain any building permits. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011) Sec. 38.19.130. - Amendments to plans. A. It is the intent of this section to assure that issues of community concern are addressed during the redevelopment, reuse or change in use of existing facilities in the community. Specific areas of community concern include public safety, mitigation of off-site environmental impacts and site character in relation to surroundings. The following procedures for amendments to approved plans, Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 135 198 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 19. ‐ PLAN REVIEW reuse of existing facilities and further development of sites assure that these concerns are adequately and expeditiously addressed. B. Any amendment to or modification of a plan approved under the ordinance codified in this article (September 3, 1991 — Ordinance 1332) shall be submitted to the planning director for review and possible approval. Proposals for further development, reuse or change in use of sites developed pursuant to this chapter shall be reviewed as an amendment to an approved plan. All amendments shall be shown on a revised plan drawing. Amendments to approved plans shall be reviewed and may be approved by the planning director upon determining that the amended plan is in substantial compliance with the originally approved plan. If it is determined that the amended plan is not in substantial compliance with the originally approved plan, the application shall be resubmitted as a new application and shall be subject to all standards and plan review and approval provisions of this chapter. Substantial compliance may be shown by demonstrating that the amendments do not exceed the thresholds established in 38.19.140.C. C. Modifications or amendments to a master site plan at the time an extension of approval is sought may be proposed by either the applicant or the review authority, and shall be based on substantive current information that indicates that relevant circumstances have changed and that such circumstances support the proposed modifications. Such circumstances may include market analyses, economic conditions, changes in surrounding land uses, changes in ownership, etc. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011; Ord. No. 1830, § 13, 9-24-2012) Sec. 38.19.140. - Reuse, change in use or further development of sites developed prior to the adoption date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived. A. It is the policy of the city to work with owners of property during the reuse, change in use, or further development process to correct existing violations of the city's and other agency's regulations, to encourage reinvestment and renewal of existing developed sites, and to move existing sites toward compliance with current standards while recognizing the limitations that may exist in relation to an existing site. B. Sites legally developed prior to the adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter (September 3, 1991 — Ordinance 1332) shall be considered to have developed under an approved plan. Proposals for refuse, change in use or the further development of sites legally developed prior to the adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter may be approved by the review authority upon determining that no significant alteration of the previous use and site are proposed, and upon a determination that adequate access and site surface drainage are provided. All such proposals shall be shown on a plan drawing as required by 38.41.110 C. The criteria for determining that no significant alteration of the previous use and site will result from the proposed reuse, change in use or further development of a site shall include but not be limited to the following: 1. The proposed use is allowed under the same zoning district use classification as the previous use, however replacement of nonconforming uses must comply with the provisions of article 32 of this chapter; 2. Changes proposed for the site, singly or cumulatively, do not increase lot coverage by buildings, storage areas, parking areas or impervious surfaces and/or do not result in an increase in intensity of use as measured by parking requirements, traffic generation or other measurable off-site impacts; a. By more than 20 percent for developments not meeting one or more of the criteria of section 38.19.040.C; or Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 136 199 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 19. ‐ PLAN REVIEW b. By more than ten percent for developments meeting or exceeding one or more of the criteria of section 38.19.040.C; 3. The proposed use does not continue any unsafe or hazardous conditions previously existing on the site or associated with the proposed use of the property. D. If it is determined that the proposed reuse, change in use or further development of a site contains significant alterations to the previous use and/or site, the application shall be resubmitted as a new application and shall be subject to all plan review and approval provisions of this article. E. When proposals for reuse, change in use or further development of a site are located in the neighborhood conservation or entryway corridor overlay districts, review by ADR staff or the DRB may be required to determine whether resubmittal as a new application is necessary. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011; Ord. No. 1828, § 22, 9-10-2012) Sec. 38.19.150. - Improvements to existing developed sites independent of site plan review. The continued improvement of existing developed sites is desired to increase the level of compliance with the provisions of this chapter and to encourage maintenance and viability of the site. An applicant may propose improvements, not in association with a plan review, to increase conformity with the standards of this chapter for landscaping, lighting, parking or similar components of a site to occur over a defined period of time, not to exceed three years. Such improvements shall be depicted on a site plan drawn to scale and which shall be sufficiently detailed to clearly depict the current conditions, the intended end result of the proposed improvements and any phasing of work. Such improvements shall be reviewed by and approved at the discretion of the review authority which may require surety in accordance with the terms of article 39 of this chapter for work performed. A certificate of appropriateness may be required if the site is located within the entryway overlay district or the neighborhood conservation overlay district. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011) Sec. 38.19.160. - Building permits based upon approved sketch or site plans. Based upon the approved sketch or final plan and after any appeals have been resolved, a building permit for the site may be requested and may be granted pursuant to article 34 of this chapter. No building permit may be granted on the basis of an approved sketch or other plan whose approval has expired. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011) Sec. 38.19.170. - Appeals. Appeals of decisions rendered in conjunction with this article may be taken as set forth in article 35 of this chapter. (Ord. No. 1809, § 1, 7-11-2011) FOOTNOTE(S): Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 137 200 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 19. ‐ PLAN REVIEW Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 138 (59) Editor's note— Ord. No. 1809, § 1, adopted July 11, 2011, amended art. 19 in its entirety, in effect repealing and reenacting said article to read as herein set out. The former art. 19, §§ 38.19.010—38.19.210, pertained to similar subject matter. For a complete derivation of the former art. 19, see the Code Comparative Table. (Back) (59) State Law reference— Property development review, MCA 7-21-1001 et seq. (Back) 201 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 21. ‐ GENERAL LAND USE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS ARTICLE 21. ‐ GENERAL LAND USE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS Sec. 38.21.010. - Area requirements for individual buildings - restrictions. Sec. 38.21.020. - Yards and lots reduction prohibited. Sec. 38.21.030. - Use of lands; buildings and structures. Sec. 38.21.040. - Dwelling unit restrictions. Sec. 38.21.050. - Accessory buildings, uses and equipment. Sec. 38.21.060. - Yard and height encroachments, limitations and exceptions. Sec. 38.21.070. - Standards for specific site impacts and elements. Sec. 38.21.080. - Clean up of property and revegetation required. Sec. 38.21.010. - Area requirements for individual buildings - restrictions. No part of any yard, or other open space, or off-street parking or loading space required about or in connection with any building for the purpose of complying with this chapter, shall be included as part of a yard, open space or off-street parking or loading space similarly required for any other building except as provided in section 38.25.050. (Ord. No. 1645, § 18.38.010, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1761, exh. F(18.38.010), 7-6-2009) Sec. 38.21.020. - Yards and lots reduction prohibited. No yard or lot existing at the time of adoption date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived shall be reduced in dimension or area below the minimum requirements of this chapter except as set forth herein. Yards or lots created after the effective date of said ordinance shall meet at least the minimum requirements established by this chapter. (Ord. No. 1645, § 18.38.020, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1761, exh. F(18.38.020), 7-6-2009) Sec. 38.21.030. - Use of lands; buildings and structures. A. Only uses specifically identified by this chapter to be built. No building, or structure or part thereof shall be erected, altered or enlarged for a use, nor shall any existing building, structure or part thereof, or land, be used for a purpose or in a manner that is not in conformity with the uses listed as authorized uses for the zone in which such buildings, structure or land is situated. In addition, any land, building or structure to be erected or used for a purpose listed as a conditional use in such zone shall first receive final approval of a conditional use permit. Existing nonconforming uses and structures shall be governed by article 32 of this chapter. B. No building, or part thereof, or structure shall be erected, nor shall any existing building be altered, enlarged or rebuilt, or moved into any zone, nor shall any open space be encroached upon or reduced in any manner, except in conformity to the yard and setback regulations designed for the zone in which such building or open space is located, except as otherwise specified in this chapter. C. Recreational vehicle parking on residential lot. No person shall park or occupy any recreational vehicle or mobile home on the premises of any occupied dwelling or on any lot which is not a part of Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 157 202 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 21. ‐ GENERAL LAND USE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS the premises of any occupied dwelling, either of which is situated outside of any approved manufactured home community or recreational vehicle park except that: 1. The parking of only one unoccupied recreational vehicle in any accessory private garage, or in a rear yard in any district is permitted, providing no living quarters shall be maintained or any business practiced in the recreational vehicle while such recreational vehicle is so parked or stored; and 2. In the event of hardship, temporary use permits may be granted for occupying such recreational vehicle or mobile home. D. Municipal infrastructure requirements. 1. Whenever any building lots and/or building sites are created inside the city limits or existing lots are annexed, and prior to the issuance of any building permits on such lots or sites, municipal water distribution, municipal sanitary sewer collection, and streets shall be provided to the site. Each building site must utilize and be connected to both the municipal water distribution and municipal sanitary sewer collection systems. Installation of improvements is subject to article 39 of this chapter. a. Alternative. When in the city's sole determination it is in the city's long term best interests to allow a building lot or site to be created or developed without immediate access to either municipal water or municipal sewer the city may, in its sole discretion, make such allowance when all of the following have been met: (1) The nonmunicipal system to service the lot or site shall be designed, reviewed and constructed to meet city standards. Systems serving more than one lot or user shall be central systems; (2) The nonmunicipal system shall be designed and constructed in a manner to allow connection to the municipal system components shown in applicable facility plans to serve the property at such time as it becomes available; (3) The landowner shall provide waivers of right to protest creation of SIDs or other financing methods to extend municipal water and sewer services. Such extensions or connections may require construction of system components that are not immediately adjacent to the building lot or site; (4) The landowner shall agree to connect to municipal water and sewer services and abandon and remove nonmunicipal services when so instructed by the city. Such agreement shall be binding on all successors and run with the land; (5) If the city takes responsibility to operate the nonmunicipal system it may impose a surcharge to cover extra operational expenses. City operation of the system is at the city's discretion; (6) The requirement for future connection to the municipal water and/or sewer system, waivers and agreements, and other applicable materials shall be either noted on the plat or final plan or a separate notice be recorded at the county clerk and recorder's office so that such notice will appear on a title report or abstract of the property; (7) No nonmunicipal water or sewer systems shall be constructed until it has received all necessary approvals from the state department of environmental quality, City of Bozeman, County Environmental Health, and any other relevant agency; and (8) The use of municipal water or sewer systems is considered to be the best means to protect the public interest and welfare. The alternative for the use of nonmunicipal systems is intended to be used sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances. In order Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 158 203 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 21. ‐ GENERAL LAND USE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS to protect the public interest, in approving a nonmunicipal system the city may impose such conditions of approval as it deems necessary. 2. These improvements shall be designed, constructed and installed according to the standards and criteria as adopted by the city and approved by the city prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3. When municipal water distribution and municipal sanitary sewer collection systems are being provided to serve a development proposal occurring under the provisions of article 20 of this chapter, planned unit development (PUD), the issuance of a building permit may be allowed prior to completion of the public infrastructure, provided the criteria of section 38.39.030 are met. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection D.3 of this section, the city may limit the scope, type and number of projects eligible for simultaneous construction consideration. (Ord. No. 1645, § 18.38.030, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1761, exh. F(18.38.030), 7-6-2009; Ord. No. 1828, §§ 32, 33, 9-10-2012) Sec. 38.21.040. - Dwelling unit restrictions. A. No use of unfinished structures. No cellar, garage, tent, tepee, yurt, basement with unfinished structure above, accessory building, or vehicle; or any manufactured home or recreational vehicle outside of an approved manufactured home community, recreational vehicle park, or approved individual lot in accordance with section 38.22.130 shall at any time be used as a dwelling unit, unless approved for use as a temporary dwelling unit due to a demonstrated hardship. B. Use of basements. The basement portion of a finished home shall be properly damp-proofed and have heating, ventilation, suitable fire protection and exits if used for living purposes, and natural lighting. (Ord. No. 1645, § 18.38.040, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1761, exh. F(18.38.040), 7-6-2009) Sec. 38.21.050. - Accessory buildings, uses and equipment. A. An accessory building shall be considered an integral part of the principal building if it is connected to the principal building by a common wall for not less than five feet. B. Accessory buildings, uses or equipment shall not be stored or constructed between the front lot line and required front building line. C. Accessory buildings and garages shall not be located within a utility easement without written approval of the easement holder. D. Accessory buildings in any business or industrial district may be located only to the rear of the front line of the principal building. E. No accessory building shall exceed the footprint of the principal building unless such accessory building has been otherwise approved per this chapter. An accessory building shall not either: 1. Exceed the height of the principal building unless such accessory building has been otherwise approved per this chapter; or 2. Within a residential district, exceed a height of 1½ stories, where a half story is established by a side wall, under a sloped roof, of three feet in height or less above the floor level within space allowed to be occupied by persons by the International Building Code. Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 159 204 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 21. ‐ GENERAL LAND USE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS 3. The height between finished floor to finished floor shall not exceed 12 feet in residential districts. A greater height between finished floors may be approved in nonresidential districts if the other requirements of this chapter are met. F. Mechanical equipment screening. 1. Rooftop mechanical equipment should be screened. Screening should be incorporated into the roof form when possible. The requirement for screening of rooftop mechanical equipment does not apply to solar or wind energy collection devices. 2. Ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from public rights-of-way with walls, fencing or evergreen plant materials. Mechanical equipment shall not encroach into required setbacks. G. Detached structures setback requirements. 1. Accessory structures less than or equal to 120 square feet in footprint shall not be located in any front, side, or corner-side yard and shall maintain a minimum setback of three feet from the property lines in the rear yard. 2. Accessory structures greater than 120 square feet but less than or equal to 600 square feet in footprint shall not be located in any front, side, or corner-side yard. The accessory structure shall be set back a minimum of either: six feet, or when parking is provided between the structure and the rear property line, 20 feet except when required parking spaces need a greater setback for back-up maneuverability. See the following examples: Alley Right‐of‐Way Width Setback for Garage Setback for a Garage with Stacked Parking Off of an Alley 30 feet 6 feet 20 feet 20 feet 6 feet 26 feet 16 feet 10 feet 30 feet 14 feet 12 feet 32 feet 3. Accessory structures greater than 600 square feet shall not be located in any required front, rear, or side yard and shall provide adequate back-up maneuverability for required parking spaces. H. Structures may occupy not more than 20 percent of the area of the lot located to the rear of the principal building. I. All structures located within the neighborhood conservation or entryway corridor overlay districts require a certificate of appropriateness unless exempted in articles 16 or 17. J. Not more than two deviations shall be granted for any accessory structure. Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 160 205 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 21. ‐ GENERAL LAND USE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS (Ord. No. 1645, § 18.38.050, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1761, exh. F(18.38.050), 7-6-2009; Ord. No. 1830, § 15, 9-24-2012) Sec. 38.21.060. - Yard and height encroachments, limitations and exceptions. A. Permitted encroachments into yards. The following shall be permitted encroachments into required yards, subject to any and all applicable International Building Code requirements: 1. Architectural features which do not add usable area to a structure, such as chimneys, balconies, stairways, wing walls, bay windows, sills, pilasters, lintels, cornices, eaves, gutters, awnings, window wells and steps, provided such architectural features do not extend more than five feet into any required front or rear yard; 2. Architectural features, which do not add usable area to a structure, such as chimneys, balconies, stairways, wing walls, bay windows, sills, pilasters, lintels, cornices, awnings, window wells and steps, provided such architectural features do not extend more than two feet into any required side yard, except that eaves and gutters may extend 2.5 feet into any required side yard; 3. Terraces and patios, uncovered decks and stoops or similar features, provided that such features shall not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure nor more than five feet into any required front or rear yard or two feet into any required side yard; 4. Where porches, covered terraces and covered decks occupy not more than one-third of the length of the building wall, excluding the width of the garage if applicable they may encroach: a. Where the required front yard is greater than 15 feet, not more than five feet into any required front yard; b. Not more than five feet into a required rear yard; c. Not more than two feet into any required side yard; and 5. Fire escapes may be permitted in required side or rear yards only; 6. Wheelchair ramps may encroach into any required yard, but shall not be located closer than three feet from any property line; and 7. Flagpoles, ornamental features, trees, shrubs, walkways, and nameplate signs may be located within a required yard. Street vision triangle requirements apply. B. Zero lot line conditions. In districts where zero side yard setbacks are not otherwise allowed, where an individual owns two or more adjoining lots, or where the owners of two or more adjoining lots make legal written agreement recorded at the county clerk and recorder, a zero lot line concept may be used for commercial or single-household dwelling unit developments. In residential districts this may result in the creation of a two-household residential structure, only in districts permitting such a structure, or the creation of townhouse clusters in districts permitting such structures. In all such cases in residential districts, a minimum eight-foot side yard shall be maintained adjacent to the exterior side, or nonzero lot line side, of the structure. C. Special yard setbacks. 1. Where the required setback is greater than 15 feet, the corner side yard for any corner lot not located on an arterial street may be 15 feet. However, where the vehicular access to a garage is located on the frontage of the corner side yard, the portion accessible to vehicles shall maintain at least a 20-foot setback. 2. A 25-foot front yard or corner side yard shall be provided on all arterials designated in the city growth policy, except within the B-3 district. Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 161 206 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 21. ‐ GENERAL LAND USE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS 3. Setbacks from watercourses as set forth in section 38.23.100 4. Setbacks from intersections as set forth in section 38.24.090 D. Height limitation exceptions. 1. Non-specific exemptions. No building, or part thereof, or structure shall be erected, reconstructed or structurally altered to exceed in height the limit herein designated for the district in which such building is located, except as is specified in article 35 of this chapter, or as specifically authorized as an approved condition of a planned unit development. Such approved conditions must include the recommendations of the city fire marshal. 2. Specific exemptions. a. Height limitations shall not apply to church spires, belfries, cupolas and domes; monuments; chimneys and smokestacks; flag poles; public and private utility facilities; parapet walls extending no more than four feet above the limiting height of the building except as hereinafter provided; amateur radio antennae; solar energy collectors and equipment used for the mounting or operation of such collectors; and building mounted horizontal and vertical axis wind energy collectors under 15 feet in height from the building mounting surface and equipment used for the mounting or operation of such collectors. b. Places of public assembly in churches, schools and other permitted public and semipublic buildings may exceed height limitations otherwise established by this chapter, provided that: (1) These are located on the ground floor of such buildings; and (2) That for each one foot by which the height of such building exceeds the maximum height otherwise permitted in the district, its side and rear yards shall be increased in width or depth by an additional one foot over the side and rear yards required in the district. c. Elevator and stair penthouses, water tanks, monitors and scenery lofts are exempt from height limitations otherwise established in this chapter, provided that no linear dimension of any such structure exceed 50 percent of the corresponding street frontage line. d. Towers and monuments, cooling towers, gas holders or other structures, where the manufacturing process requires a greater height, and grain elevators and silos are exempt from this chapter, provided that any structure above the height otherwise permitted in the district shall occupy no more than 25 percent of the area of the lot and shall be at least 25 feet from every lot line. e. Height restrictions for wireless facilities are governed by article 29 of this chapter. (Ord. No. 1645, § 18.38.060, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1761, exh. F(18.38.060), 7-6-2009; Ord. No. 1828, § 34, 9-10-2012) Sec. 38.21.070. - Standards for specific site impacts and elements. A. Surface-water ponding. Natural ponding areas shall be retained as much as possible or, if necessary, enlarged or modified as directed by the city engineer to restrict the off-site runoff, subject to the stormwater runoff control provisions of this chapter and the city's stormwater drainage requirements. B. Trash and garbage incineration. No exterior incineration of materials is permitted except as allowed by the department of public safety. Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 162 207 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 21. ‐ GENERAL LAND USE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS C. Smoke, dust and other particulate matter. The emission of smoke or other particulates from any point source shall not exceed a density greater than that permitted by Method 9, 40 CFR 60 Appendix A. Dirt, dust, fly ash and other forms of particulate matter shall not be emitted beyond the property lines of the use creating the particulate matter. D. Bulk storage (liquid). All uses associated with bulk storage of all gasoline, liquid fertilizer, chemicals, flammable and similar liquids shall comply with International Building Code and International Fire Code requirements and any applicable county regulations. E. Water quality, hazardous wastes and wastewater. Discharge of hazardous waste, chemicals or wastewater will be subject to state department of environmental quality standards and permitting processes. But in no case shall any hazardous waste, hazardous chemicals or hazardous wastewater be discharged into any perennial stream within the city. F. Odors and toxic gases. 1. The emission of odors shall be controlled such that objectionable or offensive odors are not perceptible beyond a distance of 50 feet past the property lines of the use creating the odors. 2. No toxic, noxious or corrosive fumes or gases shall be emitted beyond the property lines of the use creating such fumes or gases. G. Noise. No noise shall be produced that causes a violation of the city's regulations regarding disturbance of the peace or creates a nuisance. H. Vibrations. No ground vibrations, except for those only perceptible with the use of instruments, shall be permitted beyond the property lines of the use generating the ground vibrations. I. Electrical disturbance. No activity shall be permitted which causes electrical disturbances affecting the operation of any equipment located beyond the property line of the activity. This subsection J does not apply to uses which are regulated by and are in compliance with federal agencies or law. J. Glare and heat. Any use producing intense glare or heat shall be conducted so that the glare is effectively screened from view at any point on the lot line of the lot in which the use is located. Any heat will be dissipated so that it is not perceptible without instruments at any point on the lot line of the lot on which the use is located. K. Fire and explosive hazards. Any use or activity involving the use or storage of combustible, flammable or explosive materials shall be in compliance with the International Fire Code as adopted by the city. Burning of waste materials in open fires is prohibited, unless otherwise permitted by and in conformance with, another ordinance. L. Liquid or solid waste. No materials, compounds or chemicals, which can contaminate any water supply, interfere with bacterial processes in sewage treatment or otherwise cause emissions of elements which are offensive or hazardous to the public health, safety and general welfare shall be discharged at any point into any public sewer, private sewage disposal system or stream or into the ground, except in accordance with this Code and the standards approved by the state department of environmental quality or such governmental agency as may have jurisdiction over such activities. M. Fissionable, radioactivity or electromagnetic disturbance. No activities shall be permitted which utilize fissionable or radioactive materials if, at any time, their use results in the release or emission of any fissionable or radioactive material into the atmosphere, ground or sewerage system. No activities or devices shall be permitted which at any time emit radio-frequency energy affecting any activity or the operation of any equipment beyond the site property line. Radio-frequency energy shall be considered as being electromagnetic energy at any frequency in the radio spectrum between ten kilocycles and 3,000,000 megacycles. This limitation on radio-frequency interference does not apply to those uses and circumstances falling under the jurisdiction of the FCC. (Ord. No. 1645, § 18.38.070, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1761, exh. F(18.38.070), 7-6-2009) Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 163 208 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 21. ‐ GENERAL LAND USE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 164 Sec. 38.21.080. - Clean up of property and revegetation required. A. Cleanup of property. Prior to final plat or final occupancy approval, the developer shall ensure that all construction and other debris are removed from the development. This includes concrete, asphalt, dead trees and shrubs, and fencing materials. B. Revegetation. All areas disturbed during construction shall be reseeded with vegetation types approved by the county weed control supervisor. (Ord. No. 1645, § 18.38.080, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1761, exh. F(18.38.080), 7-6-2009) 209 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 23. ‐ DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS which loading berths are required, off-street loading berths shall be provided as if the aggregate gross floor area were used for the use requiring the greatest number of loading berths. 10. Off-street loading facilities for a single use shall not be considered as providing required off-street loading facilities for any other use. 11. At the time of initial occupancy, major alterations or enlargement of a site, or of completion of construction of a structure or of a major alteration or enlargement of a structure, there shall be provided off-street loading berth requirements subject to the provisions of article 39 of this chapter. The number of loading berths provided for a major alteration or enlargement of a site or structure shall be in addition to the number existing prior to the alteration or enlargement. 12. Space allocated to any off-street loading berth shall not be used to satisfy the space requirements for any off-street parking facility. (Ord. No. 1645, § 18.42.140, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1693, § 13(18.42.140), 2-20-2007; Ord. No. 1709, § 12(18.42.140), 7-16-2007; Ord. No. 1761, exh. H(18.42.140), 7-6-2009; Ord. No. 1769, exh. G(18.42.140), 12-28-2009) Sec. 38.23.150. - Lighting. A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to: 1. Provide lighting in outdoor public places where public health, safety and welfare are potential concerns; 2. Protect drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians from the glare of non-vehicular light sources that shine into their eyes and thereby impair safe travel; 3. Protect neighbors and the night sky from nuisance glare and stray light from poorly aimed, placed, applied, maintained or shielded light sources; 4. Protect and maintain the character of the city; 5. Prevent excessive lighting and conserve energy; and 6. Provide adequate lighting for safe pedestrian and bicycle travel. B. General. 1. With the exception of street lighting, lighting is not required. If installed, all lighting shall comply with the requirements of this section. 2. Unless otherwise approved through a planned unit development, this section shall apply to all lighting for subdivisions, land uses, developments and buildings. In addition, any site modification that requires a certificate of appropriateness, site plan review or reuse application will necessitate compliance for all existing and proposed lighting on the site. 3. The provisions of this section are not intended to prevent the use of any design, material or method of installation or operation not specifically prescribed herein, provided any such alternate has been approved by the review authority. Prior to approval the review authority shall make findings that: a. The lighting provides at least approximate equivalence to the applicable specific requirements of this section; and b. The lighting is otherwise satisfactory and complies with the intent of this section. C. Street lighting. Street lighting consists of street lighting and pathway intersection lighting, and shall comply with the City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications Policy. Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 200 210 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 23. ‐ DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS D. Site lighting. 1. Parking lot lighting. Table 38.23.150‐4 Basic1 Security2 Minimum horizontal illuminance in maintained footcandles 0.2 0.5 Minimum vertical illuminance in maintained footcandles 0.1 0.25 Uniformity ratio, maximum: minimum 20:01 15:00 Source: Parking Lot Lighting, Illuminating Engineering Society of North American, 1998. 1Basic lighting provides for the safety of customers and employees during business hours, and for the security of on‐site, outside storage of goods and/or materials. 2Security lighting provides for the safety of employees during nonbusiness hours, and for the security of on‐site, outside storage of goods and/or materials. 2. Building entrances. Illuminance for building entrances (including commercial, industrial, institutional and municipal) shall average 5.0 maintained footcandles. 3. Car dealership lighting. Table 38.23.150‐5 Area Maximum Illuminance on Pavement (in Maintained Footcandles) Uniformity Ratio Maximum: minimum Main business districts Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 201 211 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 23. ‐ DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Adjacent to roadway 10—20 5:01 Other rows 5—10 10:01 Entrances 5—10 5:01 Driveways 2—3 10:01 Secondary business districts Adjacent to roadway 5—10 5:01 Other rows 2.5—5 10:01 Entrances 2.5—5 5:01 Driveways 1—2 10:01 Source: Lighting for Exterior Environments, Illuminating Engineering Society of North American, 1998. 4. Service station or gas pump area lighting. Table 38.23.150‐6 Area Description Average Illuminance on Described Area (in Maintained Footcandles) Approach with dark surroundings 1.5 Driveway with dark surroundings 1.5 Pump island area with dark surroundings 5 Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 202 212 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 23. ‐ DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Building facades with dark surroundings 2 Service areas with dark surroundings 2 Landscape highlights with dark surroundings 1 Approach with light surroundings 2 Driveway with light surroundings 2 Pump island area with light surroundings 10 Building facades with light surroundings 3 Service areas with light surroundings 3 Landscape highlights with light surroundings 2 Source: Lighting for Exterior Environments, Illuminating Engineering Society of North American, 1998. 5. Site lighting support structures. The ballasts; pole type, strength and anchor bolts; and pole foundation shall be appropriate for the proposed lighting and shall be installed per the manufacturer's recommendations. Height shall be measured from grade. Except as allowed in subsections E and G of this section, light poles for parking lot lighting shall not exceed 25 feet. 6. Site lighting installation and maintenance. a. For new installations, electrical feeds for fixtures mounted on poles shall be run underground, not overhead. b. Poles supporting lighting fixtures for the illumination of parking areas and located directly behind parking spaces shall be placed a minimum of five feet outside the paved area or on concrete pedestals at least 30 inches high above the pavement, or suitably protected by other approved means. c. Lighting fixtures and ancillary equipment shall be maintained so as always to meet the requirements of this section. 7. Miscellaneous site lighting specifications. Except as otherwise allowed in subsections E and G of this section, all lighting shall comply with the following requirements: Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 203 213 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 23. ‐ DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS a. All outdoor lighting, whether or not required by this section, shall be aimed, located, designed, fitted and maintained so as not to present a hazard to drivers or pedestrians by impairing their ability to safely traverse and so as not to create a nuisance by projecting or reflecting objectionable light onto a neighboring use or property. b. All outdoor lighting fixtures shall be shielded in such a manner that no light is emitted above a horizontal plane passing through the lowest point of the light emitting element, so that direct light emitted above the horizontal plane is eliminated. c. Except for residential lighting, streetlighting, pathway intersection lighting and security lighting, all lighting shall be turned off between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Exceptions shall be granted to those businesses which operate during these hours; such lighting may remain illuminated only while the establishment is actually open for business. d. Vegetation screens shall not be employed to serve as the primary means for controlling glare. Rather, glare control shall be achieved primarily through the use of such means as cutoff fixtures, shields and baffles, and appropriate application of fixture mounting height, wattage, aiming angle and fixture placement. e. All outdoor lighting shall be designed and located such that the maximum illumination measured in footcandles at the property line shall not exceed 0.3 onto adjacent residential properties and 1.0 onto adjacent commercial properties and public rights-of-way. f. Externally illuminated wall-mounted and pole signs shall be lighted by fixtures mounted at the top of the sign and aimed downward; ground-mounted sign lighting may only be used for monument style signs. Fixtures used to illuminate signs shall be aimed so as not to project their output beyond the sign. g. Floodlights, spotlights or any other similar lighting shall not be used to illuminate buildings or other site features unless approved as an integral architectural element on the development plan. On-site lighting may be used to accent architectural elements but not to illuminate entire portions of buildings. Where accent lighting is used, the maximum illumination on any vertical surface or angular roof surface shall not exceed 5.0 average maintained footcandles. Building facade and accent lighting shall not be approved unless the light fixtures are carefully selected, located, aimed and shielded so that light is directed only onto the building facade and spillover light is eliminated. (1) Directional fixtures used to illuminate flagpoles (state, United States and/or foreign nations) may project their output beyond the flagpole. h. Lights that flash, move, revolve, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker, vary in intensity or color, or use intermittent electrical pulsation are prohibited. i. Translucent awnings and canopies used for building accents over doors, windows, etc., shall not be internally lit (i.e., from underneath or behind). j. Searchlights, laser source lights or any similar high-intensity light shall not be permitted, except in emergencies by police and fire personnel or at their direction, for meteorological data gathering purposes, or for special events if a permit is obtained from the review authority. E. Sports and athletic field lighting. Lighting for sports and athletic fields may need to exceed illumination standards for general recreational needs in order to meet higher standards required for play. The city commission may approve relaxations of these lighting standards provided that the following minimum standards are met: 1. Fixtures shall be at least 70 feet in mounted height measured from grade. Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 204 214 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 23. ‐ DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 2. If floodlights are used, they shall not be aimed above 62 degrees and should use internal louvers and external shields to help minimize light pollution. 3. Fixtures shall be designed and aimed so that their beams fall within the primary playing area and the immediate surroundings, so that off-site direct illumination is significantly restricted (spillover levels at the property line shall not exceed 0.3 footcandle). 4. Lighting shall be extinguished no later than one hour after the event ends. F. Lighting specifications for all lighting. Light fixtures and standards shall be compatible with the surrounding area, the subdivision or site design, and the development's character and/or architecture. 1. Luminaires (light fixtures). Except as otherwise allowed in subsections E and G of this section, all luminaires shall comply with the following requirements: a. In all light fixtures, the light source and associated lenses shall not protrude below the edge of the light fixture, and shall not be visible from adjacent streets or properties. b. Fixtures shall be of a type and design appropriate to the lighting application. c. For lighting horizontal areas such as roadways, sidewalks, entrances and parking areas, fixtures shall meet IESNA "full-cutoff" criteria (no light output emitted above 90 degrees at any lateral angle around the fixture). d. As needed, fixtures shall be equipped with or be modified to incorporate light directing and/or shielding devices such as shields, visors, skirts, internal louvers or hoods to redirect offending light distribution and/or reduce direct or indirect glare. e. The installation of any mercury vapor light fixture or lamp for use as outdoor lighting is prohibited, except that until November 21, 2006 (the fifth anniversary date of the effective date of the ordinance from which this section is derived), this provision shall not apply to any replacement bulb. G. Historic lighting. The city may relax lighting standards and requirements, with the exception of illumination levels, for the provision of historic lighting in the neighborhood conservation overlay district. Historic lights shall be proposed as an integrated part of an overall development plan. The historic preservation planner shall review and approve the proposed lighting for historic appropriateness. H. Post installation inspection. The city reserves the right to conduct post-installation nighttime inspections to verify compliance with the requirements of this section, and if appropriate, to require remedial action at no expense to the city. I. Compliance monitoring. If the city finds that a lighting installation creates a safety or personal security hazard, the person responsible for the lighting shall be notified in writing and required to take remedial action within 30 days. J. Nuisance glare and inadequate illumination levels. When the city finds that a lighting installation produces unacceptable levels of nuisance glare, skyward light, excessive or insufficient illumination levels, or otherwise varies from this section, the city may notify the person responsible for the lighting and require appropriate remedial action within 30 days. K. Nonconforming lighting. With the exception of street lighting, security lighting fixtures or a security lighting installation in use on January 1, 2004, that does not conform to this section and that is not otherwise required to be brought into compliance pursuant to this section, shall be required to be in compliance five years after the date of enactment of the ordinance from which this provision is derived. Any other lighting fixture or lighting installation existing on the effective date of the ordinance Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 205 215 PART II ‐ CODE OF ORDINANCES Chapter 38 ‐ UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 23. ‐ DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS from which this provision is derived that does not conform to the requirements of this section shall be considered as a legal conformance. (Ord. No. 1645, § 18.42.150, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1693, § 13(18.42.150), 2-20-2007; Ord. No. 1709, § 12(18.42.150), 7-16-2007; Ord. No. 1761, exh. H(18.42.150), 7-6-2009; Ord. No. 1769, exh. G(18.42.150), 12-28-2009; Ord. No. 1796, § 2, 1-3-2011; Ord. No. 1828, §§ 53, 54, 9-10-2012; Ord. No. 1830, §§ 21, 22, 9-24-2012) Sec. 38.23.160. - Outdoor storage. A. All materials, supplies, merchandise or other similar matter not on display for direct sale, rental or lease to the ultimate consumer or user shall be stored within the confines of a 100 percent opaque wall or fence not less than six feet tall. B. No storage of any type shall be permitted within any required yard, and shall be subject to section 38.22.150 C. All areas designated for vehicle and equipment storage shall be screened from view from the street and adjacent properties as per subsection A of this section. Vehicle and equipment storage areas shall not be subject to parking lot paving or landscape requirements, but shall be subject to drainage detention requirements and appropriate dust control requirements. (Ord. No. 1645, § 18.42.160, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1693, § 13(18.42.160), 2-20-2007; Ord. No. 1709, § 12(18.42.160), 7-16-2007; Ord. No. 1761, exh. H(18.42.160), 7-6-2009; Ord. No. 1769, exh. G(18.42.160), 12-28-2009) Sec. 38.23.170. - Trash and garbage enclosures. A. A permanent enclosure for temporary storage of garbage, refuse and other waste materials shall be provided for every use, other than single-household dwellings, duplexes, individually owned townhouse or condominium units, in every zoning district, except where a property is entirely surrounded by screen walls or buildings. Trash enclosures shall be constructed so that contents are not visible from a height of five feet above grade from any abutting street or property. Trash enclosures shall comply with the following regulations: 1. Location. Trash enclosures, surrounding standard steel bins (dumpsters), shall be located on the site for convenient pickup service, and the location shall be shown on required site plans. Trash enclosures shall not be located in required front yards, and shall be situated so that containers can be pulled straight out of the enclosure or so the solid waste truck can back straight into it. The location of all trash enclosures shall be subject to review and approval by the city's solid waste division. 2. Construction. Trash enclosures shall be constructed of solid or ornamental pierced masonry walls or other appropriate materials, with a solid concrete floor sloped for drainage and maintenance of sanitary conditions. Enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with the principle structure. Enclosures shall be of sufficient height to conceal contents, including containers, but in no case shall be less than four feet in height above grade. 3. Exception. A garbage enclosure is not required for dumpsters accessed via an alley. 4. Construction enclosure. For applications other than those classified as sketch plan reviews per section 38.19.050, the applicant shall designate a temporary enclosed refuse storage area on the site plan, including a typical detail with dimensions and type of materials, for the storage and collection of building material debris during the construction phase of the project, and that said debris area is shown accordingly on the final site plan. Bozeman, Montana, Code of Ordinances Page 206 216 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. Sec. 38.230.010. - Introduction. All non-subdivision development proposals within the city will be subject to plan review and approval except repair, maintenance, grading below the minimum defined limits of this chapter, and interior remodeling, or other items specifically exempted in this chapter. Depending on the complexity of development and status of proposed use in the applicable zoning district, either sketch plans, site plans, master site plans, special use permits, or conditional use permits (referred to herein as a "plan") will be required as specified in this division 38.230. Although work may be exempt from zoning review it may require review for other permits before construction may begin. Special development proposals (e.g., PUDs, CUPs, variances, etc.) require other information to be submitted in conjunction with plans and are subject to requirements specific to the type of proposal. These additional submittal requirements and review procedures are outlined in section 38.230.030. When a development is proposed within a neighborhood conservation overlay district or historic district, or proposes signs which do not specifically conform to the requirements of this chapter, design review is required in conjunction with plan review per the authority in section 38.210.010. In such cases, additional submittal requirements and review procedures apply as outlined in section 38.220.090. Conditional uses. Certain uses, while generally not suitable in a particular zoning district, may, under certain circumstances, be acceptable. When such circumstances can be demonstrated by the applicant to exist, a conditional use permit may be granted by the review authority. Conditions may be applied to the issuance of the permit and periodic review may be required. No conditional use permit must be granted for a use which is not specifically designated as a conditional use in this chapter. Approval will be granted for a particular use and not for a particular person or firm. This division 38.230 is provided to meet the purposes of section 38.100.040 and all other relevant portions of this chapter. Applications subject to this division 38.230 are reviewed under the authority established by division 38.200 of this chapter. Page 1 of 4Bozeman, MT Code of Ordinances 3/31/2020about:blank 217 A. B. C. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. A. B. Sec. 38.230.040. - DRB review thresholds. The review authorities are established in section 38.200.010 and as may be specified elsewhere in this chapter. The development review committee, design review board, and wetlands review board have the advisory authority established in division 38.200 of this chapter. DRB review thresholds. When a development is subject to design review and meets one or more of the following thresholds the design review board must conduct the design review: Forty-five or more dwelling units; Thirty thousand or more square feet of office space, retail commercial space, service commercial space or industrial space; Four stories or more; Twenty thousand or more square feet of exterior storage of materials or goods; Parking for more than 90 vehicles. (Order No. 2018-01 , § 1, 4-18-2018) Sec. 38.230.150. - Amendments to plans. It is the intent of this section to assure that issues of community concern are addressed during the redevelopment, reuse or change in use of existing facilities in the community. Specific areas of community concern include public safety, mitigation of off-site environmental impacts and site character in relation to surroundings. The following procedures for amendments to approved plans, reuse of existing facilities and further development of sites assure that these concerns are adequately and expeditiously addressed. Any amendment to or modification of a plan approved under the ordinance codified in this division 38.230 (September 3, 1991—Ordinance 1332) must be submitted to the community development director for review and possible approval. Proposals for further development, reuse or change in use of sites developed pursuant to this chapter must be reviewed as an amendment to an approved plan. All amendments must be shown on a revised plan drawing. Amendments to approved plans must be reviewed and may be approved by the Page 2 of 4Bozeman, MT Code of Ordinances 3/31/2020about:blank 218 C. D. A. B. community development director upon determining that the amended plan is in substantial compliance with the originally approved plan. If it is determined that the amended plan is not in substantial compliance with the originally approved plan, the application must be resubmitted as a new application and will be subject to all standards and plan review and approval provisions of this chapter. Substantial compliance may be shown by demonstrating that the amendments do not exceed the thresholds established in section 38.230.160.C. Modifications or amendments to a master site plan at the time an extension of approval is sought may be proposed by either the applicant or the review authority, and must be based on substantive current information that indicates that relevant circumstances have changed and that such circumstances support the proposed modifications. Such circumstances may include market analyses, economic conditions, changes in surrounding land uses, changes in ownership, etc. For building additions and/or remodels to all existing development, except single to four-household dwellings in any configuration, see section 38.500.020.B to determine how the design standards within article 5 are applied. Sec. 38.230.160. - Reuse, change in use or further development of sites developed prior to the adoption date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived. It is the policy of the city to work with owners of property during the reuse, change in use, or further development process to correct existing violations of the city's and other agency's regulations, to encourage reinvestment and renewal of existing developed sites, and to move existing sites toward compliance with current standards while recognizing the limitations that may exist in relation to an existing site. Sites legally developed prior to the adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter (September 3, 1991—Ordinance 1332) are considered to have developed under an approved plan. Proposals for reuse, change in use or the further development of sites legally developed prior to the adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter may be approved by the review authority upon determining that no significant alteration of the previous use and site are proposed, and upon a determination that adequate access and site surface drainage are provided. All such proposals must be shown on a plan drawing as required by section 38.220.110. Page 3 of 4Bozeman, MT Code of Ordinances 3/31/2020about:blank 219 C. 1. 2. a. b. 3. D. E. F. The criteria for determining that no significant alteration of the previous use and site will result from the proposed reuse, change in use or further development of a site must include but not be limited to the following: The proposed use is allowed under the same zoning district use classification as the previous use, however replacement of nonconforming uses must comply with the provisions of division 38.270 of this chapter; Changes proposed for the site, singly or cumulatively, do not increase lot coverage by buildings, storage areas, parking areas or impervious surfaces and/or do not result in an increase in intensity of use as measured by parking requirements, traffic generation or other measurable off-site impacts; By more than 20 percent for developments not meeting one or more of the criteria of section 38.230.040.C; or By more than ten percent for developments meeting or exceeding one or more of the criteria of section 38.230.040.C; The proposed use does not continue any unsafe or hazardous conditions previously existing on the site or associated with the proposed use of the property. If it is determined that the proposed reuse, change in use or further development of a site contains significant alterations to the previous use and/or site, the application must be resubmitted as a new application and will be subject to all plan review and approval provisions of this division 38.230. When proposals for reuse, change in use or further development of a site are located in the neighborhood conservation overlay district, review by ADR staff or the DRB may be required to determine whether resubmittal as a new application is necessary. For building additions and/or remodels to all existing development, except single to four-household dwellings in any configuration, see section 38.500.020.B to determine how the design standards within article 5 are applied. Page 4 of 4Bozeman, MT Code of Ordinances 3/31/2020about:blank 220 DIVISION 38.340. - OVERLAY DISTRICT STANDARDS Part 1. - Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and Historic Preservation Sec. 38.340.010. - Intent and purpose. A. All new construction, alterations to existing structures, movement of structures into or out of the neighborhood conservation overlay district, hereinafter referred to as the conservation district, or demolition of structures by any means or process will be subject to design review unless specifically exempted. The recommendations of the design review board or administrative design review staff must be given careful consideration in the final action of the review authority. B. Sections 38.340.010 through 38.340.130 define and set forth standards which apply to the conservation district. C. The intent and purpose of the conservation district designation is to stimulate the restoration and rehabilitation of structures, and all other elements contributing to the character and fabric of established residential neighborhoods and commercial or industrial areas. New construction will be invited and encouraged provided primary emphasis is given to the preservation of existing buildings and further provided the design of such new space enhances and contributes to the aesthetic character and function of the property and the surrounding neighborhood or area. Contemporary design will be encouraged, provided it is in keeping with the above-stated criteria, as an acknowledged fact of the continuing developmental pattern of a dynamic, changing community. D. In view of the fact that most of the area included within the boundaries of the conservation district was developed and built out prior to the adoption of zoning and contemporary subdivision regulations, the construction, development pattern and range of uses is highly diverse and may not be in compliance with conventional regulatory requirements. This part 1 recognizes that this diversity is a contributing element of the historic character of these neighborhoods or areas. The provisions of this part 1 must be applied in a manner that will encourage the protection and enhancement of the many diverse features for future generations. E. The conservation district boundary is largely coterminous with the area surveyed in the effort that led to the listing of nine historic districts and 40 additional landmark structures in the National Register of Historic Places, and includes the nine designated historic districts and 40 individual landmarks. The district boundary may be revised as additional cultural resource survey work is completed. This part 1 sets forth the means of protecting and enhancing the conservation district. F. It is further the purpose of the conservation district designation to protect and enhance neighborhoods or areas of significant land planning or architectural character, historic landmarks or other built or natural features for the educational, cultural, economic benefit or enjoyment of citizens of the city. It will be the policy and responsibility of the administrative entities of this part 1 to: 1. Protect, preserve, enhance and regulate historically significant structures, archaeological or cultural sites, and areas that: a. Are reminders of past eras, events or persons important in local, state or national history; b. Provide significant examples of land planning or architectural styles, or are landmarks in the history of land planning and architecture; c. Are unique or irreplaceable assets to the city and its neighborhoods; d. Provide examples of physical surroundings in which past generations lived; or e. Represent and express the unique characteristics of small agricultural-based, western city developmental patterns; 2. Enhance property values through the stabilization of neighborhoods and areas of the city, increase economic and financial benefits to the city and its inhabitants, and promote tourist trade and interests; 221 3. Develop and maintain the appropriate environment for buildings, structures, sites and areas that reflect varied planning and architectural styles and distinguished phases of the city's history and prehistory; 4. Stimulate an enhancement of human life by developing educational and cultural dimensions, which foster the knowledge of the city's heritage, and cultivate civic pride in the accomplishments of the past; and 5. Seek to maintain and enhance the many private and public elements that are unique to the fabric, theme and character of each neighborhood and area, including, but not limited to: lighting, pathways, street trees, natural areas and other features that may, from time to time, be identified by the citizens and property owners' of neighborhoods, areas and subsections thereof. G. It is further the purpose of this article to protect historic structures and sites as defined in article 7 of this chapter by requiring any person seeking to demolish or move a historic structure or site to comply with section 38.230.080 whether or not the structure is located within the NCOD. Sec. 38.340.020. - Design review board and administrative design review staff powers and duties within conservation districts. A. The DRB and administrative design review staff will review and make recommendations to the review authority regarding development within the neighborhood conservation district in order to maintain the underlying and desirable characteristics of structures and areas within such districts, while recognizing the need for innovation and individual expression in the development of these districts. B. In carrying out this mission, in addition to the duties established in division 38.200 of this chapter, the design review board and administrative design review staff must review any tax abatement or other incentive programs being considered by the city commission that are designed to stimulate preservation and rehabilitation of structures and properties, and to review any proposed action or development utilizing these abatement or incentive programs. Sec. 38.340.030. - Conservation district designation or recession. A site, structure, object, area or district may be designated or rescinded as a landmark, or added to or removed from the conservation district by the city commission upon recommendation of the Historic Preservation Advisory Board subject to the provisions of division 6, Historic Preservation Advisory Board of article 5, chapter 2, and division 38.260, Text and Map Amendments, of this chapter. Property owner concurrence is necessary for the designation or recision of landmark status. Sec. 38.340.040. - Certificate of appropriateness. A. A certificate of appropriateness is required before any and all alteration(s) other than those specifically exempted in subsection 1 of this section, or repair(s) as defined in section 38.700.160, are undertaken upon any structure in the conservation district. The review authority for certificates of appropriateness is established in division 38.200.010 of this chapter. Compliance with the terms of the final decision is required. The Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory Form must be reviewed and, if necessary, updated to reflect current conditions on the site, prior to the review of the proposal. Application procedures are as follows: 1. No building, demolition, conditional use, sign or moving permit may be issued within the conservation district until a certificate of appropriateness has been issued by the appropriate review authority, and until final action on the proposal has been taken. a. Limited exceptions. The following construction located within the neighborhood conservation overlay district, within an established historic district, or at a site which is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Preservation, does not require a certificate of appropriateness if the project satisfies the following standards: 222 (1) Fences meeting all other provisions of this chapter (e.g. height limitations, street vision triangle, finished side out, etc. per section 38.350.060) which are built of wood, wrought-iron, or any other non-synthetic material and whose construction allows "transparency" as set forth in Chapter 3, Section F of the design guidelines referenced in section 38.340.050.D. Chain link fencing is not included in this exception. (2) Basement egress windows whose window material and configuration is present elsewhere in the structure, and whose window wells are not on the front or corner-side setback elevation of the structure, and which do not establish or provide egress from an illegal dwelling unit. (3) Accessory structures under 120 square feet as measured from the outer edge of the exterior walls, which meet the setback requirements, are not more than 14 feet to their highest point and which do not require a building permit. (4) Alterations in roofing material, if installing wood shingle, slate, tile, or asphalt shingle material, and no changes are made to the roof shape, pitch or slope. (5) Photovoltaic panels which are flush mounted to a roof. 2. Application, review and public notice procedures for proposals located within the conservation district are set forth in division 38.230, Plan Review, and division 38.220, Applications and Noticing, of this chapter. If demolition or movement of structures or sites subject to the conservation district requirements is proposed, the procedures in section 38.340.080 apply. 3. The architectural designs of individual affordable housing units used to satisfy the requirements of section 38.380.030 and are exempt from the review requirements of this part 1. This exemption does not extend to removal or alterations of existing structures. (Ord. No. 2014 , § 4, 6-3-2019) Sec. 38.340.050. - Standards for certificates of appropriateness. A. All work performed in completion of an approved certificate of appropriateness must be in conformance with the most recent edition of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, published by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services, Washington, D.C. (available for review at the community development department). B. Architectural appearance design guidelines used to consider the appropriateness and compatibility of proposed alterations with original design features of subject structures or properties, and with neighboring structures and properties, must focus upon the following: 1. Height; 2. Proportions of doors and windows; 3. Relationship of building masses and spaces; 4. Roof shape; 5. Scale; 6. Directional expression, with regard to the dominant horizontal or vertical expression of surrounding structures; 7. Architectural details; 8. Concealment of non-period appurtenances, such as mechanical equipment; and 9. Materials and color schemes (any requirements or conditions imposed regarding color schemes must be limited to the prevention of nuisances upon abutting properties and prevention of 223 degradation of features on the property in question. Color schemes may be considered as primary design elements if a deviation from the underlying zoning is requested). C. Contemporary, non-period and innovative design of new structures and additions to existing structures is encouraged when such new construction or additions do not destroy significant historical, cultural or architectural structures or their components and when such design is compatible with the foregoing elements of the structure and surrounding structures. D. When applying the standards of subsections A through C of this section, the review authority must be guided by the design guidelines for the neighborhood conservation overlay district. Application of the design guidelines may vary by property as explained in the introduction to the design guidelines. When reviewing a contemporary, non-period, or innovative design for new structures or additions to existing structures, the review authority must be guided by the design guidelines for the neighborhood conservation overlay district to determine whether the proposal is compatible with any existing or surrounding structures. E. Conformance with other applicable development standards of this chapter. Development in the NCOD must comply with all other applicable development standards of this chapter. F. Tax abatement certificate of appropriateness applications are also reviewed with the procedures and standards established in chapter 2, article 6, division 2. Sec. 38.340.060. - Application requirements for certificates of appropriateness in conservation districts. Applications for certificates of appropriateness must be made in conjunction with applications for site plan approval in accordance with division 38.230 of this chapter. Where development projects in the conservation district require only sketch plan review per division 38.230 of this chapter (i.e., single-household, two-household, three-household and four-household residential structures, each on individual lots; signs; fences; property alterations; and certain amendments to site plans), applications for certificates of appropriateness must be made on a form provided by the community development department, and must include the information and material set forth in division 38.220 of this chapter. Sec. 38.340.070. - Deviations from underlying zoning requirements. A. Because the development of much of historic Bozeman preceded zoning, subdivision and construction regulations, some buildings within the conservation district do not conform to contemporary zoning standards. In order to encourage restoration, rehabilitation and appropriate new construction activity that would contribute to the overall historic character of the community, deviations from underlying zoning requirements may be granted as described in division 38.250 of this chapter. The criteria for granting deviations from the underlying zoning requirements are: 1. Modifications must be more historically appropriate for the building and site in question and the adjacent properties, as determined by the standards in section 38.340.050, than would be achieved under a literal enforcement of this chapter; 2. Modifications will have minimal adverse effects on abutting properties or the permitted uses thereof; and 3. Modifications must assure the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. Approvals may be conditioned to assure such protection, and such conditions may include a time period within which alterations will be completed; landscaping and maintenance thereof; architectural, site plan and landscape design modifications, or any other conditions in conformity with the intent and purpose set forth in this part 1. (Ord. No. 1994 , § 2, 3-31-2018) Sec. 38.340.080. - Review of demolition or movement of historic structures or sites. 224 A. The demolition or movement of any structure or site must be subject to the provisions of this article. This process applies to: 1. Historic properties and sites, as defined in article 7 of this chapter. 2. Non-historic properties per section 38.340.100. 3. Unsafe structures whether historic or non-historic per section 38.340.110. The provisions for unsafe structures take priority over other provisions for demolition. B. An application to move or demolish a structure subject to this article must follow the applicable review procedures. C. Optional provisional review of demolition. A property owner may request provisional review of the proposed demolition of a structure subject to this article prior to submittal of a certificate of appropriateness application for seeking demolition of the structure. The director of community development may establish criteria for the application for provisional review of demolition. Provisional review is advisory only and does not constitute approval to demolish a structure. Provisional review must consider: 1. The property's historic significance and a neighborhood's historical significance. 2. Whether the structure has no viable economic life remaining. "No viable economic life remaining" means the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation to bring the structure to a habitable condition as established by the applicable technical codes in article 10.02, exceed the costs of demolition and redevelopment to minimum standards with a building of the same type and scale. (Ord. No. 1994 , § 3, 3-31-2018) Sec. 38.340.090. - Demolition or movement of a historic structure or site. A. Certificate of appropriateness (COA) for demolition and subsequent development. Approval of the proposed subsequent development is required for all historic structures proposed for demolition and for the proposed movement of any structure or site. B. Public notice. Proposals for demolition of historic properties within the city limits require public notice. Notice of application(s) must be provided in accordance with division 38.220 of this chapter. C. Criteria. The review authority must consider the following factors in evaluating applications for demolition or movement of a historic structure or site and subsequent redevelopment: 1. The property's historic significance. 2. Whether the structure has no viable economic life remaining. "No viable economic life remaining" means the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation to bring the structure to a habitable condition as established by the applicable technical codes in article 10.02, exceed the costs of demolition and redevelopment to minimum standards with a building of the same type and scale. 3. Whether the subsequent development complies with section 38.340.050. 4. Whether the subsequent development includes construction of new building(s) unless the existing character of the area does not include buildings. 5. Subsequent development requires a building permit and does not include proposals which leave the site without building(s) or structure(s). Notwithstanding the above, for projects proposing the removal of a historic structure, which do not qualify for sketch plan review pursuant to section 38.230.070, the review authority may determine the proposed subsequent site development is more appropriate for the site based on the criteria in section 38.230.100. 225 D. Review process. 1. Upon application for a COA for demolition and subsequent development the review authority may: a. Grant preliminary or final approval of the demolition with standard contingencies and/or project specific conditions. b. Deny the COA application. 2. COA approval. a. Preliminary COA approval. After preliminary approval with contingencies or conditions requiring follow up work, the applicant may apply for final COA approval and must demonstrate compliance with development standards and completion of contingencies and conditions, including documentation. The review authority must approve the COA for demolition and subsequent development. b. Final COA approval. If the submitted application materials demonstrate compliance with development standards and completion of contingencies and conditions, including documentation, the review authority must approve the COA for demolition and subsequent development. 3. If an application for demolition or moving is denied due to failure to meet section 38.340.090.C issuance of a demolition or moving permit must be stayed for a period of two years from the date of the denial in order to allow the applicant and city to explore alternatives to the demolition or move, including, but not limited to, the use of tax credits or adaptive reuse. The two-year stay may be terminated at any point in time if an alternate proposal is approved or if sufficient additional evidence is presented to otherwise satisfy the requirements of this section. a. Early termination of two-year stay. An owner of property subject to a stay under this section may seek early termination of the stay if the owner demonstrates s/he has actively and in good faith sought alternatives to demolition. These alternatives may include but are not limited to: listing the property for sale as a historic property; actively seeking input from neighborhood groups and interested parties; exploring alternative funding sources for stabilization and/or reconstruction; and offering the property for relocation. b. If, upon expiration of the two-year stay of demolition, no alternate proposals have been approved or sufficient evidence has not been presented to otherwise terminate the stay, an application for a demolition permit may be presented to the city pursuant to chapter 10, article 3 or 4 of this Code. If all requirements of the demolition permit are satisfied, including documentation of the structure to be moved or demolished and the review authority has approved the subsequent development and has issued a building permit for the subsequent development, a demolition permit pursuant to chapter 10, article 3 or 4 must be granted and no other proceedings under this chapter are required. c. The two-year stay does not begin to run if denial of a COA to demolish a historic structure or site is based on the failure of the applicant to make a complete and adequate submittal or to propose a subsequent treatment which complies with the standards of this chapter. 4. Standard requirements. a. Subsequent development of the site must receive zoning approval, building permit approval, and pay all related fees prior to issuance of a demolition permit. b. Documentation of the structure must be completed and submitted to the historic preservation officer and deemed complete and adequate prior to issuance of a demolition permit per paragraph section 38.340.120. c. The review authority may require a developer to enter into a development agreement with the city at the time of issuance of a certificate of appropriateness authorizing demolition of all or part of a historic structure in the neighborhood conservation overlay zoning district or in a designated historic district. The development agreement may provide for conditions of 226 demolition, timing of reconstruction, and may require the developer to post a surety bond naming the city as a beneficiary for not more than ten percent of the costs of the overall reconstruction budget as a guarantee that construction of the replacement structure will commence promptly upon completion of the demolition. This requirement is in addition to any other requirement of this code. Sec. 38.340.100. - Demolition or movement of a non-historic structure or site in the NCOD. A. Certificate of appropriateness (COA) for demolition and subsequent development. Required for all properties proposed for demolition or movement of any structure or site. Subsequent development does not include proposals which leave the site without building(s) or structure(s). B. Public notice. Notice must be provided in accordance with division 38.220 of this chapter. C. Criteria. 1. The applicable criteria are the COA criteria of section 38.340.050. 2. The subsequent development must include construction of new building(s) unless the immediately prior character of the area did not include buildings. D. Review process. 1. Upon application for a COA for demolition and subsequent development the review authority may: a. Grant preliminary or final approval of the demolition with standard contingencies and/or project specific conditions. b. Deny the COA application. 2. COA approval. a. Preliminary COA approval. After preliminary approval with contingencies or conditions requiring follow up work, the applicant may apply for final COA approval and must demonstrate compliance with development standards and completion of contingencies and conditions, including documentation. The review authority must approve the COA for demolition and subsequent development. b. Final COA approval. If the submitted application materials demonstrate compliance with development standards and completion of contingencies and conditions, including documentation, the review authority must approve the COA for demolition and subsequent development. 3. Standard requirement. Subsequent treatment of the site must receive zoning approval prior to issuance of a demolition permit. Subsequent treatment may include replacement with a new building, integration of the area into a larger site which will support future development, or reclamation of the site to a safe, graded condition where storm-water runoff and weeds are controlled and landscaping is reestablished. Sec. 38.340.110. - Demolition or movement of an unsafe structure whether historic or non-historic. A. Certificate of appropriateness (COA) for demolition and subsequent development. Upon application and the chief building official's determination that the property is unsafe, the review authority may approve demolition and subsequent development. Subsequent development for an unsafe structure may be its replacement with a new building, integration of the area into a larger site which will support future development, or reclamation of the site to a safe, graded condition where storm-water runoff and weeds are controlled. B. Public notice. Notice must be provided in accordance with division 38.220 of this chapter. C. The demolition of unsafe properties/structures may be subject to the public nuisance abatement provisions of chapter 16, article 2 of this code. Upon the chief building official's determination that the 227 property is unsafe and declaration of a public nuisance if the property owner does not resolve the unsafe condition, the review authority must give final approval on a COA, which may be initiated by the city, and the demolition permit will be issued so the city may abate a nuisance. D. The provisions of this section may be initiated by a land owner; or by the city in accordance with article 16.02. Sec. 38.340.120. - Documentation and administrative procedures. A. Documentation. All structures or sites approved for demolition or moving must be fully documented. 1. The director of community development must establish by administrative order rules for documentation of non-historic and historic properties. This documentation must be created by a professional who satisfies professional qualification standards for History, Archeology or Architectural History, as established by the National Park Service and published in the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61. 2. Documentation may be submitted as early in the process as the property owner desires to support the requested action, and to further the consideration and review of the request, but not later than prior to issuance of a building permit. B. A building permit application, in accordance with applicable codes and requirements, must be submitted and approved before any demolition or construction is allowed. C. All fees and charges applicable to review of the request for demolition and construction of the subsequent development (e.g. parkland, water rights, impact fees) must be paid prior to issuance of a building or demolition permit. 1. When required by the city, this must include a financial security in a form approved by the city attorney ensuring completion of the demolition and reclamation of the site to a safe condition. D. In addition to the remedies in division 38.200 of this chapter, the owner of any structure or site that is demolished or moved contrary to the provisions of this section, and any contractor performing such work, may be required to reconstruct such structure or site in a design and manner identical to its condition prior to such illegal demolition or move, and in conformance with all applicable codes and regulations. Sec. 38.340.130. - Safe condition and good repair. Each property or structure located in the conservation district must be maintained in safe condition and good repair as required in sections 16.02.030 and 16.02.040. Nothing in this division 38.340 must be construed to prevent normal maintenance and repair of any exterior feature of any historic structure which does not involve a building permit. Interior arrangements or alterations to the interior of a building must not be subject to this requirement. 228 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. A. 1. Sec. 38.500.010. - Purpose. This article implements the Bozeman's growth policy. Overall, this article: Provides clear objectives for those embarking on the planning and design of development projects in Bozeman; Preserves and protects the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Bozeman; Ensures that new commercial and multi-household development is of high quality and beneficially contributes to Bozeman's character; Ensures that new developments within existing neighborhoods are compatible with, and enhance the character of Bozeman's neighborhoods; Promotes an increase in walking and bicycling throughout the City; Enhances the livability of Bozeman's residential developments; Maintains and enhances property values within Bozeman. Sec. 38.500.020. - Applicability and compliance. The provisions in this article apply to development. However, since each division within it addresses different design and development elements, the applicability of each division is clarified at the beginning of the division. For instance, some divisions may only apply to new commercial and multi-household development, while individual sections in division 38.540 only apply to specific housing types. Relationship to other codes and documents. Where provisions of this article conflict with provisions in any other section of the UDC, this article prevails unless otherwise noted. Relationship with other notable design provisions and guidelines: For sites within the city's established neighborhood conservation overlay district, the provisions of division 38.340 supersede the provisions of this article. However, the review authority may apply the provisions of this article in the event of a conflict, where the review authority determines that the provisions herein help new development better meet the purpose and intent of neighborhood conservation overlay district per section 38.340.010. Page 1 of 8Bozeman, MT Code of Ordinances 3/31/2020about:blank 229 2. B. 1. 2. a. The director of community development will maintain a design manual to illustrate best practices to implement the design standards of this chapter. The design manual is to assist citizens and design professionals by providing visuals and illustrative examples of the intent of the city's guidelines and regulations. For building additions and remodels, three different thresholds have been established to gauge how the project design standards in this article are applied to such projects. See figure 38.500.020 below for examples of site development and the respective types of improvements required under each of the three levels of improvements. Level I Improvements include all exterior remodels, building additions, and/or site improvements commenced within a three-year period (based on the date of permit issuance) that affect the exterior appearance of the building/site and/or increase the building's area by up to 20 percent. The requirement for such improvements is that the proposed improvements meet the standards and do not lead to further nonconformance with the standards. For example, if a property owner decides to replace a building façade's siding, then the siding must meet the applicable exterior building material standards, but elements such as building articulation (see section 38.530.040) would not be required. Level II Improvements include all improvements commenced within a three-year period (based on the date of permit issuance) that increase the building's area by more than 20 percent, but not greater than 50 percent. All standards that do not involve repositioning the building or reconfiguring site development apply to Level II Improvements. For example, if a property owner of an existing home in the B-2 zoning district wants to convert the home to an office and build an addition equaling 45 percent of the current building's area, then the following requirements apply: The location and design of the addition/remodel must be consistent with the block frontage standards (division 38.510), which address building frontages, entries, parking lot location, and front setback landscaping. For such developments seeking additions to buildings where off-street parking location currently Page 2 of 8Bozeman, MT Code of Ordinances 3/31/2020about:blank 230 b. c. d. 3. does not comply with applicable parking location standards, building additions are allowed, provided they do not increase any current nonconformity and generally bring the project closer into conformance with the standards (see division 38.550, Parking). Compliance with applicable site planning and design elements (division 38.520). Compliance with all building design provisions of division 38.530, except architectural scale and materials provisions related to the existing portion of the building where no exterior changes are proposed. The entire building must comply with building elements/details, materials, and blank wall treatment standards of section 38.540.070. Compliance with the off-street parking, landscaping, signage, and lighting provisions of divisions 38.550-580 that relate to proposed improvements. Level III Improvements include all improvements commenced within a three-year period (based on the date of permit issuance) that increase the building's area by more than 50 percent. Such developments must conform to all applicable standards. Site improvements are addressed in sections 38.230.150 and 38.230.160. Page 3 of 8Bozeman, MT Code of Ordinances 3/31/2020about:blank 231 Figure 38.500.020. Examples of site development and the respective types of improvements required under each of the three levels of improvements. Page 4 of 8Bozeman, MT Code of Ordinances 3/31/2020about:blank 232 A. 1. B. C. 1. (a) (b) (c) (d) Sec. 38.530.060. - Building materials. Intent. To encourage the use of durable materials to provide visual interest from vehicular and pedestrian vantage points with the highest priority at locations susceptible to damage from maintenance and weathering. Durable building materials.Applicants must use durable materials. Where façades are located directly adjacent to a city sidewalk, impact resistant materials must be used (excluding window and door areas) for a minimum of the first 18 inches above the walking surface. Special conditions and limitations for the use of certain cladding materials. Concrete block (a.k.a. CMU)when used as a primary cladding material, must be treated or articulated to provide visual interest above and beyond natural (uncolored, untreated) block with (matching) natural colored grout. Examples of such treatments include: using ground, polished or split face units; creating patterns/texture with different block sizes, face treatments, or colors; creating patterns/textures by modulating the finish plane of units; utilizing contrasting grout color; or utilizing sealers or painted treatments that enhance the finish of natural concrete block. Industrial zoning districts are exempt from subsection C. Page 5 of 8Bozeman, MT Code of Ordinances 3/31/2020about:blank 233 2. a. b. c. Figure 38.530.060.C.1. Acceptable concrete block use/design. Metal siding. Metal siding must be a minimum 24 gauge thickness. Re-purposed metal siding is exempt from minimum thickness requirements provided its material integrity is intact. Metal siding must feature appropriate molding, trim, or hemming at all exposed edges and corners. Metal siding must be factory finished, or alternately purposefully designed to naturally patina. Highly reflective galvanized finished are prohibited. Re-purposed or re-claimed metal siding is permitted. Page 6 of 8Bozeman, MT Code of Ordinances 3/31/2020about:blank 234 3. a. b. c. d. Figure 38.530.060.C.2. Acceptable metal siding examples. Standards for the use of exterior insulation and finish system (EIFS).Such material/finishes may be used as a decorative accent cladding material if it is incorporated with other permitted materials and it complies with the following: On buildings of three or more stories or 5,000 square feet in footprint or greater EIFS is limited to no more than 25 percent of the total façade area and is not the primary cladding material. On buildings of two stories or less or less than 5,000 square feet in footprint, EIFS is limited to 60 percent of the total façade area; Highly textured EIFS finishes are prohibited; EIFS must include an integrated joint or trim pattern; EIFS must not be used on the ground floor when directly adjacent to a sidewalk, pedestrian or vehicular pathway. Departures will be considered provided the material's integration and overall façade composition meets the intent of the standards. Page 7 of 8Bozeman, MT Code of Ordinances 3/31/2020about:blank 235 4. a. b. D. Figure 38.530.060.C.3. Acceptable and unacceptable EIFS examples. Cementitious wall board paneling/siding may be used provided it meets the following provisions: Cement board paneling/siding may not be used on the ground floor of non-residential or mixed-use buildings where adjacent to a sidewalk or other pedestrian path; Where cement board paneling/siding is the dominant siding material, the design must integrate a mix of colors and/or textures that are articulated consistent with windows, balconies, and modulated building surfaces and are balanced with façade details that add visual interest from the ground level and adjacent buildings. Departures will be considered provided the material's integration and overall façade composition meets the intent of the standards. Departures to building materials standards will be considered if they are determined to meet the intent of 38.530.060, Building Materials. Page 8 of 8Bozeman, MT Code of Ordinances 3/31/2020about:blank 236 Page 1 of 17 TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: BRIAN KRUEGER, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MANAGER RE: ARMORY HOTEL MODIFICATION TO APPROVED PLAN APPLICATION, 19410 DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 2020 Project Location: 24 West Mendenhall Street Bozeman, MT Project Description: Two phase site plan modification application for a hotel development on a 19,310 square foot site in the B-3 zoning district. Recommendation: Phase 1: Staff finds that Phase 1 of the application, except the 2nd and 3rd floor rooftop mechanical equipment locations and screening, does comply with the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and Phase 1 of the modification is sufficient for approval. Phase 2: The staff review finds that Phase 2 of the application does not comply with the requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code and Phase 2 of the modification is not sufficient for approval. Recommended motions: Phase 1: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff memorandum for application 19410 and move to recommend approval of Phase 1 of the application, except the 2nd and 3rd floor rooftop mechanical equipment locations and screening as described in the staff memorandum. Phase 2: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff memorandum for application 19410 and move to recommend denial of Phase 2 of the application. Background: The Armory Hotel developer has submitted an application to modify the final plan for the Armory Hotel Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Deviations application. The hotel development was approved in 2013 by the City Commission under Application Z13064, Armory Hotel. The final plan for the development was approved in December of 2014. The modification application was submitted on September 19, 2019 and deemed inadequate for review on November 14, 2019. Six additional revisions have been submitted in response to inadequacy determinations from the City. The application was deemed adequate for review on January 13, 2020. The original application approved by the City Commission was a Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations Application. It allowed the adaptive reuse of an existing building and the construction of an eight story, 102 room hotel, and associated site 237 Page 2 of 17 improvements including on premise consumption of alcohol. The property is located at 24 West Mendenhall Street, which is zoned B-3, Central Business District. This property is located outside of the Main Street Historic District, but is located within the Bozeman Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The intent and purpose of the conservation district is to stimulate the restoration and rehabilitation of structures contributing to the historic character of established residential neighborhoods and commercial areas. New construction will be invited and encouraged provided primary emphasis is given to the preservation of existing buildings. It is further the purpose of the conservation district designation to protect and enhance significant architectural character and historic landmarks for the education, cultural, economic benefit or enjoyment of the Bozeman citizens as articulated in Section 38.16.010 of the 2013 Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC). Adaptive reuse of historic structures is anticipated within the Bozeman Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The Bozeman Armory is one of 50 buildings individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places for the City of Bozeman. When determining a site or building’s quality of significance, the National Register evaluates using four criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Yield, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history. The Bozeman Armory embodies architectural, social, cultural, and historical significance at the national, state, and local level. The building is associated with social and historical events, including the Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal agenda and the Works Progress Administration program. The building is associated with the lives of persons, including the National Guard’s 163rd Infantry Regiment and architect Fred F. Willson. And finally, the building portrays a distinctive Art Deco architectural style and National Guard Armory method of construction. The other uses associated with the hotel include conference/event space, restaurants, and bars including on premises sales and consumption of alcohol. Parking was approved to be provided offsite in the downtown parking garage through a long term parking agreement. Loading zone only parking spaces are proposed along the Mendenhall Street frontage of the project. The majority of vehicular access to the site will occur at a valet station in front of the hotel that will facilitate the movement of vehicles from the loading spaces to the parking garage. Three deviations were granted from the Bozeman Municipal Code as follows for the project: 1. Section 38.10.050.B.1 BMC (2013) Minimum yards required in the B-3 district – No minimum yards prescribed for the B-3 district except a seven-foot front yard shall be required on Mendenhall and Babcock Streets. Deviation was requested to allow a new primary entrance canopy and a secondary 238 Page 3 of 17 entrance canopy along Mendenhall Street to extend 10’6 and 6’6 feet respectively beyond the property line towards the street curb. 2. Section 38.10.060.A.3 BMC (2013) Building Height Maximum building height for the B-3 commercial district outside of the core area is 70 feet. A deviation was requested to allow the maximum height of the hotel to extend up eight stories to 110 feet. 3. Section 38.23.150.D.7.b (2013) BMC requires that all outdoor lighting fixtures shall be shielded in such a manner that no light is emitted above a horizontal plane passing through the lowest point of the light emitting element, so that direct light emitted above the horizontal plane is eliminated. A deviation was requested to allow the use of the historic exterior building main entrance lights that do not comply with this standard. The application was approved with deviation number 2 above to allow a significant vertical addition to the Bozeman Armory that includes the majority of the project’s hotel rooms. The addition was approved as a rooftop addition to the Armory building set back significantly from the front façade. The tower is set back between 24 and 36 feet from the front façade, which reinforces the historic massing of the Armory along West Mendenhall Street. A pool was approved on top of the Armory building in front of the addition. The top of the addition provided a barrel roof shape to mimic the historic feature of the barrel vaulted roof over the gymnasium in the Armory building. The gymnasium space is now the ballroom of the hotel. Modification Application Process and Applicable Standards The changes to the project proposed for the site, singly or cumulatively, do not increase lot coverage by buildings, storage areas, parking areas or impervious surfaces and/or do not result in an increase in intensity of use as measured by parking requirements, traffic generation or other measurable off-site impacts by ten percent or more; as stated in section 38.230.160.C.2. BMC (2020). This application may be processed as a modification to approved plan and is not a significant alteration of the previous use and site that requires the submittal of a new application. For site plan modifications not requiring a new site plan application, the proposed changes are reviewed against the City standards in place at the time that the original application Z13064 received adequacy, which was May 1, 2013. Therefore, most proposed modifications will be evaluated using the 2013 Bozeman Municipal Code. One exception to this rule, which is applicable here, is that when the modification involves a building addition or remodel the current standards in 38.500.020 BMC (2020) regarding the applicability and compliance requirements for Article 5 of the Unified Development Code as related to project design apply. See 38.230.150.D. BMC (2020). Three different thresholds have been established to gauge how the project design standards in Article 5 are applied to different applications. Based upon the thresholds in 38.500.020 BMC (2020), this modification application is a Level I improvement. Level I improvements include all exterior remodels, building additions, and/or site improvements commenced within a three-year period (based on the date of permit issuance) that affect the exterior appearance of the building/site and/or increase the building's area by up to 20 percent. “The requirement for such improvements is that the proposed improvements meet the standards and do not lead to further nonconformance with the standards. For example, if a property owner decides to replace a building façade's siding, then the siding must meet the applicable exterior building material standards, but elements such as building articulation would not be required.” 38.500.020.B.1. BMC (2020). This modification application 239 Page 4 of 17 proposes changes to the exterior materials of the building and compliance with current Article 5 standards is required for building materials. The definition of development in BMC 38.700.050 is “Any manmade change to improve or alter real estate, including, but not limited to, subdivision of land, buildings or other structures, mining, filling, grading, paving, excavation, or drilling operations.” The Design Review Board (DRB) review thresholds provided in BMC 38.230.040.C are for developments that require design review. The proposed modification application is a manmade change to alter real estate. The modification application proposes changes to the entire building, interior and exterior. The Armory Hotel building meets the thresholds because it is more than four stories tall. See 38.230.040.C.3. BMC (2020). Therefore, the DRB is the proper design review advisory body and must conduct the design review for the application. The DRB must provide a recommendation to the Director of Community Development to approve or disapprove this modification application. The Director of Community Development has requested an additional public notice period for the modification application. The project site was posted and the adjoining property owners within 200 feet of this project were mailed a notification. The notice period is open from February 5 through February 27, 2020 and the city is accepting public comment on the application. The Director of Community Development is the review and decision authority for this modification application. Modifications Proposed Phase 1 and Findings This report is based on the application materials submitted to date. The overall recommendation for Phase 1, except 2nd and 3rd floor rooftop mechanical equipment locations and screening, is that the proposal is sufficient for approval. The proposed modifications in Phase 1 meet the applicable zoning standards in place as of May 1, 2013 including 38.16.050.A BMC (2013) Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness. The findings below support a recommendation that Phase 1, except 2nd and 3rd floor rooftop mechanical equipment locations and screening, is sufficient for approval. 1. The addition of 19 additional hotel guest rooms for a total of 121 hotel guest rooms. a. 3 hotel rooms are proposed to be added to the second floor; two additional rooms per floor are proposed to be added to floors 3-7, and floor 8 is proposed to add 6 rooms. The approved building included 102 guest rooms; the proposed modification is for a hotel that includes 121 guest rooms. b. The hotel room use is an allowed use in the B-3 zoning district. c. The updated parking calculations provide parking for the additional rooms. d. The spa uses were removed from the hotel’s second floor and replaced with rooms. e. The increase in hotel rooms meets standards for use and parking requirements. 2. The ballroom use was modified to include a stage and a serving bar. a. The historic stage in the Armory was to be removed in the approved final plan and include kitchen uses in that area. The stage is now proposed be rehabilitated in place. b. A serving bar is proposed directly adjacent to the ballroom floor. c. A second floor restaurant space serving the ballroom is eliminated and replaced with public event space. d. The ballroom use is accessory to the hotel. 240 Page 5 of 17 e. The updated parking calculations provide adequate parking for the changes to the ballroom and public event spaces. f. The alcohol service area is generally unchanged in relation to the public event space and ballroom areas. g. The modifications to the ballroom, bar, public event space and alcohol service areas related to these uses meet standards. 3. Remove stairs and outdoor terrace and add rooftop mechanical units on the second floor rooftop along the west elevation of the historic armory building. a. New mechanical unit locations on this floor are excluded from phase 1 approval due to non-compliance with the code. See discussion under phase 2 for mechanical equipment locations and screening findings. 4. Third level exterior terrace and pool replaced with rooftop mechanical units. a. The pool was relocated to a new ninth floor of the building. b. New mechanical unit locations on this floor are excluded from phase 1 approval due to non-compliance with the code. See discussion under phase 2 for mechanical equipment locations and screening findings. c. The outdoor terrace space was relocated to the ninth floor. d. Removing the outdoor terrace and pool from the 3rd floor rooftop of the Armory Building meets standards. 5. A new ninth floor is proposed for the building. a. A restaurant is proposed on the ninth floor with a kitchen, indoor and outdoor serving areas. b. Three elevators are proposed to extend up to the ninth floor to service this area. c. The outdoor terrace space is proposed to be outdoor serving areas. d. Alcohol service is proposed at this rooftop restaurant, indoors and outdoors, and the pool area. e. The building approved in application Z13064 was proposed at 107’6” at the top of the parapet and 102’8” at the top of roof. The building was approved eight stories tall and under the maximum 110’ granted under the height deviation. f. The proposed building is 112’ 4” at the top of the parapet. Parapets are allowed to extend four feet above the maximum height of the building. The top of roof framing is proposed a 105’ 3 3/4”. The building is proposed as nine stories tall and is under the maximum 110’ granted under the height deviation. g. The extra height to allow the ninth floor was achieved by reducing each floor height of the building within the addition. h. The building meets height requirements as allowed by code and as granted under the project deviation for application Z13064. i. Mechanical equipment is proposed on the ninth floor and is screened as required by a solid metal mechanical screen. j. The building meets parking and use requirements for the ninth floor. 241 Page 6 of 17 6. Minor changes to the floorplans occur throughout the building related to the types of hotel rooms, balconies, restaurant seating areas and kitchen areas, back of house operations, office, closets, stairs, storage areas, etc. as outlined in detail on pages six through eight of the applicant’s narrative and shown on the architectural plans A1.0-5. a. The multiple changes to the floorplans of this nature are minor and meet applicable standards related to parking and use. Modifications Proposed Phase 2 and Findings This report is based on the application materials submitted to date. The overall recommendation for Phase 2 is to not recommend approval. The proposed modifications in Phase 2 -- excepting the chevron treatment, ninth floor restaurant exterior, and pool and outdoor terrace glass guardrails on the ninth floor -- do not meet the applicable zoning standards in place as of May 1, 2013 including 38.16.050.A BMC (2013) Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness and are not sufficient for approval. The findings below support a recommendation for denial of Phase 2. 1. Remove stairs and outdoor terrace and add rooftop mechanical units on the second floor rooftop along the west elevation of the historic armory building. a. The proposed mechanical equipment screening has changed in size, material, and finish. The original approved plan included champagne metallic metal solid panels for mechanical screening that were full length and that were consistent with the proposed metal rain screen proposed on the building façade. The approved screening was integrated into the architectural design and the overall building material palette of the building. b. Proposed rooftop mechanical equipment screening: The perforated metal panels with metal backing proposed for rooftop mechanical screening do not screen the equipment per the requirements in 38.21.050.F BMC (2013) and the mechanical screening is not integrated into the roof form or architectural design of the building. (1) The mechanical screening does not provide continuous coverage of the equipment. A large gap is present between the screen and the roof through which the equipment can been seen from adjacent properties and the public way. (2) The screening does not meet the standards in 38.21.050.F. BMC (2013). 2. Third level rooftop mechanical units and screening added to area previously approved with pool and terrace. a. The proposed mechanical equipment screening has changed in size, material, and finish. The original approved plan included champagne metallic metal solid panels for mechanical screening that were full length and that were consistent with the proposed metal rain screen proposed on the building façade. The approved screening was integrated into the architectural design and the overall building material palette of the building. b. Proposed rooftop screening: The perforated metal panels with metal backing proposed for rooftop mechanical screening do not screen the equipment per the requirements in 242 Page 7 of 17 38.21.050.F BMC (2013) and the mechanical screening is not integrated into the roof form or architectural design of the building. (1) The mechanical screening does not provide continuous coverage of the equipment. A large gap is present between the screen and the roof through which the equipment can been seen from adjacent properties and the public way. (2) The screening does not meet the standards in 38.21.050.F. BMC (2013). 3. The exterior lighting package for the project is proposed to change fixtures, lighting types and intensities. a. The L6 fixture is proposed as an architectural accent light. (1) The proposed light spread is not directed towards an architectural element, but is directed towards an entire wall surface and is not in compliance with 38.23.150.D.7.a BMC (2013). (2) The L6 fixtures on the façade send light across the entire façade of the building. The light from each fixture as defined in footcandles overlaps on the façade and is not restricted to individual building architectural elements. The entire façade is illuminated, which is not in conformance with 38.23.150.D.7.a. BMC (2013). (3) The L6 fixtures in combination with the L18 fixtures illuminate the entire façade of the Armory building, in violation of 38.23.150.D.7.a. BMC (2013). b. The L18 fixture is proposed as a changing color accent light. (1) Pursuant to 38.23.150.D.7.h. BMC (2013), lights that flash, move, revolve, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker, vary in intensity or color, or use intermittent electrical pulsation are prohibited. (2) The L18 fixture is proposed to vary in color, which is not in conformance with 38.23.150D.7.h. BMC (2013). (3) Pursuant to 38.23.150.D.7.a. BMC (2013), all outdoor lighting shall be aimed, located, designed, fitted and maintained so as to present a hazard to drivers or pedestrians by impairing their ability to safely traverse and so as not to create a nuisance by projecting or reflecting objectionable light onto a neighboring use or property. (4) The changing colored lighting will reflect onto neighboring residential uses and present a hazard to drivers as it will direct driver attention away from the roadway and onto the building. The Mendenhall Street right of way is approximately sixty feet wide. The adjacent buildings in this vicinity are placed close to the street. The Armory building is constructed adjacent to the street. The significant numbers of exterior lights on the Armory building and addition that are proposed to be projected onto the building will reflect off of the building onto adjacent properties. Adjacent residential and office uses exist within the vicinity. The significant number of lights proposed to project onto the Armory building may have objectionable light projected onto neighboring properties or uses. Drivers will pass by this building at a close distance. The proposed colored lighting is on the Armory building and addition. The driver’s attention will be directed away from the street onto the colored building. Therefore, 243 Page 8 of 17 the proposed modification does not meet the requirements of 38.23.150.D.7.a. BMC (2013). (5) Pursuant to 38.23.150.D.7.g. BMC (2013), lighting shall not be used to illuminate buildings or other site features unless approved as an integral architectural element on the development plan. On-site lighting may be used to accent architectural elements but not to illuminate entire portions of buildings. Where accent lighting is used, the maximum illumination on any vertical surface shall not exceed 5.0 average maintained footcandles. Building façade and accent lighting shall not be approved unless the light fixtures are carefully selected, located, aimed and shielded so that light is directed only onto the building façade and spillover light is eliminated. (6) The L18 architectural accent lighting is not an integral architectural element on the development plan, which is not in compliance with 38.23.150.D.7.g. BMC (2013). (7) The L18 lighting does not accent architectural elements, but illuminates entire portions of buildings, contrary to the requirements of 38.23.150.D.7.g. BMC (2013). (8) The L18 fixtures on the façade send light across the entire façade of the building. The light from each fixture, as defined in footcandles, overlaps on the façade, exceeds 5.0 average maintained footcandles, and is not restricted to individual building architectural elements. The entire façade is illuminated. The L18 fixtures in combination with the L6 fixtures illuminate the entire façade of the Armory building, which does not comply with the requirements of 38.23.150.D.7.g. BMC (2013). (9) The L18 colored lighting proposed on the Armory building is not in conformance to the Secretary of the Interior standards for Historic Preservation. See findings below for Certificate of Appropriateness criteria. c. The L19 color light fixture is proposed as a changing color accent light. (1) Pursuant to 38.23.150.D.7.h. BMC (2013), lights that flash, move, revolve, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker, vary in intensity or color, or use intermittent electrical pulsation are prohibited. (2) The L19 fixture is proposed to vary in color, which is not in conformance with 38.23.150D.7.h. BMC (2013). (3) Pursuant to 38.23.150.D.7.a. BMC (2013), all outdoor lighting shall be aimed, located, designed, fitted and maintained so as to present a hazard to drivers or pedestrians by impairing their ability to safely traverse and so as not to create a nuisance by projecting or reflecting objectionable light onto a neighboring use or property. (4) The changing color lighting is not aimed, located, designed, fitted and maintained so as not to present a hazard to drivers or pedestrians by impairing their ability to safely traverse and so as not to create a nuisance by projecting or reflecting objectionable light onto a neighboring use or property. The Mendenhall Street right of way is approximately sixty feet wide. The adjacent buildings in this vicinity are placed close to the street. The Armory building is constructed adjacent to the street. The significant numbers of exterior lights on the Armory building and addition that are 244 Page 9 of 17 proposed to be projected onto the building will reflect off of the building onto adjacent properties. Adjacent residential and office uses exist within the vicinity. The significant number of lights proposed to project onto the Armory building may have objectionable light projected onto neighboring properties or uses. Drivers will pass by this building at a close distance. The proposed colored lighting is on the Armory building and addition. The driver’s attention will be directed away from the street onto the colored building. Therefore, the proposed modification does not meet the requirements of 38.23.150.D.7.a. BMC (2013). d. The L19 10 degree fixture is proposed as an architectural accent light. (1) Pursuant to 38.23.150.D.7.g. BMC (2013), lighting shall not be used to illuminate buildings or other site features unless approved as an integral architectural element on the development plan. On-site lighting may be used to accent architectural elements but not to illuminate entire portions of buildings. Where accent lighting is used, the maximum illumination on any vertical surface shall not exceed 5.0 average maintained foot candles. Building façade and accent lighting shall not be approved unless the light fixtures are carefully selected, located, aimed and shielded so that light is directed only onto the building façade and spillover light is eliminated. (2) The architectural accent lighting is not an integral architectural element on the development plan, contrary to the requirements of 38.23.150.D.7.g. BMC (2013). (3) The lighting does not accent architectural elements, but illuminates entire portions of buildings, contrary to the requirements of 38.23.150.D.7.g. BMC (2013). (4) The L19 10 degree fixtures on the façade send light across the entire façade of the building. The light from each fixture, as defined in footcandles, overlaps on the façade and is not restricted to individual building architectural elements. The entire façade is illuminated, which does not comply with the requirements of 38.23.150.D.7.g. BMC (2013). e. The L21 fixture is proposed as an architectural accent light. (1) Pursuant to 38.23.150.D.7.g. BMC (2013), lighting shall not be used to illuminate buildings or other site features unless approved as an integral architectural element on the development plan. On-site lighting may be used to accent architectural elements but not to illuminate entire portions of buildings. Where accent lighting is used, the maximum illumination on any vertical surface shall not exceed 5.0 average maintained footcandles. Building façade andaccent lighting shall not be approved unless the light fixtures are carefully selected, located, aimed and shielded so that light is directed only onto the building façade and spillover light is eliminated. (2) The proposed light spread is not directed towards an architectural element, but is directed towards an entire wall surface and is not be in compliance with 38.23.150.D.7.a. BMC (2013). (3) The L21 fixtures on the façade send light across the entire façade of the building. The light from each fixture as defined in foot candles overlaps on the façade and is not 245 Page 10 of 17 restricted to individual building architectural elements. The entire façade is illuminated not in conformance with 38.23.150.D.7.a. BMC (2013). (4) The L19 10 degree fixtures in combination with the L21 fixtures illuminate the entire façade of the Armory building, which does not comply with the requirements of 38.23.150.D.7.g. BMC (2013). f. The L28 Canopy light is shown surface mounted on the building on both sides of an exit door and on exterior walls on the ninth floor. (1) The L28 fixtures are exterior lighting that include an exposed lens. The cutsheet provided shows a lens that is not flush with the exterior of the fixture as required per 38.23.150.F.1. BMC (2013). (2) The fixture is not mounted so that horizontal light is eliminated from a 90 degree plane, which is not in compliance with 38.23.150.D.7.b. BMC (2013). (3) The fixtures do not comply with BMC 38.23.150.F which requires that fixtures meet “full-cutoff” criteria and that in all fixtures, the light source and associated lenses shall not protrude below the edge of the light fixture, and shall not be visible from adjacent streets or properties. g. The lighting plans, details, and proposed lighting fixtures and luminaries as described above do not meet standards and are not sufficient for approval. h. Fixtures L7, L17, L23, L24, D15 and M1(4) conform to standards in 38.23.150.BMC (2013). (1) While the above listed fixtures and fixture locations may be approved they are included with Phase 2 and the fixtures are part of an overall photometric plan proposed for Phase 2 in which they cannot easily be separated from the noncompliant fixtures. Phase 2 overall does not comply with standards and is not sufficient for approval. Fixtures L7, L17, L23, L24, D15 and M1(4) could be approved if provided in a new photometric plan excluding the noncompliant fixtures. 4. The exterior building materials for the building are proposed to change. a. The exterior siding building materials for the addition to the Armory are proposed to change. The primary approved palette of champagne metallic rainscreen, taupe limestone plaster, and perforated brushed stainless steel panels are to be replaced with a singular siding material in three colors. The proposed siding is a synthetic insulating finishing system known as TAFS. TAFS is a textured acrylic finish siding product that can be applied over multiple substrates. TAFS is an exterior insulation and finishing system. (1) The proposed change to the approved exterior siding materials as described above does not meet current standards and are not sufficient for approval. See findings under Certificate of Appropriateness and Article 5 of the BMC criteria below for findings to support denial of the proposed exterior TAFS siding materials. b. The restaurant on the ninth floor is new and it is proposed with a shed roof and is to be mostly glass windows with a black metal fascia and soffit. Small areas of wood siding are proposed below the windows. A stone outdoor fireplace is proposed adjacent to the 246 Page 11 of 17 outdoor terrace seating area. A glass guardrail is proposed around the outdoor terrace seating area and the ninth floor pool. (1) This restaurant addition exterior, outdoor seating area and pool area, and guardrails are subordinate to the primary roof form of the building and parapet at the front of the addition and comply with Certificate of Appropriateness standards. (2) This restaurant addition exterior remains set back from the Armory building and is consistent with the overall design of the addition and complies with Certificate of Appropriateness standards. (3) The materials on the restaurant addition exterior and guardrails are appropriate to standards and are subordinate to the overall siding materials proposed for the addition and comply with Certificate of Appropriateness standards. (4) The restaurant addition exterior, terrace and seating areas, and guardrails do meet standards and are sufficient for approval. While the restaurant addition, terrace and seating areas, and guardrails may be approved it is included with Phase 2. Phase 2 overall does not comply with standards and is not sufficient for approval. The restaurant addition exterior, terrace and seating areas, and guardrails could be approved if configured in another manner within the application. c. The art deco markings on the Armory building are proposed to change. The chevrons within the board formed concrete on the Armory building were approved to be infilled with brushed aluminum strips. The Armory Hotel CUP COA DEV Application Z13064 approved final plan included the document entitled “Armory Hotel Historic Building Elements” that includes a section on “Chevrons and Other Art Deco Details” wherein the proposed treatment of the art deco chevrons and other art deco details are described. The proposed treatment with the modification is to not infill the brushed aluminum strips. (1) The proposed change to the approved treatment of the Armory building’s chevrons as described above do meet standards and are sufficient for approval. See findings under Certificate of Appropriateness for findings to support approval of the proposed chevron treatment. While the chevron treatment may be approved it is included with Phase 2. Phase 2 overall does not comply with standards and is not sufficient for approval. The chevron treatment could be approved if configured in another manner within the application. 5. The windows in the Armory building are proposed to change. a. The replacement windows on the Armory building are proposed to be changed from the previously approved windows which preserved the general appearance of the historic windows to the proposed windows that do not retain the appearance and decorative elements of the original windows. The windows proposed for the Armory building do not include muntins on the exterior of the windows that break up the window into panes as had historically existed in the Armory building windows. b. The modification narrative states that muntins were never proposed on the Armory building replacement windows on the exterior of the window. However, the Armory Hotel CUP COA DEV Application Z13064 approved final plan included the document 247 Page 12 of 17 entitled “Armory Hotel Historic Building Elements” that includes a section on “Windows and Doors of the Armory.” That document includes a cross section through the proposed windows for the Armory that includes muntins on both sides of the replacement windows in order to provide a similar appearance to the historic windows in design and pane dimensions. Cross Section 2 in the exhibit for this section in the original approval shows the proposed muntins on both sides of the window. c. The proposed change to the approved windows as described above do not meet standards and are not sufficient for approval. See findings under Certificate of Appropriateness criteria below for findings to support denial of the proposed windows. Certificate of Appropriateness Findings Phase 2 a. 38.16.050.A. BMC (2013) Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness, states, “All work performed in completion of an approved certificate of appropriateness shall be in conformance with the most recent edition of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (published 1995). The following page references and topics and statements are from the 1995 document. Findings on the proposed modifications follow each section. The project modifications, excepting the chevron treatment, as proposed do not comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards or the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, 1995 (“SOI Standards”). Findings are provided on the applicable provisions below. Page 82. Rehabilitation. Building Exterior Windows. Identifying, retaining, and preserving windows and their functional and decorative features—that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. Such features can include frames, sash, muntins, glazing, sills heads, hoodmolds, paneled or decorated jambs and moldings, and interior and exterior shutters and blinds. As noted above, the proposed windows on the Armory building modification are not in conformance to the approved final plan for the project. The Armory Hotel CUP COA DEV Application Z13064 approved final plan included the document entitled “Armory Hotel Historic Building Elements” that includes a section on “Windows and Doors of the Armory.” That document includes a cross section through the proposed windows for the Armory that includes muntins on both sides of the replacement windows in order to provide a similar appearance to the historic windows in design and pane dimensions. Cross Section 2 in the exhibit for this section shows the proposed muntins on both sides of the window. The proposal to provide no muntins on the exterior of the windows does not comply with the SOI Standards. The windows are a character defining feature of the Armory building. The proposed windows do not retain or preserve the functional and decorative features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. The proposed windows for the Armory building do not meet the SOI standards and therefore are impermissible under 38.16.050A. BMC (2013). 248 Page 13 of 17 Page 100. Rehabilitation. Building Interior Mechanical Systems. Installing a completely new mechanical system if required for the new use so that it causes the least alteration possible to the building’s floor plan, the exterior elevation and the least damage to the historic building material. The proposed modifications to the Armory building locate a large amount of rooftop mechanical units on the historic Armory building roof and the required screening does not cause the least alteration possible to the floor plan as well as the exterior elevation of the historic Armory building. The addition of mechanical systems on top of the Armory building impact the historic appearance of the building and do not comply with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. The proposed mechanical units are a completely new mechanical system required for the new use. The proposed locations of the 2nd and 3rd floor rooftop mechanical unit locations and screening do not meet the SOI standards nor the requirements of 38.16.050A. BMC (2013). Page 122 Rehabilitation. Exterior Masonry: concrete. Protecting and maintaining masonry by providing proper drainage so that water does not stand on flat, horizontal surfaces or accumulate in decorative features. The art deco markings on the Armory building are proposed to change. The chevrons within the board formed concrete on the Armory building were approved to be infilled with brushed aluminum strips. The Armory Hotel CUP COA DEV Application Z13064 approved final plan included the document entitled “Armory Hotel Historic Building Elements” that includes a section on “Chevrons and Other Art Deco Details” wherein the proposed treatment of the art deco chevrons and other art deco details are described. The proposed treatment with the modification is to not infill the brushed aluminum strips. The rationale provided in the application is that the infill metal strips, if installed, would not have allowed proper drainage of the chevrons and might have impacted the historic concrete exterior surface of the Armory building. The proposed treatment to not infill the chevrons is in compliance with the SOI standards and is therefore allowable under 38.16.050A. BMC (2013). b. 38.16.050.B and D. BMC (2013) Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness. The 2006 Bozeman Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District are the guidelines referenced and implementing these code sections. When reviewing a contemporary, non-period or innovative design of new structures or addition to existing structures, the review authority shall be guided by the design guidelines for the neighborhood conservation overlay district to determine whether the proposal is compatible with any existing or surrounding structures. The following page references and topics and statements are from the 2006 document. Staff comments on the proposed modifications follow each section. Page 26. C. Individual Building Features. Guidelines. 1. Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins, mullions, glazing, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation and grouping of windows. 249 Page 14 of 17 The proposal to provide no muntins on the exterior of the Armory building windows is inconsistent with this guideline. The muntins are a functional and decorative feature of the windows. The windows are a character defining feature of the Armory building. The proposed windows in the Armory building do not meet this guideline. Page 27. C. Individual Building Features. Guidelines. 6. In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original. Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character-defining facades. However, a substitute material may be considered if the appearance of the window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish. The proposal to provide no muntins on the exterior of the Armory building windows is inconsistent with this guideline. The muntins are a critical component of the original windows design and provide a distinct appearance and profile. The proposal to not provide muntins on the exterior of the windows does not match the window profile of the original windows in the Armory building. The proposed windows do not match the appearance of the original window components with a muntin separating each glass pane of the windows. The proposed windows in the Armory building do not meet this guideline. Page 35. Additions to Commercial Properties. Guidelines. 11. An addition should be compatible in scale, materials and character with the main building. The proposed exterior building materials of the building addition are not compatible with the character of the Armory building. The Armory building is constructed in the Art Deco style. The primary building materials of that style are smooth finish natural building materials such as stucco, concrete, smooth faced stone and terracotta. Stainless steel and aluminum were often used alongside glass blocks. Decorative details can incorporate various motifs to suit the building's function or the architect's whim. Chevrons, zigzags, and other geometrical motifs are common forms of ornament on Art Deco style buildings usually inlaid with other materials. The approved elevations and material palette included compatible building materials for the addition: smooth champagne metallic rain screen, smooth limestone plaster stucco, perforated brushed stainless steel panels with motifs, inlaid stainless steel strips within the chevron and other motifs on the Armory building. The proposed three color TAFS provided two surfaces that are rough in texture, that are synthetic in appearance, and that are not compatible with the Art Deco style. The proposed exterior TAFS siding materials are not in compliance with this guideline. Page 50. H. Materials. Guidelines. 1. Use building materials that appear similar to those used traditionally in the area. A large expanse of TAFS on a building downtown is inconsistent with this guideline. The proposed siding is a synthetic insulating finishing system known as TAFS. TAFS is a textured acrylic finish siding product that can be applied over multiple substrates. TAFS is not a building material that appears similar to those used traditionally in the area. The traditional building materials in the area are brick masonry, stone masonry, steel, and concrete. The proposed exterior TAFS siding materials are not in compliance with this guideline. 250 Page 15 of 17 Page 50. H. Materials. Guidelines. 3. New materials that are similar in character to traditional materials may be acceptable with appropriate detailing. Alternative materials should appear similar in scale, proportion, texture and finish to those used traditionally. A large expanse of TAFS on a building downtown is not in compliance with this guideline. The primary building materials of the Art Deco style are smooth finish natural building materials such as stucco, concrete, smooth faced stone and terracotta. The proposed siding is a synthetic insulating finishing system known as TAFS. TAFS is a textured acrylic finish siding product that can be applied over multiple substrates. TAFS is not a building material that appears similar in character to traditional materials. The scale, proportion, texture and finish of TAFS as proposed as a primary building material is not in character with traditional materials downtown. The proposed exterior TAFS siding materials are not in compliance with this guideline. Page 50. H. Materials. Guidelines. 4. Use building materials that contribute to the traditional sense of the scale of the block. This will reinforce the sense of visual continuity in the district. The TAFS material on a building addition of this size, seven stories, is not consistent with this guideline. The TAFS material does not contribute to the traditional sense of scale of the block and does not reinforce the sense of visual continuity in the district. Most buildings in the district and in the vicinity of the block where the Armory building is located are brick masonry, smooth finish concrete, stucco and other natural building materials that have fine detailing and ornamentation. TAFS is a rough textured product that provides a singular monotone appearance over its surface. The joints provided in TAFS appear to not replicate the fine detailing seen in masonry buildings and concrete buildings in the vicinity. The proposed exterior TAFS siding materials are not in compliance with this guideline. Because the proposed Armory building windows and TAFS material do not meet several of the guidelines, as outlined above, they do not comply with the requirements 38.16.050.B. and D. BMC (2013) and must be denied. Compliance with Art. 5 of the UDC - Findings. As discussed above on page three of this memorandum, when the modification involves a building addition or remodel the current standards in 38.500.020 BMC (2020) regarding the applicability and compliance requirements for Article 5 of the Unified Development Code as related to project design apply. This application is being reviewed under the Amendments to plans section in 38.230.150. BMC (2020). Subsection D. of this section states “For building additions and/or remodels to all existing development, except single to four-household dwellings in any configuration, see section 38.500.020.B to determine how the design standards within article 5 are applied.” Section 38.500.020.B. BMC (2020), in turn, provides three different thresholds to gauge how Article 5 provisions apply to an application. This modification application is a level I improvement that affects the exterior appearance of the building/site and/or increases the building’s area up to 20 percent. The requirement for such improvements is that the proposed improvements meet the 251 Page 16 of 17 standards and do not lead to further nonconformance with the standards. For example, if a property owner decides to replace a building façade's siding, then the siding must meet the applicable exterior building material standards, but elements such as building articulation (see section 38.530.040 BMC (2020)) would not be required to meet standards. The approved exterior siding is proposed to be modified in this application. The proposed siding must meet the following current standard: BMC 38.530.060.C.3. Standards for the use of exterior insulation and finish system (EIFS). Such material/finishes may be used as a decorative accent cladding material if it is incorporated with other permitted materials and it complies with the following: a. On buildings of three or more stories or 5,000 square feet in footprint or greater EIFS is limited to no more than 25 percent of the total façade area and is not the primary cladding material. On buildings of two stories or less or less than 5,000 square feet in footprint, EIFS is limited to 60 percent of the total façade area; b. Highly textured EIFS finishes are prohibited; c. EIFS must include an integrated joint or trim pattern; d. EIFS must not be used on the ground floor when directly adjacent to a sidewalk, pedestrian or vehicular pathway. Departures will be considered provided the material’s integration and overall façade composition meets the intent of the standards. The proposed use of TAFS in this application does not comply with this standard. TAFS is an exterior insulation and finishing system. 1. The Armory hotel is more than three stories and EIFS is limited to not more than 25 percent of the total façade area and may not be the primary cladding material. 2. The TAFS proposed is an EIFS. 3. The TAFS is not a decorative accent cladding material. Rather, the TAFS is proposed as the primary exterior building siding material. 4. The TAFS exceeds 25 percent of the total facade area and is proposed as the primary cladding material. 5. Two of the proposed TAFS surfaces are proposed with a highly textured finish. 6. Because of the proposed extensive use of EIFS on the entire building, including some prohibited highly textured EIFS, the proposed modification does not qualify for a departure because it doesn’t meet the express intent of the standards. The proposed exterior siding materials do not meet the standards in 530.060.C.3. BMC (2020). A large area of TAFS on a building does not meet the intent of the building materials section in 38.530.060 BMC (2020). TAFS is not a durable material that provides visual interest from vehicular and pedestrian vantage points. TAFS is susceptible to damage from maintenance and weathering in the Bozeman climate. The freeze and thaw cycles in Bozeman winters make this material susceptible to failure. 252 Page 17 of 17 Further, a large area of TAFS on a building does not meet the intent of the building character section in 38.530.030 BMC (2020). 1. To promote regionally appropriate architecture that is based on human scaled design details, durable high quality materials, sustainable design measures, and that responds uniquely to the site's context. TAFS is not a human scaled material unless integrated with other more detailed high quality materials. TAFS can have a shortened lifespan in this climate. TAFS has shown itself to not be a durable material in Bozeman. TAFS in this project does not respond uniquely to the site’s context as outlined in the findings regarding the Certificate of Appropriateness criteria above. 2. To emphasize high quality design in Bozeman's built environment. TAFS is a material that does not represent the high quality design downtown that can be seen on other buildings that integrate multiple building materials, material detailing, and architectural interest including the use of brick masonry, stone, steel, and architectural concrete such as board formed concrete. 3. To avoid generic, corporate architectural designs that are not readily reusable or convert to another use that lessens the character and identity of Bozeman. For example, some franchise convenience uses have very specific architectural features (such as a distinctive roofline design that functions as a sign) that reinforce their identity. While TAFS in this application is not a generic or corporate architectural design, the use of TAFS on the Armory addition lessens the character and identity of Bozeman by inserting a large amount of this material into the downtown area where the material is not a design tradition and is not represented on a large scale anywhere else downtown along the street frontages. The City of Bozeman Planning Division received a response from the Engineering Division that they did not have comments on the proposed modifications. No comments were provided from the Engineering Division. Attachments: 19410 Application and Documents 19410 Plans 19410 Color and Material Palette Z13064 Approved Final Plans Z13064 DRB Staff Report 253