Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout21204 N 3rd Duplexes FINAL signed Staff Report N. 3rd Duplexes Application 21204 September 2, 2021 Page 1 of 18 Application No. 21204 Type Site Plan Project Name N. 3rd Duplexes Summary A Site Plan and COA application for demolition for an existing residential building and the construction of two, 2-household units and associated parking and infrastructure. Zoning R-4 Growth Policy Urban Neighborhood Parcel Size 11,532 square feet Overlay District(s) Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) Street Address 302 N 3rd Ave Legal Description Bealls 3rd Add, S07, T02 S, R06 E, Block 8, Tract 8 Owner 302 Partners LLC, 2066 Stadium DR STE 101, Bozeman, MT 59715 Applicant Doug Minarik, 618 N Wallace, Bozeman, MT 59715 Representative NA Staff Planner Lynn Hyde Engineer Alicia Paz-Solis Noticing Public Comment Period Site Posted Adjacent Owners Newspaper Legal Ad 8/16/2021 to 8/31/2021 8/15/2021 8/16/2021 N/A Advisory Boards Board Date Recommendation Development Review Committee The application is adequate, conforms to standards, and is sufficient for approval with conditions and code provisions Recommendation Sufficient for approval with conditions and code provisions. Decision Authority Director of Community Development Date 9/9/21 Full application and file of record: Community Development Department, 20 E. Olive St., Bozeman, MT 59715 Staff Report N. 3rd Duplexes Application 21204 September 2, 2021 Page 2 of 18 FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPEAL PROVISIONS CERTIFICATE A) PURSUANT to Chapter 38, Article 2, Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC), and other applicable sections of Ch.38, BMC, public notice was given, opportunity to submit comment was provided to affected parties, and a review of the Site Plan described in this report was conducted. The applicant proposed to the City a Site Plan (SP) to permit demolition for an existing residential building and the construction of two, 2-household units with associated parking and infrastructure. Each of the units has a garage or storage building, two of which are detached and two area attached. The purposes of the Site Plan review were to consider all relevant evidence relating to public health, safety, welfare, and the other purposes of Ch. 38, BMC; to evaluate the proposal against the criteria of Sec. 38.230.100 BMC, and the standards of Ch. 38, BMC; and to determine whether the application should be approved, conditionally approved, or denied. B) It appeared to the Director that all parties and the public wishing to examine the proposed Site Plan and offer comment were provided the opportunity to do so. After receiving the recommendation of the relevant advisory bodies established by Ch. 38, Art. 210, BMC, and considering all matters of record presented with the application and during the public comment period defined by Ch. 38, BMC, the Director has found that the proposed Site Plan would comply with the requirements of the BMC if certain conditions were imposed. Therefore, being fully advised of all matters having come before them regarding this application, the Director makes the following decision. C) The Site Plan has been found to meet the criteria of Ch. 38, BMC, and is therefore approved, subject to the conditions listed in this report and the correction of any elements not in conformance with the standards of the Title. The evidence contained in the submittal materials, advisory body review, public testimony, and this report, justifies the conditions imposed on this development to ensure that the Site Plan complies with all applicable regulations, and all applicable criteria of Ch. 38, BMC. On this _9th_ day of _September___, 2021, Martin Matsen, Director of Community Development, approved with conditions this Site Plan for and on behalf of the City of Bozeman as authorized by Sec. 38.200.010, BMC. D) This Director of Community Development’s project decision may be appealed by filing a documented appeal with and paying an appeal fee to the Clerk of the Commission for the City of Bozeman within 10 working days after the date of the final decision as evidenced by the Director’s signature, following the procedures of Sec. 38.250.030, BMC. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Please note that these conditions are in addition to any required code provisions identified in this report. Additional conditions of approval and code corrections are required and will be included with the final report provided to the Director of Community Development 1. The Applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. 2. The Cash-in-lieu Water Rights contribution must be paid to the City in full prior to final plan approval. 3. The cash donation in lieu (CIL) request must be approved by the Recreation Parks Advisory Board (RPAB). Final RPAB recommendation of CIL must be received and the amount paid in full to the City prior to final plan approval. 4. Executed original utility easements must be submitted to the City prior to final plan approval. Staff Report N. 3rd Duplexes Application 21204 September 2, 2021 Page 3 of 18 5. The applicant must provide and file with the County Clerk and Recorder's office executed Waivers of Right to Protest Creation of Special Improvement Districts (SID’s) on City standard form for the following: a. Street improvements to Beall St between N 7th Ave and N Rouse Ave including lighting, signalization, paving, curb/gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage. b. Street improvements to Peach St between N 7th Ave and N Rouse Ave including lighting, signalization, paving, curb/gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage. c. Street improvements to Mendenhall St between N 7th Ave and N Rouse Ave including lighting, signalization, paving, curb/gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage. d. Street improvements to N 3rd Ave between Peach St and Mendenhall St including lighting, signalization, paving, curb/gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage. The document filed must specify that in the event an SID is not utilized for the completion of these improvements, the developer agrees to participate in an alternate financing method for the completion of the improvements on a fair share, proportionate basis as determined by square footage of property, taxable valuation of the property, traffic contribution from the development, or a combination thereof. The applicant must provide a copy of the filed SID waiver prior to the final plan approval. Staff Report N. 3rd Duplexes Application 21204 September 2, 2021 Page 4 of 18 Figure 1: Current Zoning Map Staff Report N. 3rd Duplexes Application 21204 September 2, 2021 Page 5 of 18 Figure 2: Future Land Use Map Staff Report N. 3rd Duplexes Application 21204 September 2, 2021 Page 6 of 18 Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan Staff Report N. 3rd Duplexes Application 21204 September 2, 2021 Page 7 of 18 Figure 4: Landscaping Plans Staff Report N. 3rd Duplexes Application 21204 September 2, 2021 Page 8 of 18 Figures 5: Conceptual Renderings Proposed South Elevations. From W Beall St. Proposed West Elevations – From N 3rd Ave. Staff Report N. 3rd Duplexes Application 21204 September 2, 2021 Page 9 of 18 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Analysis and resulting recommendations 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. Plan Review, Section 38.230.100, BMC In considering applications for plan approval under this title, the Director of Community Development shall consider the following: 1. Conformance with Article 1 - Consistency with the City’s adopted Growth Policy 38.100.040.D Meets Code? Growth Policy Land Use Urban Neighborhood Yes Zoning R-4 (Residential High Density) Yes Comments: Growth Policy: The Urban Neighborhood District ‘primarily includes urban density homes in a variety of types, shapes, sizes, and intensities. Large areas of any single type of housing are discouraged. . . The Urban Neighborhood designation indicates that development is expected to occur within municipal boundaries.’ This proposed project is consistent with the growth policy by a small infill development of a greater density. This project is replacing a single family home with four units in close proximity to services. Zoning: The intent of the R-4 (Residential High Density) District is to ‘provide for high-density residential development through a variety of compatible housing types and residentially supportive commercial uses in a geographically compact walkable area to serve the varying needs of the community’s residents. These purposes are accomplished by (1) Providing for a mixture of housing types, including single and multi-household dwellings to serve the varying needs of the community’s residents. . . ‘. The proposal is supporting the intent through the multi-household units in a geographically central location. The location is adjacent to commercial and residential districts. The site is less than a quarter of a mile to Main Street and even closer to many amenities. 2. Conformance with Article 1 - All other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations (38.100.080) Condominium ownership NA Comments: At this time condominium ownership is not proposed, however the project, including building placement, open space, and parking areas, has been designed that should the owner chose to in the future, the property could be divided up into condominium ownership. 3. Conformance with Article 2, including the cessation of any current violations (38.200.160) Meets Code? Current Violations NA Comments: There are no current violations associated with this property or development. 4. Conformance with Article 2 - Submittal material (38.220) requirements and plan review for applicable permit types (38.230) Meets Code? Site Plan Yes, with standard conditions Submittal requirements 38.220.100 Yes Phasing of development 38.230.020.B No. of phases: NA Yes Staff Report N. 3rd Duplexes Application 21204 September 2, 2021 Page 10 of 18 Comments: No phasing is proposed. The application meets the Site Plan requirements with standard conditions applied. Any additional use permit (Conditional Use Permit) 38.230.120 or (Special use Permit) 38.230.120 NA Comments: No additional permits (i.e., Conditional Use permit or Special Use Permit) are required. 5. Conformance with Article 3 - Zoning Provisions (38.300) Meets Code? Permitted uses 38.310 Two- household dwelling Yes Form and intensity standards 38.320 Zoning: B-3 Setbacks (feet) Required Structures Proposed Parking / Loading Yes Front: 15’ 15’ NA Rear: 20’ 20’ NA Side: 5’ 5’ NA Alley: 5’ (or 8’ where parking proposed) 5’ for building 8’ where parking is proposed Comments: The project meets the zoning provisions as well as the supplemental use criteria outlined in Division 38.360.220. The project location is on a corner lot, thus the duplexes face both N 3rd Ave as well as W Beall St. and require the 15’ front yard setback on both sides. The project is meeting these dual front yard setbacks. The applicant proposed the property line on the north side as the rear lot with the 20’ setback and the property line facing the alley to the east as the side yard setback with the 5’ setback. The 20’ setback adjacent to the property to the north provides additional buffer between this proposed multi-family project and the adjacent residential to the north. There are two accessory structures proposed in the rear yard setback, which is allowed, and they have been setback 6’ as required for accessory buildings pursuant 38.360.030. The project proposes access from the alley on the east side of the property. The alley provides access to parking for two of the units (two spaces in garages and two spaces in the driveway for Unit C and D). Pursuant BMC 38.540.020.D Backing requirements. All required parking must have adequate back-up maneuverability as specified in Table 38.540.020. The aisle width calculation may incorporate the width of the public right of way (in this case the alley). The alley is 16’ wide, thus in order to meet the 24’ equivalent aisle width, an additional 8’ is necessary for the parking spots or garages to be setback. This 8’ setback has been provided where parking is proposed for Unit Ds garage and Unit D and Unit Cs off-street parking spaces. Lot coverage Proposed 37% Allowed: Maximum 50% Yes Building height Proposed 24’4” Allowed: Maximum 40’ (<3:12 pitch) Yes Comments: The proposal is consistent with the lot coverage and building height limits. Applicable zone specific or overlay standards 38.330-40 NA Comments: The project does not fall within a historic district, but is located within an overlay district with specific provisions and standards. It is located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD). The NCOD standards are discussed in Section 11 and 12 below. General land use standards and requirements 38.350 Yes Staff Report N. 3rd Duplexes Application 21204 September 2, 2021 Page 11 of 18 Comments: The proposal is consistent with the general land use standards and requirements. The emergency egress wells for the basement and entry steps extend into the front yard setback up to 3’4” as allowed in UDC 38.350.050.A.1 which states “architectural features. . . such as. . . window wells and steps. . do not extend more than five feet into any required front or rear setback”. Lightwells extend into the side yard setback up to 2’6” as allowed in UDC 38.350.050A.2. which states this features may ‘not extend more than two feet into any required side setback . . . “ Because this is a corner lot, both N 3rd Ave and W Beall Street are being treated as a front setback with the 15’ setback. The proposed setback encroachments are allowed. Applicable supplemental use criteria 38.360 Yes Supplemental uses/type Single, two, three, and four-household dwellings. (38.360.220) Yes Comments: The proposal meets the supplemental criteria for single, two, three, and four-household dwellings. The entries are clear with obvious connections made between the sidewalk and building entry. All dwellings feature a covered pedestrian entry that is 4 feet 4 inches in depth, exceeding the minimum 3 foot requirement. Wireless facilities 38.370 NA Affordable Housing 38.380.010 NA Affordable housing plan NA Comments: Affordable housing is not required, nor is it being proposed. 6a. Conformance with Article 4 - Community Design Provisions: Transportation Facilities and Access (38.400) Meets Code? Streets 38.400.010 Yes Street and road dedication 38.400.020 Yes Access easements Yes Level of Service 38.400.060 NA Transportation grid adequate to serve site Yes Comments: Due to the small size of this project, a traffic impact study is not required per the City Engineering Division. Sidewalks 38.400.080 Yes Comments: All external and internal sidewalks meet City codes and connect to relevant destinations throughout the development. Drive access 38.400.090 Access to site: 2 driveway access from N 3rd Ave, pedestrian access from W Beall St, and alley access to the east. Yes Fire lanes, curbs, signage and striping Yes Comments: The site has access from N 3rd to the west, W Beall St to the south, and a public alley to the east. Pedestrian access is provided from adjacent sidewalks along the public streets to the west and south, and vehicular access is proposed from N 3rd Ave and the public alley. The off-street parking spaces and garages are set back sufficiently to provide adequate backing maneuverability. Street vision triangle 38.400.100 Yes Transportation pathways 38.400.110 Yes Pedestrian access easements for shared use pathways and similar transportation facilities NA Public transportation 38.400.120 NA Comments: Street vision triangles have been reviewed and are adequate with no obstructions proposed within the triangles. Staff Report N. 3rd Duplexes Application 21204 September 2, 2021 Page 12 of 18 6b. Conformance with Article 4 – Community Design Provisions: Community Design and Elements (38.410) Meets Code? Neighborhood centers 38.410.020 NA Comments: Not applicable as it is not a subdivision nor greater than ten net acres in size. Lot and block standards 38.410.030-040 Yes Midblock crossing: rights of way for pedestrians alternative block delineation NA Comments: No midblock crossing or alternative block delineation is required or proposed 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 NA Provisions for utilities including efficient public services and utilities 38.410.050-060 Yes Easements (City and public utility rights-of-way etc.) Yes Water, sewer, and stormwater Yes Other utilities (electric, natural gas, communications) Yes CIL of water rights (CILWR) Yes Comments: CILWR is required. A CILWR determination must be finalized and paid prior to final site plan approval. An underground storm retention facility is proposed in the center of the lot, underneath the shared open space. Municipal infrastructure requirements 38.410.070 Yes Comments: These provisions have been reviewed by Engineering and found adequate. No new utilities are required to be installed within the public right of way other than the side connections tying into existing city facilities. The existing sewer connection for the single household dwelling will be removed during construction. Grading & drainage 38.410.080 Yes Location, design and capacity of stormwater facilities Yes Stormwater maintenance plan Yes Landscaping: native species, curvilinear, 75% live vegetation 38.410.080.H NA Comments: A stormwater management report has been reviewed and found sufficient by Engineering. Watercourse setback 38.410.100 NA Watercourse setback planting plan 38.410.100.2.f NA 6c. Conformance with Article 4 – Community Design Provisions: Park and Recreation Requirements (38.420) Meets Code? Parkland requirements 38.420.020.A (4 new units minus 1 existing unit) 3 units x .03 acres/du= .09 acres Yes Cash donation in lieu (CIL) 38.420.030.d To be determined (see comments below) Yes Improvements in-lieu NA Comments: The cash donation in lieu (CIL) request must be approved by the Recreation Parks Advisory Board (RPAB). At the time this staff report was written the request had not gone to RPAB. Final RPAB recommendation of CIL must be received and the amount paid prior to final site plan approval. The proposal includes four units the applicant would be responsible for, however it is anticipated the applicant will receive a credit for the existing single family home that is being demolished, thus cash in lieu will be required for the net increase of three units. Park Frontage 38.420.060 NA Staff Report N. 3rd Duplexes Application 21204 September 2, 2021 Page 13 of 18 Park development 38.420.080 NA Recreation pathways 38.420.110 NA Park/Recreational area design NA Comments: No onsite public parks or paths are proposed. 7a. Conformance with Article 5 – Project Design: Block Frontage Standards (38.510) Meets Code? Block frontage classification ‘Landscape’ Block Frontage Yes Departure criteria NA Comments: N 3rd Avenue and W Beall St are both classified as Landscape Block Frontage. The proposal meets the Landscape block frontage standard and features appropriate building design. No departures are requested. 7b. Conformance with Article 5 – Project Design: Site Planning and Design Elements (38.520) Meets Code? 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 Yes Relationship to adjacent properties 38.520.030 Yes Non-motorized circulation and design systems to enhance convenience and safety across parking lots and streets, including, but not limited to paving patterns, pathway design, landscaping and lighting 38.520.040 Yes Comments: All units are connected to the public sidewalk via a walkway. Design of vehicular circulation systems to assure that vehicles can move safely and easily both within the site and between properties and activities within the general community 38.420.050 Internal roadway design 38.520.050.D NA Comments: No internal roadways are proposed. On-site open space 38.520.060 Yes Total required 10% Total provided >10% Comments. The project requires 150 square feet per unit or 600 square feet in total of open space. The proposal exceeds the minimum with 840 square feet of communal open space and 569 square feet of private decks proposed. The units are all oriented around the open space creating a type of cottage cluster infill project. The hierarchy of private to public space is provided via private balconies opening up to the open space. There are shared pathways through the open space. Location and design of service areas and mechanical equipment 38.520.070 Yes Comments: The trash and recycling are proposed to be stored within the garages meeting the screening requirements. 7c. Conformance with Article 5 – Project Design: Building Design (38.530) Meets Code? Compatibility with, and sensitivity to, the immediate environment of the site and the adjacent neighborhoods and other approved development 38.530.030 Yes Building massing and articulation 38.530.040 Yes Building details, materials, and blank wall treatments 38.530.050-070 Yes Comments: In general these provisions are not applicable to this project as it doesn’t meet the thresholds in size, length, or width. However, where it is applicable it meets the provisions. Primarily, the project is Staff Report N. 3rd Duplexes Application 21204 September 2, 2021 Page 14 of 18 7d. Conformance with Article 5 – Parking (38.540) Meets Code? Parking requirements 38.540.050 Yes Parking requirements residential 38.540.050.A.1 2 per Two-bedroom unit (4 units x 2 spaces/unit) 8 spaces required Reductions residential 38.540.050.A.1.b NA Parking requirements nonresidential 38.540.050.A.2 NA Reductions nonresidential 38.540.050.A.2.c NA Provided off-street 7 off-street Provided on-street 2 spaces Bicycle parking 38.540.050.A.4 2 required Yes Comments: The project has four, two bedroom units, thus requiring 8 parking spaces in total. No reductions are being requested and all parking is being provided with the following configuration: 2 on-street, 5 driveway parking spots, and two provided in garages. Bicycle parking is provided in garages or accessory sheds for each unit. Unit A and Unit B have proposed stacked parking on the northwest side of the site plan. Unit B (the northern most) has two stacked spots, and Unit A (immediately south), has a parking space stacked in front of a garage with a space located inside the garage. As required in 38.540.010.A.4. physical separation must be provided when stacking is proposed. The physical separation is provided for these spaces via a 4’ vegetated planter which is a codified option in the UDC for providing the physical separation. As discussed prior, the alley provides access to parking for two of the units (Unit C and D). Pursuant BMC 38.540.020.D Backing requirements. All required parking must have adequate back-up maneuverability as specified in Table 38.540.020. The aisle width calculation may incorporate the width of the public right of way (in this case the alley). The applicant has provided measurements that the alley is 16’ wide, thus in order to meet the 24’ equivalent aisle width, an additional 8’ is necessary for the parking spots or garages to be setback. This 8’ setback has been provided where parking is proposed for Unit Ds garage. Unit D and Unit Cs off street parking spaces are also setback accordingly to provide the full 24’ equivalent aisle width for backing maneuverability. Loading and uploading area requirements 38.540.080 NA First berth – minimum 70 feet length, 12 feet in width, 14 feet in height NA Additional berth – minimum 45 feet length NA Comments: Not applicable to this proposal. 7e. Conformance with Article 5 – Landscaping (38.550) Meets Code? Mandatory landscaping requirements 38.550.050 Yes Drought tolerant species 75% required Yes Parking lot landscaping NA Additional screening NA Street frontage Yes Street median island NA Acceptable landscape materials Yes Protection of landscape areas Yes reviewed against the building design standards of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) which is discussed in further below in sections 11 & 12. Staff Report N. 3rd Duplexes Application 21204 September 2, 2021 Page 15 of 18 Irrigation: plan, water source, system type Yes Residential adjacency Yes Comments: The proposed landscaping plans meet the mandatory landscaping requirements and include street trees and residential adjacency trees as required. Landscaping of public lands 38.550.070 NA Comments: No landscaping of public lands is required or proposed. 7f. Conformance with Article 5 – Signs (38.560) Meets Code? Allowed SF/building 38.560.060 NA Proposed SF/building NA Comments: No signs are proposed with this project. 7g. Conformance with Article 5 – Lighting (38.560) Meets Code? Site lighting (supports, cutoff, footcandles, temperature) 38.570.040 Yes Building-mounted lighting (supports, cutoff, footcandles, temperature) 38.570.040.B Yes Comments: Outdoor bollards, flush ceiling lights, and wall sconces are proposed and spec sheets were provided that meet the requirements of the UDC. 8. Conformance with Article 6 – Natural Resource Protection Meets Code? Floodplain regulations 38.600 NA Wetland regulations 38.610 NA Comments: There are no known floodplain or wetlands on site. 9. Relevant Comment from Affected Parties (38.220) Meets Code? Public Comment Yes Comments: The public comment period was from 8/16/2021 to 8/31/2021. The site was posted on 8/16/2021 and adjacent owners mailed on 8/16/2021. The project received one public comment during the comment period from an adjacent neighbor to the north. The questions/concerns were: 1. Off-site maple tree protection concerns 2. Stormwater concerns during demolition and construction. 3. Privacy and protection during construction 4. General design and site plan questions. 5. Timeline questions. The applicant provided responses that were delivered by staff along with additional diagrams and elevations of the proposed project. The responses are presumed to have been adequate as no additional follow up questions or concerns were received. 10. Division of Land Pertaining to Subdivisions (38.240-Part 4) Meets Code? Subdivision exemptions NA Required easements NA Comments: No division of land is proposed at this time. 11. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness (38.340) Meets Code? Certificate of appropriateness standards Yes Secretary of the Interiors Standards for new construction Yes Architectural appearance Yes Proportion of doors and windows Yes Staff Report N. 3rd Duplexes Application 21204 September 2, 2021 Page 16 of 18 Relationship of building masses and spaces Yes Roof shape Yes Scale Yes Directional expression, with regard to the dominant horizontal or vertical expression of surrounding structures Yes Architectural details Yes Concealment of non-period appurtenances, such as mechanical equipment Yes Materials and color schemes Yes Comments: The proposed project is located within the NCOD. This means that the project must adhere to a higher level of design, focus on the relationship of the surrounding area, and maintain a level of integrity and character that makes up the NCOD. Staff reviewed the proposed design and finds that the project meets all applicable COA criteria including NCOD design guidelines. Review of demolition of historic structures or sites 38.340.080 Yes Historic Structure per 38.700.090 No Comments: The structure that is proposed to be demolished is not an eligible historic structure as defined in article 7 of the UDC, per the MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD form prepared by R. Schields & E. Sakariassen, Metcalf Archaeological Consultants Inc., dated March 30, 2021 and submitted by the applicant with their Site Plan submittal. Approval of the proposed subsequent development is required for all historic structures proposed for demolition and for the proposed movement of any structure of site. The subsequent development is receiving Site Plan approval in tandem with the demolition approval. Yes, Public Notice: The public comment period was from 8/16/2021 to 8/31/2021. The site was posted on 8/16/2021 and adjacent owners mailed on 8/16/2021. No public comment was received relevant to the demolition of the structure. Yes Criteria Yes 1. The property’s historic significance. The property is determined to not meet the NRHP eligibility as demonstrated by the updated Montana Historic Property form. 2. Whether the structure has no viable economic life remaining. This structure may have viable economic life remaining as it is still habitable. However due to it not being an eligible contributing structure, this is not applicable. 3. Whether the subsequent development complies with Section 38.340.050 (standards for certificates of appropriateness). Yes, this report finds the subsequent development in compliance with standards. 4. Whether the subsequent development includes construction of new building(s) unless the existing character of the area does not include buildings. Yes, the subsequent development includes the construction of a new infill building in compliance with zoning. 5. Subsequent development requires a building permit and does not include proposals which leave the site without building(s) or structure(s). The subsequent development requires a building permit and does not propose to leave the site without a building. Staff Report N. 3rd Duplexes Application 21204 September 2, 2021 Page 17 of 18 Notwithstanding the above, for projects proposing the removal of a historic structure, which do not qualify for sketch plan review pursuant to 38.230.070, the review authority may determine the proposed subsequent site development is more appropriate for the site based upon the criteria in 38.230.100 (plan review criteria).The Director determines that the proposed subsequent site development is more appropriate for the site than the existing building and use based on the criterial in 38.230.100. Comments: An updated Montana Historic Property Record form is included in the application. The proposed structure for demolition is single family home that is a non-contributing structure. The subsequent development conforms to the criteria for a COA and plan review criteria. The subsequent development is appropriate for the site and neighborhood and will leave the site with a new infill building and will not result in a vacant site. 12. Conformance with the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Design (NCOD) Guidelines Meets Code? Introduction This project has been reviewed in accordance with the NCOD Guidelines and has been found consistent with the standards within. The project supports the community’s design goal for Bozeman to preserve the integrity of the character of its streetscapes within the NCOD. The existing building proposed to be demolished is no eligible to be a contributing structure per the MONTANA HISTORIC PROPERTY RECORD form prepared by R. Schields & E. Sakariassen, Metcalf Archaeological Consultants Inc., dated March 30, 2021. The property is not located within a historic district, and thus has been reviewed against the standards found in Chapter 2, Design Guidelines for all Properties, and Chapter 3, Guidelines for Residential Areas. Yes Chapter 2: Design Guidelines for all Properties • A. Topography: The buildings conform to the existing topography. • B. Street Patterns. The street patterns of the area are established by existing streets and alleys, and by the setbacks found within the UDC. The structures adhere to the required setbacks and where possible the units have vehicular access from the alleys. This setback and additional landscaping will continue the existing neighborhoods character. • C. Alleys .While the alley is required to be paved, the traditional scale and width is being maintained and the edge of the alley and property lines are defined by buildings and/or fences. • D. Streetscape. The traditional streetscape is being reinforced with new street trees proposed. Staff worked with the applicant to see if any existing trees could be saved, however it was determined it was most appropriate to plant new street trees. • F. Building Form. The building proposes flat roofs that are appropriate in residential areas and transition areas. This site is adjacent to the Central Business zone, thus acts as a transition between a commercial and residential zone. (Applicants Response) “The rectangular, solid form of the proposed architectural language is derived from the existing structures closely located to the site. The site’s proximity to existing zoning and development give it its transitional identity, making this architectural language appropriate for its location and surrounds context.” • G. Solid-to-Void Ratio. The building has an appropriate solid to void ratio and avoids large glass surfaces. Rectangular windows break up the solid Yes Staff Report N. 3rd Duplexes Application 21204 September 2, 2021 Page 18 of 18 walls at a cadence and scale similar to that seen on the historic buildings in the neighborhood. (Applicants Response) “Smaller punched windows are used to reflect the language that is traditionally seen in historically significant residential structures. Vertical, recessed slot windows are also seen throughout the neighborhood in existing commercial structures. The existence of both languages in the proposed design is a direct response to the transitional nature of the site” • H. Materials. Brick is the main material proposed which is consistent with those traditionally used in the area. Vertical wood slates, a concrete base, and black accent metal define various architectural features. • I. Architectural Character. This building is not attempting to replicate historic styles. Chapter 3: Guidelines for Commercial Residential Areas • A. Hierarchy of Public and Private Space. The project supports the traditional hierarchy via the private front yard with a walkway running through it, leading to an appropriately scaled and oriented front porch. • B. Building Mass and Scale. The buildings are appropriately scaled and max out at 25’ above grade height. The front of the building steps down to a single story along North 3rd. • C. Roof Form. The building proposes flat roofs that are appropriate in residential areas and transition areas. This site is adjacent to the Central Business zone, thus acts as a transition between a commercial and residential zone. • D. Secondary Structures. Proposed secondary structures are subordinate and size and setback from the main structures. Where possible they are located off the adjacent alley and the remainder are located to the rear of the lot. • E. Multi-Household. The proposed buildings are consistent in size and scale with those typically seen. There is a new multifamily building immediately to the east of this site. This building will step down from the larger multifamily building to the east as it transitions to a more residential neighborhood. (Applicants Response) “The facades of the proposed buildings have been divided into wall planes that have dimensions similar to those of single household buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. The single oversized lot is scaled to the neighborhood with two buildings. Facades fronting W Beall do not exceed 40’, while facades fronting N 3rd do not exceed 60’. Both facades provide relief and recessed elements to break up their scale. Historically, changes in wall plane were modest and responded to the inherent material limitations. As such, the project has avoided the multi-colored material patchwork façade often seen in newer projects for a much more modest approach to celebrate light, shadow and texture.” Yes Appendices Yes Comments: No additional comments than the discussions above for the NCOD guidelines.