HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-03-25 Public Comment - N. ten Broek - Midtown Neighborhood Response to COA Application 24493From:Noah ten Broek
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Midtown Neighborhood Response to COA Application 24493
Date:Tuesday, December 31, 2024 10:32:14 PM
Attachments:The Guthrie – MNA Rebuttal To HBP"s COA Responses (1).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City,
Please find attached the responses to the COA Application from the Midtown Neighborhood
Association Steering Committee members, Noah ten Broek and Emily Talago.
Kind regards,
Noah ten Broek
The Guthrie
321 N 5th Ave
Application #24493
The responses herein are intended to represent the neighborhood’s perspectives and answers to the COA
requirements.
Noah ten Broek &Emily Talago
Midtown Neighborhood Association Steering Committee Members
Sec 38.340.050 Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness
Applicant HBP (Homebase Partners)responses are in blue text.
MNA (Midtown Neighborhood Association)responses are in red text.
38.340.050.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).”
Response (HBP):
Not applicable because this application #24493 proposes construction of a new structure,rather than
preservation,rehabilitation,restoration,or reconstruction of an existing historic building.
Response (MNA):
Given the building's historical significance,as documented in the 2020 Metcalf Historic Property Survey and
supported by recent public comments,including those by Jim Spady,the neighborhood strongly believes that
adaptive reuse of the existing structure represents the best outcome.This approach aligns with the city's adopted
policies,including the Growth Policy,the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD)standards,and the
Historic Preservation Guidelines.
The overall design goal for Bozeman is to preserve the integrity of its individual historic structures and the
character of its streetscapes,which are unique and irreplaceable assets to the city and its neighborhoods.By
prioritizing adaptive reuse,the city would demonstrate its commitment to these principles while fostering a
thoughtful and sustainable approach to growth that respects Bozeman's heritage and the unique character of its
community.
Bozeman Guidelines for Historic Preservation &The NCOD (2006,2015)p3
38.340.050.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 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).”
Response (HBP):
Not applicable because this application #24493 is not an alteration to an existing building.
Response (MNA):
There is no process of exemption from NCOD design guidelines.The demolition and movement of structures
within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District are considered an alteration…
Bozeman Guidelines for Historic Preservation &The NCOD (2006,2015)p10
38.340.050.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.”
Response (HBP):
This application is within the NCOD but is not within a historic district.The existing structure was surveyed in 2020
for the Montana Historic Property Record,and it was determined this property lacks individual significance under
Criteria A,B,C,and D and is recommended not individually eligible.As such,this application proposed a
contemporary design of a new structure that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood structures in the
following ways:
1.Areas of brick and wood accents aim to complement and harmonize with the building’s neighbors while
representing a transitional zone between the R-3 area to the east and the B-2M area to the west.
Employing materials that enhance the surrounding buildings,the design approach seeks to integrate into
the existing fabric while incorporating new,contemporary techniques and detailing.
2.The setback and expansive front porch entry to the building pay homage to Bozeman’s lively front yard
culture,offering an active zone that engages with the sidewalk and nearby residences.The canopy’s lines
present a modern interpretation of the traditional front porch,utilizing a wood-look material to establish a
resilient and enduring connection to neighboring properties.
3.Intentional use of exposed concrete at the front porch echoes and recognizes the use of concrete
around the neighborhood.
4.The proposed 4-story building is a gradual and predictable increase in density,as the immediate
neighbors to the south and east are 3 stories.The contiguous lot to the west is zoned B-2M,therefore
future development of that lot is expected to be 4-5 stories.
Response (MNA):
This application seeks to demolish a historically,culturally,and architecturally significant structure in the Midtown
neighborhood,jeopardizing the subdivision’s eligibility for historic district designation.Recent testimony from Jim
Spady has profoundly illuminated the Florence Convalescent Home’s critical ties to Bozeman’s founding families,
highlighting its indispensable role in our community’s heritage.In light of this,we urge the City to commission a
new,comprehensive survey of the property,conducted in consultation with the Spady family,to ensure the
preservation of this irreplaceable piece of Bozeman’s history.
38.340.050.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.”
Design Guidelines for NCOD:
Chapter 1:Rehabilitation Guidelines for Historic Properties
Response (HBP):
Chapter 1 is not applicable as this application proposes construction of a new structure,rather than preservation,
rehabilitation,restoration,or reconstruction of an existing historic building.
Response (MNA):
We advocate for adaptive reuse of the Florence Convalescent Home,ensuring that any new development
incorporates and preserves design elements intrinsic to the original historic period-based architecture.For
example,the central building with its pitched roof could be preserved and complemented by reconstructed wings,
maintaining the integrity and character of the historic structure while allowing for thoughtful redevelopment.
Chapter 2:Design Guidelines for All Properties
A.Topography:Site work should be planned to protect the assets of the existing topography.
1.Guideline 1:Minimize cut and fill on a site.
Response (HBP):
Not applicable as the building maintains the existing topography of the site.
Response (MNA):
Applicable!The existing structure’s first story is recessed below grade,consistent with the architectural
character of the surrounding neighborhood.Since this design feature is not proposed in the
redevelopment,the building site would require significant fill to address the grade difference and achieve
the proposed design.
2.Guideline 2:Design a building foundation to conform to the existing topography,rather than creating
extensive cut and fill.
Response (HBP):
The foundation is designed to conform to the existing topography as the building maintains the existing
topography of the site.
Response (MNA):
The application,as submitted,proposes a building constructed at grade,representing a complete
departure from the existing topography,which features a sub-grade story.
3.Guideline 3:Minimize the visual impacts of cut and fill on a site.
Response (HBP):Not applicable as the building maintains the existing topography of the site.
B.Street Patterns:Historic settlement patterns seen in street and alley plans often contribute to the distinct
character of the historic district and therefore they should be preserved.These street plans influence the manner
in which primary structures are sited and they also shape the manner in which secondary structures and
landscape features may occur on the site.
1.Guideline 1:Respect historic settlement patterns.Site a new building such that it is arranged on its site in
a way similar to historic buildings in the area.This includes consideration of building setbacks and open
space.
Response (HBP):
a.The building is set back 15’from the property line,like adjacent and nearby properties.
b.Open space is primarily located along street frontages,similar to nearby properties,with a shared front
porch and individual front porches for residents.
Response (MNA):
The entrance to the proposed building has been relocated to the corner of 5th Avenue and Villard Street,
departing from its current east mid-block orientation.
C.Alleys:Alleys accommodate service functions and provide pedestrian connections and secondary vehicle
access.All alleys,both paved and unpaved,contribute to the character of the district.
1.Guideline 1:Unpaved lanes contribute to the distinct character of the neighborhood;therefore,they
should continue in their “rustic”state,when feasible.
Response (HBP):
a.Not applicable as there are no existing alleys or unpaved lanes on this property.
2.Guideline 2:The traditional scale and width of alleys should be continued.
Response (HBP):Not applicable as there are no existing alleys on this property.
D.Streetscape:Maintain the traditional character of the streetscape.This includes a rich collection of varying
street designs,sidewalk types and street trees.
1.Guideline 1:Maintain the variety of street paving designs.
Response (HBP):
a.The existing street paving design and materials will be maintained.
b.New ADA corner ramps with detectable warnings and a 13’diameter traffic circle will be installed at the
intersection of W Villard St and N 5th Ave per City requirements.
Response (MNA):
The proposed traffic circle is visually harsh and industrial,failing to align with the aesthetic character of
our neighborhood.Midtown residents would prefer a collaborative design effort involving the City
Department of Transportation,the school district,and the applicant to create a solution that better
integrates with the community's visual and functional needs.
2.Guideline 2:Maintain the variety of sidewalk designs.
Response (HBP):
a.The existing sidewalk is not detached/separated from the street with a planting strip.
b.Per UDC 38.510.030.C,this project has a landscape block frontage approach.This project will have a
5.5’boulevard and a 5’sidewalk per City standards and maintains streetscape character on W Villard St
and in the surrounding neighborhood.
Response (MNA):As per 38.500.020.A.1 NCOD guidelines supersede all project design standards in
Article 5 including frontage standards.
3.Guideline 3:Continue the use of planting strips.
Response (HBP):New detached sidewalks will be installed per city code with planting strips consistent
with the neighborhood character.
4.Guideline 4:Continue the pattern of street trees in a block.Because street trees serve various aesthetic
and practical functions,they should be maintained.
Response (HBP):
a.A new detached sidewalk will be built per city code;therefore,it is not feasible to preserve existing
street trees.
b.New street trees will be planted to preserve and continue the pattern of street trees in the
neighborhood.
Response (MNA):
Our neighborhood features a blend of trees within the public right of way while also prioritizing the
protection of mature trees in front yards,which are integral to maintaining the historic streetscape and the
neighborhood’s unique character.
E.Landscape Design:Traditionally,plant beds were located around building foundations,along walkways,and
sometimes in front of fences.Some of these plantings may have historic significance and should be retained,to
the extent feasible.Some mature trees may also contribute to the historic landscape and should be preserved.
1.Guideline 1:Preserve and maintain mature trees and significant vegetation within all corridors.
Response (HBP):
a.With the demolition of the existing building and the installation of new detached sidewalks to meet city
code,it is not feasible to maintain the existing vegetation on the site.
b.Replacement vegetation and trees will be planted to meet standards outlined in the UDC,including the
use of drought-tolerant plants,appropriately sized landscape plant material,street frontage landscaping,
trees with residential adjacency,coordination with utilities,and use of irrigation.
Response (MNA):
The Midtown neighborhood is characterized,in part,by the prevalence of mature and diverse vegetation
that defines its unique aesthetic and ecological identity.From lilac-hedged alleyways to specimen
species,the area fosters a distinct Bozeman microclimate.The proposed site is home to several historic
specimens,including a 40”caliper Picea pungens (blue spruce),mature arborvitae,and yew
selections—remarkable for their ability to thrive only in limited regions.The destruction of this heritage
flora would constitute a significant loss,not only to the visual and biological diversity of the Midtown
ecosystem but also to the sense of connection and identity shared by our neighborhood.These plants are
irreplaceable assets that link us to our history and enrich the ecological fabric of Midtown.
F.Building Form:A similarity of building forms also contributes to a sense of visual continuity.In order to
maintain this sense of visual continuity,a new building should have basic roof and building forms similar to those
seen traditionally.Overall façade proportions also should be in harmony with the context.
1.Guideline 1:Use building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally on the block.Simple
rectangular solids are typically appropriate.
Response (HBP):
This building is a simple rectangular solid,which is consistent with the existing building on the site and
similar to adjacent buildings in the neighborhood.
Response (MNA):
The proposed design replaces a building with a pitched roofline that is sympathetic to the character of the
neighborhood.The current structure’s simple rectangular solids,as seen in the existing wings,are
appropriate for up to 1.5 stories above grade,beyond which additional articulation is necessary to
maintain neighborhood harmony.The new design,however,fails to conform to these established
principles,disregarding the architectural cohesion and scale that define the area.
2.Guideline 2:Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street are
discouraged.Flat roofs are appropriate in most commercial and transition areas,and in some cases may
be appropriate in residential areas.
Response (HBP):
This building is rectangular with a flat roof,which is appropriate considering its location on the edge and
transition to the Midtown Urban Renewal District.Similarly,the buildings to the south and east of the
property have flat roofs.
Response (MNA):
Flat roofs are appropriate for the wings of the building while the pitched roof of the center building is a
defining architectural feature that necessitates preservation.
G.Solid-to-Void Ratio:A typical building appeared to be a rectangular solid,with small holes “punched”in the
walls for windows and doors.Most buildings had similar amounts of glass,resulting in a relatively uniform solid to
void ratio.This ratio on a new building,the amount of façade that is devoted to wall surface,as compared to that
developed as openings,should be similar to that of historic buildings within the neighborhood.
1.Guideline 1:Use a ratio of solid-to-void (wall-to-window)that is similar to that found on historic structures
in the district.
Response (HBP):
a.The proposed building incorporates traditional window and door openings that are seen throughout the
neighborhood.
b.There is an expanse of glass at the ground floor that invites residents to the lobby;however,it is largely
concealed and set back into the building underneath the front porch patio.
H.Materials:Building materials of new structures and additions to existing structures should contribute to the
visual continuity of the neighborhood.They should appear similar to those seen traditionally to establish a sense
of visual continuity.
1.Guideline 1:Use building materials that appear similar to those used traditionally in the area.
Response (HBP):
The building uses a mix of materials to complement the neighboring properties,including brick,wood,
concrete,and fiber cement,which are commonly used around the neighborhood.
Response (MNA):
The neighborhood is characterized by the use of materials such as stucco,rot-resistant wood species,
and structural masonry,which have stood the test of time and contribute to its distinct historic charm.In
contrast,the proposed building relies heavily on fiber cement,a material not found on any existing
structure in the area.While the addition of minimal brick and concrete elements may attempt to reference
neighborhood materials,it falls short of authentically honoring the character of the neighborhood.
Furthermore,a defining feature of our neighborhood's architectural design is operable windows,which
enhance ventilation,comfort,and connection to the environment—elements entirely absent in the
proposed Guthrie design.This omission highlights a lack of alignment with the neighborhood’s functional
and aesthetic values.
Response (HBP):The Midtown Neighbors requested we increase the use of brick and concrete on the
building.This request was incorporated into the current design of the project.
Response (MNA):
Midtown never met as a collective group in any official capacity to weigh in on design specifics on this
application.
2.Guideline 2:The use of masonry that appears similar in character to that seen historically is appropriate.
Response (HBP):
The brick used on this building is a typical modular brick size of 3 5/8”thick,2 ¼”height,and 7 5/8”
length.
3.Guideline 3:New materials that are similar in character to traditional materials may be acceptable with
appropriate detailing.
Response (HBP):
The building façade is comprised of a mix of brick,wood,concrete,and fiber cement,all of which are
commonly used around the neighborhood.
Response (MNA):
The proposed development does not boast a “mix”of materials but is largely dominated by (80%)fiber
cement with minor accents of brick and wood.Our neighborhood doesn’t use fiber cement,only stucco is
historically used.
4.Guideline 4:Use building materials that contribute to the traditional sense of scale of the block.
Response (HBP):
a.The arrangement of building materials on the building façade reinforces the traditional residential scale
of the block and neighborhood.Brick and wood are used to highlight entry conditions and break down the
building into modules.Different colors of fiber cement,along with wood accents,create the residential
scale at each window.
Response (MNA):
On the north and west sides of the proposed development,there is a complete lack of façade articulation,
presenting as a single,massive 4-story wall.While building materials can contribute to a sense of scale,
the materials proposed use in this application fail to achieve this effect.Furthermore,as outlined in
38.500.020.A.1,NCOD guidelines take precedence over all project design standards in Article 5,
including frontage standards.This lack of articulation and inadequate material usage does not align with
the character or standards set for our neighborhood.
I.Architectural Character:New construction should distinguish itself from historic structures.
1.Guideline 1:The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged for newer structures.
Response (HBP):
a.This building is not attempting to replicate historic styles of the area.Instead,the building is using a
similar scale and materials traditional to the area to complement the neighborhood but is applying them in
a contemporary way.
Response (MNA):
Contemporary alterations are acceptable as long as they retain and preserve key sections of the historic
building that are essential to conveying its period and historical significance.
2.Guideline 2:Contemporary interpretations of traditional details are encouraged.
Response (HBP):
a.While employing materials that enhance the surrounding buildings,the design approach seeks to
integrate into the existing fabric while incorporating new,contemporary techniques and detailing.
b.The set back and expansive front porch entry to the building pays homage to Bozeman’s lively front
yard culture,offering an active zone that engages with the sidewalk and nearby residences.
Response (MNA):
A building primarily constructed of fiber cement does not enhance the character of our homes.
Additionally,it fails to align with the scale and aesthetic of the historic period.Unlike adjacent adaptive
reuse projects,it deviates significantly from the architectural continuity of our period neighborhood.
J.Parking:The visual impact of surface parking should be minimized.On site parking should be subordinate to
other uses and the front of the lot should not appear to be a parking area.
1.Guideline 1:Minimize the visual impact of surface parking in residential neighborhoods.
Response (HBP):
The parking lot is set behind the building to minimize the visual impact on the neighborhood.
Response (MNA):
The parking wraps from the back to the south side,leaving more than half the spaces visible from 5th
Avenue.Additionally,the insufficient onsite parking forces the majority of Guthrie residents to park offsite
directly in front of our homes,introducing intrusive visual and noise impacts that were previously absent in
our neighborhood.The applicant provides no visual screens or buffers for their parking specifically to the
abutting properties.
2.Guideline 2:Locate a surface lot in the interior of a block whenever possible.
Response (HBP):
The parking lot is located interior of the block to maintain building frontage at the corner intersection of 5th
and Villard.This also meets block frontage standards UDC 38.510.030.C
Response (MNA):
85%of the parking does not comply with this section.Furthermore,as outlined in 38.500.020.A.1,NCOD
guidelines take precedence over all project design standards in Article 5,including frontage standards.
3.Guideline 3:Site a surface lot so it will minimize gaps in the continuous building wall of a commercial
block.
Response (HBP):
This guideline is not applicable as this block does not have a continuous commercial building wall.
4.Guideline 4:Where a parking lot abuts a public sidewalk,provide a visual buffer.
Response (HBP):
The parking lot is set behind the building,and where it fronts 5th Ave,there is a landscape buffer to
minimize the visual impact.
Response (MNA):
The micro-landscape buffer abutting 5th Avenue is insufficient and fails to provide an adequate visual
barrier.To address this,the southeast landscape buffer should be extended,and a northeast landscape
buffer should be added to ensure proper screening from north-south pedestrian travel.
K.Buffers:When site development such as parking,storage and equipment areas create an unavoidable
negative visual impact on abutting properties or to the public way,it should be mitigated with landscaping that may
buffer or screen it.The landscape design should complement the existing natural character and context of the
site.
1.Guideline 1:Landscape buffers should be provided along edges of parking and service areas.
Response (HBP):
A landscape buffer is provided where the parking lot fronts 5th Ave for access.All service areas and utility
equipment will be screened per UDC compliance.
Response (MNA):
The purpose of a buffer is to minimize negative impacts such as noise,traffic,and visual disturbances.
However,the proposed landscaping falls short of this goal.Blue Oat Grass only reaches a height of
24”-30”,Tor Birchleaf Spirea is a compact mounding shrub with a maximum height of 24”,Walker’s Low
Cat Mint is a ground cover that provides minimal screening,and Alpine Currant reaches only 36”.
Together,these selections fail to adequately buffer the parking lot from the sidewalk,street,and
neighboring residences,leaving the area exposed to the very disturbances the buffer is intended to
mitigate.Additionally,for a significant portion of the year,these plants are bare and dormant,exacerbating
the negative visual impacts.A more robust and evergreen planting strategy is necessary to provide
year-round screening and mitigate these issues effectively.Buffers should be designed to shield all
service areas and utility equipment in accordance with the NCOD standards in addition to the UDC
compliance.
L.Site Lighting:Standards for outdoor lighting are provided in the Unified Development Ordinance.This section
addresses some of the qualitative aspects of lighting design that should also be addressed.Light spill onto
adjacent properties and into the night sky should be minimized.The light level at the property line is a key design
consideration.This is affected by the number of fixtures,their mounting height,and the lumens emitted per fixture.
It is also affected by the screening and design of the fixture.
1.Guideline 1:Lighting shall be shielded to prevent any off-site glare.
Response (HBP):
The lighting proposed meets these standards and the standards in the UDC.All exterior lighting is
downlight only,with luminaires (lamps)not visible from adjacent properties.
Response (MNA):
The downcast lights on the sidewalk side of the newly completed HBP’s Ives on Wilson are excessively
bright,creating an uncomfortable experience for pedestrians as they walk along the sidewalk.
Additionally,the apartments facing the street,at four stories tall,will have their interior lights shining
outward,causing significant light pollution and glare.This will directly impact the much lower neighboring
residences,disrupting the visual and environmental harmony of the area and diminishing the
neighborhood's nighttime ambiance.Adequate lighting controls,shielding,and reduced brightness levels
should be implemented to address these concerns and ensure compatibility with the surrounding
residential character.
M.Utilities and Service Areas:Service areas should be visually unobtrusive and should be integrated with the
design of the site and the building.
1.Guideline 1:Orient service entrances,waste disposal areas,and other similar uses toward service lanes
and away from major streets.
Response (HBP):
a.Waste disposal is located internally to the building.Service areas such as switch gear,transformer,and
utility meters are located internally to the site along the parking lot.This equipment is located so as not to
be seen from the public way.
Response (MNA):
The proposed waste disposal pick-up on N 5th Ave fails to meet the provision for orienting service areas
away from major streets and minimizing their visual impact.Additionally,as previously addressed,the
landscaping does not adequately screen the parking or service areas,leaving them exposed to public
view.This lack of proper screening compromises the visual and functional integrity of the neighborhood
streetscape and fails to align with the intent of maintaining a cohesive and harmonious residential
environment.
2.Guideline 2:Position service areas to minimize conflicts with other abutting uses.
Response (HBP):
Service areas such as switch gear,transformer,and utility meters are located internally to the site along
the parking lot.
Response (MNA):
Previously,the existing building utilized its “true”rear side (west)for trash and utility services,effectively
minimizing conflicts between commercial-sized services and residential neighbors.Additionally,the
convalescent center was designed with two means of egress,allowing for fast,efficient,and safe snow
removal,all while remaining obstructed from public view.This thoughtful planning helped preserve the
neighborhood's visual and functional harmony—a standard that should be maintained in any proposed
redevelopment.
Chapter 3:Guidelines for Residential Character Areas
Response (HBP):
The subject property is in a transitional location that includes both residential and commercial properties.
There is a single-family home to the north,a 3-story church to the east,a 3-story multi-family building to
the south,and a 31-room motel to the west that is zoned B-2M and will eventually become 4-5 stories in
height as a part of the Midtown Urban Renewal District.
Response (MNA):
We don’t have transitional zones;we have zoning.The proposed application is located in a residential
zone outside of the Midtown Urban Renewal District (URD).The URD has contributed to the adaptive
reuse of the 2-story RSVP building,while the single-story,31-room Sapphire Motel directly to the west
has recently undergone restoration.The Sapphire Motel remains a multi-generational property with no
plans to increase the height of its building.Additionally,the neighboring church is a split-level,single-story
building,and the apartment building to its south is a 2-story structure with a split level.There are no
3-story buildings anywhere near the proposed site.
A.Hierarchy of Public and Private Space:The hierarchy of public and private space is a progression that
begins at the street,which is the most public space,proceeds through the front yard,which appears
"semi-private,"and ends at the front door,which is the "private"space.This sequence enhances the pedestrian
environment and contributes to the character of the neighborhood;it should be maintained.
1.Guideline 1:Provide a front yard similar in character to its neighbors when possible.
Response (HBP):
The front yard maintains a similar 15’setback for front yard to be consistent with the neighborhood
character and will be planted with perennials and shrubs.
Response (MNA):
Our front yards are planted with perennials,shrubs,and trees and boast sculptures that support local
artists and lend a sense of community.
2.Guideline 2:Provide a walkway from the street to the building.
Response (HBP):
A concrete walkway is provided from N 5th Ave to the main building entrance.
3.Guideline 3:Orient the front porch to the street.
Response (HBP):
A front porch is oriented to both street frontages,N 5th Ave and W Villard St,with the main building entry
oriented to N 5th Ave.The expansive front porch serves as a transition area from the street to the
residences and breaks down the building to an inviting human scale by offering an active zone that
engages with the sidewalk and nearby residences.
Response (MNA):
The front porch entrance of the proposed development more closely resembles that of an extended-stay
hotel,making it more suitable for a commercial zoning designation.Additionally,all neighboring structures
in the area feature front porches approximately 5 feet off the ground,as their first stories are set above a
split-level recessed story.The proposed design fails to align with this architectural characteristic,
detracting from the cohesive porch designs of all neighboring structures.
4.Guideline 4:Clearly define the primary entrance by using a front porch.
Response (HBP):
The front porch celebrates and clearly defines the primary entrance of this residential building.
Response (MNA):
How does it “celebrate”the primary entrance?
B.Building Mass and Scale:The mass and scale of a building is an important design issue in a residential
character area.The traditional scale of single-household houses dominates the neighborhood,and this similarity
of scale enhances the pedestrian-friendly character of many streets.Similarities in scale among prominent
building features,such as porches and fences,are also important.In many cases,earlier buildings were smaller
than current tastes support;nonetheless,a new building should,to the greatest extent possible,maintain this
established scale.While new buildings and additions are anticipated that may be larger than many of the earlier
structures,this new construction should not be so dramatically greater in scale than the established context that
the visual continuity of the neighborhood would be compromised.
Response (HBP):
This location is transitional in nature with a variety of uses and scale of buildings surrounding the property,
including a single-family home to the north,a 3-story church to the east,a 3-story multi-family building to
the south,and a 31-room motel to the west that is zoned B-2M and will eventually become 4-5 stories in
height as a part of the Midtown Urban Renewal District.
Response (MNA):
We don’t have transitional zones;we have zoning.The proposed application is located in a residential
zone outside of the Midtown Urban Renewal District (URD).The URD has contributed to the adaptive
reuse of the 2-story RSVP building,while the single-story,31-room Sapphire Motel directly to the west
has recently undergone restoration.The Sapphire Motel remains a multi-generational property with no
plans to increase the height of its building.Additionally,the neighboring church is a split-level,single-story
building,and the apartment building to its south is a 2-story structure with a split level.There are no
3-story buildings anywhere near the proposed site.
1.Guideline 1:Construct a new building to be similar in mass and scale to those single-household
residences seen traditionally.
Response (HBP):
a.The proposed building is similar in mass and scale to the surrounding structures,including a 3-story
church to the east and a 3-story multifamily building to the south.
b.The proposed building has a smaller footprint with a lot coverage of 13,750 sf compared to the existing
building of almost 18,000 sf.This allows for increased landscaping and open space around the site.
Response (MNA):
The proposed building is notably dissimilar in size and scale to its neighboring one-story split-level church
and the two-story apartment building.While the existing lot coverage was appropriate for the specific
historical use of the facility,a reduction in lot coverage does not address or mitigate the significant
impacts caused by the increased intensification of use that this development would bring.
2.Guideline 2:On larger structures,step down a building’s height toward the street,neighboring structures,
and the rear of the lot.
Response (HBP):
This guideline is not feasible due to design and character implications.A step down within the proposed
building footprint would create a non-traditional building form and roof shape contradicting Guideline F in
Chapter 2 of the NCOD preferring simple rectangular solids over exotic forms.
Response (MNA):
This guideline is explicitly codified.Page 58 of the NCOD Design Guidelines clearly states:(2)“On larger
structures,step down a building's height toward the street,neighboring structures,and the rear of
the lot.”Furthermore,the page includes three illustrative examples of feasible designs that fully comply
with this requirement,reinforcing the necessity of adherence to the code.
3.Guideline 3:On larger structures,subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules”that are similar in size
to single-household residences seen traditionally.
Response (HBP):
The building mass is subdivided by a large brick reveal located on 5th Ave to break up the building mass.
Each mass is further subdivided into a residential scale ‘module’with window portals in an alternating
arrangement which introduces subtle dynamism and interest to the façade.
Response (MNA):
The existing structure features a central building with a pitched roof and rectangular subordinate wings,
consistent with the massing guidelines,which state,“subordinate modules may be attached to the
primary building form.”However,in the proposed application,the main building or "module"is not
“similar in size to single household residences seen traditionally.”Consequently,the concept of
modules is entirely lost in this project due to the lack of articulation and failure to break down the massing
into appropriately scaled components.
4.Guideline 4:The front wall of a new structure should not exceed two stories in height.
Response (HBP):
This guideline is not applicable considering the immediate context of a 3-story church to the east,a
3-story multifamily building to the south,and a 31-room motel to the west that is zoned B-2M and will
eventually become 4-5 stories in height as a part of the Midtown Urban Renewal District.
Response (MNA):
You cannot justify the proposed size of your building by providing a false and misleading narrative about
future development for the neighboring properties.The 1-story motel is a long-standing,
multi-generational property with no plans for redevelopment,let alone to 4-5 stories.The church to the
east is a single-story building with a steeple,not a 3-story structure,and the adjacent apartment building
to the south is only 2 stories,with an additional below-ground level.This misrepresentation of the context
undermines the validity of the application and violates the intent of Sec.38.200.060.B,which mandates
accurate and truthful representation in development proposals.
5.Guideline 5:A façade should appear similar in dimension to those seen traditionally in the neighborhood.
Response (HBP):
The proposed building has a smaller footprint than the existing structure,with a size of 13,750 sf
compared to 18,000 sf,resulting in less linear street frontage.The design considers the mix of building
uses and forms in the area,including a 3-story church,multifamily buildings,and a motel.
Response (MNA):
The size and scale of the proposed Guthrie are both an anomaly and a direct contradiction to the existing
buildings in the neighborhood as well as the design guidelines outlined in the NCOD.Furthermore,the
existing mid-century facade of the convalescent home is essential to maintaining the property’s historical
contributing status,which underscores its significance within the neighborhood.
C.Roof Form:In most neighborhoods,a similarity of roof form also contributes to a sense of visual continuity.In
order to maintain this sense of visual continuity,a new building should have basic roof form that is similar to those
seen traditionally.
1.Guideline 1:Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally on the block.
Response (HBP):
The existing building on the site is rectangular with a flat roof.This building also proposes a rectangular
shape with a flat roof,which is appropriate considering its location on the edge and transition to the
Midtown Urban Renewal District.
Response (MNA):
There are no buildings with flat roofs in our neighborhood that lack at least a secondary roofline.
Additionally,the aforementioned apartment building includes a protruding vestibule,which serves as a
façade articulation,breaking up its mass and contributing to its visual compatibility with the surrounding
structures.
D.Secondary Structures:Secondary structures are traditionally subordinate in scale and character to the
primary structure and are typically located to the rear of the lot,they are primarily used for parking garages and
storage.While structures in the rear generally have little impact on the character of the street they do have an
impact on the character of the alley and neighbors to the rear,this character should be maintained.
1.Guideline 1:New secondary structure should be subordinate in height to those buildings seen traditionally
along the street front.
Response (HBP):
This guideline is not applicable as there is no secondary structure proposed.
2.Guideline 2:Locate secondary buildings to the rear of the lot.
Response (HBP):
This guideline is not applicable as there is no secondary structure proposed.
3.Guideline 3:Locate a garage such that its visual impacts will be minimized.
Response (HBP):
This guideline is not applicable as there is no garage proposed.
E.Multi-Household Buildings:The underlying goal of the guidelines in this section in regards to multi-household
construction is that,to the greatest extent feasible,the buildings should be compatible with the context of the
neighborhood.Historic structures associated with the multi-household projects should be retained when feasible.
1.Guideline 1:Retain existing single-household buildings contributing to neighborhood character,where
feasible.
Response (HBP):
a.Currently there is an abandoned 35,000 sf structure on the property that was utilized as a senior care
facility.The building was surveyed in 2020 for the Montana Historic Property Record and it was
determined this property lacks individual significance under Criteria A,B,C,and D and is recommended
not individually eligible.The proposed new building maintains the existing building fabric with a proposed
building massing of similar length and main entry door off N 5th Ave,retaining the current neighborhood
character.
Response (MNA):
The characterization of the existing structure as lacking individual significance under the Montana Historic
Property Record fails to consider the new historical and cultural significance provided by community
members,including Jim Spady,who has deepened our understanding of the building’s connection to
Bozeman’s founding families.The Florence Convalescent Home has been demonstrated to hold
historical,cultural,and architectural value integral to the mid-century identity of the Midtown
neighborhood.Moreover,the assertion that the proposed building "maintains the existing building fabric"
is misleading.The new design replaces the mid-century pitched roof and subordinate wings with a
flat-roofed,monolithic structure,contradicting the neighborhood's architectural character.The lack of
articulation in the proposed massing eliminates the sense of subordinate modules,a principle outlined in
the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD)design guidelines.The claim that the new
building retains neighborhood character is unsubstantiated.The existing structure’s recessed sub-grade
story and pitched roof are intrinsic to the architectural identity of the area.The proposed building at grade
with a flat roof and large,unbroken walls is an anomaly in a neighborhood defined by diverse rooflines,
articulated facades,and traditional materials.Finally,the proposed main entry door off N 5th Ave does not
reflect the current mid-block east-facing orientation,further disrupting the rhythm and character of the
streetscape.This deviation exacerbates the proposal's incompatibility with the neighborhood’s established
historic and aesthetic values.
2.Guideline 2:Minimize the perceived scale of a multi-household building.
Response (HBP):
To minimize the perceived scale of the building,a large brick reveal is located on 5th Ave to break up the
building mass.Each mass is further subdivided into a residential scale ‘module’with window portals in an
alternating arrangement,which introduces subtle dynamism and interest to the façade.
Response (MNA):
The proposed design does not adequately minimize the perceived scale of the building as required by
Guideline 2.The "large brick reveal"on 5th Avenue is insufficient to truly break up the building mass,as it
fails to establish a meaningful sense of modulation or proportionality consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood.Instead,the design remains monolithic and out of scale with nearby structures,which are
predominantly single-family residences,split-levels,or two-story buildings.The claim that the façade is
subdivided into "residential scale modules"is misleading.The window portals and alternating
arrangement do little to reduce the overwhelming vertical and horizontal mass of the structure.True
residential-scale modulation involves breaking up the building into distinct volumes or modules that mimic
the scale and rhythm of traditional single-household forms,as outlined in the NCOD guidelines.The
proposed design does not achieve this,as the massing remains unbroken and lacks meaningful
articulation.Moreover,the so-called "subtle dynamism"introduced by the alternating windows does not
compensate for the sheer size and uniformity of the structure.This approach fails to create a visual
relationship with the adjacent properties or the broader streetscape,which is defined by a variety of
rooflines,articulated facades,and recessed elements that contribute to a human-scale environment.In
conclusion,the proposed design does not meet the intent of Guideline 2.A more thoughtful approach
would incorporate setbacks,stepped heights,or distinct modules that genuinely reduce the perceived
scale of the building and integrate it harmoniously into the neighborhood context.The current design
instead amplifies the building's imposing presence and detracts from the character of the surrounding
area.
3.Guideline 3:Use traditional features that will convey a human scale.
Response (HBP):
a.The proposed building incorporates traditional window and door openings that are seen throughout the
neighborhood.There is an expanse of glass that invites residents to the lobby,however it is largely
concealed and set back into the building underneath the front porch patio.
b.The one-story front porch at the entry breaks down the building to an inviting human scale and offers
an active zone that engages with the sidewalk and nearby residences.
Response (MNA):
The proposed design does not effectively use traditional features to convey a human scale as required by
Guideline 3.While the response references traditional window and door openings,the fixed windows that
do not open are inconsistent with the operable windows found in all neighboring residences.Additionally,
the one-story porch is insufficient to offset the imposing scale of the building and lacks the articulation
needed to genuinely engage with the surrounding residences.This design does not adequately reflect the
intent of the NCOD guidelines to harmonize with traditional neighborhood features.
4.Guideline 4:A new multi-household building should be within the range of heights seen traditionally in the
neighborhood.
Response (HBP):
a.The proposed 4-story building is a gradual and predictable increase in density as the immediate
neighbors to the south and east are 3 stories.The contiguous lot to the west is zoned B-2M,therefore
future development of that lot is expected to be 4-5 stories.The overall building height is approximately
47’to the top of the roof,which is lower than the 50’maximum allowed under the baseline R-5 zoning
code.
Response (MNA):
The proposed 4-story building is neither within the range of heights seen traditionally in the neighborhood
nor consistent with the surrounding context.The immediate neighbors to the south and east are not 3
stories;the church to the east is a single-story building with a steeple,and the apartment building to the
south is only 2 stories with a partially below-grade level.Furthermore,the 1-story motel to the west has no
plans for redevelopment,and its height does not justify the proposed 4-story building.The argument
about future development on the contiguous lot is speculative and irrelevant to the current zoning and
neighborhood character.The height and mass of the proposed structure far exceed what is traditionally
seen and are incompatible with the NCOD guidelines,which emphasize preserving the historic and
residential scale of the area.
5.Guideline 5:A primary building face should not exceed the width of a typical single-household building in
a similar context.
Response (HBP):
a.The site currently has an existing building with a primary building face that exceeds the width of a
typical single household building.When considering the immediate context of the site (the 3-story church
across the street,the 31-room motel to the west,and the 3-story apartment building to the south)as well
as the existing building form,the proposed building face is contextually appropriate for the neighborhood.
There is also a larger context of this site being immediately adjacent to the Midtown Urban Renewal
District.
Response (MNA):
The proposed building's primary face far exceeds the width of a typical single-household building and is
incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood context.The argument that the existing building already
exceeds this width fails to address the NCOD guideline's intent to preserve traditional neighborhood scale
and character.The immediate context cited by HBP is misleading;the church across the street is a
single-story building with a steeple,not a 3-story structure,and the apartment building to the south is only
2 stories with a partially below-grade level.Furthermore,the 1-story motel to the west is a long-standing,
multi-generational property with no plans for redevelopment to a larger structure.The proposed building’s
excessive width disrupts the historic rhythm of the neighborhood and fails to conform to the NCOD
guidelines.Speculative references to future development in the Midtown Urban Renewal District are
irrelevant to the requirements for this residential zone.
6.Guideline 6:The proportions of window and door openings should be similar to those used traditionally in
the neighborhood.
Response (HBP):
a.The proposed building incorporates traditional window and door openings that are seen throughout the
neighborhood.There is an expanse of glass that invites residents to the lobby;however,it is largely
concealed and set back into the building underneath the front porch patio
Response (MNA):
The proposed building's window and door proportions fail to align with traditional neighborhood standards.
While the response claims to incorporate traditional openings,the windows on the proposed building are
fixed and do not open,unlike those in the surrounding residential homes.This lack of operability detracts
from the livability and character of the neighborhood.Furthermore,the expanse of glass,even if
recessed,is out of scale and inconsistent with the traditional solid-to-void ratio seen in nearby homes.
These design choices undermine the intent of the NCOD guideline to maintain architectural harmony and
human scale within the neighborhood.
7.Guideline 7:Brick,stone,and painted wood are preferred primary building materials.
Response (HBP):
a.The building uses a mix of materials which are typical in neighboring properties.These include brick,
wood,concrete,and fiber cement which are all common materials used in the surrounding neighborhood.
Response (MNA):
While the proposed building incorporates brick and wood,its reliance on fiber cement as a primary
material is inconsistent with the traditional materials used in the neighborhood.Fiber cement is not a
material commonly found in neighboring properties,where brick,stone,painted wood,and structural
masonry dominate.The proposed use of fiber cement detracts from the historical and aesthetic integrity
of the neighborhood.Adding limited brick and concrete elements does not adequately reflect the
character of the area or align with the NCOD guideline,which prioritizes materials that are historically and
visually consistent with the surrounding context.
8.Guideline 8:Orient a primary entrance to the street,when feasible.
Response (HBP):
a.A front porch is oriented to both street frontages,N 5th Ave and W Villard St,with the main building
entry oriented to N 5th Ave.The front porch serves as a transition area from the street to the residences
and breaks down the building to an inviting human scale by offering an active zone that engages with the
sidewalk and nearby residences.
Response (MNA):
While the proposed front porch is oriented to both street frontages,its design and scale are inconsistent
with the surrounding neighborhood.Unlike neighboring properties where front porches are elevated and
integrated into the building's traditional architecture,the proposed porch resembles an extended stay
hotel entry,lacking the historic and residential character of the area.Furthermore,the primary entrance
does not reflect the typical scale and transition seen in existing structures,where porches are elevated
due to the sub-grade story.This design fails to harmonize with the neighborhood’s architectural context
and undermines the cohesive streetscape envisioned by the NCOD guidelines.
9.Guideline 9:Provide some useful,functional common open space that can be enjoyed by all residents in
the development.
Response (HBP):
a.The building provides common open space and amenities that exceed UDC requirements.Access to
shared amenities and open space will be enjoyed by all residents of the project.These amenities include:
1:1 bike storage,parking,dog run,fitness center,lobby/lounge,conference room,trash and recycling,
front porch with grills,shared laundry facilities on 2nd and 4th floors,and a TV lounge on 3rd floor.
Response (MNA):
38.520.060 (On-site Residential and commercial open space)stipulates that the intent is to both “create
usable space that is suitable for leisure or recreational activities for residents”and “to create open space
that contributes to the residential setting”.The application fails to meet the minimum UDC standards for
open space on several criteria-not visible from all the units,less than 15’dimensions,counting square
footage in setbacks,among others.Further,many of the listed amenities are conditional for a residential
certificate of occupancy–like access to trash.Not having enough bike storage for each occupant,
competition for inadequate parking and shared laundry facilities,and having to carry dog feces to the
indoor trash dumpster create a highly dysfunctional and tension-ridden living environment.
10.Guideline 10:Minimize the visual impacts of multi-household garages.
Response (HBP):
This guideline is not applicable as no garages are proposed.
11.Guideline 11:Design a surface lot with landscaping.
Response (HBP):
This property does not have parking off an alley;therefore,landscaping every second car does not apply.
Instead,the parking lot provides appropriate landscaping to comply with UDC 38.550.050.B
Response (MNA):The proposed landscaping falls significantly short of its intended purpose of effectively
screening the parking lot from the sidewalk and street.The suggested plantings,being deciduous and
only knee-high,fail to provide year-round coverage or an adequate visual buffer.This lack of sufficient
screening exacerbates the intrusive impact of the parking lot on the neighborhood streetscape,
undermining the NCOD guidelines that emphasize the importance of landscaping as a buffer.
F.Fences and Retaining Walls:Traditionally,front yard fences were relatively low in height and had a
“transparent”character that allowed views into yards,providing interest to pedestrians.Solid plank wood fences
were used occasionally along alley edges,but also were relatively low in height.A new or replacement fence
should be similar in character with those used traditionally in the neighborhood.In addition,fences should relate in
character to the principal structures on the lot.
1.Guideline 1:A new fence should be in character with those seen traditionally.
Response (HBP):
a.There is a low concrete wall less than 30”in height along the front porch that serves not only as a
buffer but a seating amenity.Concrete material is traditionally used in the neighborhood and was a
requested building material by the Midtown neighbors during the design of the project.
b.The ground floor units have privacy fences to meet UDC 38.520.060.B.These fences incorporate wood
that is typical of the neighborhood.
Response (MNA):
The Midtown Neighbors have yet to receive any formalized engagement from the applicant on any design
features of this application.There are no properties in the area utilizing concrete retaining walls within
setbacks.Further,any structural concrete porches have been installed to rebuild structural masonry brick
building accessories (attached planters,etc)and were reclad with the original salvaged masonry
materials including period brick detailing.
There are very specific guidelines for fencing in the NCOD,and supersede those of Article 5.Privacy
fencing is only permissible along property lines abutting adjacent parcels.No privacy fences have been
permitted adjacent to public streets and sidewalks.
2.Guideline 2:A new retaining wall should be in character with those seen traditionally.
Response (HBP):
a.There is a concrete retaining wall on the west property line between this property and the motel that
will remain.Near the dog run on the west property line,a new concrete retaining wall will be constructed
to match the existing character of concrete retaining walls currently on the property and in the
neighborhood.
Response (MNA):Midtown is notably free of retaining walls,as all of our foundations are raised 4 feet
above grade to accommodate sub-level dwelling units.
Chapter 4:Guidelines for Commercial Character Areas
Response (HBP):
Chapter 4 is not applicable as this application is not within a commercial character area.
Chapter 5:District Specific Descriptions and Guidelines
Response (HBP):
Chapter 5 is not applicable as this application is not within an established historic district.
38.340.050.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.”
Response (HBP):
In the previous application’s #23354 Staff Report,staff extensively outlined compliance with all applicable
development standards in Chapter 38 of UDC and recommended approval.This new application #24493 made
the below revisions,however none of which materially change staff’s findings,and the project remains in full
compliance with Chapter 38 of the UDC.
1.Reduced the mass and scale of the building by reducing the height of the building from 5 stories to 4.The
unit count was also reduced by 20%which resulted in an overall traffic reduction.
2.Increased amenity offerings with the incorporation of a fitness center,dog run,and 1:1 bike storage.
3.Upgraded unit kitchens to include a full-size refrigerator/freezer and convection oven.
4.Incorporated additional concrete and brick to the exterior design to integrate and honor the unique
neighborhood character and sense of place.
5.Reserved a street loading space for deliveries near the front door.
6.Distributed the affordable units equally across all floors,unit types,and facades.
Response (MNA):
The previous application and staff report was denied by the review authority as it was found to be out of
compliance with the Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code among other deficiencies in additional chapters.
Therefore,the project (apparently a “new”one despite consistent references to a previous one)cannot remain in
full compliance,since it was never in compliance to begin with.Just as you can put lipstick on a pig,this list of
changes does not adequately address the findings of fact that led the review authority to deny the first proposal.
38.340.050.F
“Tax abatement certificate of appropriateness applications are also reviewed with the procedures and standards
established in chapter 2,article 6,division 2.”
Response (HBP):
Not applicable because no tax abatement certificate of appropriateness is sought in this application.
Response (MNA):
A criteria of lifting the demolition stay–the applicant has to adequately seek alternatives to demolition.They have
not consulted with the Historic Preservation Advisory Board,the State Historic Preservation Office,nor the
adjacent neighborhood.