HomeMy WebLinkAboutHaggerty Multi-Family Informal Review_COB Correspondence1Sina Seyedian
From:Zachary Moon <zmoon@BOZEMAN.NET>Sent:Friday, February 13, 2026 12:09 PMTo:Sina SeyedianCc:Development Review Coordinator; Scott Freimuth; Jackson BruffSubject:RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Haggerty Multi-Family Informal ReviewAttachments:ATT00001.txt; ATT00002.htmHi Sina, I think that there could be some overlap between a Site Plan and Subdivision application, but the Site Plan could not achieve substantial compliance until such time that the final plat of a proposed subdivision had gone through removing the easement. I believe that we would typically expect a timeline of Subdivision achieving substantial compliance before we could accept a Site Plan showing infrastructure in that area. Then once you made it to final plat, we could deem the site plan as being substantially compliant and move that application forward. I think for the activation space its really just a delineation between a stairwell and a staircase. A stairwell is typically a design which is the principal use of a residential area, typically with low quality design for heavy traffic through an apartment building, while a staircase is typically an interior element to a single unit, typically of high design quality. I could see there being an issue if the entire activation area was dedicated to a staircase because at that point the functionality sort of becomes that of a stairwell. But a foyer that happens to have a typical residential staircase leading to the next floor would- in most cases- meet the intent of the standard. I have attached two images below. The first I think exemplifies a design that would meet the activation depth and contains a staircase, and the second exemplifies a design that would not meet the activation depth and would be considered a stairwell. I think the main delineation here is not whether the staircase is open underneath for a reading nook or something, but more is the intent of the area to transport people throughout the building or is it an active space, a space that people would feel comfortable to exist in. I of course do not mean to be prescriptive with these photos, only to hopefully clarify the code’s expectations between these to terms. The first image is a pleasant foyer/meeting space, the second image is only something designed to move foot traffic. If that makes sense? Thank you, Zachary Moon Associate Planner | Community Development City of Bozeman | P: 406.582.2963 | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771
2 From: Sina Seyedian <sina@aspektarch.com> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 11:44 AM To: Zachary Moon <zmoon@BOZEMAN.NET> Cc: Development Review Coordinator <drcoordinator@BOZEMAN.NET>; Scott Freimuth <scott@aspektarch.com>; Jackson Bruff <jsbruff@gmail.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Haggerty Multi-Family Informal Review 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. Thanks Zachary, Noted on the planting strip, I’m assuming we would need to go through the subdivision process for our lot and the lot connected to the east. Is this something that we could go through concurrently with the site plan submittal? You say the staircase could be permissible. What kind of drawings and documentation included with the site plan submittal do you need to see to turn that could into a would? Does it come down to how open the stair is to the active zone? details/rendering of the active zone?
3Sina Seyedian Project Manager, AIT ASPEKT ARCHITECTURE m 303.513.6256 aspektarch.com From: Zachary Moon <zmoon@BOZEMAN.NET> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 11:21 AM To: Sina Seyedian <sina@aspektarch.com> Cc: Development Review Coordinator <drcoordinator@BOZEMAN.NET>; Scott Freimuth <scott@aspektarch.com>; Jackson Bruff <jsbruff@gmail.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Haggerty Multi-Family Informal Review Hi Sina, Thank you for reaching out. Regarding the planting strip, we will either need to see this removed through the subdivision process or the planting easement as shown on the plat of Elks Subdivision needs to be respected and only landscaping is allowed. Planning would be amenable to allowed pedestrian oriented uses like walkways as well. But no drive aisles could be placed in this easement. Regarding activation depth. It does appear that there is a noted difference between a staircase and a stairwell. The code specifically prohibits stairwells, but an element such as a staircase could be permissible. The differentiation being that a stairwell is typically a wholly cemented sort of bland element and a staircase is typically a desirable residential interior design. The activation depth only calculates the required depth per each use type in a particular zone. So, if you provide an area of 12 feet in depth where only 9 feet is required, the code requires us to only look at the area 9 feet in depth and calculating the allowances within that 9 foot area. See Section 38.260.120.A.3.b. “No more than 20% of the floor area of the required active depth can be used for inactive uses such as storage, hallways, stairwells, elevators, and equipment rooms.” Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Zachary Moon Associate Planner | Community Development City of Bozeman | P: 406.582.2963 | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771 From: Sina Seyedian <sina@aspektarch.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 3:06 PM To: Zachary Moon <zmoon@BOZEMAN.NET> Cc: Development Review Coordinator <drcoordinator@BOZEMAN.NET>; Scott Freimuth <scott@aspektarch.com>; Jackson Bruff <jsbruff@gmail.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Haggerty Multi-Family Informal Review 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.
4 Zachary, Checking in to see if you have any new information or a decision on the 20’ easement on the south end of the site. To reiterate, there is no supporting language aside from “Planting Strip” on the easement and there are portions of buildings, parking lots, utility boxes, and pedestrian oriented infrastructure within that strip on adjacent properties. We are working towards a Site Plan Submittal and that seems to be our only unresolved item. I have an additional question on the active depth: If we provide a space deeper than 9’ does that additional depth count towards our total floor area when considering the 20% max for inactive uses? Sina Seyedian Project Manager, AIT ASPEKT ARCHITECTURE m 303.513.6256 aspektarch.com From: Zachary Moon <zmoon@BOZEMAN.NET> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 9:56 AM To: Sina Seyedian <sina@aspektarch.com> Cc: Development Review Coordinator <drcoordinator@BOZEMAN.NET>; Scott Freimuth <scott@aspektarch.com>; Jackson Bruff <jsbruff@gmail.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Haggerty Multi-Family Informal Review Hi Sina, Thank you for reaching out. Regarding the activation depth. The relief section specifies, “Reduced depths will be considered where the applicant can successfully demonstrate the proposed alternative design and configuration of the space is viable for an active use”. To me, there are two critical components here. The first is that you can only request relief to the depth, the code does not allow for relief to the standards of subsection A.3.b-c. With this, it is hypothetically possible to request a reduction from 9 feet to 8 feet, but it is not possible to allow more than 20% of the floor area to be the inactive uses therein or to allow for any parking or vehicular use areas within the activation depth. I am not sure if I can think of a great justification for reducing the depth from 9 feet to 8 feet, since 9 feet really isn’t much space to begin with. Given that this is a new code, we haven’t seen any designs, or anyone try to request relief to this section yet but are happy to review any ideas you may have in complying with this section. However, the submitted design this instance, having 100% of the required active area designed as inactive and prohibited uses, is not supported by the code. The new UDC will absolutely be evolving. I know that we have a typos and minor edits correction which we are slowly finding all the little typos and will bring that to the commission after a brief period. I do not believe that we have a date set for that yet. There is also a bigger picture update which I believe will occur where- after we have implemented code- we will look to see if there are elements which don’t provide the outcome desired by the Commission in adopting the document. My apologies if anything I have stated here is contrary to previous statements about the activation section, just as we dig into this code more frequently we are able to pull out more nuance and hopefully more clarity in how the code functions in relation to proposed developments. Thank you,
5Zachary Moon Associate Planner | Community Development City of Bozeman | P: 406.582.2963 | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771 From: Sina Seyedian <sina@aspektarch.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 3:58 PM To: Zachary Moon <zmoon@BOZEMAN.NET> Cc: Development Review Coordinator <drcoordinator@BOZEMAN.NET>; Scott Freimuth <scott@aspektarch.com>; Jackson Bruff <jsbruff@gmail.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Haggerty Multi-Family Informal Review 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. Hi Zachary, Thanks for the comments back on our Informal Review. I wanted to reach out and touch base on the activation zone. We will likely continue to seek relief in this area. Are there any precedents for how others have demonstrated alternative designs? You previously said the criteria for relief is fairly open to give designers more discretion, but has there been any conversation internally as to what the criteria looks like? My understanding of the intent of this section seems to be to provide an engaging pedestrian experience of the building, similar to the standards for the blank wall width. In my mind the prescriptive treatments for the blank wall could serve to meet portions of the intent of the activation depth. Lastly, Do you know if portions of the UDC (such as this one) will continue to evolve as planning works with designers on new projects? I would imagine there is a bit of discretion with the new code as we all wrap our heads around it. Sina Seyedian Project Manager, AIT ASPEKT ARCHITECTURE m 303.513.6256 aspektarch.com From: Zachary Moon <zmoon@BOZEMAN.NET> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 10:58 AM To: Sina Seyedian <sina@aspektarch.com> Cc: Development Review Coordinator <drcoordinator@BOZEMAN.NET>; Scott Freimuth <scott@aspektarch.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Haggerty Multi-Family Informal Review Hi Sina, A number of these items will require weigh in from other departments. As such, I will answer the questions I can that are applicable only to planning.
6 Q#3- subsection 4.c clarifies that “Upper level building projections over drive aisles are limited to three feet, and must comply with subsection 4.b. above.” So, the ground floor must have the required 24’ separation, and the upper floors can project 3 feet each. Q#5- To come in with less than the stated activation, you would need to prove that the space would still be usable and meet the intent. Looks like residential activation depth is 9-feet, so at face value it would seem difficult to reduce that and still have a usable space, but I suppose it is possible. Since this is a new code we have not seen this done before, but would be happy to look at anything you might propose. Q#6- This is dependent on the functionality of the adjacent lot. If it is providing required parking/access to required parking, then yes we would need to see it paved, other situations would be more case by case on whether it needs to be paved or not. If paving is required, this could be accomplished through a MOD, and could be added as a condition of approval to a preliminary site plan approval. Q#7- We are currently working on the transition to the new requirements of the Montana Land Use and Planning Act (MLUPA). It is a rather complex transition and I think the best information I could direct you to is the City Commission hearing on November 10, 2025 where Chris Saunders presented this information in detail to the Commission. Here is a link to the agenda. The top of the page has a link to the commission videos page where you can find a link to the video itself. As far as I am aware, the timeline is roughly expected to have the effective date of the new UDC occur on 2/1/2026, but there is no guarantee of that date. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Zachary Moon Associate Planner | Community Development City of Bozeman | P: 406.582.2963 | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771 From: Sina Seyedian <sina@aspektarch.com> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 10:26 AM To: Zachary Moon <zmoon@BOZEMAN.NET> Cc: Development Review Coordinator <drcoordinator@BOZEMAN.NET>; Scott Freimuth <scott@aspektarch.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Haggerty Multi-Family Informal Review 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. Zachary, Could we get some input on these questions before we submit the INF? Thanks, Sina Seyedian Project Manager, AIT
7ASPEKT ARCHITECTURE m 303.513.6256 aspektarch.com From: Sina Seyedian Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 1:03 PM To: 'Zachary Moon' <zmoon@BOZEMAN.NET> Cc: Development Review Coordinator <drcoordinator@BOZEMAN.NET>; Scott Freimuth <scott@aspektarch.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Haggerty Multi-Family Informal Review Zachary, Thanks for this input, we will begin working towards an Informal Review instead of the Pre-app In the meantime we have a few questions I was hoping to get answers to before we get too far in the design: 1. Please advise if we can classify & detail these buildings/units as townhomes under the IRC without the requirement for individual services and lot lines (Planning, Building). 2. Please advise on minimum width of the internal drive aisle specifically related to Fire department access and requirements. (Planning, Fire). 3. Please advise whether the upper floors of the buildings require a 24’ separation from each other per UDC 38.320.030.C.4 (Planning). 4. Please advise if turning radius of proposed Emergency vehicle egress drive with gate onto adjacent property is acceptable (Planning, Engineering, Fire). 5. Please advise on how to “demonstrate the proposed alternative design and configuration of the space is viable for an active use” for relief of Sec. 38.260.120 (Planning). 6. Will we be required to repave the adjacent parking lot beyond the limits required to tie in the emergency access drive? Please advise how we should approach the egress drive from a site plan submittal standpoint: ie - can this simply be included as part of a single application? What kind of documentation will be required from that property Owner acknowledging their approval of the proposed plan? (Planning). 7. Please advise if there is any new information or proposed SOP on any “transition” period to the new code both from a schedule and process standpoint we should be aware of (Planning). Sina Seyedian Project Manager, AIT ASPEKT ARCHITECTURE m 303.513.6256 aspektarch.com From: Zachary Moon <zmoon@BOZEMAN.NET> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2025 3:54 PM To: Sina Seyedian <sina@aspektarch.com> Cc: Development Review Coordinator <drcoordinator@BOZEMAN.NET> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]RE: Haggerty Multi-Family Informal Review Hi Sina,
8I believe that an Informal Application would be the best path forward for this development proposal. Given that we have already completed a pre-application meeting, I believe that either a Concept Review or Informal would be the next appropriate step. Additionally, at this time our director has given firm direction that we are not to provide Concept Review Waivers in light of the forthcoming code update. Given the interdepartmental complexities of this project , I believe that an Informal would be the best path forward so that we could have a follow up meeting after reviewers submit their electronic comments, but a Concept Review would be an acceptable path, too. As long as the application is clear that the goal is to receive adequacy under the new code, we are happy to provide comments regarding the proposals compliance with the Draft Unified Development Code. Lastly, regarding your question a couple weeks ago relating to parking allowed in the setbacks. We discussed this as a team and this was an err on the part of Section 38.210.040- R-C and will be amended to reflect Section 38.260.090. which prohibits parking within the side setbacks (but allows for drive aisles in setbacks). Thank you, Zachary Moon Associate Planner | Community Development City of Bozeman | P: 406.582.2963 | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771 From: Sina Seyedian <sina@aspektarch.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2025 10:32 AM To: Jessica Mooring <jmooring@BOZEMAN.NET> Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: Haggerty Multi-Family Informal Review 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. Jessica, We are open to doing an INF if you think it would move the project along quicker than doing another pre-app. Our original thinking was if we did the additional pre-app, we could get a CONR waiver. How likely do you think that is given the new code? Our other concern is that we weren’t able to discuss any of the new UDC and would like to make sure our project is aligning with it. We’re not opposed to the INF, but we would like to
9From: Jessica Mooring <jmooring@BOZEMAN.NET> Sent: Friday, November 7, 2025 11:28 AM To: Sina Seyedian <sina@aspektarch.com> Subject: Haggerty Multi-Family Informal Review Hi Sina, I wanted to touch base on your request for a second pr e-app for the Haggerty Multi-Family development.
After connecting with the reviewers, they have expre ssed interest in seeing the application in the form of an Informal Review (INF). Submitting an INF will keep this project moving forward, as it comes with
submittal requirements and is an alternative to the con ceptual review process. Reviewers will go through
a review cycle, and there is a follow-up meeting where you and your team can meet with the reviewers to
address any comments left through the process, prior to formal submittal. Please let me know if this is something your team wo uld be prepared to submit. Thank you, Jessica Mooring Development Review Coordinator | Community Development City of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771 O: 406.582.2945 | C: 406.595.7724 | E: jmooring@bozeman.net |W: www.bozeman.net/planning CUSTOMER SERVICE HOURS (Front Counter @ 20 East Olive, 59715): Open: M,W,F: 9 AM – 4 PM; & T, R: 9 AM – 1 PM