HomeMy WebLinkAboutHoly Rosary Church Expansion Demolition Site Plan
Commission Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Allyson C. Bristor, Associate Planner & Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness
with Deviation Application - #Z-09016
HEARING DATE: Monday, April 6, 2009 at 6:00 p.m.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition Site Plan
and Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviation application, #Z-09016, as conditioned by Staff.
BACKGROUND: The Holy Rosary Catholic Parish, represented by ThinkOne, made formal application with the
Department of Planning & Community Development for a Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness with
Deviation application. The project site is the Holy Rosary Church property at 220 West Main Street, which is
located on the southeast corner of Main Street and 3rd Avenue and encompasses approximately 1.25 acres (54,301
square feet) in lot area. Three buildings currently exist on the property, including the Holy Rosary Church, the
Rectory building, and the Convent building. All three buildings are constructed with unreinforced masonry, contain
minor to major code violations, and have egress concerns. There is also an existing surface parking lot to the rear
(south) of the property, which is accessed off of 3rd Avenue and Babcock Street.
The application will allow the following alterations to the property located at 220 West Main Street: 1) partial
demolition, rehabilitation and expansion of the existing Holy Rosary Church and Rectory buildings, 2) complete
demolition of the existing Convent building, 3) redesign of the existing on-site parking lot, and 4) other site related
improvements. One deviation is requested with the application, to allow the internal parking lot to be designed with
unbroken rows of parking exceeding 100 feet.
The Holy Rosary Church property is located outside of the Main Street Historic District boundaries, but is included
within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and considered historically significant. The cornerstone of
the present church was laid on June 9, 1907 and the dedicated on May 3, 1908. The Rectory building was
constructed on the property in 1912, with a minor rear addition added later. It is currently used by Holy Rosary for
church affiliated offices. The Convent building was constructed on the property in 1928. It is currently vacant, and
recently condemned by the Dioceses of Helena, but was used by Holy Rosary for religious educational classroom
space and other outreach programs.
The Church and Convent buildings are listed as contributing elements by the Montana Historical and Architectural
Inventory. The Convent is described as an outbuilding on the Church property. The Rectory building is
individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places, therefore also considered a contributing element. The
Church’s exterior staircase was removed after the Inventory’s survey work, which affected the historic integrity of
the Church. However, the Church is still retains its historic significance.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Staff is not aware of any unresolved issues for this proposed development at this time.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The Department of Planning is not aware of any fiscal effects for the proposed development
at this time.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
CONTACT: Please email Allyson Bristor at abristor@bozeman.net if you have any questions prior to the public
hearing.
APPROVED BY: Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
334
CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
HOLY ROSARY CHURCH EXPANSION/DEMOLITION SP/COA/DEV #Z-09016
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 1
Item: Zoning Application #Z-09016, a Site Plan and Certificate of
Appropriateness with Deviation application, to allow the following
alterations to the property located at 220 West Main Street: 1) partial
demolition, rehabilitation and expansion of the existing Holy Rosary
Church and Rectory buildings, 2) complete demolition of the existing
Convent building, 3) redesign of the existing on-site parking lot, and
4) other site related improvements. One deviation is requested with
the application, to allow the internal parking lot to be designed with
unbroken rows of parking exceeding 100 feet. The property is zoned
as “B-3” (Central Business District) and is located within the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
Owner: Diocese of Helena
PO Box 1729
Helena, MT 59624
Applicant: Holy Rosary Catholic Parish
220 West Main Street
Bozeman, MT 59715
Representative: ThinkOne
101 East Main Street, Studio #1
Bozeman, MT 59715
Date: City Commission Public Hearing: Monday, April 6, 2009 at
6:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 N. Rouse
Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715.
Report By: Allyson C. Bristor, AICP
Associate Planner & Historic Preservation Officer
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
____________________________________________________________________________________
PROJECT LOCATION
The subject property is addressed as 220 West Main Street, which is located on the southeast corner of the
Main Street and 3rd Avenue intersection. The property is legally described as Lots 5-16, Block C, Story’s
Addition, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. Please refer to the aerial map on the following page.
335
PROJECT PROPOSAL
The Holy Rosary Catholic Parish, represented by ThinkOne, made formal application with the Department
of Planning & Community Development for a Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviation
application. The project site is the Holy Rosary Church property at 220 West Main Street, which is located
on the southeast corner of Main Street and 3rd Avenue and encompasses approximately 1.25 acres (54,301
square feet) in lot area. Three buildings currently exist on the property, including the Holy Rosary Church,
the Rectory building, and the Convent building. All three buildings are constructed with unreinforced
masonry, contain minor to major code violations, and have egress concerns. There is also an existing
surface parking lot to the rear (south) of the property, which is accessed off of 3rd Avenue and Babcock
Street.
The application will allow the following alterations to the property located at 220 West Main Street: 1)
partial demolition, rehabilitation and expansion of the existing Holy Rosary Church and Rectory buildings,
2) complete demolition of the existing Convent building, 3) redesign of the existing on-site parking lot, and
4) other site related improvements. One deviation is requested with the application, to allow the internal
parking lot to be designed with unbroken rows of parking exceeding 100 feet.
The Holy Rosary Church property is located outside of the Main Street Historic District boundaries, but is
included within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and considered historically significant.
The cornerstone of the present church was laid on June 9, 1907 and the dedicated on May 3, 1908. The
Rectory building was constructed on the property in 1912, with a minor rear addition added later. It is
currently used by Holy Rosary for church affiliated offices. The Convent building was constructed on the
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 2 336
property in 1928. It is currently vacant, and recently condemned by the Dioceses of Helena, but was used
by Holy Rosary for religious educational classroom space and other outreach programs.
The Church and Convent buildings are listed as contributing elements by the Montana Historical and
Architectural Inventory. The Convent is described as an outbuilding on the Church property. The Rectory
building is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places, therefore also considered a
contributing element. The Church’s exterior staircase was removed after the Inventory’s survey work,
which affected the historic integrity of the Church. However, the Church is still retains its historic
significance.
RECOMMENDATION
The partial or complete demolition of buildings designated as contributing elements by the Montana
Historical and Architectural Inventory are subject to approval by the City Commission through a public
hearing, after receiving a recommendation from the Design Review Board (DRB) and Administrative
Design Review (ADR) Staff. The application also required a review by the Development Review
Committee (DRC), which occurred for four weeks in February and March 2009. The DRC recommended
approval of the proposal as conditioned by Staff. The application was reviewed by the DRB on March 25,
2009 and a 4-1 vote recommending approval as conditioned by Staff was cast.
ADR Staff also took the application to the Historic Preservation Advisory Board (HPAB) on March 26,
2009 for their professional recommendations. The Board also recommended approval of the project, but
with the addition of a couple of conditions. Planning Staff considered the HPAB’s recommendation and
included their recommended conditions. The added conditions are included in this report.
The DRC, DRB and HPAB reviewed the Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviation
application to allow a major expansion and demolition work to the property at 220 West Main Street. As a
result, all review boards recommend approval to the City Commission approval with the conditions and
code provisions outlined in this staff report. Some of the recommended conditions were added following
the DRB and HPAB review of the application. Planning Staff has identified various code provisions that
are currently not met by this application. Some or all of these items are listed in the findings of this staff
report. The applicant must comply with all provisions of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance,
which are applicable to this project, prior to the commencement of use.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The Development Review Committee (DRC), the Design Review Board (DRB) and Administrative Design
Review (ADR) Staff finds that the application, with conditions, is in general compliance with the adopted
Growth Policy and the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. The following conditions of
approval are recommended:
Planning
1. A traffic impact study shall be submitted with the final site plan. The study shall be completed by a
licensed architect and explain how the supplied on-site parking and the shared off-site parking is
sufficient for the scheduled events at the Holy Rosary Church property. The study shall examine an
entire week and should include a written narrative, time tables, use tables, and any other affiliated
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 3 337
information. The study shall examine a low, medium, and maximum tiers of parking demand (low
tier = daily operations/office/20% of maximum use; medium tier = weekly
events/weddings/funerals/50% of maximum use; high tier = weekend mass/100% of maximum
use). All shared-use parking agreements shall coordinate with the findings of the traffic impact
study.
2. All shared-use parking agreements shall be finalized with the final site plan and copies of each signed
agreement shall be submitted to the Department of Planning. This shall include all new shared-use
parking agreements, as well as any existing shared-use parking agreements between the Holy Rosary
Church and a third party.
3. To prevent a parking shortage on-site, signs (number determined by the applicant, but not less than
two) shall be added to the surface parking lot area that restricts the lot to only patrons/visitors of
the Holy Rosary Church property. The design detail of these signs shall be added to the final site
plan submittal.
4. The parking table shall be revised and updated to reflect the current parking proposal in the final site
plan submittal.
5. A written confirmation shall be submitted from Holy Rosary Church that states a parking limitation
is imposed by only allowing unconcentrated assembly (tables and chairs) in the Fellowship Hall
areas. The written confirmation shall be submitted with the final site plan.
6. To aid pedestrians accessing the Church and Rectory buildings, a pigmented and scored concrete
pedestrian crosswalk shall be added between the proposed sidewalk aisles in the parking lot.
7. Only the first accessible parking space needs to be “van accessible,” which is an 8-foot wide aisle.
All the other accessible parking spaces only require a 5-foot wide aisle.
8. A construction phasing plan shall be submitted with the final site plan. The phasing plan shall
include a site plan clearly indicating each phase area, a written explanation of the new construction
activities that will occur in each phase, and a written explanation to how the initial phase can stand
on its own if the subsequent phase(s) are placed on hold or terminated completely.
9. A demolition phasing plan shall be submitted with the final site plan submittal. The phasing plan
shall include a site plan clearly indicating each phase area, a written explanation of the demolition
activities that will occur in each phase, colored pictures of the existing buildings with marked areas
and notes of the demolition activities, and building elevations with marked areas and notes of the
demolition activities.
10. The applicant shall complete Level II of HABS/HAER documentation for the entire property with
the final site plan submittal. The documentation should include all existing buildings on the
property (Holy Rosary Church, Rectory and Convent) and follow the most current version of the
HABS/HAER Standards published by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The documentation
shall be submitted to and approved by the National Park Service prior to the issuance of a
demolition or building permit. One copy of the HABS deliverables shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning files. The Planning copy shall include high-resolution digital copies (in
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 4 338
TIFF format) of all non-text documentation and a Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF version of the
written narrative.
11. The applicant shall provide an exhibit and inventory of all existing landscaping to be protected,
replaced, removed, or moved on site with the final site plan submittal. At the time of final
inspection of the newly installed landscaping approved on the final landscape plan, all landscaping
that was either protected, moved or removed shall be accounted for and noted as on site, or noted
as removed with the prior approval of the Department of Planning. Standard tree protection
measure including 4-foot high, orange barrier fencing installed at each tree’s drip line shall be
instituted for all trees to be protected prior to any grading on site.
12. The species of the existing shrub and hedge shall be identified on the landscaping plan.
13. The on-site parking lot shall incorporate landscaped berms, low decorative walls, architectural
screens, evergreen hedges, or a combination thereof, at a minimum of 4 feet to screen the parking
area from the public right-of-ways.
14. Necessary backflow prevention must be demonstrated for the existing water service line. The
applicant shall schedule a backflow inspection with the Water & Sewer Department’s backflow
specialist by calling the City Shops at 406-582-3200.
15. A design detail of the raised flower bed shall be submitted with the final site plan.
16. Design details of all proposed lighting, both building mounted and freestanding, shall be included
with the final site plan.
17. The new brick on the Church rear addition shall match the existing brick in color, size, position
pattern and mortar joint width and style.
18. The new windows on the Church rear addition shall match the existing windows in size, style,
glazing, muntin/mullion and sash dimensions, and framing detailing.
19. Bicycle racks shall be added to the site plan in locations near all entries of the Church and Rectory
buildings. The style of bicycle racks shall conform to those recommended in the recently updated
Bozeman Greater Transportation Plan, and their design detail shall be submitted with the final site
plan.
20. A detailed color palette and materials board of all new construction materials shall be submitted with
the final site plan for final review and approval by Administrative Design Review Staff. Staff will
expect to see samples or examples of brick, stained glass, window trim, cornice details, roof shingles,
glazing, etc. The color palette and materials board should cross reference with all the notations on
the site plan and building elevations.
21. Under no circumstances shall a demolition or building permit be issued prior to final site plan
approval.
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 5 339
22. That the applicant upon submitting the final site plan for approval by the Planning Director and
prior to issuance of a building permit, will also submit a written narrative outlining how each of the
conditions of approval and code provisions have been satisfied.
23. The applicant is responsible to add a National Register Plaque/Sign, issued by the Montana
Historical Society, to the Holy Rosary Church property. The historic text shall talk about the
Church, Rectory and Convent buildings and make reference to the current proposal.
24. The applicant shall publicly advertise the sale of the Convent building, for movement off site at the
buyers cost and liability, for a length of 90 days prior to the demolition of the structure. Proof of
the advertising shall be submitted to the Department of Planning.
25. If the attempt to sell the Convent building fails, the applicant shall attempt to salvage materials of
the Convent building during the demolition process. A written narrative explaining the process and
materials of salvage shall be submitted to the Department of Planning for approval by
Administrative Design Review Staff prior to the demolition request.
26. The applicant shall make design modifications to the proposed connection between the Church and
Rectory buildings to provide more transparency and less volume in its appearance. Examples of
changes that might achieve this are changing the color of the window framing, minimizing the
mullion/muntin width of the window framing, reducing the height of the connection, etc. The
design modifications shall be presented with the final site plan submittal.
Engineering
27. A grease interceptor conforming to the latest adopted edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code shall
be installed.
28. Water services and mains existing on the site that are not used by the development shall be
abandoned at the main connection.
29. Damaged sidewalk panels fronting the project site shall be replaced.
30. A plan detailing provision of water / sewer utilities during demolition and construction shall be
submitted to the Water/Sewer Superintendent for review and approval.
31. Existing vegetation in street vision triangles shall be trimmed to provide an unobstructed view 30”
above ground surface.
32. Stormwater controls shall be implemented to prevent the developed site stormwater runoff from
exceeding the existing condition.
33. An access deviation shall be prepared in accordance with Section 18.44.090.H UDO as the proposed
site accesses do not conform to the spacing standards of Section 18.44.090.D.3 UDO.
34. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City of Bozeman prior to using public right-of-
way for construction purposes.
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 6 340
35. The proposed water service to the addition must be run from the main if it is larger than the existing
service.
ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES
The subject property is zoned B-3 (Central Business District). The intent of the B-3 District is to provide a
central area for the community’s business, government service and cultural activities. The subject property
is surrounded by a mix of business uses including banking services, Bozeman School Board educational
buildings and Gallatin County offices and services. All adjacent properties are zoned B-3.
ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION
The property is designated as “Community Commercial” in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. Activities
within this land use category are the basic employment and services necessary for a vibrant community.
Establishments located within these categories draw from the community as a whole for their employee and
customer base and are sized accordingly. A broad range of service activities including retail, education,
professional and personal services, offices, residences, and general service activities typify this designation.
The density of development is expected to be higher in this area than in other commercial areas in
Bozeman. Please see an exhibit on the following page.
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 7 341
Subject
Property
REVIEW CRITERIA & FINDINGS
The Department of Planning & Community Development reviewed this Site Plan and Certificate of
Appropriateness application against the relevant chapters of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO),
and as a result offers the following initial comments below. The findings outlined in this report include
comments and recommended conditions provided by the Development Review Committee (DRC), the
Design Review Board (DRB), and Historic Preservation Advisory Board (HPAB). After the board
evaluations, Planning Staff performed a final evaluation of the applicant’s proposal in relationship to review
criteria and determined if additional conditions of approval were necessary to ensure that the development
proposal meets the criteria.
Section 18.28.050 “Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness”
The demolition proposed for the existing Convent building is examined under the “Demolition or
Movement of Structures or Sites Within the Conservation District” section of this report. The discussion
below is specifically oriented toward the proposed partial demolition and new additions to the Church and
Rectory buildings.
A. All work performed in completion of an approved Certificate of Appropriateness shall be in
conformance with the most recent edition of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring
and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Published 1995), published by U.S. Department of
the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships,
Heritage Preservation Services, Washington, D.C. (available for review at the Department of
Planning).
The Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties for Rehabilitation are
relevant for the Holy Rosary Church proposal. Specifically, Standards #9 and 10 should be
considered:
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 8 342
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic
materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work
shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials,
features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and
its environment.
The Church’s historic integrity was diminished in the 1980s, when the original front, exterior
staircase and entry were removed, and replaced with an enclosed entry and gathering space.
Planning Staff supports the applicant’s decision to place the Church’s new addition to the rear rather
than to the sides because it preserves the remaining significant features of the building on the Main
Street and 3rd Avenue elevations. Because the rear addition requires the removal of the Convent
building, and partial demolition of the existing Church and Rectory buildings, Staff is requiring Level
II of HABS/HAER documentation for the entire property with the final site plan submittal.
Staff also supports the applicant’s decision to match the existing Church’s brick, window style, roof
pitch and materials with the rear addition. Because the historic integrity of the Church building was
already lessened with the front elevation alteration, there is less concern or need to highly
differentiate between the existing Church and the rear addition. Rather, Staff finds the
differentiation of old and new much more important and applicable in the proposed addition that
creates a built connection between the Church and Rectory buildings.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in a such a
manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic
property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Again, the Church’s integrity was diminished in the 1980s, when the original front, exterior staircase
and entry were removed. If the front enclosed entry and new rear addition were removed in the
future, the essential form and integrity of the historic building would be slightly unimpaired.
The remaining Standards for Rehabilitation are considered in the “Standards for Certificate of
Appropriateness” and the Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District.
B. Architectural appearance design guidelines used to consider the appropriateness and
compatibility of proposed alterations with original design features of subject structures or
properties, and with neighboring structures and properties, shall focus upon the following:
1. Height;
The proposed height of the Church’s rear addition is the same as the existing, primary roofline,
and therefore is found to be appropriate. The added connection between the Church and
Rectory buildings for a new accessible entry and bathrooms is less in height than the Church’s
rear addition, and primarily less or equal in height to the existing Rectory building, both which
help to differentiate between old and new.
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 9 343
2. Proportions of doors and windows;
The proposal to keep the same proportion and style of windows on the Church’s rear addition
as the existing building is deemed appropriate. The proposal of an extensive glass curtain wall
assembly for the added connection between the Church and Rectory buildings is an appropriate
change in materials and architectural style to aid in the differentiation between old and new
construction.
3. Relationship of building masses and spaces;
The rear addition causes the Church building mass to increase, but it is still found to be
appropriate for the surrounding historic context. The cruciform plan that is created with the
rear addition follows traditional church design. The added connection between the Church and
Rectory building is shorter in height and smaller in footprint than the Church rear addition.
This change in building scale is appropriate for the added connection. It establishes a visible
distinction between the old and new, as well as avoids the new construction from being
overwhelming and inappropriate in building mass and scale.
4. Roof shape;
The roof shape and roof pitch of the existing Church building is maintained with the Church
rear addition.
5. Scale;
Read the comments included under “Relationship of building masses and spaces.”
6. Directional expression;
The horizontal repetition of the windows is retained with the Church rear addition. The
extension of the existing, primary roofline in the Church rear addition helps to emphasize the
linear length of the addition in a cruciform plan. The Church rear addition is divided into
vertical bays by architectural features, including brick pilasters and stained glass window
openings, all which are following the existing pattern of the original Church building.
7. Architectural details;
The proposed architectural detailing of the proposed expansion is vital to the success of the
project. With the final site plan submittal, the applicant is required to submit a detailed color
palette and materials board for final review by Administrative Design Review Staff. Staff will
expect to see samples or examples of brick, stained glass, window trim, cornice details, roof
shingles, glazing, etc. The color palette and materials board should cross reference with all the
notations on the site plan and building elevations.
8. Concealment of nonperiod appurtenances;
Screening details of all existing and new mechanical equipment is required with the final site plan
submittal.
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 10 344
9. Material and color schemes.
With the Final Site Plan submittal, the applicant is required to submit a detailed color palette and
materials board for final review by Administrative Design Review Staff.
C. Contemporary, nonperiod and innovative design of new structures and additions to existing
structures shall be encouraged when such new construction or additions do not destroy
significant historical, cultural or architectural structures, or their components, and when
such design is compatible with the foregoing elements of the structure and the surrounding
structures.
Staff supports the applicant’s decision to place the Church’s new addition to the rear rather than to
the sides because it preserves the remaining significant features of the building on the Main Street
and 3rd Avenue elevations. Because the historic integrity of the Church building was already
lessened with the front elevation alteration, there is less concern or need to highly differentiate
between the existing Church and the rear addition. Rather, Staff finds the differentiation of old and
new much more important and applicable in the proposed addition that creates a built connection
between the Church and Rectory buildings.
D. When applying the standards of subsections A-C, the review authority shall be guided by the
Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District which are hereby
incorporated by this reference. When reviewing a contemporary, non-period, or innovative
design of new structures, or addition to existing structure, the review authority shall be
guided by the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District to
determine whether the proposal is compatible with any existing or surrounding structures.
Staff considered the applicable chapters of the Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation & the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and offers the comments listed above.
E. Conformance with other applicable development standards of this title.
Based on the requirements outlined in Chapters 18.28 and 18.34 of the Bozeman Unified
Development Ordinance, Planning Staff has provided comments in this report to comply with the
“Deviations from Underlying Zoning Requirements,” “Demolition or Movement of Structures or
Sites Within the Conservation District,” and “Site Plan and Master Site Plan Review Criteria”
sections.
Section 18.28.070 “Deviations from Underlying Zoning Requirements”
One deviation is requested with the application, to allow the internal parking lot to be designed with
unbroken rows of parking exceeding 100 feet.
A. Modifications shall be historically appropriate for the building and site in question and the
adjacent properties;
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 11 345
The parking lot proposal is to keep the parking rows undivided, in an effort to maximize the number
of parking spaces on-site and to ease snow removal in the lot. Because the existing parking lot has
never been landscaped, the deviation to keep unbroken rows of parking in excess of 100 feet is
found as historically appropriate for the site in question and the adjacent properties.
B. Modifications will have minimal adverse effect on abutting properties or the permitted uses
thereof;
Parking lot landscaping is required by the Unified Development Ordinance to break up large surface
areas of parking asphalt. It can also be used to facilitate, control and denote proper vehicular
circulation patterns. The proposed parking lot is relatively small at approximately 43 spaces. The
proposal improves the existing parking area by adding curb, gutter, non-residential drive approaches,
and striping. To ensure the deviation request has minimal adverse effect on abutting properties,
Planning Staff is requiring the internal parking lot to incorporate landscaped berms, low decorative
walls, architectural screens, evergreen hedges, or a combination thereof, at a minimum of 4 feet to
screen the parking area from the public right-of-ways.
C. Modifications shall assure the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare.
Planning Staff is requiring a pigmented and scored concrete pedestrian crosswalk between the
proposed sidewalk aisles in the parking lot to ensure the protection of pedestrians crossing the
parking area from the public sidewalk along Babcock Street.
Section 18.28.080 “Demolition or Movement of Structures or Sites Within the Conservation
District”
C. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structures or
sites, which are designated as contributing elements by the Montana Historical and
Architectural Inventory…shall be subject to approval by the City Commission through a
public hearing. Notice of the public hearing before the City Commission shall be provided.
Prior to the public hearing, the City Commission shall receive a recommendation from
Administrative Design Review Staff and the Design Review Board. The final authority for
demolition shall rest with the City Commission.
The City Commission shall base its decision on the following:
1. The standards in 18.28.050 UDO, and the architectural, social, cultural, and historical
importance of the structure or site and their relationship to the district as determined by
the State Historic Preservation Office and the Planning Department.
The existing Convent building was constructed in 1928 on the Holy Rosary property. It is
considered historically significant for its architectural style and its association with the Holy
Rosary Church property’s development. It retains high integrity because minimal changes have
occurred to its significant features, including its original building location, form, plan, window
location and style, and front entry.
Because of its historic significance, the proposed demolition of the existing Convent building
does not conform to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards, or to the architectural design
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 12 346
guidelines of Certificates of Appropriateness.
2. If the Commission finds that the criteria of this section are not satisfied, then, before
approving an application to demolish or remove, the Commission must find that at least
one of the following factors apply based on definitive evidence supplied by the applicant,
including structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the costs of repair or
rehabilitation versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment:
a. The structure or site is a threat to public health or safety, and that no reasonable
repairs or alterations will remove such a threat; any costs associated with the removal
of health or safety threats must exceed the value of the structure.
b. The structure or site has no viable economic or useful life remaining.
The applicant submitted a brief list of the “Covent Building - Key Issues” in their Project
Narrative submittal. The list includes several elements of the structure that are not meeting
current building or fire code requirements, such as an overstressed roof and floor structure, no
fire sprinklers, inadequate disabled accessible access, overstressed exterior walls, and identified
asbestos. The list also states that the existing layout and size of the structure does not meet any
of the Church’s programmatic needs.
Most of the listed justifications are typical issues when dealing with a historic structure. Staff
believes that adaptive reuse of the building is possible, but also recognizes the building has no
viable useful life remaining for the Holy Rosary property owner. Though the loss of the historic
Convent building is a historic preservation disappointment, Staff recognizes the valid
importance of preserving the Holy Rosary use on the site and in Bozeman’s downtown. Several
conditions of approval are included in Staff’s recommendation to mitigate the loss of the
Convent building. Those conditions include the Level II of HABS/HAER documentation, the
National Register plaque added to the property, the attempt to sell the Convent building, and the
attempt to salvage the Convent building materials if it does not sell.
D. All structures or sites approved for demolition or moving shall be fully documented in a
manner acceptable to the Historic Preservation Officer and Administrative Design Review
Staff prior to the issuance of demolition or moving permits.
As conditioned, Level II of HABS/HAER historic documentation is required for the entire Holy
Rosary Church property.
Section 18.34.090 “Site Plan and Master Site Plan Review Criteria”
In considering applications for site plan approval under this title, the Planning Director, City Commission,
DRC, and when appropriate, the ADR staff, the DRB or WRB shall consider the following:
A. Conformance to and consistency with the City’s adopted growth policy;
The development proposal is in conformance with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan including
the “Community Commercial” land use designation.
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 13 347
B. Conformance to this title, including the cessation of any current violations;
The applicant must comply with all provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code, which are
applicable to this project prior to receiving final site plan approval. 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.
Planning
• Section 18.34.130, “Final Site Plan,” no later than six months after the date of approval
of a preliminary site plan or master site plan, the applicant shall submit to the
Department of Planning seven (7) copies of a final site plan. The final site plan shall
contain all of the conditions, corrections and modifications approved by the Department
of Planning.
• Section 18.34.130, a Building Permit must be obtained prior to the work, and must be
obtained within one year of final site plan approval. Building Permits will not be issued
until the final site plan is approved. Minor site surface preparation and normal
maintenance shall be allowed prior to submittal and approval of the final site plan,
including excavation and footing preparation, but NO CONCRETE MAY BE
POURED UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT IS OBTAINED.
• Section 18.34.130, upon submitting the final site plan for approval by the Planning
Director, and prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant shall also submit a
written narrative outlining how each of the above conditions of approval and code
provisions have been satisfied or met.
• Section 18.38.050.F, “Accessory Buildings, Uses and Equipment,” all mechanical
equipment shall be screened. Rooftop equipment should be incorporated into the roof
form and ground mounted equipment shall be screened with walls, fencing or plant
materials.
• Section 18.42.150, “Lighting,” all proposed site and building lighting shall comply with
said Section requirements. A detailed lighting plan shall be included with the final site
plan submittal.
• Section 18.42.170, “Trash and Garbage Enclosures,” a permanent enclosure for
temporary storage of garbage, refuse, and other solid waste shall be provided for every
use, other than single-household dwellings, duplexes, individually owned townhouse or
condominium units, unless other arrangements are made. A narrative detail as to the
garbage receptacle arrangements shall be provided with the final site plan submittal.
• Section 18.42.170, the size of the trash receptacle shall be appropriately sized for the use
and approved by the City Sanitation Department. Accommodations for recyclables must
also be considered. All receptacles shall be located inside of an approved trash
enclosure. A copy of the site plan, indicating the location of the trash enclosure,
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 14 348
dimensions of the receptacle and enclosure and details of the materials used, shall be
sent to and approved by the City Sanitation Division (phone: 586-3258) prior to final site
plan approval.
• Section 18.44.100, “Street Vision Triangle,” at the intersection of each driveway or alley
with a street, no fence, wall or planting > 30” above the street centerline grades, shall be
permitted in the street vision triangle.
• Chapter 18.46, “Parking,” all proposed parking design affiliated with the project, both
on- and off-site, shall comply with said Chapter requirements.
• Section 18.46.020.M, “Snow Removal Storage Areas,” snow removal areas shall not
cause unsafe ingress/egress to the parking areas, shall not be deposited on public right-s
of-way, shall not include areas provided for required parking access and spaces, and shall
not be placed in such a manner as to damage landscaping.
• Section 18.46.040.E, “Bicycle Racks Required,” all site development shall provide
adequate bicycle parking facilities to accommodate bicycle-riding patrons of the
proposed development.
• Section 18.48.050, “Mandatory Landscaping Provisions,” all proposed landscaping shall
comply with said Section requirements. Parking lot landscaping shall apply to the area
within the perimeter of the paved portion of the parking lot (does not apply to parking
garages).
• Section 18.48.060, “Landscape Performance Standards,” all proposed landscaping shall
comply with said Section requirements. The lot has not residential adjacency, so 15
points are required for the required landscaping standards.
• Section 18.52.060, “Signs Permitted Upon the Issuance of a Sign Permit,” any signage
associate with the development must obtain a sign permit, as well as, meet the
requirements of this section. The total maximum allowable total signage in “M-1”
zoning shall not exceed 250 square feet. For properties used for multi-household
residential buildings, one residential identification wall sign shall be provided per street
frontage.
• Section 18.64.100, “Building Permit Requirements,” a Building Permit must be obtained
prior to the work, and must be obtained within one year of final site plan approval.
Building Permits will not be issued until the final site plan is approved.
• Section 18.64.110, “Permit Issuance,” states that no permit or license shall be issued
unless the use, arrangement and construction have been set forth in such approved plans
and applications.
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 15 349
Engineering
a. Plans and specifications for any fire service line (and domestic services 4” or larger) must be
prepared in accordance with the City’s Fire Service Line Policy by a Professional Engineer and
be provided to and approved by the City Engineer prior to initiation of construction of the fire
service or fire protection system. The applicant shall also provide Professional Engineering
services for construction inspection, post-construction certification and preparation of Mylar
record drawings.
Fire service plans (and domestic services 4” or larger) shall be a standalone submittal, separate
from the site infrastructure plans and final site plan.
b. A Stormwater Drainage/Treatment Grading Plan and Maintenance Plan for a system designed
to remove solids, silt, oils, grease, and other pollutants must be provided to and approved by the
City Engineer. The plan must demonstrate adequate site drainage (including sufficient spot
elevations), stormwater detention/retention basin details (including basin sizing and discharge
calculations and discharge structure details), stormwater discharge destination, and a stormwater
maintenance plan.
A drainage easement must be established on the adjacent property and filed with the County
Clerk & Recorder for drainage improvements and discharge courses located off the subject
property.
c. The FSP shall be adequately dimensioned and labeled with a legend of line types and symbols
used provided.
d. Easements and R/W located on and adjacent to the site shall be depicted and labeled
appropriately. Distinction between proposed and existing easements shall be made. Any
proposed easements shall be provided prior to FSP approval.
e. Sewer, water and fire services shall be shown, with sizes labeled, on the final site plan from main
to building and approved by the Water/Sewer Superintendent. City of Bozeman applications
for service shall be completed by the applicant.
f. The location of existing and proposed water/sewer mains and services shall be properly
depicted, as well as nearby fire hydrants and proposed hydrants. Proposed utilities shall be
distinguishable from existing.
g. Proposed water/sewer mains, services and hydrants shall be depicted on the landscape plan and
maintain a minimum horizontal separation of 10’ to landscape trees and lot lighting
improvements.
h. A Street Cut Permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to cutting any
publicly maintained street.
i. Typical curb details (i.e. raised and/or drop curbs) and typical asphalt paving section detail shall
be provided to and approved by the City Engineer. Concrete curbing shall be provided around
the entire new parking lot and/or access perimeter and be adequately identified (i.e. drop vs. spill
curb) on the FSP.
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 16 350
j. As per section 18.44.090 UDO access approaches shall be constructed in accordance with City
Standards and be labeled and detailed as such on the FSP.
k. Street vision triangles shall be depicted in accordance with section 18.44.100 UDO and no
plantings or other obstructions shall be located in the vision triangle in excess of 30” in height
above the street centerline grade.
l. The applicant shall submit a construction route map dictating how materials and heavy
equipment will travel to and from the site in accordance with section 18.74.020.A.1 of the
Unified Development Ordinance. This shall be submitted as part of the final site plan for site
developments, or with infrastructure plans for subdivisions. It shall be the responsibility of the
applicant to ensure that the construction traffic follows the approved routes.
m. All construction activities shall comply with section 18.74.020.A.2 of the Unified Development
Ordinance. This shall include routine cleaning/sweeping of material that is dragged to adjacent
streets. The City may require a guarantee as allowed for under this section at any time during the
construction to ensure any damages or cleaning that are required are complete. The developer
shall be responsible to reimburse the City for all costs associated with the work if it becomes
necessary for the City to correct any problems that are identified.
n. If construction activities related to the project result in the disturbance of more than 1 acre of
natural ground, an erosion/sediment control plan may be required. The Montana Department
of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Bureau, shall be contacted by the applicant to
determine if a Storm Water Discharge Permit is necessary.
o. The Gallatin County Conservation District, Montana Department of Environmental Quality,
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be contacted regarding the proposed project and any
required permits (i.e., 310, 404, Turbidity exemption, etc.) shall be obtained and provided prior
to FSP approval.
C. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations;
The proposal conforms to all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations. At the time of final
site plan submittal, the materials are further evaluated against the requirements of the International
Building Code at the time application is made for a Building Permit.
D. Relationship of site plan elements to conditions both on and off the property;
The rear addition causes the Church building mass to increase, but it is still found to be appropriate
for the surrounding historic context. The cruciform plan that is created with the rear addition
follows traditional church design. The added connection between the Church and Rectory building
is shorter in height and smaller in footprint than the Church rear addition. This change in building
scale is appropriate for the added connection. It establishes a visible distinction between the old and
new, as well as avoids the new construction from being overwhelming and inappropriate in building
mass and scale.
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 17 351
The improved parking lot overlaps the existing parking area, which is appropriately to the rear of the
property. Two new non-residential drive approaches are added to access the parking lot. The new
approaches are almost in identical locations as the existing drive approaches.
E. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions;
The proposed addition increases the parking demand for the Holy Rosary Church property. The
applicant is submitted several off-site parking agreements with neighboring properties within 1000
feet of the Church property. Total parking provided for the project is approximately 234 spaces, 43
spaces which are on-site and 195 spaces off-site.
Several conditions of approval are linked with the proposed parking to ensure the Church is
adequately parked. Staff recognizes the Church’s location in a commercial district and supports the
idea of providing the majority of parking through off-site parking agreements. Staff also recognizes
that the intensity of the Church’s use fluctuates throughout an entire week (higher use on weekends
and lower use during the week). The applicant is required to submit a traffic impact study that
explains how the supplied on-site parking and the shared off-site parking is sufficient for the
scheduled events at the Holy Rosary Church property. The study shall examine an entire week and
should include a written narrative, time tables, use tables, and any other affiliated information. The
study shall examine a low, medium, and maximum tiers of parking demand (low tier = daily
operations/office/20% of maximum use; medium tier = weekly events/weddings/funerals/50% of
maximum use; high tier = weekend mass/100% of maximum use). All shared-use parking
agreements shall coordinate with the findings of the traffic impact study.
To prevent a parking shortage on-site, signs (number determined by the applicant, but not less than
two) are required to be added to the surface parking lot area that restricts the lot to only
patrons/visitors of the Holy Rosary Church property.
Another condition to ensure adequate parking for the Holy Church property is requiring a written
confirmation from Holy Rosary Church that states a parking limitation is imposed by only allowing
unconcentrated assembly (tables and chairs) in the Fellowship Hall areas.
F. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress;
One of the justifications for the rear addition is to add an accessible pedestrian entry. To aid
pedestrians in accessing this rear entry, Staff is conditioning a pigmented and scored concrete
pedestrian crosswalk between the proposed sidewalk aisles in the parking lot. This will ensure the
protection of pedestrians when crossing the parking area from the public sidewalk along Babcock
Street. A pedestrian sidewalk is proposed along the northern perimeter of the parking area, which
directs pedestrians traveling the S. 3rd Avenue sidewalk to the rear entry.
The improved parking lot overlaps the existing parking area, which is appropriately to the rear of the
property. Two new non-residential drive approaches are added to access the parking lot. The new
approaches are almost in identical locations as the existing drive approaches.
G. Landscaping, including the enhancement of buildings, the appearance of vehicular use,
open space, and pedestrian areas, and the preservation or replacement of natural vegetation;
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 18 352
As required by the UDO, the proposal shall provide thirteen landscape points to meet the minimum
landscaping performance standards. Staff doesn’t find it appropriate to count the trees in the
Babcock Street boulevard as existing trees on the property. Though a portion of the Babcock Street
boulevard is on the Holy Church property, they were added there as a public right-of-way boulevard
amenity.
H. Open space;
Not applicable.
I. Building location and height;
The proposed height of the Church’s rear addition is the same as the existing, primary roofline, and
therefore is found to be appropriate. The added connection between the Church and Rectory
buildings for a new accessible entry and bathrooms is less in height than the Church’s rear addition,
and primarily less or equal in height to the existing Rectory building, both which help to differentiate
between old and new.
J. Setbacks;
No minimum yard setbacks are required for this proposal because it is located in B-3 zoning.
K. Lighting;
Design details for any and all proposed light fixtures, including both building mounted and
freestanding lights, are required with the final site plan submittal. A lighting plan should also be
included.
L. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities;
Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities are addressed by Engineering
Staff’s conditions of approval and code provisions.
M. Site surface drainage and stormwater control;
A Stormwater Drainage/Treatment Grading Plan and Maintenance Plan for a system designed to
remove solids, silt, oils, grease, and other pollutants must be provided to and approved by the City
Engineer. The plan must demonstrate adequate site drainage (including sufficient spot elevations),
stormwater detention/retention basin details (including basin sizing and discharge calculations and
discharge structure details), stormwater discharge destination, and a stormwater maintenance plan.
A drainage easement must be established on the adjacent property and filed with the County Clerk
& Recorder for drainage improvements and discharge courses located off the subject property.
N. Loading and unloading areas;
Two new non-residential drive approaches are added to access the parking lot. The new approaches
are almost in identical locations as the existing drive approaches.
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 19 353
The location of the trash enclosure, dimensions of the receptacle and enclosure and details of the
materials used, shall be sent to and approved by the City Sanitation Department (phone: 586-3258)
prior to time of final site plan submittal.
O. Grading;
All proposed grading plans are reviewed by Planning, Engineering and Building Department Staff at
time of final site plan submittal, to ensure the construction site is confined to its property lines.
P. Signage;
The location and design of all proposed signage shall be included in the final site plan submittal.
Any signage associate with the development must obtain a sign permit, as well as, meet the
requirements of Chapter 18.52 of the UDO.
Q. Screening;
All mechanical equipment must be screened. Ground-mounted equipment shall be screened from
all views by either dense plant material or a solid wall. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be
either fully screened by incorporating the equipment into the roof form or be fully hidden behind a
parapet wall.
R. Overlay district provisions;
The project was reviewed under the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) Standards, as required for
all projects within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The Design Review Board
(DRB) shall also comment on the project in regards to the COA standards. Additional conditions
of approval may be recommended by the DRB.
S. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties;
No letters of public comment were received in regards to this formal application.
T. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation or other
means of addressing requirement of this title, whether the lots are either:
a. Configured so that the sale of individual lots will not alter the approved configuration or
use of the property or cause the development to become nonconforming;
b. The subject of reciprocal and perpetual easements or other agreements to which the City
is a party so that the sale of individual lots will not cause one or more elements of the
development to become nonconforming.
Not applicable.
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 20 354
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 21
PUBLIC COMMENT
No letters of public comment were received in regards to this formal application. If public comment is
received after the preparation of this report, it will be forwarded to the City Commission prior to the public
hearing for consideration.
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis contained within this staff report, the Development Review Committee (DRC), the
Design Review Board (DRB) and Administrative Design Review (ADR) Staff supports the application.
With the recommended conditions and required code provisions, the boards and Planning staff find the
application is in general compliance with the adopted Growth Policy and the City of Bozeman Unified
Development Ordinance.
Should the City Commission grant the deviation, demolition of the contributing buildings and approve the
site plan development, then the applicant is hereby on notice that compliance with all other provisions of
the Bozeman Municipal Code, which are applicable to this project, is mandatory. 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.
BECAUSE THIS APPLICATION IS FOR A DEVIATION AND DEMOLITION OF
CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS, THE BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION SHALL MAKE THE
FINAL DECISION ON THIS APPLICATION. THE DECISION OF THE CITY
COMMISSION MAY BE APPEALED BY AN AGGRIEVED PERSON AS SET FORTH IN
SECTION 18.66.080 OF THE BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE.
Attachments: Design Review Board Meeting Minutes (draft)
Design Review Board Staff Report
Historic Preservation Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
Applicant’s Submittal Materials
Report Sent To: Diocese of Helena, PO Box 1729, Helena, MT 59624
Holy Rosary Catholic Parish, 220 West Main Street, Bozeman, MT 59715
Thinkone, 101 East Main Street, Studio #1, Bozeman, MT 59715
355
1
Design Review Board Minutes – March 25, 2009
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2009
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Livingston called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:36 p.m. in
the upstairs conference room of the Alfred Stiff Professional Building, 20 East Olive Street,
Bozeman, Montana and directed the secretary to record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Bill Rea Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner
Michael Pentecost Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Christopher Livingston
Randy Wall
Walter Banziger
Visitors Present
Scott Stroh
Bill Hanson
Rusty Harris
Reverend Leo G. Proxell
ITEM 2. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Holy Rosary Church Demo/Expansion SP/COA #Z-09016 (Bristor)
220 West Main Street
* A Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness Application to allow the
complete demolition of the Convent building, partial demolition of the
Rectory and Church buildings, and the construction of an addition with
related site improvements.
Bill Hanson and Scott Stroh joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor presented the
Staff Report noting the Holy Rosary group had been meeting with Staff regarding opportunities
for expansion for over the last year. She noted the proposed layout and addition at the rear of the
structure. She noted the Convent building would need to be demolished and Staff was overall
supportive of the project; she added the proposed addition and connection to the Church were
appropriate for the site. She noted a Deviation had been requested for a parking row to exceed
100 feet without landscaping and Staff was supportive of the Deviation with conditions;
pedestrian crossing, parking lot screening, etc. She noted that Staff was looking for the DRB to
provide general recommendations to the City Commission. She also noted that the phasing of
the project would need to be completed with a phasing plan that would be submitted with the
Final Site Plan.
Mr. Hanson stated the proposal had been informally reviewed by Staff and had gone before the
Historic Preservation Advisory Board for informal review and they were nearing the Diocese of
Helena approving the project, making it viable to begin construction in 2010. He noted one
problem that had come up was the constraints of the site. He noted the Church was the most
356
2
Design Review Board Minutes – March 25, 2009
significant structure on the site, but the Rectory building had also been identified as a significant
building; he added that the existing Convent building had been constructed as a residence. He
stated the facility had been found to be unsafe and had been unused for the last few months;
interior asbestos removal had occurred in the structure and it was left in a somewhat abandoned
state. He stated the most significant design issue was the connection between the Rectory and
the Church buildings. He stated the owner wanted to attempt to maintain the gothic (buff
colored brick, window shape, pilasters) nature of the structure. He noted all three buildings
currently on the site have different types of brick. He stated the connection to the Rectory would
be used as a gathering place for patrons of the Church. He noted grading improvements to the
south of the site would keep the structures on the same level and aid in handicap accessibility as
well as help with service operations such as the movement of caskets throughout the structure
without the use of stairs. He noted the number one criteria of the owner had been to stay in
downtown Bozeman.
Mr. Wall asked Planner Bristor if a licensed architect would be completing the traffic study per
Staff condition of approval #1. Planner Bristor responded Staff had intended that Thinkone
provide the study as it was more general in nature than an engineering traffic study.
Mr. Rea asked what it meant when the Diocese condemned a building; wasn’t the Building
Department the authority that would condemn the building. Mr. Hanson responded the letter of
condemnation from the Diocese had been specific that the Convent building should not be used
and had referenced the potential fire hazard of the structure. He noted neither Building Official
nor the Fire Marshall had condemned the building, but the Fire Marshall had given them
citations in the past.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked for clarification that the Convent would be demolished to
ground zero. Mr. Hanson responded that had been the intent. Vice President Pentecost asked
how the demolition would occur and if the materials would be salvaged. Mr. Hanson responded
that none of the brick matched the other buildings on site but they would attempt to salvage what
materials they could. Mr. Stroh added that it was uncertain how the bricks would survive the
demolition, but if they did, he had suggested MSU consider reusing it for Roberts Hall.
Mr. Banziger asked if the applicant had looked for matching masonry for the Church addition.
Mr. Hanson responded that the original brick was a different size than modern brick; he noted
they would do everything in their power to match the materials as closely as possible. Mr.
Banziger stated the demo drawing seemed to illustrate right angles, which would help make the
brick decision easier and asked if the new brick would be weathered. Mr. Hanson responded it
was the intent to make the new look as similar to the original as possible.
Chairperson Livingston asked if the older brick was thinner or thicker in height than modern
brick. Mr. Hanson responded it was thinner. Mr. Stroh stated the original brick had been a little
taller and the front addition contained a modular brick; he noted the joints would line up, but the
brick mortar would be a little wider. Chairperson Livingston asked the material for the columns
and banding of the connection between the Rectory and the Church. Mr. Hanson responded they
were considering finished metal in a champagne color that would tie into the brick. Chairperson
Livingston asked if there would be a lot of new stained glass in the Church addition. Mr. Hanson
responded that there would only be three or four new stained glass windows and noted those
357
3
Design Review Board Minutes – March 25, 2009
locations on the rendering; most of the existing rear stained glass windows will be housed in the
addition. Chairperson Livingston asked if the existing Church was structurally sound. Mr.
Hanson responded that, of the three structures, the Church was the best structurally as it had been
shored up in the 80’s; he noted the tower would need additional strengthening and they would
attempt to strengthen the exterior walls as well. Chairperson Livingston asked if the west side of
the site would contain only parallel parking. Mr. Hanson responded it would contain parallel
parking as the Engineering Department was not supportive of closing South 3rd Avenue or
making it a one-way street (ideas investigated in earlier proposals). He stated the School District
had service issues with regard to the street being changed to a one-way so the owner had decided
against that proposal.
Mr. Rea asked the HPAB’s opinion of the proposal. Planner Bristor responded she had not
attended the meeting when the Holy Rosary Church project was reviewed informally; they had
recommended moving the Convent building in its entirety, but Holy Rosary and Thinkone did
not feel that was a feasible option. Mr. Hanson added that the previous meeting had been
conceptual and the formal review by the HPAB would be held tomorrow; he noted the
conceptual plan had caused a little panic, though the Board will see the current proposal
tomorrow which will hopefully help alleviate their concerns.
Chairperson Pentecost asked if the current elevator would be a part of the ADA access to the
overall Church. Mr. Hanson responded the current site met ADA requirements and the intent
was to make ADA compliance better; he added a new elevator would not be included until the
Rectory phase of construction.
Mr. Wall asked Planner Bristor to clarify that the historically significant block that was the site
would still be appropriate given the proposed modernistic connection. Planner Bristor responded
the distinguishable features of the connection meet the requirements of the Secretary of Interior
Standards. She noted it was more important that the connection between the Rectory and Church
is distinguishable as there had not historically been a connection between the two buildings. Mr.
Banziger added that if the brick had been used it would be difficult to decide which structure to
model the connection after. Planner Bristor cited the design of the Methodist Church as an
example of an addition to a historic church being very different in style from the original.
Mr. Rea stated this proposal was a tough one for him, he understood the approach the applicant
was taking, but he was uncertain he could get past the demolition of the Convent as proposed.
He noted it looked like a historic building would be lost to a church addition that could be
situated elsewhere; he thought it seemed convenient to tear down the historic structure. He
stated the structure on the site was not a public threat to the community as it could be made safe.
He stated there was still a viable economic useful life for the structure and he was concerned that
Staff was supportive of the demolition because the applicant had “investigated other methods”.
He noted the building was deemed safe when it was built though the codes had changed; he
suggested retrofitting and restructuring could still be done. He stated it irritated him to see
asbestos as the primary reason for demolition as the asbestos would need to be dealt with at the
time of demolition. He stated an organization of this size did not seem to need that much space
and he thought it would be selfish to take the structure away from the community; he did not
think he would be able to get past the loss of the Convent building. He stated he would likely
apologetically deny the proposal.
358
4
Design Review Board Minutes – March 25, 2009
Mr. Wall stated he shared some of Mr. Rea’s concerns though he liked the overall proposal. He
stated he appreciated the assessment of the historic criteria by the applicant and understood some
of the site constraints. He stated some of the modernistic elements did not seem appropriate and
his concerns echoed Mr. Rea’s with regard to the loss of the Convent building.
Mr. Banziger stated he agreed with almost everything Mr. Rea had stated regarding the
disappointing loss of the Convent building though he understood that the structure was not a
museum. He stated the Church addition design had a tremendous amount of sensitivity to the
significant structure, which is the most important structure on the site. He stated he agreed with
Staff that the connection between the Rectory and Church should be transparent and
differentiated from the original construction. He stated he understood the need to sacrifice
something on the site and added that he would reluctantly (due to the loss of the building) vote in
favor of the proposal to promote progress.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he was taken aback to begin with but had decided the DRB’s
jurisdiction was the design, not historic preservation. He stated he would hate to see a really
good old building be demolished when things could be fixed but he would not address the
historic preservation issues but rather comment on the proposal’s design. He stated he saw the
modern looking entry and realized it would be a hard decision to locate a departure point for the
new connection and the new addition. He stated the applicant had made a decision that appeared
to fine; he liked the glass/aluminum connection but he got confused where the addition on the
Church would be evident from the original Church. He noted he understood the exercises and
hard decisions that had to be made with the project and he was supportive of the proposal. He
suggested that preservation of the Convent could have been a possibility and it could have been
remodeled on the inside. He suggested checking in Wibeaux, MT to match that particular type
of brick.
Chairperson Livingston listed some historic structures that had recently been demolished or
approved for demolition. He stated he agreed with Mr. Rea and he knew that the expansion did
not have to be as large as proposed but the lot was in a precarious place. He noted he had
vigorously argued over the loss of historic structures in the past but was not bothered by the
proposal as submitted; he added he thought it would be in the community’s best interest to
provide additional seating and size so the church community stays downtown. He suggested he
would like to see the Church take up the entire lot. He stated he had no problem with the
proposed addition and thought the idea of matching the original would be more critical as time
progressed. He stated the only troubling item was the coloring of the renderings for the
connection in the back with the stark white metal framing; he suggested a creamy/champagne
color. He stated he thought the overall Church would be enhanced by the new construction and
he liked what the applicant had done while many of the current problems have been solved. He
noted he did not want to start a precedent to allow the removal of historic buildings, but
considered this site an exception to that rule.
Mr. Hanson responded that they took great pride in their involvement in the preservation of
historic structures and many options had been investigated that had not been feasible due to the
constraints of the site. He noted the crucifixion design of the structure was historically
appropriate and the interior of the Church would need to be maintained. He noted the addition
359
5
Design Review Board Minutes – March 25, 2009
would not be inexpensive, but the money would need to be spent in the best possible way; he
noted the weakest of the three structures will be lost on the site.
Mr. Banziger clarified that “reluctant” had been too strong a word for him to use earlier and
amended his previous statement to “sadly” voting in favor in approval of the proposal was due
only to the loss of the historic structure though he was supportive of the proposal in general.
MOTION: Mr. Banziger moved, Mr. Pentecost seconded, to approve Holy Rosary Church
Demo/Expansion SP/COA #Z-09016 with Staff conditions. The motion carried 4-1 with Mr.
Rea voting in opposition.
Mr. Rea noted the rendering of the rosette window for that elevation seemed larger and more
substantial than those in the construction drawings. Mr. Hanson responded that the rendering
was not yet finalized. Mr. Rea stated he liked what the applicant had proposed.
ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENT – (15 – 20 minutes)
{Limited to any public matter, within the jurisdiction of the Design Review
Board, not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
There was no public comment forthcoming.
ITEM 4. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board
360
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
HOLY ROSARY CHURCH EXPANSION/DEMOLITION SP/COA/DEV #Z-09016
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 1
Item: Zoning Application #Z-09016, a Site Plan and Certificate of
Appropriateness with Deviation application, to allow the following
alterations to the property located at 220 West Main Street: 1) partial
demolition, rehabilitation and expansion of the existing Holy Rosary
Church and Rectory buildings, 2) complete demolition of the existing
Convent building, 3) redesign of the existing on-site parking lot, and
4) other site related improvements. One deviation is requested with
the application, to allow the internal parking lot to be designed with
unbroken rows of parking exceeding 100 feet. The property is zoned
as “B-3” (Central Business District) and is located within the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
Owner: Diocese of Helena
PO Box 1729
Helena, MT 59624
Applicant: Holy Rosary Catholic Parish
220 West Main Street
Bozeman, MT 59715
Representative: Thinkone
101 East Main Street, Studio #1
Bozeman, MT 59715
Date: Design Review Board Public Meeting: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 at
5:30 p.m. in the Upstairs Conference Room, Stiff Professional
Building, 20 East Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715.
Report By: Allyson C. Bristor, AICP
Associate Planner & Historic Preservation Officer
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
____________________________________________________________________________________
PROJECT LOCATION
The subject property is addressed as 220 West Main Street, which is located on the southeast corner of the
Main Street and 3rd Avenue intersection. The property is legally described as Lots 5-16, Block C, Story’s
Addition, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. Please refer to the aerial map on the following page.
361
PROJECT PROPOSAL
The Holy Rosary Catholic Parish, represented by ThinkOne, made formal application with the Department
of Planning & Community Development for a Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviation
application. The project site is the Holy Rosary Church property at 220 West Main Street, which is located
on the southeast corner of Main Street and 3rd Avenue and encompasses approximately 1.25 acres (54,301
square feet) in lot area. Three buildings currently exist on the property, including the Holy Rosary Church,
the Rectory building, and the Convent building. All three buildings are constructed with unreinforced
masonry, contain minor to major code violations, and have egress concerns. There is also an existing
surface parking lot to the rear (south) of the property, which is accessed off of 3rd Avenue and Babcock
Street.
The application will allow the following alterations to the property located at 220 West Main Street: 1)
partial demolition, rehabilitation and expansion of the existing Holy Rosary Church and Rectory buildings,
2) complete demolition of the existing Convent building, 3) redesign of the existing on-site parking lot, and
4) other site related improvements. One deviation is requested with the application, to allow the internal
parking lot to be designed with unbroken rows of parking exceeding 100 feet.
The Holy Rosary Church property is located outside of the Main Street Historic District boundaries, but is
included within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and considered historically significant.
The cornerstone of the present church was laid on June 9, 1907 and the dedicated on May 3, 1908. The
Rectory building was constructed on the property in 1912, with a minor rear addition added later. It is
currently used by Holy Rosary for church affiliated offices. The Convent building was constructed on the
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 2 362
property in 1928. It is current vacant, condemned by the Dioceses of Helena, but was used by Holy Rosary
for religious educational classroom space and other outreach programs.
The Rectory and Convent buildings are listed as contributing elements by the Montana Historical and
Architectural Inventory. The Church building is not included in the Inventory. Because the exterior
staircase was being removed during the time of the Inventory’s survey work (1980s), the Church was likely
skipped. The partial or complete demolition of buildings designated as contributing elements by the
Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory shall be subject to approval by the City Commission
through a public hearing, who will receive a recommendation from the Design Review Board (DRB) and
Administrative Design Review Staff. Therefore, this application was scheduled for review by both the DRB
and the City Commission. The application was also scheduled and reviewed by the Development Review
Committee (DRC) for four weeks in February and March 2009. The DRC recommended approval of the
proposal as conditioned by Staff.
RECOMMENDATION
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness with
Deviation application to allow a major expansion and demolition work to the property at 220 West Main
Street. As a result, the DRC recommends to the Design Review Board and City Commission approval of
said application with the conditions and code provisions outlined in this staff report. Planning Staff has
identified various code provisions that are currently not met by this application. Some or all of these items
are listed in the findings of this staff report. The applicant must comply with all provisions of the Bozeman
Unified Development Ordinance, which are applicable to this project, prior to the commencement of use.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Based on the analysis contained within this staff report, the Development Review Committee (DRC) finds
that the application, with conditions, is in general compliance with the adopted Growth Policy and the City
of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance. The following conditions of approval are recommended:
Planning
1. A traffic impact study shall be submitted with the final site plan. The study shall be completed by a
licensed architect and explain how the supplied on-site parking and the shared off-site parking is
sufficient for the scheduled events at the Holy Rosary Church property. The study shall examine an
entire week and should include a written narrative, time tables, use tables, and any other affiliated
information. The study shall examine a low, medium, and maximum tiers of parking demand (low
tier = daily operations/office/20% of maximum use; medium tier = weekly
events/weddings/funerals/50% of maximum use; high tier = weekend mass/100% of maximum
use). All shared-use parking agreements shall coordinate with the findings of the traffic impact
study.
2. All shared-use parking agreements shall be finalized with the final site plan and copies of each signed
agreement shall be submitted to the Department of Planning. This shall include all new shared-use
parking agreements, as well as any existing shared-use parking agreements between the Holy Rosary
Church and a third party.
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 3 363
3. To prevent a parking shortage on-site, signs (number determined by the applicant, but not less than
two) shall be added to the surface parking lot area that restricts the lot to only patrons/visitors of
the Holy Rosary Church property. The design detail of these signs shall be added to the final site
plan submittal.
4. The parking table shall be revised and updated to reflect the current parking proposal in the final site
plan submittal.
5. A written confirmation shall be submitted from Holy Rosary Church that states a parking limitation
is imposed by only allowing unconcentrated assembly (tables and chairs) in the Fellowship Hall
areas. The written confirmation shall be submitted with the final site plan.
6. To aid pedestrians accessing the Church and Rectory buildings, a pigmented and scored concrete
pedestrian crosswalk shall be added between the proposed sidewalk aisles in the parking lot.
7. Only the first accessible parking space needs to be “van accessible,” which is an 8-foot wide aisle.
All the other accessible parking spaces only require a 5-foot wide aisle.
8. A construction phasing plan shall be submitted with the final site plan. The phasing plan shall
include a site plan clearly indicating each phase area, a written explanation of the new construction
activities that will occur in each phase, and an written explanation to how the initial phase can stand
on its own if the subsequent phase(s) are placed on hold or terminated completely.
9. A demolition phasing plan shall be submitted with the final site plan submittal. The phasing plan
shall include a site plan clearly indicating each phase area, a written explanation of the demolition
activities that will occur in each phase, colored pictures of the existing buildings with marked areas
and notes of the demolition activities, and building elevations with marked areas and notes of the
demolition activities.
10. The applicant shall complete Level II of HABS/HAER documentation for the entire property with
the final site plan submittal. The documentation should include all existing building on the property
(Holy Rosary Church, Rectory and Convent). One hard copy and one CD-Rom copy of the
required documentation shall be submitted.
11. The applicant shall provide an exhibit and inventory of all existing landscaping to be protected,
replaced, removed, or moved on site with the final site plan submittal. At the time of final
inspection of the newly installed landscaping approved on the final landscape plan, all landscaping
that was either protected, moved or removed shall be accounted for and noted as on site, or noted
as removed with the prior approval of the Department of Planning. Standard tree protection
measure including 4-foot high, orange barrier fencing installed at each tree’s drip line shall be
instituted for all trees to be protected prior to any grading on site.
12. The species of the existing shrub and hedge shall be identified on the landscaping plan.
13. The on-site parking lot shall incorporate landscaped berms, low decorative walls, architectural
screens, evergreen hedges, or a combination thereof, at a minimum of 4 feet to screen the parking
area from the public right-of-ways.
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 4 364
14. Necessary backflow prevention must be demonstrated for the existing water service line. The
applicant shall schedule a backflow inspection with the Water & Sewer Department’s backflow
specialist by calling the City Shops at 406-582-3200.
15. A design detail of the raised flower bed shall be submitted with the final site plan.
16. Design details of all proposed lighting, both building mounted and freestanding, shall be included
with the final site plan.
17. The new brick on the Church rear addition shall match the existing brick in color, size, position
pattern and mortar joint width and style.
18. The new windows on the Church rear addition shall match the existing windows in size, style,
glazing, muntin and sash dimensions, and framing detailing.
19. Bicycle racks shall be added to the site plan in locations near all entries of the Church and Rectory
buildings. The style of bicycle racks shall conform to those recommended in the recently updated
Bozeman Greater Transportation Plan, and their design detail shall be submitted with the final site
plan.
20. A detailed color palette and materials board of all new construction materials shall be submitted with
the final site plan for final review and approval by Administrative Design Review Staff. Staff will
expect to see samples or examples of brick, stained glass, window trim, cornice details, roof shingles,
glazing, etc. The color palette and materials board should cross reference with all the notations on
the site plan and building elevations.
21. Under no circumstances shall a demolition or building permit be issued prior to final site plan
approval.
22. That the applicant upon submitting the final site plan for approval by the Planning Director and
prior to issuance of a building permit, will also submit a written narrative outlining how each of the
conditions of approval and code provisions have been satisfied.
Engineering
23. A grease interceptor conforming to the latest adopted edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code shall
be installed.
24. Water services and mains existing on the site that are not used by the development shall be
abandoned at the main connection.
25. Damaged sidewalk panels fronting the project site shall be replaced.
26. A plan detailing provision of water / sewer utilities during demolition and construction shall be
submitted to the Water/Sewer Superintendent for review and approval.
27. Existing vegetation in street vision triangles shall be trimmed to provide an unobstructed view 30”
above ground surface.
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 5 365
28. Stormwater controls shall be implemented to prevent the developed site stormwater runoff from
exceeding the existing condition.
29. An access deviation shall be prepared in accordance with Section 18.44.090.H UDO as the proposed
site accesses do not conform to the spacing standards of Section 18.44.090.D.3 UDO.
30. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City of Bozeman prior to using public right-of-
way for construction purposes.
31. The proposed water service to the addition must be run from the main if it is larger than the existing
service.
ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES
The subject property is zoned B-3 (Central Business District). The intent of the B-3 District is to provide a
central area for the community’s business, government service and cultural activities. The subject property
is surrounded by a mix of business uses including banking services, Bozeman School Board educational
buildings and Gallatin County offices and services. All adjacent properties are zoned B-3.
ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION
The property is designated as “Community Commercial” in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. Activities
within this land use category are the basic employment and services necessary for a vibrant community.
Establishments located within these categories draw from the community as a whole for their employee and
customer base and are sized accordingly. A broad range of service activities including retail, education,
professional and personal services, offices, residences, and general service activities typify this designation.
The density of development is expected to be higher in this area than in other commercial areas in
Bozeman.
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 6 366
Subject
Property
REVIEW CRITERIA & FINDINGS
The Department of Planning & Community Development reviewed this Site Plan and Certificate of
Appropriateness application against the relevant chapters of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO),
and as a result offers the following initial comments below. The findings outlined in this report include
comments and recommended conditions provided by the Development Review Committee (DRC). After
the Design Review Board’s (DRB) review of the project, Planning Staff will perform a final evaluation of the
applicant’s proposal in relationship to review criteria and determine if additional conditions of approval are
necessary to ensure that the development proposal meets the criteria.
Section 18.28.050 “Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness”
The demolition proposed for the existing Convent building is examined under the “Demolition or
Movement of Structures or Sites Within the Conservation District” section of this report. The discussion
below is specifically oriented toward the proposed partial demolition and new additions to the Church and
Rectory buildings.
A. All work performed in completion of an approved Certificate of Appropriateness shall be in
conformance with the most recent edition of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring
and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Published 1995), published by U.S. Department of
the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships,
Heritage Preservation Services, Washington, D.C. (available for review at the Department of
Planning).
The Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties for Rehabilitation are
relevant for the Holy Rosary Church proposal. Specifically, Standards #9 and 10 should be
considered:
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 7 367
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic
materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work
shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials,
features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and
its environment.
The Church’s historic integrity was diminished in the 1980s, when the original front, exterior
staircase and entry were removed, and replaced with an enclosed entry and gathering space.
Planning Staff supports the applicant’s decision to place the Church’s new addition to the rear rather
than to the sides because it preserves the remaining significant features of the building on the Main
Street and 3rd Avenue elevations. Because the rear addition requires the removal of the Convent
building, and partial demolition of the existing Church and Rectory buildings, Staff is requiring Level
II of HABS/HAER documentation for the entire property with the final site plan submittal.
Staff also supports the applicant’s decision to match the existing Church’s brick, window style, roof
pitch and materials with the rear addition. Because the historic integrity of the Church building was
already lessened with the front elevation alteration, there is less concern or need to highly
differentiate between the existing Church and the rear addition. Rather, Staff finds the
differentiation of old and new much more important and applicable in the proposed addition that
creates a built connection between the Church and Rectory buildings.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in a such a
manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic
property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Again, the Church’s integrity was diminished in the 1980s, when the original front, exterior staircase
and entry were removed. If the front enclosed entry and new rear addition were removed in the
future, the essential form and integrity of the historic building would be slightly unimpaired.
The remaining Standards for Rehabilitation are considered in the “Standards for Certificate of
Appropriateness” and the Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District.
B. Architectural appearance design guidelines used to consider the appropriateness and
compatibility of proposed alterations with original design features of subject structures or
properties, and with neighboring structures and properties, shall focus upon the following:
1. Height;
The proposed height of the Church’s rear addition is the same as the existing, primary roofline,
and therefore is found to be appropriate. The added connection between the Church and
Rectory buildings for a new accessible entry and bathrooms is less in height than the Church’s
rear addition, and primarily less or equal in height to the existing Rectory building, both which
help to differentiate between old and new.
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 8 368
2. Proportions of doors and windows;
The proposal to keep the same proportion and style of windows on the Church’s rear addition
as the existing building is deemed appropriate. The proposal of an extensive glass curtain wall
assembly for the added connection between the Church and Rectory buildings is an appropriate
change in materials and architectural style to aid in the differentiation between old and new
construction.
3. Relationship of building masses and spaces;
The rear addition causes the Church building mass to increase, but it is still found to be
appropriate for the surrounding historic context. The cruciform plan that is created with the
rear addition follows traditional church design. The added connection between the Church and
Rectory building is shorter in height and smaller in footprint than the Church rear addition.
This change in building scale is appropriate for the added connection. It establishes a visible
distinction between the old and new, as well as avoids the new construction from being
overwhelming and inappropriate in building mass and scale.
4. Roof shape;
The roof shape and roof pitch of the existing Church building is maintained with the Church
rear addition.
5. Scale;
Read the comments included under “Relationship of building masses and spaces.”
6. Directional expression;
The horizontal repetition of the windows is retained with the Church rear addition. The
extension of the existing, primary roofline in the Church rear addition helps to emphasize the
linear length of the addition in a cruciform plan. The Church rear addition is divided into
vertical bays by architectural features, including brick pilasters and stained glass window
openings, all which are following the existing pattern of the original Church building.
7. Architectural details;
The proposed architectural detailing of the proposed expansion is vital to the success of the
project. With the final site plan submittal, the applicant is required to submit a detailed color
palette and materials board for final review by Administrative Design Review Staff. Staff will
expect to see samples or examples of brick, stained glass, window trim, cornice details, roof
shingles, glazing, etc. The color palette and materials board should cross reference with all the
notations on the site plan and building elevations.
8. Concealment of nonperiod appurtenances;
Screening details of all existing and new mechanical equipment is required with the final site plan
submittal.
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 9 369
9. Material and color schemes.
With the Final Site Plan submittal, the applicant is required to submit a detailed color palette and
materials board for final review by Administrative Design Review Staff.
C. Contemporary, nonperiod and innovative design of new structures and additions to existing
structures shall be encouraged when such new construction or additions do not destroy
significant historical, cultural or architectural structures, or their components, and when
such design is compatible with the foregoing elements of the structure and the surrounding
structures.
Staff supports the applicant’s decision to place the Church’s new addition to the rear rather than to
the sides because it preserves the remaining significant features of the building on the Main Street
and 3rd Avenue elevations. Because the historic integrity of the Church building was already
lessened with the front elevation alteration, there is less concern or need to highly differentiate
between the existing Church and the rear addition. Rather, Staff finds the differentiation of old and
new much more important and applicable in the proposed addition that creates a built connection
between the Church and Rectory buildings.
D. When applying the standards of subsections A-C, the review authority shall be guided by the
Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District which are hereby
incorporated by this reference. When reviewing a contemporary, non-period, or innovative
design of new structures, or addition to existing structure, the review authority shall be
guided by the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District to
determine whether the proposal is compatible with any existing or surrounding structures.
Staff considered the applicable chapters of the Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation & the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District and offers the comments listed above.
Planning Staff is seeking additional comments and recommendations from the Design
Review Board (DRB), which can be forwarded to the City Commission for their
consideration.
E. Conformance with other applicable development standards of this title.
Based on the requirements outlined in Chapters 18.28 and 18.34 of the Bozeman Unified
Development Ordinance, Planning Staff has provided comments in this report to comply with the
“Deviations from Underlying Zoning Requirements,” “Demolition or Movement of Structures or
Sites Within the Conservation District,” and “Site Plan and Master Site Plan Review Criteria”
sections.
Section 18.28.070 “Deviations from Underlying Zoning Requirements”
One deviation is requested with the application, to allow the internal parking lot to be designed with
unbroken rows of parking exceeding 100 feet.
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 10 370
A. Modifications shall be historically appropriate for the building and site in question and the
adjacent properties;
The parking lot proposal is to keep the parking rows undivided, in an effort to maximize the number
of parking spaces on-site and to ease snow removal in the lot. Because the existing parking lot has
never been landscaped, the deviation to keep unbroken rows of parking in excess of 100 feet is
found as historically appropriate for the site in question and the adjacent properties.
B. Modifications will have minimal adverse effect on abutting properties or the permitted uses
thereof;
Parking lot landscaping is required by the Unified Development Ordinance to break up large surface
areas of parking asphalt. It can also be used to facilitate, control and denote proper vehicular
circulation patterns. The proposed parking lot is relatively small at approximately 43 spaces. The
proposal improves the existing parking area by adding curb, gutter, non-residential drive approaches,
and striping. To ensure the deviation request has minimal adverse effect on abutting properties,
Planning Staff is requiring the internal parking lot to incorporate landscaped berms, low decorative
walls, architectural screens, evergreen hedges, or a combination thereof, at a minimum of 4 feet to
screen the parking area from the public right-of-ways.
C. Modifications shall assure the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare.
Planning Staff is requiring a pigmented and scored concrete pedestrian crosswalk between the
proposed sidewalk aisles in the parking lot to ensure the protection of pedestrians crossing the
parking area from the public sidewalk along Babcock Street.
Section 18.28.080 “Demolition or Movement of Structures or Sites Within the Conservation
District”
C. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structures or
sites, which are designated as contributing elements by the Montana Historical and
Architectural Inventory…shall be subject to approval by the City Commission through a
public hearing. Notice of the public hearing before the City Commission shall be provided.
Prior to the public hearing, the City Commission shall receive a recommendation from
Administrative Design Review Staff and the Design Review Board. The final authority for
demolition shall rest with the City Commission.
The City Commission shall base its decision on the following:
1. The standards in 18.28.050 UDO, and the architectural, social, cultural, and historical
importance of the structure or site and their relationship to the district as determined by
the State Historic Preservation Office and the Planning Department.
The existing Convent building was constructed in 1928 on the Holy Rosary property. It is
considered historically significant for its architectural style and its association with the Holy
Rosary Church property’s development. It retains high integrity because minimal changes have
occurred to its significant features, including its original building location, form, plan, window
location and style, and front entry.
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 11 371
Because of its historic significance, the proposed demolition of the existing Convent building
does not conform to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards, or to the architectural design
guidelines of Certificates of Appropriateness.
2. If the Commission finds that the criteria of this section are not satisfied, then, before
approving an application to demolish or remove, the Commission must find that at least
one of the following factors apply based on definitive evidence supplied by the applicant,
including structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the costs of repair or
rehabilitation versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment:
a. The structure or site is a threat to public health or safety, and that no reasonable
repairs or alterations will remove such a threat; any costs associated with the removal
of health or safety threats must exceed the value of the structure.
b. The structure or site has no viable economic or useful life remaining.
The applicant submitted a brief list of the “Covent Building - Key Issues” in their Project
Narrative submittal. The list includes several elements of the structure that are not meeting
current building or fire code requirements, such as an overstressed roof and floor structure, no
fire sprinklers, inadequate disabled accessible access, overstressed exterior walls, and identified
asbestos. The list also states that the existing layout and size of the structure does not meet any
of the Church’s programmatic needs.
Most of the listed justifications are typical issues when dealing with a historic structure. Staff
believes that adaptive reuse of the building is possible. However, Staff recognizes the significant
time and energy spent the applicant took in examining opportunities for the Church’s expansion
on the existing property and supports the decision to expand to the rear (south) rather than to
the sides (east and west). Staff understands this expansion to the rear requires the demolition of
the existing Convent building. Because the demolition is of a historically significant structure,
Staff is requiring the applicant to complete a Level II of HABS/HAER documentation and to
document an attempt to salvage the building in whole (by offering it to someone or some group
who is willing to move it), and salvage the building’s materials.
D. All structures or sites approved for demolition or moving shall be fully documented in a
manner acceptable to the Historic Preservation Officer and Administrative Design Review
Staff prior to the issuance of demolition or moving permits.
As conditioned, Level II of HABS/HAER historic documentation is required for the entire Holy
Rosary Church property.
Section 18.34.090 “Site Plan and Master Site Plan Review Criteria”
In considering applications for site plan approval under this title, the Planning Director, City Commission,
DRC, and when appropriate, the ADR staff, the DRB or WRB shall consider the following:
A. Conformance to and consistency with the City’s adopted growth policy;
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 12 372
The development proposal is in conformance with the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan including
the “Community Commercial” land use designation.
B. Conformance to this title, including the cessation of any current violations;
The applicant must comply with all provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code, which are
applicable to this project prior to receiving final site plan approval. 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.
Planning
• Section 18.34.130, “Final Site Plan,” no later than six months after the date of approval
of a preliminary site plan or master site plan, the applicant shall submit to the
Department of Planning seven (7) copies of a final site plan. The final site plan shall
contain all of the conditions, corrections and modifications approved by the Department
of Planning.
• Section 18.34.130, a Building Permit must be obtained prior to the work, and must be
obtained within one year of final site plan approval. Building Permits will not be issued
until the final site plan is approved. Minor site surface preparation and normal
maintenance shall be allowed prior to submittal and approval of the final site plan,
including excavation and footing preparation, but NO CONCRETE MAY BE
POURED UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT IS OBTAINED.
• Section 18.34.130, upon submitting the final site plan for approval by the Planning
Director, and prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant shall also submit a
written narrative outlining how each of the above conditions of approval and code
provisions have been satisfied or met.
• Section 18.38.050.F, “Accessory Buildings, Uses and Equipment,” all mechanical
equipment shall be screened. Rooftop equipment should be incorporated into the roof
form and ground mounted equipment shall be screened with walls, fencing or plant
materials.
• Section 18.42.150, “Lighting,” all proposed site and building lighting shall comply with
said Section requirements. A detailed lighting plan shall be included with the final site
plan submittal.
• Section 18.42.170, “Trash and Garbage Enclosures,” a permanent enclosure for
temporary storage of garbage, refuse, and other solid waste shall be provided for every
use, other than single-household dwellings, duplexes, individually owned townhouse or
condominium units, unless other arrangements are made. A narrative detail as to the
garbage receptacle arrangements shall be provided with the final site plan submittal.
• Section 18.42.170, the size of the trash receptacle shall be appropriately sized for the use
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 13 373
and approved by the City Sanitation Department. Accommodations for recyclables must
also be considered. All receptacles shall be located inside of an approved trash
enclosure. A copy of the site plan, indicating the location of the trash enclosure,
dimensions of the receptacle and enclosure and details of the materials used, shall be
sent to and approved by the City Sanitation Division (phone: 586-3258) prior to final site
plan approval.
• Section 18.44.100, “Street Vision Triangle,” at the intersection of each driveway or alley
with a street, no fence, wall or planting > 30” above the street centerline grades, shall be
permitted in the street vision triangle.
• Chapter 18.46, “Parking,” all proposed parking design affiliated with the project, both
on- and off-site, shall comply with said Chapter requirements.
• Section 18.46.020.M, “Snow Removal Storage Areas,” snow removal areas shall not
cause unsafe ingress/egress to the parking areas, shall not be deposited on public right-s
of-way, shall not include areas provided for required parking access and spaces, and shall
not be placed in such a manner as to damage landscaping.
• Section 18.46.040.E, “Bicycle Racks Required,” all site development shall provide
adequate bicycle parking facilities to accommodate bicycle-riding patrons of the
proposed development.
• Section 18.48.050, “Mandatory Landscaping Provisions,” all proposed landscaping shall
comply with said Section requirements. Parking lot landscaping shall apply to the area
within the perimeter of the paved portion of the parking lot (does not apply to parking
garages).
• Section 18.48.060, “Landscape Performance Standards,” all proposed landscaping shall
comply with said Section requirements. The lot has not residential adjacency, so 15
points are required for the required landscaping standards.
• Section 18.52.060, “Signs Permitted Upon the Issuance of a Sign Permit,” any signage
associate with the development must obtain a sign permit, as well as, meet the
requirements of this section. The total maximum allowable total signage in “M-1”
zoning shall not exceed 250 square feet. For properties used for multi-household
residential buildings, one residential identification wall sign shall be provided per street
frontage.
• Section 18.64.100, “Building Permit Requirements,” a Building Permit must be obtained
prior to the work, and must be obtained within one year of final site plan approval.
Building Permits will not be issued until the final site plan is approved.
• Section 18.64.110, “Permit Issuance,” states that no permit or license shall be issued
unless the use, arrangement and construction has been set forth in such approved plans
and applications.
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 14 374
Engineering
a. Plans and specifications for any fire service line (and domestic services 4” or larger) must be
prepared in accordance with the City’s Fire Service Line Policy by a Professional Engineer and
be provided to and approved by the City Engineer prior to initiation of construction of the fire
service or fire protection system. The applicant shall also provide Professional Engineering
services for construction inspection, post-construction certification and preparation of mylar
record drawings.
Fire service plans (and domestic services 4” or larger) shall be a standalone submittal, separate
from the site infrastructure plans and final site plan.
b. A Stormwater Drainage/Treatment Grading Plan and Maintenance Plan for a system designed
to remove solids, silt, oils, grease, and other pollutants must be provided to and approved by the
City Engineer. The plan must demonstrate adequate site drainage (including sufficient spot
elevations), stormwater detention/retention basin details (including basin sizing and discharge
calculations and discharge structure details), stormwater discharge destination, and a stormwater
maintenance plan.
A drainage easement must be established on the adjacent property and filed with the County
Clerk & Recorder for drainage improvements and discharge courses located off the subject
property.
c. The FSP shall be adequately dimensioned and labeled with a legend of linetypes and symbols
used provided.
d. Easements and R/W located on and adjacent to the site shall be depicted and labeled
appropriately. Distinction between proposed and existing easements shall be made. Any
proposed easements shall be provided prior to FSP approval.
e. Sewer, water and fire services shall be shown, with sizes labeled, on the final site plan from main
to building and approved by the Water/Sewer Superintendent. City of Bozeman applications
for service shall be completed by the applicant.
f. The location of existing and proposed water/sewer mains and services shall be properly
depicted, as well as nearby fire hydrants and proposed hydrants. Proposed utilities shall be
distinguishable from existing.
g. Proposed water/sewer mains, services and hydrants shall be depicted on the landscape plan and
maintain a minimum horizontal separation of 10’ to landscape trees and lot lighting
improvements.
h. A Street Cut Permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to cutting any
publicly maintained street.
i. Typical curb details (i.e. raised and/or drop curbs) and typical asphalt paving section detail shall
be provided to and approved by the City Engineer. Concrete curbing shall be provided around
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 15 375
the entire new parking lot and/or access perimeter and be adequately identified (i.e. drop vs. spill
curb) on the FSP.
j. As per section 18.44.090 UDO access approaches shall be constructed in accordance with City
Standards and be labeled and detailed as such on the FSP.
k. Street vision triangles shall be depicted in accordance with section 18.44.100 UDO and no
plantings or other obstructions shall be located in the vision triangle in excess of 30” in height
above the street centerline grade.
l. The applicant shall submit a construction route map dictating how materials and heavy
equipment will travel to and from the site in accordance with section 18.74.020.A.1 of the
Unified Development Ordinance. This shall be submitted as part of the final site plan for site
developments, or with infrastructure plans for subdivisions. It shall be the responsibility of the
applicant to ensure that the construction traffic follows the approved routes.
m. All construction activities shall comply with section 18.74.020.A.2 of the Unified Development
Ordinance. This shall include routine cleaning/sweeping of material that is dragged to adjacent
streets. The City may require a guarantee as allowed for under this section at any time during the
construction to ensure any damages or cleaning that are required are complete. The developer
shall be responsible to reimburse the City for all costs associated with the work if it becomes
necessary for the City to correct any problems that are identified.
n. If construction activities related to the project result in the disturbance of more than 1 acre of
natural ground, an erosion/sediment control plan may be required. The Montana Department
of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Bureau, shall be contacted by the applicant to
determine if a Storm Water Discharge Permit is necessary.
o. The Gallatin County Conservation District, Montana Department of Environmental Quality,
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be contacted regarding the proposed project and any
required permits (i.e., 310, 404, Turbidity exemption, etc.) shall be obtained and provided prior
to FSP approval.
C. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations;
The proposal conforms to all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations. At the time of final
site plan submittal, the materials are further evaluated against the requirements of the International
Building Code at the time application is made for a Building Permit.
D. Relationship of site plan elements to conditions both on and off the property;
The rear addition causes the Church building mass to increase, but it is still found to be appropriate
for the surrounding historic context. The cruciform plan that is created with the rear addition
follows traditional church design. The added connection between the Church and Rectory building
is shorter in height and smaller in footprint than the Church rear addition. This change in building
scale is appropriate for the added connection. It establishes a visible distinction between the old and
new, as well as avoids the new construction from being overwhelming and inappropriate in building
mass and scale.
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 16 376
The improved parking lot overlaps the existing parking area, which is appropriately to the rear of the
property. Two new non-residential drive approaches are added to access the parking lot. The new
approaches are almost in identical locations as the existing drive approaches.
E. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions;
The proposed addition increases the parking demand for the Holy Rosary Church property. The
applicant is submitted several off-site parking agreements with neighboring properties within 1000
feet of the Church property. Total parking provided for the project is approximately 234 spaces, 43
spaces which are on-site and 195 spaces off-site.
Several conditions of approval are linked with the proposed parking to ensure the Church is
adequately parked. Staff recognizes the Church’s location in a commercial district and supports the
idea of providing the majority of parking through off-site parking agreements. Staff also recognizes
that the intensity of the Church’s use fluctuates throughout an entire week (higher use on weekends
and lower use during the week). The applicant is required to submit a traffic impact study that
explains how the supplied on-site parking and the shared off-site parking is sufficient for the
scheduled events at the Holy Rosary Church property. The study shall examine an entire week and
should include a written narrative, time tables, use tables, and any other affiliated information. The
study shall examine a low, medium, and maximum tiers of parking demand (low tier = daily
operations/office/20% of maximum use; medium tier = weekly events/weddings/funerals/50% of
maximum use; high tier = weekend mass/100% of maximum use). All shared-use parking
agreements shall coordinate with the findings of the traffic impact study.
To prevent a parking shortage on-site, signs (number determined by the applicant, but not less than
two) are required to be added to the surface parking lot area that restricts the lot to only
patrons/visitors of the Holy Rosary Church property.
Another condition to ensure adequate parking for the Holy Church property is requiring a written
confirmation from Holy Rosary Church that states a parking limitation is imposed by only allowing
unconcentrated assembly (tables and chairs) in the Fellowship Hall areas.
F. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress;
One of the justifications for the rear addition is to add an accessible pedestrian entry. To aid
pedestrians in accessing this rear entry, Staff is conditioning a pigmented and scored concrete
pedestrian crosswalk between the proposed sidewalk aisles in the parking lot. This will ensure the
protection of pedestrians when crossing the parking area from the public sidewalk along Babcock
Street. A pedestrian sidewalk is proposed along the northern perimeter of the parking area, which
directs pedestrians traveling the S. 3rd Avenue sidewalk to the rear entry.
The improved parking lot overlaps the existing parking area, which is appropriately to the rear of the
property. Two new non-residential drive approaches are added to access the parking lot. The new
approaches are almost in identical locations as the existing drive approaches.
G. Landscaping, including the enhancement of buildings, the appearance of vehicular use,
open space, and pedestrian areas, and the preservation or replacement of natural vegetation;
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 17 377
As required by the UDO, the proposal shall provide thirteen landscape points to meet the minimum
landscaping performance standards. Staff doesn’t find it appropriate to count the trees in the
Babcock Street boulevard as existing trees on the property. Though a portion of the Babcock Street
boulevard is on the Holy Church property, they were added there as a public right-of-way boulevard
amenity.
H. Open space;
Not applicable.
I. Building location and height;
The proposed height of the Church’s rear addition is the same as the existing, primary roofline, and
therefore is found to be appropriate. The added connection between the Church and Rectory
buildings for a new accessible entry and bathrooms is less in height than the Church’s rear addition,
and primarily less or equal in height to the existing Rectory building, both which help to differentiate
between old and new.
J. Setbacks;
No minimum yard setbacks are required for this proposal because it is located in B-3 zoning.
K. Lighting;
Design details for any and all proposed light fixtures, including both building mounted and
freestanding lights, are required with the final site plan submittal. A lighting plan should also be
included.
L. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities;
Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities are addressed by Engineering
Staff’s conditions of approval and code provisions.
M. Site surface drainage and stormwater control;
A Stormwater Drainage/Treatment Grading Plan and Maintenance Plan for a system designed to
remove solids, silt, oils, grease, and other pollutants must be provided to and approved by the City
Engineer. The plan must demonstrate adequate site drainage (including sufficient spot elevations),
stormwater detention/retention basin details (including basin sizing and discharge calculations and
discharge structure details), stormwater discharge destination, and a stormwater maintenance plan.
A drainage easement must be established on the adjacent property and filed with the County Clerk
& Recorder for drainage improvements and discharge courses located off the subject property.
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 18 378
N. Loading and unloading areas;
Two new non-residential drive approaches are added to access the parking lot. The new approaches
are almost in identical locations as the existing drive approaches.
The location of the trash enclosure, dimensions of the receptacle and enclosure and details of the
materials used, shall be sent to and approved by the City Sanitation Department (phone: 586-3258)
prior to time of final site plan submittal.
O. Grading;
All proposed grading plans are reviewed by Planning, Engineering and Building Department Staff at
time of final site plan submittal, to ensure the construction site is confined to its property lines.
P. Signage;
The location and design of all proposed signage shall be included in the final site plan submittal.
Any signage associate with the development must obtain a sign permit, as well as, meet the
requirements of Chapter 18.52 of the UDO.
Q. Screening;
All mechanical equipment must be screened. Ground-mounted equipment shall be screened from
all views by either dense plant material or a solid wall. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be
either fully screened by incorporating the equipment into the roof form or be fully hidden behind a
parapet wall.
R. Overlay district provisions;
The project was reviewed under the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) Standards, as required for
all projects within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The Design Review Board
(DRB) shall also comment on the project in regards to the COA standards. Additional conditions
of approval may be recommended by the DRB.
S. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties;
No letters of public comment were received in regards to this formal application.
T. If the development includes multiple lots that are interdependent for circulation or other
means of addressing requirement of this title, whether the lots are either:
a. Configured so that the sale of individual lots will not alter the approved configuration or
use of the property or cause the development to become nonconforming;
b. The subject of reciprocal and perpetual easements or other agreements to which the City
is a party so that the sale of individual lots will not cause one or more elements of the
development to become nonconforming.
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 19 379
Holy Rosary Church Expansion/Demolition SP/COA/DEV (#Z-09016) 20
Not applicable.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No letters of public comment were received in regards to this formal application.
CONCLUSION
The Design Review Board (DRB) shall focus their comments on the project in regards to the new design of
the bank building. Planning Staff is seeking additional comments and recommendations from the Design
Review Board (DRB), which can be forwarded to the City Commission for their consideration.
Attachments: Applicant’s Submittal Materials
Report Sent To: Diocese of Helena, PO Box 1729, Helena, MT 59624
Holy Rosary Catholic Parish, 220 West Main Street, Bozeman, MT 59715
Thinkone, 101 East Main Street, Studio #1, Bozeman, MT 59715
380
Historic Preservation Advisory Board – 26 March 2009
Members Present: Courtney Kramer (staff liaison), Ed Sypinski, Courtney Gunderson, Mark
Hufstetler (chair), Jane Davidson Klockman, Richard Brown, Lesley Gilmore, Ryan Olson, Mike
Neeley, Lora Dalton, Blake Maxwell -- quorum established
I. Call to Order
a. Minutes available to approve, move to approve, approved unanimously.
b. No public comment.
II. Projects – Ketterer Building II
a. Presented by Dan Harding and Susan Kozub of Intrinsik
b. Demo of barn first recorded on the 1927 Sandborn Plat
c. Setback of new structure will be “3 layers back from Grand Avenue”
d. Jim Goetz, owner, presented a brief history of the building
- business inside is “bulging at the seams”
- previously awarded by HPAB
e. MH – thanks for the tour (3/26)
f. JDK – Landscaping? Expressed concerned for the hedge’s fate
g. Motion to approve, unanimous
III. Projects – Holy Rosary
a. Rusty Harris (presenting), Bill Hanson, Scott Stroh – ThinkOne, Father Leo
Proxell (Holy Rosary)
b. Proposal to Demo the 1928 Convent
- Parish has grown from 500-1000 families in recent history
- Interior to be “completely reworked”
c. Planning Staff Presentation – Allyson Bristor
- COA with Deviations
- Rectory on the Nat’l Historic Register
- Planning Staff offers conditional approval
- Invited HPAB to submit a letter
d. MH – ask the National Parks for a letter and make a proper historic recording with
photos, efforts to move the convent? timeline for the demo? New building would
be ‘non-contributing’, pledged to convert to Catholicism if HR restored the
original Main Street entrance
e. LD – requested they incorporate the existing façade into new work
f. Response by SS – ice on the north-facing steps precludes the original front’s
design, all the potential fallout from “Aunt Edna bought the doors …”
g. MH – the new work is “too visually outspoken”
h. MN – generally supportive of the work
i. JDK – wants it “lower, more transparent”
j. Motion to approve demolition and new addition, unanimous
381
IV. Policy & Planning Subcommittee – RB (chair) presenting
a. Major Topics at last meeting – Demo by Neglect ordinance on “back burner”
b. Proposes the Board focuses on ‘Maintenance of Historic Documentation”
- BM suggest documentation of “lost Bozeman”
c. Next Mtg – ?
V. Chair’s Report
a. NY Times article
b. Vote on approval to City Commission for New Member – Courtney Gunderson –
unanimous
c. CK - Discussion of 5 March explosion – mention of the Odd Fellows time capsule
d. CK – status of Starkys building – “salvageable”
VI. Education & Opportunity Subcommittee – JDK (chair) presenting
a. Further discussion of explosion
b. Review of Homeowner’s Seminar – 7 March
- 75 present
c. Preservation Days
- Ellen: Grapes of Wrath
- Soup Line nixed
d. Next Meeting – 4/7 or 4/14, 6:30 pm at JDK’s
VII. Staff Liaison Report – CK (presenting)
a. COA workload comparable at this point in 2009 to previous years
VIII. Next Meeting – 4/23 at HRDC, 6 pm
382
383
384
Page 3
(Site Plan Checklist – Prepared 12/05/03; revised 9/22/04)
SITE PLAN CHECKLIST
These checklists shall be completed and returned as part of the submittal. Any item checked “No” or “N/A” (not applicable)
must be explained in a narrative attached to the checklist. Incomplete submittals will be returned to the applicant.
A. Design Review Board (DRB) Site Plan Review Thresholds. Does the proposal include one or more of the following:
Design Review Board (DRB) Site Plan Review Thresholds Yes No
1. 20 or more dwelling units in a multiple household structure or structures
2. 30,000 or more square feet of office space, retail commercial space, service commercial space or
industrial space
3. More than two buildings on one site for permitted office uses, permitted retail commercial uses,
permitted service commercial uses, permitted industrial uses or permitted combinations of uses
4. 20,000 or more square feet of exterior storage of materials or goods
5. Parking for more than 60 vehicles
B. General Information. The following information shall be provided for site plan review:
General Information Yes No N/A
1. Location map, including area within one-half mile of the site
2. List of names and addresses of property owners according to Chapter 18.76, BMC (Noticing)
3. A construction route map shall be provided showing how materials and heavy equipment will
travel to and from the site. The route shall avoid, where possible, local or minor collector
streets or streets where construction traffic would disrupt neighborhood residential character
or pose a threat to public health and safety
4. Boundary line of property with dimensions
5. Date of plan preparation and changes
6. North point indicator
7. Suggested scale of 1 inch to 20 feet, but not less than 1 inch to 100 feet
8. Parcel size(s) in gross acres and square feet
9. Estimated total floor area and estimated ratio of floor area to lot size (floor area ratio, FAR),
with a breakdown by land use
10. Location, percentage of parcel(s) and total site, and square footage for the following:
a. Existing and proposed buildings and structures
b. Driveway and parking
c. Open space and/or landscaped area, recreational use areas, public and semipublic land,
parks, school sites, etc.
d. Public street right-of-way
11. Total number, type and density per type of dwelling units, and total net and gross residential
density and density per residential parcel
12. Detailed plan of all parking facilities, including circulation aisles, access drives, bicycle racks,
compact spaces, handicapped spaces and motorcycle parking, on-street parking, number of
employee and non-employee parking spaces, existing and proposed, and total square footage
of each
385
Page 4
General Information, continued Yes No N/A
13. The information required by Section 18.78.060.L, BMC (Streets, Roads and Alleys), unless
such information was previously provided through a subdivision review process, or the
provision of such information was waived in writing by the City during subdivision review of
the land to be developed, or the provision of such information is waived in writing by the City
prior to submittal of a preliminary site plan application
14. Description and mapping of soils existing on the site, accompanied by analysis as to the
suitability of such soils for the intended construction and proposed landscaping
15. Building design information (on-site):
a. Building heights and elevations of all exterior walls of the building(s) or structure(s)
b. Height above mean sea level of the elevation of the lowest floor and location of lot
outfall when the structure is proposed to be located in a floodway or floodplain area
c. Floor plans depicting location and dimensions of all proposed uses and activities
16. Temporary facilities plan showing the location of all temporary model homes, sales offices
and/or construction facilities, including temporary signs and parking facilities
17. Unless already provided through a previous subdivision review, a noxious weed control plan
complying with Section 18.78.050.H, BMC (Noxious Weed Management and Revegetation
Plan)
18. Drafts of applicable supplementary documents as set forth in Chapter 18.72, BMC
(Supplementary Documents)
C. Site Plan Information. The location, identification and dimension of the following existing and proposed data, onsite
and to a distance of 100 feet (200 feet for PUDs) outside the site plan boundary, exclusive of public rights-of-way,
unless otherwise stated:
Site Plan Information Yes No N/A
1. Topographic contours at a minimum interval of 2 feet, or as determined by the Planning
Director
2. Adjacent streets and street rights-of-way to a distance of 150 feet, except for sites adjacent to
major arterial streets where the distances shall be 200 feet
3. On-site streets and rights-of-way
4. Ingress and egress points
5. Traffic flow on-site
6. Traffic flow off-site
7. Utilities and utility rights-of-way or easements:
a. Electric
b. Natural gas
c. Telephone, cable television and similar utilities
d. Water
e. Sewer (sanitary, treated effluent and storm)
8. Surface water, including:
a. Holding ponds, streams and irrigation ditches
b. Watercourses, water bodies and wetlands
c. Floodplains as designated on the Federal Insurance Rate Map or that may otherwise be
identified as lying within a 100-year floodplain through additional floodplain
delineation, engineering analysis, topographic survey or other objective and factual
basis
d. A floodplain analysis report in compliance with Chapter 18.58, BMC (Bozeman
Floodplain Regulations) if not previously provided with subdivision review
386
Page 5
Site Plan Information, continued Yes No N/A
9. Grading and drainage plan, including provisions for on-site retention/detention and water
quality improvement facilities as required by the Engineering Department, or in compliance
with any adopted storm drainage ordinance or best management practices manual adopted by
the City
10. All drainageways, streets, arroyos, dry gullies, diversion ditches, spillways, reservoirs, etc. which may be incorporated
into the storm drainage system for the property shall be designated:
a. The name of the drainageway (where appropriate)
b. The downstream conditions (developed, available drainageways, etc.)
c. Any downstream restrictions
11. Significant rock outcroppings, slopes of greater than 15 percent or other significant
topographic features
12. Sidewalks, walkways, driveways, loading areas and docks, bikeways, including typical details
and interrelationships with vehicular circulation system, indicating proposed treatment of
points of conflict
13. Provision for handicapped accessibility, including but not limited to, wheelchair ramps,
parking spaces, handrails and curb cuts, including construction details and the applicant’s
certification of ADA compliance
14. Fences and walls, including typical details
15. Exterior signs. Note – The review of signs in conjunction with this application is only review
for compliance with Chapter 18.52, BMC (Signs). A sign permit must be obtained from the
Department of Planning and Community Development prior to erection of any and all signs.
16. Exterior refuse collection areas, including typical details
17. A site plan, complete with all structures, parking spaces, building entrances, traffic areas (both
vehicular and pedestrian), vegetation that might interfere with lighting, and adjacent uses,
containing a layout of all proposed fixtures by location and type. The materials required in
Section 18.78.060.R, BMC (Lighting Plan), if not previously provided
18. Curb, asphalt section and drive approach construction details
19. Landscaping - detailed plan showing plantings, equipment, and other appropriate information
as required in Section 18.78.100, BMC (Submittal Requirements for Landscaping Plans). If
required, complete section C below
20. Unique natural features, significant wildlife areas and vegetative cover, including existing trees
and shrubs having a diameter greater than 2.5 inches, by species
21. Snow storage areas
22. Location of City limit boundaries, and boundaries of Gallatin County’s Bozeman Area Zoning
Jurisdiction, within or near the development
23. Existing zoning within 200 feet of the site
24. Historic, cultural and archeological resources, describe and map any designated historic
structures or districts, and archeological or cultural sites
25. Major public facilities, including schools, parks, trails, etc.
26. The information necessary to complete the determination of density change and parkland
provision required by Chapter 18.50, BMC, unless such information was previously
determined by the City to be inapplicable and written confirmation is provided to the
applicant prior to submittal of a preliminary site plan application. If a new park will be created
by the development, the park plan materials of Section 18.78.060.P, BMC shall be provided.
27. Describe how the site plan will satisfy any requirements of Section 17.02, BMC (Affordable
Housing) which have either been established for that lot(s) through the subdivision process or
if no subdivision has previously occurred are applicable to a site plan. The description shall be
of adequate detail to clearly identify those lots and dwellings designated as subject to Title 17,
Chapter 2, BMC compliance requirements and to make the obligations placed on the affected
lots and dwellings readily understandable.
387
Page 6
D. Landscape Plans. If a landscape plan is required, the following information shall be provided on the landscape plan:
Landscape Plan Information Yes No N/A
1. Date, scale, north arrow, and the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of both the
property owner and the person preparing the plan
2. Location of existing boundary lines and dimensions of the lot
3. Approximate centerlines of existing watercourses, required watercourse setbacks, and the
location of any 100-year floodplain; the approximate location of significant drainage features;
and the location and size of existing and proposed streets and alleys, utility easements, utility
lines, driveways and sidewalks on the lot and/or adjacent to the lot
4. Project name, street address, and lot and block description
5. Location, height and material of proposed screening and fencing (with berms to be delineated
by one foot contours)
6. Locations and dimensions of proposed landscape buffer strips, including watercourse buffer
strips
7. Complete landscape legend providing a description of plant materials shown on the plan,
including typical symbols, names (common and botanical name), locations, quantities,
container or caliper sizes at installation, heights, spread and spacing. The location and type of
all existing trees on the lot over 6 inches in caliper must be specifically indicated
8. Complete illustration of landscaping and screening to be provided in or near off-street parking
and loading areas, including information as to the amount (in square feet) of landscape area to
be provided internal to parking areas and the number and location of required off-street
parking and loading spaces
9. An indication of how existing healthy trees (if any) are to be retained and protected from
damage during construction
10. Size, height, location and material of proposed seating, lighting, planters, sculptures, and water
features
11. A description of proposed watering methods
12. Location of street vision triangles on the lot (if applicable)
13. Tabulation of points earned by the plan – see Section 18.48.060, BMC (Landscape
Performance Standards)
14. Designated snow removal storage areas
15. Location of pavement, curbs, sidewalks and gutters
16. Show location of existing and/or proposed drainage facilities which are to be used for
drainage control
17. Existing and proposed grade
18. Size of plantings at the time of installation and at maturity
19. Areas to be irrigated
20. Planting plan for watercourse buffers, per Section 18.42.100, BMC (Watercourse Setbacks), if
not previously provided through subdivision review
21. Front and side elevations of buildings, fences and walls with height dimensions if not
otherwise provided by the application. Show open stairways and other projections from
exterior building walls
388
Page 3
(Certificate of Appropriateness Checklist 2 – Prepared 11/25/03; revised on 9/8/04)
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATNESS CHECKLIST 2
If a project is located in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District or the Entryway Corridor Overlay District, and
DOES NOT qualify for review as a Sketch Plan; Reuse, Change of Use or Further Development of a Site Developed Before
9-3-91; or Amendment/Modification of a Plan Approved On or After 9-3-91, this checklist shall be used. See Section
18.34.050 (Sketch Plan Review), Section 18.34.150 (Amendments to Sketch and Site Plans) or Section 18.34.170 (Reuse,
Change in Use or Further Development of Sites Developed Prior to the Adoption of the Ordinance Codified in This Title),
BMC.
These checklists shall be completed and returned as part of the submittal. Any item checked “No” or “N/A” (not applicable)
must be explained in a narrative attached to the checklist. Incomplete submittals will be returned to the applicant.
A. Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. If a proposed development is located in the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District, information shall be provided to the appropriate review authority to review prior to
granting or denying a certificate of appropriateness. The extent of documentation to be submitted on any project shall
be dictated by the scope of the planned alteration and the information reasonably necessary for the appropriate review
authority to make its determination. At a minimum, the following items shall be included in the submission:
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Information Yes No N/A
1. One current picture of each elevation of each structure planned to be altered and such
additional pictures of the specific elements of the structure or property to be altered that will
clearly express the nature and extent of change planned. Except when otherwise
recommended, no more than eight pictures should be submitted and all pictures shall be
mounted on letter-size sheets and clearly annotated with the property address, elevation
direction (N, S, E, W) and relevant information
2. Historical information, including available data such as pictures, plans, authenticated verbal
records and similar research documentation that may be relevant to the planned alteration
3. Materials and color schemes to be used
4. Plans, sketches, pictures, specifications and other data that will clearly express the applicant’s
proposed alterations
5. A schedule of planned actions that will lead to the completed alterations
6. Such other information as may be suggested by the Planning Department
7. Description of any applicant-requested deviation(s) and a narrative explanation as to how the
requested deviation(s) will encourage restoration and rehabilitation activity that will contribute
to the overall historic character of the community
B. Entryway Corridor Overlay District. If a proposed development is located in the Entryway Corridor Overlay District,
information shall be provided to the appropriate review authority to review prior to granting or denying a certificate
of appropriateness. The extent of documentation to be submitted on any project shall be dictated by the scope of the
planned alteration and the information reasonably necessary for the appropriate review authority to make its
determination. At a minimum, the following items shall be included in the submission:
Entryway Corridor Overlay District Information Yes No N/A
1. Plans, sketches, pictures, specifications and other data that will clearly express the applicant’s
proposed alterations
2. Such other information as may be suggested by the Planning Department
3. If the proposal includes an application for a deviation as outlined in Section 18.66.050
(Deviations), BMC, the application for deviation shall be accompanied by written and graphic
material sufficient to illustrate the conditions that the modified standards will produce, so as
to enable the City Commission to make the determination that the deviation will produce an
environment, landscape quality and character superior to that produced by the existing
standards, and will be consistent with the intent and purpose of Chapter 18.30 (Entryway
Corridor Overlay District), BMC.
389
390
391
392
Holy RosaryChurch2211553311Holy Rosary• Non-Accessible: 43 spaces• Accessible: 4 spaces55First Interstate Bank• Non-Accessible: 19 spaces• Accessible: 2 spaces33Gallatin County Courthouse• Non-Accessible: 75 spaces• Accessible: 3 spaces22Wells Fargo Bank• Non-Accessible: 49 spaces• Accessible: 1 spaceOn-Site Parking44Gallatin County Annex• Non-Accessible: 33 spaces• Accessible: 2 spaces44Main Street3rd AvenueBabcock StreetGrand AvenueMendenhall StreetWillson Ave.Off-Site Parking (Secured)Off-Site Parking (Pending)66Planalp Building• Non-Accessible: 19 spaces• Accessible: 1 space66393
Parking Requirements
Use and Occupancy Classification (2006 IBC)
Assembly Group A-3 – Places of religious worship (Section 303.1)
Occupant Load Factors (2006 IBC)
Assembly with fixed seats (Table 1004.1.1, Section 1004.7):
1 person per 18 inches of seating length
Assembly without fixed seats - concentrated (chairs only, not fixed, Table 1004.1.1):
1 person per 7 square feet (net)
Occupant Load Calculations
Sanctuary (main story - assembly with fixed seats):
1,030 lineal feet of pew currently proposed on plans
1,030 / 1.5 = 687 persons
Actual use will more likely occur as follows:
1,030 / 2 = 515 persons
Fellowship Halls (basement - assembly without fixed seats):
5,430 square feet of fellowship space
5,430 / 7 = 776 persons (controls)
The Sanctuary space and Fellowship Hall space are not utilized to full capacity at the same time.
Most often (Sunday mornings), the Fellowship Hall space is occupied and utilized by
parishioners gathering after attending mass in the Sanctuary space.
Off-Street Parking Requirements (2007 UDO, Chapter 18.46)
Use Type – Church (Table 46-3)
1 space per 4 persons of maximum occupancy load
776 / 4 = 194 spaces
Maximum Allowable Reduction (Table 46-4)
Use Type – All Others
30% allowable reduction
194 x 0.3 = 58 spaces
194 – 58 = 136 spaces required
394
Joint-Use of Parking Facilities (2007 UDO, Section 18.46.050)
Minimum number of spaces required on-site: 20% of required spaces
Number of on-site parking spaces required = 136 x 0.2 = 28 spaces
Number of on-site, non-accessible, parking spaces proposed = 43 spaces
Number of on-site, accessible, parking spaces proposed = 4 spaces
Number of off-site parking spaces secured through joint-use agreements (copies provided):
Well Fargo Bank: 49 spaces
Accessible: 1 space
Gallatin County Courthouse: 75 spaces
Accessible: 3 spaces
Gallatin County Annex Building: 33 spaces
Accessible: 2 spaces
Total Number of Off-Site Parking Spaces: 157 spaces
Accessible: 6 spaces
Number of off-site parking spaces pending through joint-use agreements:
First Interstate Bank: 19 spaces
Accessible: 2 spaces
Planalp Building: 19 spaces
Accessible: 1 space
Total Number of Off-Site Parking Spaces: 38 spaces
Accessible: 3 spaces
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
CONCRETECOMPACTED GRAVELEARTHBRICKC.M.U.STEELFINISH WOODBATT INSUL.RIGID INSUL.GYP. BD.DETAIL REFERENCE1A1.0SECTION CUT1A3.0INTERIOR ELEVATION1A4.0ROOM NUMBER100ROOMDOOR NUMBER100WINDOW TYPEANOTE REFERENCE1WALL TYPEACOPYRIGHT 2007COVERSHEETOWNER:220 WEST MAIN STREET BOZEMAN, MONTANA220 WEST MAIN STREETBOZEMAN, MONTANAPRELIMINARY DESIGNFEBRUARY 4, 20090610DIOCESE OF HELENAHOLY ROSARY CHURCHHOLY ROSARY CHURCHARCHITECTURALNO.DRAWING SHEETSCHEDULE OF DRAWINGS:STRUCTURALNO.DRAWING SHEET--MECHANICALNO.DRAWING SHEET--PLUMBINGNO.DRAWING SHEET--ELECTRICALNO.DRAWING SHEET--NO.DRAWING SHEETL-1LANDSCAPE PLANCIVILNO.DRAWING SHEETC-1C-2C-3C-4SITE DEMOLITION PLANSITE PLANSITE GRADING AND UTILITIES PLANSITE DETAILSCONSULTANTS:CIVILBOZEMAN, MONTANAENGINEER XYZSTRUCTURALBOZEMAN, MONTANAENGINEER XYZMECHANICALBOZEMAN, MONTANAENGINEER XYZPLUMBINGBOZEMAN, MONTANAENGINEER XYZELECTRICALBOZEMAN, MONTANAENGINEER XYZSITE DEVELOPMENTNO.DRAWING SHEETGENERAL NOTESCODE CHECKABBREVIATIONSNOTES AND SYMBOLSALUM.ALUMINUMMECH.MECHANICALANN.ANNUNCIATORMFG.MANUFACTURERM.R.MOISTURE RESISTANTBD.BOARDMTL.METALBLCK'G.BLOCKINGN.I.C.NOT IN CONTRACTCAB.CABINETCER.CERAMICO.C.ON CENTERCLR.CLEARANCEO.S.B.ORIENTED STRANDBOARDCOMP.COMPOSITEO.F.C.I.OWNER FURNISHEDCONC.CONCRETECONTRACTOR INSTALLEDCONF.CONFERENCEO.F.O.I.OWNER FURNISHEDCORR.CORRIDOROWNER INSTALLEDC.M.U.CONCRETE MASONRY UNITC.T.CERAMIC TILEP.PAINTCUST.CUSTOMP. LAM.PLASTIC LAMINATEP.T.PAPER TOWELD.F.DRINKING FOUNTAINPRE-FIN.PRE-FINISHEDDISP.DISPENSERPVC.POLYVINYLCHLORIDED.M.DRYMARK BOARDDR.DRAWERR.RADIUSREC.RECESSEDE.I.F.S.EXTERIOR INSULATIONREST.RESTROOMFINISH SYSTEMREQ'D.REQUIREDE.P.S.EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENEELEV.ELEVATIONS.STAINS.C.SOLID COREF.D.FLOOR DRAINS.F.SQUARE FEETF.E.FIRE EXTINGUISHERS.V.SHEET VINYLF.F.FINISH FLOORSIM.SIMILARF.S.FLOOR SINKSPECS.SPECIFICATIONSFLR.FLOORINGSTOR.STORAGEFDN.FOUNDATIONF.O.FACE OFT.B.TACK BOARDT.O.TOP OFG.B.GYPSUM WALLBOARDT.P.TOILET PAPERGWBGYPSUM WALLBOARDTYP.TYPICALGYP. BD.GYPSUM WALLBOARDV.B.VAPOR BARRIERV.C.T.VINYL COMPOSITION TILEHC.HANDICAPPEDVER.VERIFYH.M.HOLLOW METALW/WITHINSUL.INSULATIONW/OWITHOUTJAN.JANITORMATERIALS LEGEND--LANDSCAPEA1.1A1.2A1.3A1.4A2.1A2.2A2.3A2.4COVERCA1.1CA1.2CA1.3CA2.1BASEMENT STORY FLOOR PLAN - DEMOLITIONFIRST STORY FLOOR PLAN - DEMOLITIONBASEMENT STORY FLOOR PLAN - NEW CONSTRUCTIONFIRST STORY FLOOR PLAN - NEW CONSTRUCTIONNORTH ELEVATIONEAST ELEVATIONSOUTH ELEVATIONWEST ELEVATIONCONVENT BUILDING - COVER SHEETCONVENT BUILDING - BASEMENT STORY FLOOR PLANCONVENT BUILDING - FIRST STORY FLOOR PLANCONVENT BUILDING - SECOND STORY FLOOR PLANCONVENT BUILDING - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSALL WORK INCLUDED IN THIS CONTRACT, SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF INTERNATIONALBUILDING CODE, INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE, INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE, NATIONALELECTRICAL CODE, AND ALL OTHER LAWS, CODES, OF LOCAL, COUNTY, STATE, AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONINVOLVED.THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT THE SITE PRIOR TO STARTING THE WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLVERIFY GRADES, SITE CONDITIONS, AND COMPARE THAT WITH THE DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THEDRAWINGS. WHERE CONFLICT EXISTS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT UPONRECOGNITION OF ANY DISCREPENCY.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CAREFULLY STUDY ALL PLANS AND DRAWINGS, AND SHALL REPORT IMMEDIATELYTO THE ARCHITECT ANY ERRORS, INCONSISTENCIES OR OMISSIONS THEY MAY DISCOVER. THECONTRACTOR SHALL NOT WORK WITHOUT DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT THEARCHITECT OR SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS AND/OR LITERATURE TO THE ARCHITECT FOR APPOVAL PRIOR TOSTARTING THE WORK.THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL GIVE ALL NOTICES AND SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL LAWS, ORDINANCES,RULES, REGULATIONS, AND ORDERS OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY BEARING ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK.IF THE CONTRACTOR OBSERVES THAT ANY OF THE ONTRACT DOCUMENTS ARE AT VARIANCE THEREWITH INANY RESPECT THEY SHALL PROMTLY NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT OF ANY CHANGES REQUIRING ADJUSTMENTWITH APPROPRIATE MODIFICATION.ONLY APPROVED 'CONSTRUCTION SET' MARKED DRAWINGS INCORPORATING ALL ADDENDUM ANDDIMENSION CLARIFICATIONS SHALL BE USED DURING THE EXECUTION OF THE WORK.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ONLY, OR AS DIRECTED BY ARCHITECT. THECONTRACTOR SHALL NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.CROSS REFERENCES SHOWN ON DRAWINGS DO NOT NECCESARILY INDICATE ALL LIKE CONDITIONS ANDDO NOT LIMIT APPLICATION OF ANY DRAWING OR DETAIL. THEY MAY APPLY TO OTHER, SAME, OR SIMILARCONDITIONS NOT REFERENCED.INTERIOR WALL DIMENSIONS (FOR NEW WALLS ONLY) ARE TO FACE OF STUD FRAMING UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED.SECTION AND INTERIOR ELEVATION DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE TOP OF CONCRETE OR METAL DECKINGUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFICATION AND COORDINATION OF SUBCONTRACTORSWORK TO SECURE COMPLIANCE OF DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THE ACCURATE LOCATION OFSTRUCTURE MEMBERS, AND OPENINGS FOR MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, STAIRS, ELEVATORS, ANDMISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SIZES AND LOCATIONS OF ALL OPENINGS FOR MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICALEQUIPMENT WITH RESPECTIVE SUB-CONTRACTORS, AS WELL AS SHOP DRAWINGS REVIEWED BY THEARCHITECT.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL ROUGH-IN DIMENSIONS FOR EQUIPMENT AND PROVIDE ALL BUCK-OUTBLOCKING AND BACKING REQUIRED BY THIS CONTRACT AND OTHERS.WHERE PIPING, CONDUIT, AND/OR DUCTS PASS THROUGH FIRE RATED WALLS, PACK AROUND OPENINGSWITH SAFING OR SPRAY INSULATION. PROVIDE FIRE DAMPERS WHERE NECESSARY.CODES:BUILDINGINTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (2006)FIREINTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE (2006)ACCESSIBILITYANSI 117.1 (2003)MECHANICALINTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE (2006)PLUMBINGUNIFORM PLUMBING CODE (2006)ELECTRICALNATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE (2005)CODE SOURCE:REQUIREMENTS:PERMITSLOCAL JURISDICTIONLOCAL JURISDICTIONOCCUPANCYIBC CH. 3BOCCUPANCY SEPARATIONIBC TABLE 508.3.30 HR.CONSTRUCTION TYPEIBC CH. 6V-BFIRE RESISTANCEIBC CH. 70 HR.AREA SEPARATIONIBC. CH. 5NOT USEDALLOWABLE FLOOR AREAIBC TABLE 5039000 SFAREA INCREASE (FRONTAGE)IBC SECT. 506.2NOT USEDAREA INCREASE (SPRINKLER)IBC SECT. 506.3200%TOTAL ALLOWABLE AREAIBC SECT. 506.19000 + 9000(2) = 27000 SFACTUAL AREAFIRST FLOOR8250 SFSECOND FLOOR7250S SFTOTAL15500 SFNUMBER OF STORIESIBC TABLE 5032ACTUAL STORIES2EXITING:MAX. FLOOR AREAIBC TABLE 1004.1.1BUSINESS (B)100 GROSSALLOWANCES PER OCC.CLASSROOM (C)20 NETVOCATIONAL (V)50 NETEXIT CALCULATION BASEDIBC SECT. 1004FIRST FLR. (B)5806/100 = 58 OCC.ON OCCUPANT LOADRM. 121 (C)1553/20 = 78 OCC.RM. 124 (V)891/50 = 18 OCC.SECOND FLR. (B)4396/100 = 44 OCC.RM. 204 (C)483/20 = 24 OCC.IBC TABLE 1019222 OCC. - 2 EXITS REQ'D.EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCEIBC TABLE 1016.1300 FT. W/SPRINKLER SYSTEMMINIMUM EGRESS WIDTHIBC TABLE 1005.1STAIRWAYS (0.2)222 OCC. = 44.4 IN.OTHER EG. (0.15)222 OCC. = 33.3 INMINUMUM CORRIDOR WIDTHIBC SECT. 1017.244 IN.CORRIDOR RATINGIBC TABLE 1017.10 HR. W/ SPRINKLER SYSTEMROOF CONSTRUCTIONIBC TABLE 1505.1CFLAME SPREAD:ENCLOSED VERTICAL EXITWAYSIBC TABLE 803.5BOTHER EXITWAYSIBC TABLE 803.5CROOMS OR AREASIBC TABLE 803.5CNOTE:BUILDING WILL BE PROVIDED WITH AN APPROVED AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCEWITH IBC SECTION 903.3.1.1404
405
PARKING REQUIREMENTSOCCUPANT LOAD: From Use and Occupancy Classification (2006 IBC): Assembly Group A-3 – Places of religious worship (Section 303.1)Occupant Load Factors (2006 IBC)Assembly with fixed seats (Table 1004.1.1, Section 1004.7)1 person per 18 inches of seating lengthAssembly without fixed seats - concentrated (chairs only, not fixed, Table 1004.1.1) 1 person per 7 square feet (net)Occupant Load CalculationsSanctuary (main story - assembly with fixed seats)1,030 lineal feet of pew currently proposed on plans1,030 / 1.5 = 687 persons**Note: Actual use will more likely occur as follows 1,030 / 2 = 515 personsFellowship Hall (basement - assembly without fixed seats)5,430 square feet of fellowship space5,430 / 7 = 776 persons (controls)****Note: The Sanctuary space and Fellowship Hall space are not utilized to full capacity at the same time. Most often (Sunday mornings),the Fellowship Hall space is occupied and utilized by parishioners gathering after attending mass in the Sanctuary space.OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS: (2007 UDO, Chapter 18.46)Number of Spaces RequiredUse Type – Church (Table 46-3): 1 space per 4 persons of maximum occupancy load 776 / 4 = 194 spacesMaximum Allowable Reduction (Table 46-4): Use Type - All Others: 30% 194 x 0.3 = 58 spaces194 – 58 =136 spaces requiredJoint Use of Parking Facilities (2007 UDO, Section 18.46.050)Minimum number of spaces required on-site = 20% of required spaces 136 x 0.2 =28 spaces required on-siteNOTE: Item Numbers below correspond to location numbers on vicinity map.Space TypeStandard Accessible TotalNumber of on-site parking spaces proposed1Holy Rosary Church434 47(total exceeds required 28 std. spaces)(accessible exceeds required 2 spaces)Number of off-site parking spaces secured through joint-use agreements2Wells Fargo Bank49 1 503Gallatin County Courthouse75 3 784Gallatin County Annex33 2 35Off-Site Parking Totals (secured): 157 6 163Proposed Off-site Plus On-site Parking Totals (secured): 20010 210(total exceeds required 136 std. spaces)Number of off-site parking spaces pending through joint-use agreements5First Interstate Bank19 2 216Planalp Building19 1 20Off-Site Parking Totals (pending): 38 3 41Proposed Off-Site Plus On-Site Parking Totals (including pending agreements): 238 13 251406
407
408
409
UPUPPORTION OF EXISTINGCHURCH BUILDING TO REMAINPORTION OF EXISTINGRECTORY BUILDINGTO REMAINPORTION OF EXISTING CHURCHBUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHEDPORTION OF EXISTING RECTORYBUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHEDEXISTING CONVENT BUILDING TOBE DEMOLISHED COMPLETELYELEVATORWILLIAM A.HANSON1898FOETATSMONTAN AEMANZOB TANANOMARCHITECTDESNECIL COPYRIGHT 2007220 WEST MAIN STREET BOZEMAN, MONTANAA1.1PRELIMINARY DESIGNFEBRUARY 4, 20090610DIOCESE OF HELENAHOLY ROSARY CHURCHBASEMENT STORY FLOOR PLAN - DEMOLITION 1/8" = 1'-0"A1.11BASEMENT STORY FLOOR PLAN - DEMOLITIONPROJECT NORTH410
DNDNPORTION OF EXISTINGCHURCH BUILDING TO REMAINPORTION OF EXISTINGRECTORY BUILDINGTO REMAINPORTION OF EXISTING CHURCHBUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHEDPORTION OF EXISTING RECTORYBUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHEDEXISTING CONVENT BUILDING TOBE DEMOLISHED COMPLETELYELEVATORWILLIAM A.HANSON1898FOETATSMONTAN AEMANZOB TANANOMARCHITECTDESNECIL COPYRIGHT 2007220 WEST MAIN STREET BOZEMAN, MONTANAA1.2PRELIMINARY DESIGNFEBRUARY 4, 20090610DIOCESE OF HELENAHOLY ROSARY CHURCHFIRST STORY FLOOR PLAN - DEMOLITION 1/8" = 1'-0"A1.21FIRST STORY FLOOR PLAN - DEMOLITIONPROJECT NORTHPROJECT NORTHA1.22SOUTHWEST ISOMETRIC DEMOLITION411
UPUPUPUPUPMECHANICALMECHANICALMENWOMENSTORAGESTORAGEELECTRICALWATERSERVICEELEVATORSTAIRKITCHENCUSTODIANFELLOWSHIPHALL TWOFELLOWSHIPHALL THREE32' - 0" 22' - 0" 8' - 0"62' - 0"166' - 0" +/-4' - 0" 20' - 0" 41' - 0" 20' - 0" 2' - 6" 41' - 0" 4' - 0"132' - 6"FELLOWSHIPHALL ONE1,264 SQUARE FEETOL = 181 PERSONS1,911 SQUARE FEETOL = 273 PERSONS2,255 SQUARE FEETOL = 323 PERSONSPORTION OF EXISTINGCHURCH BUILDING TO REMAINPORTION OF EXISTINGRECTORY BUILDINGTO REMAINNEW CONSTRUCTIONEXISTING CONDITIONS TO REMAINNEW CONSTRUCTIONEXISTING CONDITIONS TO REMAINGROSS AREA: CHURCH - THIS STORYEXISTING: 5,202 SFNEW CONSTRUCTION: 7,591 SFTOTAL: 12,793 SFGROSS AREA: RECTORY - THIS STORYHABITABLE SPACE: 1,274 SFINACCESSIBLE SPACE: 357 SFTOTAL: 1,631 SFELEVATORWILLIAM A.HANSON1898FOETATSMONTAN AEMANZOB TANANOMARCHITECTDESNECIL COPYRIGHT 2007220 WEST MAIN STREET BOZEMAN, MONTANAA1.3PRELIMINARY DESIGNFEBRUARY 4, 20090610DIOCESE OF HELENAHOLY ROSARY CHURCHBASEMENT STORY FLOOR PLAN - NEW CONSTRUCTION 1/8" = 1'-0"A1.31BASEMENT STORY FLOOR PLAN - NEW CONSTRUCTIONPROJECT NORTH412
DNDNUPUP1A3.11A3.2ELEVATORNEW CONSTRUCTIONEXISTING CONDITIONS TO REMAINPORTION OF EXISTINGCHURCH BUILDING TO REMAINGROSS AREA: CHURCH - THIS STORYEXISTING: 5,202 SFNEW CONSTRUCTION: 7,413 SFTOTAL: 12,615 SFGROSS AREA: RECTORY - THIS STORYTOTAL: 1,631 SFPORTION OF EXISTINGRECTORY BUILDINGTO REMAIN1,030 LF FIXED SEATINGOL = 687 PERSONSSANCTUARY32' - 0" 22' - 0" 8' - 0"62' - 0"166' - 0" +/14' - 0" 20' - 0" 41' - 0" 20' - 0" 2' - 6" 41' - 0" 4' - 0"132' - 6"LOBBYNEW CONSTRUCTIONEXISTING CONDITIONS TO REMAIN----WILLIAM A.HANSON1898FOETATSMONTAN AEMANZOB TANANOMARCHITECTDESNECIL COPYRIGHT 2007220 WEST MAIN STREET BOZEMAN, MONTANAA1.4PRELIMINARY DESIGNFEBRUARY 4, 20090610DIOCESE OF HELENAHOLY ROSARY CHURCHFIRST STORY FLOOR PLAN - NEW CONSTRUCTION 1/8" = 1'-0"A1.41FIRST STORY FLOOR PLAN - NEW CONSTRUCTIONPROJECT NORTHA1.42SOUTHWEST ISOMETRIC NEW CONSTRUCTION413
FIRST FLOOR100' - 0"VESTIBULE 91'-0"91' - 0"BASEMENT89' - 8"91' - 0"54' - 10"EXISTING MASONRYNEW MASONRY -MATCH EXISTINGNEW COMPOSITIONSHINGLE ROOFINGCOPPER EVE -MATCH EXISTINGEXISTING ROOFING ONTOWER TO REMAINWILLIAM A.HANSON1898FOETATSMONTAN AEMANZOB TANANOMARCHITECTDESNECIL COPYRIGHT 2007220 WEST MAIN STREET BOZEMAN, MONTANAA2.1PRELIMINARY DESIGNFEBRUARY 4, 20090610DIOCESE OF HELENAHOLY ROSARY CHURCHEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0"A2.11NORTH ELEVATION414
FIRST FLOOR100' - 0"VESTIBULE 91'-0"91' - 0"BASEMENT89' - 8"91' - 0"54' - 10"NEW CONSTRUCTIONEXISTING CONDITIONS TO REMAINEXISTING MASONRYNEW MASONRY- MATCH EXISTINGEXITSTING STAINED GLASSWINDOWS RELOCATED TONEW WALLSGLASS CURTAINWALL ASSEMBLYNEW COMPOSITIONSHINGLE ROOFINGCOPPER EVE -MATCH EXISTINGCOPPER EVE -MATCH EXISTINGWILLIAM A.HANSON1898FOETATSMONTAN AEMANZOB TANANOMARCHITECTDESNECIL COPYRIGHT 2007220 WEST MAIN STREET BOZEMAN, MONTANAA2.2PRELIMINARY DESIGNFEBRUARY 4, 20090610DIOCESE OF HELENAHOLY ROSARY CHURCHEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0"A2.21EAST ELEVATION415
FIRST FLOOR100' - 0"VESTIBULE 91'-0"91' - 0"BASEMENT89' - 8"54' - 10"46' - 7"EXISTING ROOFING ONTOWER TO REMAINNEW MASONRY- MATCH EXISTINGEXITSTING STAINED GLASSWINDOWS RELOCATED TONEW WALLSGLASS CURTAINWALL ASSEMBLYNEW COMPOSITIONSHINGLE ROOFINGCOPPER EVE -MATCH EXISTINGWILLIAM A.HANSON1898FOETATSMONTAN AEMANZOB TANANOMARCHITECTDESNECIL COPYRIGHT 2007220 WEST MAIN STREET BOZEMAN, MONTANAA2.3PRELIMINARY DESIGNFEBRUARY 4, 20090610DIOCESE OF HELENAHOLY ROSARY CHURCHEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0"A2.31SOUTH ELEVATION416
FIRST FLOOR100' - 0"VESTIBULE 91'-0"91' - 0"BASEMENT89' - 8"54' - 10"46' - 7"NEW CONSTRUCTIONEXISTING CONDITIONS TO REMAINEXISTING MASONRYNEW MASONRY- MATCH EXISTINGEXITSTING STAINED GLASSWINDOWS RELOCATED TONEW WALLSNEW STAINEDGLASS WINDOWSNEW COMPOSITIONSHINGLE ROOFINGCOPPER EVE -MATCH EXISTINGWILLIAM A.HANSON1898FOETATSMONTAN AEMANZOB TANANOMARCHITECTDESNECIL COPYRIGHT 2007220 WEST MAIN STREET BOZEMAN, MONTANAA2.4PRELIMINARY DESIGNFEBRUARY 4, 20090610DIOCESE OF HELENAHOLY ROSARY CHURCHEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0"A2.41WEST ELEVATION417
COPYRIGHT 2007COVERSHEETOWNER:220 WEST MAIN STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANA220 WEST MAIN STREET,BOZEMAN, MONTANAPRELIMINARY DESIGNFEBRUARY 4, 20090610DIOCESE OF HELENACONVENT BUILDINGCONVENT BUILDINGA0.03VIEW FROM NORTHWESTA0.04VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST418
UPDNDRIVEWAYUNFINISHEDUNFINISHEDMECH.GARAGEGARAGESTORAGESIDEWALK62' - 5 1/2"16' - 1 1/2"78' - 7"BASEMENT = 2,144 SFREAR PORCH = 193 SFGARAGE = 658 SFBUILDING AREAS:11' - 11 1/2"22' - 4 1/2"31' - 2"65' - 6"34' - 4" 31' - 2"65' - 6"57' - 5 1/2"21' - 1 1/2"78' - 7"REAR PORCHWILLIAM A.HANSON1898FOETATSMONTAN AEMANZOB TANANOMARCHITECTDESNECIL COPYRIGHT 2007220 WEST MAIN STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANACA1.1PRELIMINARY DESIGNFEBRUARY 4, 20090610DIOCESE OF HELENACONVENT BUILDINGBASEMENT STORY FLOOR PLANNORTH 1/8" = 1'-0"CA1.11BASEMENT STORY FLOOR PLAN419
UPUPDNDNUPGARAGE ROOF BELOWGARAGE ROOF BELOWKITCHENREAR PORCHCLASSROOMHALLHALLCLASSROOMCLASSROOMCLASSROOMCLASSROOMHALLTOILET62' - 5 1/2"16' - 1 1/2"78' - 7"11' - 11 1/2"22' - 4 1/2"31' - 2"65' - 6"34' - 4" 31' - 2"65' - 6"57' - 5 1/2"21' - 1 1/2"78' - 7"FIRST FLOOR = 2,144 SFREAR PORCH = 193 SFGARAGE = 658 SFBUILDING AREAS:DRIVEWAY BELOWSIDEWALK BELOWWILLIAM A.HANSON1898FOETATSMONTAN AEMANZOB TANANOMARCHITECTDESNECIL COPYRIGHT 2007220 WEST MAIN STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANACA1.2PRELIMINARY DESIGNFEBRUARY 4, 20090610DIOCESE OF HELENACONVENT BUILDINGFIRST STORY FLOOR PLANNORTH 1/8" = 1'-0"CA1.21FIRST STORY FLOOR PLAN420
DNUPDNGARAGE ROOF BELOWGARAGE ROOF BELOWCLASSROOMPORCH ROOF BELOWCLASSROOMHALLHALLCLASSROOMCLASSROOMCLASSROOMCLASSROOMCLASSROOMSTAIR62' - 5 1/2"16' - 1 1/2"78' - 7"11' - 11 1/2"22' - 4 1/2"31' - 2"65' - 6"34' - 4" 31' - 2"65' - 6"57' - 5 1/2"21' - 1 1/2"78' - 7"SECOND FLOOR = 2,144 SFREAR PORCH = 193 SFGARAGE = 658 SFBUILDING AREAS:DRIVEWAY BELOWSIDEWALK BELOWWILLIAM A.HANSON1898FOETATSMONTAN AEMANZOB TANANOMARCHITECTDESNECIL COPYRIGHT 2007220 WEST MAIN STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANACA1.3PRELIMINARY DESIGNFEBRUARY 4, 20090610DIOCESE OF HELENACONVENT BUILDINGSECOND STORY FLOOR PLANNORTH 1/8" = 1'-0"CA1.31SECOND STORY FLOOR PLAN421
BASEMENT STORYFLOOR PLAN92' - 0"FIRST STORY FLOORPLAN100' - 0"SECOND STORYFLOOR PLAN110' - 0"ROOF121' - 2"BASEMENT STORYFLOOR PLAN92' - 0"FIRST STORY FLOORPLAN100' - 0"SECOND STORYFLOOR PLAN110' - 0"ROOF121' - 2"BASEMENT STORYFLOOR PLAN92' - 0"FIRST STORY FLOORPLAN100' - 0"SECOND STORYFLOOR PLAN110' - 0"ROOF121' - 2"BASEMENT STORYFLOOR PLAN92' - 0"FIRST STORY FLOORPLAN100' - 0"SECOND STORYFLOOR PLAN110' - 0"ROOF121' - 2"WILLIAM A.HANSON1898FOETATSMONTAN AEMANZOB TANANOMARCHITECTDESNECIL COPYRIGHT 2007220 WEST MAIN STREET, BOZEMAN, MONTANACA2.1PRELIMINARY DESIGNFEBRUARY 4, 20090610DIOCESE OF HELENACONVENT BUILDINGEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/8" = 1'-0"CA2.11WEST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"CA2.13EAST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"CA2.12SOUTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"CA2.14NORTH ELEVATIONWEST ELEVATIONSOUTH ELEVATIONEAST ELEVATIONNORTH ELEVATION422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430