HomeMy WebLinkAboutSouth Wallace Lofts Informal Application
Commission Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Allyson C. Bristor, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: South Wallace Lofts Informal Application - #I-09002
HEARING DATE: Monday, April 20, 2009 at 6:00 p.m.
RECOMMENDATION: No formal recommendation is necessary at this time. The Commission may
provide guidance to the applicant in regards to the project proposal.
PROJECT LOCATION: The subject property is located at the northwest corner of the South Wallace
Avenue and East Babcock Street intersection, which is directly south of the existing Heebs Grocery
commercial store. The property is 15,680 square feet in lot area, which equals approximately 0.36 acres.
Two single-family household residences exist on the property, addressed as 541 and 549 East Babcock
Street. The property is legally described as Lots 15-18, Block B, Rouse’s First Addition, City of
Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The property is zoned as B-3 (Central Business District) and is
located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
PROJECT PROPOSAL: Property owner Mountainside Development, LLC and applicant Intrinsik
Architecture submitted an informal application to the Department of Planning & Community
Development. The application seeks informal guidance from the Administrative Design Review (ADR)
Staff, Development Review Committee (DRC), Design Review Board (DRB), Parking Commission,
Bogert Park Neighborhood Association and City Commission. The applicant foresees a Site Plan and
Certificate of Appropriateness application as the type of application they will submit for formal review.
The proposal is to either move off-site or demolish the two existing household structures, to demolish the
two detached garage structures, and to construct a new four-story, with fifth-story penthouse, mixed use
structure. Three commercial units, accessory storage and bathroom areas, and a covered parking lot are
proposed for the ground floor. The parking lot shows 25 standard size spaces, 2 which are stacked
spaces. Two additional handicap accessible parking spaces are also shown. Thirty residential units,
distributed as 28 one-bedrooms and 2 two-bedrooms, are proposed on the upper floors.
The two existing household structures are deemed as contributing by the Historic Preservation Staff, and
therefore, the City Commission will be responsible for the decision on their movement or demolition.
The applicant is proposing to provide the required parkland square footage (3,085 SF) through a cash in-
lieu payment rather than a land dedication. The City Commission will be required to approve this
request, as well as the appraised cash value of the payment. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a
cash in-lieu payment for the shortage of parking spaces (16 or 18 spaces x $5,000 = $80,000 or $90,000).
The Parking Commission will be required to approve this request.
PROJECT DESIGN: The primary mass of the mixed use structure reaches 52 feet in height. The
smaller fifth-floor reaches 59 feet and a gable-shaped roof element reaching 63 feet. All heights are
below the permitted B-3 zoning maximum of 70 feet. The structure appears as two divided square
modules with a central open area on the upper floors. The ground floor commercial units are accessed
through storefront entrances facing South Wallace Avenue. The covered parking lot is accessed by a two-
way drive aisle on East Babcock Street and the alley. Several of the residential units have exterior decks.
A combination of brick, corrugated metal and asphalt materials are proposed.
117
DRB COMMENTS: In addition to the comments listed below, ADR Staff asked for additional design
recommendations from the DRB. Staff asked to hear the DRB members’ responses to the following
questions:
1) Is the overhanging floor at the southeast corner appropriate for the building design? Should it
rather be an enclosed space?
2) Is the proposed building mass and scale appropriate for the commercial area?
3) Is corrugated metal an appropriate material for the structure?
The majority of the DRB members said the overhanging southeast corner should be redesigned so that it
is an enclosed space. They suggested that the enclosed area could be used for an additional retail tenant
space or additional parking spaces. The entire DRB thought the proposed building mass and scale was
appropriate for the site and thought corrugated metal was an appropriate material for the structure. The
DRB minutes are enclosed with this memo and provide a summary of the entire meeting’s discussion.
PARKING COMMISSION COMMENTS: The Parking Commission stated their support for the
applicant’s parking cash-in-lieu request of 16 to 18 spaces. They requested that the applicant provide
them with additional information during the formal review process, explaining how the applicant plans to
distribute the parking spaces to each residential unit in the building.
STAFF COMMENTS: Here is a list of informal comments from City Staff:
Formal Application Requirements
• A Site Plan with a Certificate of Appropriateness is likely the type of application required for the
formal review process. A deviation would be necessary if the structures’ first floor encroached in
the required street vision triangle at the East Babcock Street and South Wallace Avenue
intersection.
• The two existing household structures are deemed “contributing” to the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District. The demolition or movement of these structures will require final
review and approval by the City Commission. If moved, the applicant shall supply the
Department of Planning with the addresses of the new locations. If demolished, the applicant will
be required to document the historic structures.
Site Plan
• The application’s site plan should show the neighboring buildings’ footprints, including those
across South Wallace and East Babcock, and neighboring drive aisles and alley accesses.
• A street vision triangle is required at the East Babcock and South Wallace intersection, measured
as 50 feet along East Babcock curbline and thence diagonally to the point 40 feet along the South
Wallace curbline. This area should be shown on the site plan. No fence, wall or planning excess
of 30 inches shall be located within this triangular area.
• A street vision triangle is required at the alley access onto South Wallace, measured as 15 feet on
each side of the centerline of the alley and a point on the centerline 10 feet outside the right-of-
way. This area should be shown on the site plan. No fence, wall or planning excess of 30 inches
shall be located within this triangular area.
Landscaping/Parkland & Open Space
• A separate landscape plan shall be submitted, showing a minimum of 13 landscaping points.
Report compiled on April 15, 2009
118
• Because of the residential component, 150 square feet of open space per dwelling unit is required.
There is a possibility the proposed exterior decks can contribute to that requirement (a current
discussion at the Staff level for a future Unified Development Ordinance amendment).
Parking
• If office use is proposed on the ground floor, a minimum of four parking spaces is required.
• Bicycle parking facilities shall be proposed and shown on the site plan.
• A table showing the required parking demand of the project shall be submitted, and shall include
all applicable reductions per Section 18.46.040 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance
• A proposed parking plan shall be submitted, describing the method of parking distribution for the
residential dwelling units (for example, spaces will be offered for additional rent, spaces will be
designated for specific dwelling units, etc.)
Building Design
• A variety of traditional materials should be proposed for the structure’s exterior siding. The
placement and division of materials should help to provide visual texture and relief for the four-
story building.
• All building materials shall be noted on the building elevations and cross-reference a submitted
materials board and color palette.
• The parkland cash in-lieu payment will require City Commission approval, and follow the
requirements as listed
• All exterior lighting proposed for the site, including building mounted and freestanding, shall be
shown on the site plan and building elevations and shown on a lighting plan.
• Appropriate shielding, possibly in the form of landscaping or structural screening, shall be
provided along the structure’s west perimeter.
Engineering
Water and Sewer
• Sewer and water services shall be shown on the FSP and approved by the Water/Sewer
Superintendent. City of Bozeman applications for service shall be completed by the applicant.
Necessary backflow prevention must be demonstrated for the existing water service line.
• Plans and Specifications for any fire service line must be prepared in accordance with the City's
Fire Service Line Policy by a Professional Engineer (PE), 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.
Storm Water
• A Storm Water 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),
storm water detention/retention basin details (including basin sizing and discharge calculations, and
discharge structure details), storm water discharge destination, and a storm water maintenance plan.
Streets, Curb & Gutter, Sidewalks
• The drive approach shall be constructed in accordance with the City's standard approach (i.e.,
concrete apron, sidewalk section and drop-curb) and shown as such on the FSP. A City Curb Cut and
Sidewalk Permit shall be obtained prior to FSP approval. UDO section 18.44.090.C.2.b specifies
two-way commercial drive access shall be a minimum of 16 feet wide and not exceed 35 feet wide.
Report compiled on April 15, 2009
119
Report compiled on April 15, 2009
A one-way drive access shall be a minimum of 16 feet wide. All drive approaches shall meet all
minimum separation requirements from public street intersections and other driveways.
• All surrounding streets would need to be upgraded to city standards. This includes but not limited to
paving, curb, gutter, and sidewalk.
• A detailed Traffic Study Report for the proposed development, including a level of service
evaluation, shall be provided with a formal site plan application for a site of this size and nature.
• 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.
• A 10’ wide Public Street and Utility Easement shall be granted along the northern property boundary.
The easement shall be acceptable in form and content and executed by the property owner(s) prior to
Final Site Plan approval.
Miscellaneous
• Any proposed underground parking facility must consider turning radius requirements, adequate
ingress and egress, sight vision triangles at the entrances and exits, and meet all necessary building
code requirements.
• The proposed project site is located in an area of know asbestos contamination in the soil. It is the
responsibility of the property owner to determine the extent of any possible contamination on this site
prior to construction.
Building/Fire Code
• The structure will require fire sprinklers.
• The Building Department recommends the applicant to pay attention to egress and accessibility
issues.
CONCLUSION: DRC finished their review of the project on March 25, 2009. DRB finished their
review of the project on April 8, 2009. The Parking Commission reviewed the project on April 2, 2009.
The City Commission now has an opportunity to provide informal comments on the project proposal.
Planning Staff will compile comments from all boards and deliver to the applicant following the informal
review process.
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
Encl: Historic Inventory of 541 East Babcock Street
DRB Meeting Draft Minutes
Applicant’s submittal materials
CC: Mountainside Development, LLC, 18 E 4th Street, Suite 100,
Cincinnati, OH 45202-3714
Intrinsik Architecture, Inc, 111 North Tracy Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715
120
121
122
1
Design Review Board Minutes – April 8, 2009
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 2009
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Livingston called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 5:31 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 Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Michael Pentecost Allyson Bristor, Associate Planner
Christopher Livingston Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Randy Wall
Mel Howe
Elissa Zavora
Visitors Present
Jesse Sobrepena
Rob McRae
Gary W. Gullickson
Dan Harding
Eva Unruh
Todd Thesing
Michael Schreiner
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 2009
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated that on the third page the third paragraph comments had been
made by Chairperson Livingston instead of him.
Mr. Rea stated on the same page at the bottom the language “organization of that size doesn’t
need that much space” should be removed.
MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to approve the minutes of
March 25, 2009 with corrections. The motion carried 6-0.
ITEM 3. CONSENT ITEM
1. USDA Office Mods to FSP #Z-08284 (Krueger)
2229 Boot Hill Court
* A Final Site Plan modification to allow minor changes to the approved
preliminary elevations.
MOTION: Mr. Wall moved, Vice Chairperson Pentecost seconded, to forward a
recommendation of approval to the Planning Director for USDA Office Mods to FSP #Z-08284.
The motion carried 6-0.
123
2
Design Review Board Minutes – April 8, 2009
ITEM 4. INFORMAL REVIEW
1. South Wallace Lofts INFORMAL #I-09002 (Bristor)
541 & 549 East Babcock Street
* An Informal Application for advice and comment on the construction of a
four-story, 63’ 9” tall, 30 unit residential condominium development, three
commercial spaces with covered parking, and related site improvements.
Susan Kozub, Dan Harding, and Eva Unruh joined the DRB. Associate Planner Allyson Bristor
presented the Staff Report noting the location of the proposal and that there are two existing
houses on the lot that are addressed on Babcock Street. She noted the well maintained houses
were located within the B-3 zoning designation which promotes a higher density on the site than
existed. She noted the proposed height would be beneath the maximum allowable height and
would accommodate a four story structure with a partial fifth story penthouse. Mr. Rea asked
Planner Bristor to clarify the height limitations of the B-3 core area. Planner Bristor listed those
limitations and noted that the proposal was outside of the core area. She noted which items Staff
had been seeking direction on from the DRB including the open corner at Babcock Street and
Wallace Avenue, materials, and building mass.
Ms. Kozub noted the location of the property on an aerial photo for reference. She noted
increased density had been a common requirement of the City Commission and the location
would be a great spot for density and mixed-use. She noted that though the existing residences
were grandfathered in for the B-3 zoning, it was not the best use of the property and the owner
had been looking for someone that would move the existing residences. She stated they thought
there was an increasing need for smaller, affordable housing units. She noted the typical unit
would be 600-1,000 sq. ft.. She stated the proposal did not currently require deviations, but if the
corner building were redesigned, a deviation might be necessary for encroachment into the street
vision triangle. She noted cash in lieu of parkland would be submitted and noted the available
parking reductions for the B-3 district and mixed-use development. She stated the owner would
be speaking with the Engineering Department regarding the required street improvements and
sidewalks on both sides of Wallace Avenue and on-street parking. She noted the applicant had
not examined parking and engineering details as of yet, but would have more detail in the formal
submittal.
Mr. Harding directed the DRB to the basic site plan for the proposal. He stated the most efficient
parking scheme had been used to determine the layout of the project. He stated the idea was that
each of the buildings would get light on two sides and directed the DRB to the street level plan
proposed for the structures. He stated he loved the site because the surrounding buildings had
been used to provide aesthetic inspiration for the structure. He noted they were early on in the
design phase, but elements from the surrounding neighborhood had been incorporated to enhance
the design. He stated he thought the proposal contained the paradigm for living downtown with
most units being single bedroom units with the exception of two, two bedroom units to keep the
project price under control and provide the local market with that opportunity.
Mr. Wall asked Planner Bristor if she had attended the Parking Commission meeting and if there
was concern about not providing at least one parking space for each unit. Planner Bristor
responded that some units would be offered by the owner without parking spaces and the Parking
Commission had expressed support more than concern. Mr. Harding added that reductions in
parking had not been approved by the Commission beyond 33% and the developer was willing to
124
3
Design Review Board Minutes – April 8, 2009
take the risk of less value for a unit without a parking stall. Mr. Wall responded that he
understood the willingness of the owner to take that risk, but parking was a big issue not only for
the person buying a unit but for the surrounding area; he asked where the nearest public parking
area was located in relation to the proposal. Planner Bristor responded there was a public
parking area within two blocks of the project and noted Staff was not uncomfortable with the
parking reduction. Mr. Wall stated he was concerned with moving forward with a project that
did not at least provide one parking space per unit. He noted the corner that would provide the
site triangle was a high traffic area and he was concerned with the corner design.
Ms. Zavora asked what comments regarding parking had come of the neighborhood meeting.
Ms. Kozub responded there were some residents concerned about spillover traffic and on-street
parking as well as the Heebs owner’s concerns regarding people parking in their lot, but none of
the rest of the neighborhood had come to the meeting. Ms. Zavora asked if the units were sold
what the cost would be. Mr. Harding responded there were target price points that would be
from between $185,000 -$285,000 with the penthouse units being in the high $500,000. Ms.
Kozub added that the neighborhood was more comfortable due to the proposal containing one
bedroom units. Ms. Zavora asked if the building next door was a rental apartment building.
Planner Bristor responded it was. Ms. Zavora asked if there had been target businesses in mind
with regard to the business aspect of the development. Ms. Kozub responded small retail and
small services (such as dry cleaning drop-off) had been considered. Ms. Zavora stated the retail
aspect of the development would generate more traffic and would require parking spaces. Ms.
Zavora asked if the removal of the houses had been investigated. Mr. Schreiner responded they
would give them away if there was no cost to them for moving the structures. Ms. Zavora asked
what the triangle feature (gable roof) was depicted at the top of the structure. Mr. Harding
responded it would be mechanical equipment screening.
Mr. Rea asked if the office spaces would be condo or rental. Mr. Harding responded they would
be condo. Mr. Rea asked if there would be deed restrictions in place. Mr. Thesing stated a deed
restriction would be investigated. Mr. Rea asked if the owner could arrange the by-laws in such
a way that they are not allowed to rent the units. Mr. Thesing stated there was a big concern
about who the renters would be so the plan had not been formulated as of yet; he noted they had
a specific target market. Mr. Rea asked Planner Bristor if the site triangle would be a big issue
for the applicant. Planner Bristor responded that the UDO contradicted itself in that respect, but
Staff would be supportive of that type of deviation request.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the applicant had met with Streamline to discuss the
opportunity of using the site as a bus pullout. Ms. Kozub responded they had not yet approached
Streamline but it could be investigated. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked how the Preservation
Board would view the proposal given that two historic structures would be removed. Planner
Bristor responded the Board knew that it was necessary to draw people to downtown and
establish density; she noted Staff was promoting moving them instead of demolishing them.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he thought of this as an opportunity to provide affordable
housing. Planner Bristor responded the structures would lose some historic integrity being
moved off the site and would not be eligible for the historic register, but the architecture would
maintain its historic character.
Chairperson Livingston asked if there was any talk about changing the Babcock Street/South
Wallace Avenue intersection to a controlled intersection. Ms. Kozub responded there was talk of
125
4
Design Review Board Minutes – April 8, 2009
redeveloping an adjacent site with Babcock Street extending to the library and a traffic light
would be included, but that had not yet been decided. Planner Bristor added that Engineering
will require a traffic study with the formal proposal. Chairperson Livingston asked which was
accurate; no walls around parking or all walls around parking. Mr. Harding responded the
accurate depiction was all walls around the parking. Chairperson Livingston asked if there had
ever been talk about putting residential units on the ground floor instead of retail. Mr. Harding
responded they had not discussed that. Ms. Kozub responded the mixed-use option had been
preferred.
Mr. Howe stated he was a little concerned regarding the amount of parking proposed for the
project; though the parking could be dealt with by removing the retail. He stated he thought the
building mass would be appropriate for the site and he had no problem with the corrugated
metal. He stated the overhang at the southeast corner would be up to the architect. He stated he
was generally supportive of the proposal.
Mr. Wall stated he agreed with Mr. Howe that the parking would be a concern and suggested that
one parking stall per unit should be provided. He suggested Staff discuss the street vision
triangle due to the uniqueness of the intersection, the building mass and scale were appropriate,
and he was “down with” the brick and corrugated metal proposed.
Ms. Zavora stated she agreed with previous DRB comments noting that parking would be a
concern, the massing was appropriate, and the corrugated metal and brick were in keeping with
the surrounding neighborhood. She suggested office type services as opposed to retail services
to lessen the vehicle impact on the site. Mr. Harding responded they did not know for sure what
the occupancy rate would be for the units on a given night and noted other options would come
up for the parking on the site.
Mr. Rea stated he thought the building overhang at the corner (street vision triangle) was
ridiculous and suggested it should be retail or rental space for income generating square footage.
He stated the building mass was great, the corrugated metal (as long as it was not rusted) would
be fine, he worried about the west facing façade due to the 10 foot air gap instead of a view, and
he was concerned with the retail spaces being empty because they would affect the pedestrian
activity on the street. He suggested a live-work arrangement. He stated he could not applaud the
applicants loud enough for taking on the sale of units without parking spaces; he suggested
owners buy into shared vehicles (Green Cars) when they purchased the units to reduce the
necessary amount of parking. He stated he bought his first property in Bozeman without a
parking space and he didn’t mind walking or riding his bike; he stated he thought there would be
people interested in purchasing those units.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he agreed with previous DRB concerns regarding parking. He
noted if LEED certification were sought, it would attract clientele that may not have vehicles and
would energize the project. Mr. Harding responded they had talked about the requirements at the
Parking Commission meeting and they might be changed in the future to allow far less parking;
he agreed that LEED certification should be investigated. Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he
did not see any bike racks, but if they were included it would assist in drawing the intended
market. He stated he saw a huge opportunity for affordable housing with the movement of the
two houses. He suggested pushing on the bus shelter and discussing those options with
Streamline. He stated providing the street vision triangle was absurd (the building should
126
5
Design Review Board Minutes – April 8, 2009
encroach), the mass was appropriate, and the materials would be appropriate.
Chairperson Livingston stated the only benefit to providing the street vision triangle would be if
the traffic doesn’t change; he suggested the applicant would want the vision triangle to prevent
traffic accidents but if the intersection were mitigated, the vision triangle would become
unnecessary and the building could encroach. He stated the mass, materials, and overall
concepts were great. He stated from the pedestrian point of view the building was not very
friendly due to the large amount of brick on the south elevation; he suggested looking into
modifying the appearance to promote people walking around the site. He suggested a stoop or
residential street-face as a way of getting people onto the streets.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost added that people would see the brick as live-work units and the
retail might become the attraction for the sale of the residential aspects of the site.
ITEM 5. 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 6. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 6:47 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board
127
Informal Application | March 2009
SOUTH WALLACE LOFTS
128
[x] Parking Commission
[x] Bogert Park Neigh. Association
129
SOUTH WALLACE LOFTS
Project Narrative
This project proposes to create a quality infill residential mixed-use project in the heart of down-
town Bozeman. The proposed program includes four main levels (and a 1,700 SF fifth level) con-
taining 30 residential units, integrated covered parking, a courtyard, common areas and three
small commercial spaces. On 0.36 acres, this represents a floor area ratio of three. The main
goal of this application is to seek informal advice and comment in preparation of a subsequent
formal Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness Application. The property owners and the
design team are looking for initial comments from the Development Review Committee (DRC),
the Design Review Board (DRB), the Parking Commission, the Bogert Park Neighborhood Asso-
ciation and potentially the Board of Adjustment and/or City Commission.
The subject property is located northwest of the intersection of South Wallace Avenue and East
Babcock Street (directly behind Heeb’s) and falls within the B-3 (Community Business) zoning
district and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The existing site contains two single
household residences designated “neutral” on the 1984 Historic Inventory and currently consid-
ered non-conforming in the B-3 zone. These houses are planned for relocation as part of this
future project.
Both the current 2020 Plan as well as the latest draft of the revised Bozeman Community Plan
designate this property “Community Core.” This designation promotes a diverse mix of intensive
uses and high density housing: “New residential uses should be high density. The intensity of
development is high with a Floor Area Ratio well over 1. Future development should continue to
be intense while providing areas of transition to adjacent areas and preserving the historic char-
acter of Main Street” (Bozeman Community Plan, p. 3-12). The surrounding land uses include a
grocery store to the north, a multi-unit condominium project to the west, Empire Building Materi-
als to the east and a restaurant to the south. These adjacent uses, along with proximity to down-
town, public transportation, existing parks, trails and the library make this site an ideal location
for urban density as a transition to the more historic and established residential neighborhoods
to the south.
This project represents an excellent opportunity for Bozeman to implement one of the seven ma-
jor reoccurring themes in the growth policy - urban density. As stated in the draft plan: “Bozeman
is a city, and the housing densities are not those of the rural areas of Gallatin County. Funda-
mental to the efficient and cost-effective provision of urban services, multi-modal transportation
oriented development, and a compact development pattern is a concentration of persons and
activities. Density of development must also be balanced against community character, parks
and open spaces, and the housing choices of citizens. Quality site and architectural design will
materially affect the success and acceptability of urban density and scale of develop-
ment” (Bozeman Community Plan, p. 3-5).
The following specific growth policy objectives (also from the draft update to the Bozeman Com-
munity Plan) are supported by this project:
• Objective LU-1.4: Provide for and support infill development and redevelopment which provides addi-
tional density of use while respecting the context of the existing development which surrounds it. Re-
spect for context does not automatically prohibit difference in scale or design.
• Objective LU-3.2: Encourage the use and redevelopment of underutilized and brownfield sites to pro-
vide employment and housing which will help to maintain the vibrancy and vitality of the Historic Core
area.
130
SOUTH WALLACE LOFTS
• Objective LU-3.4: Give particular emphasis to encourage living opportunities within walking distance of
the downtown employment, retail, and neighborhood services.
• Objective LU-4.5: Generation of renewable energy including solar and wind power as an accessory
use is encouraged with proper design and compatibility to adjacent uses.
• Objective LU-4.6: All mixed use areas should be developed on a grid of connectivity, including streets,
alleys, driveways, and parking areas that contain multimodal facilities and a high level of connectivity
to adjacent development. Shared use, underground, or other structured parking is recommended to
reduce surface parking area.
Please refer to the attached information and drawing set for additional information.
Access
East Babcock Street is designated as an arterial in the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation
Plan 2007 Update. Because of this classification, restricted accesses are required to be sepa-
rated 330 feet. A subsequent formal application would include a request to allow a new access
onto East Babcock Street along with the removal of the non-conforming existing access on
South Wallace. The resulting traffic patterns would allow for better traffic movement both outside
and within the site.
The proposed access on East Babcock Street would be left-in/left-out to match the existing one-
way traffic pattern. Logically, this access would be most commonly used due to the lack of exist-
ing traffic control on East Babcock. The interior connection to the shared drive access to the
north allows for a second way in and out of the parking area.
A traffic study and engineering justification for the access deviation will be submitted with a pre-
liminary site plan application. Any early thoughts from the Engineering Department are appreci-
ated.
Parkland
In terms of parkland, the existing property would have credit for two residential units. Because
the parkland dedication requirement caps at 12 units per acre, the amount of parkland for the
remaining 28 units is 0.07 acres or 3,031 square feet as shown in the following formula:
Parkland Cap: 12 units/acre = 4.4 units/0.36 acres
Existing Units: 2 units
Difference: 2.4 units
2.4 units x 0.03 acres per unit = 0.07 acres = 3,085 SF required parkland
Because of this small amount of land and the infill nature of this project, cash-in-lieu of dedicated
parkland is proposed to satisfy this requirement. Nearby parks that could directly benefit from
additional cash-in-lieu funds include Lindley Park, Burke Park and Bogert Park.
131
SOUTH WALLACE LOFTS
Parking Analysis
The chart below summarizes parking requirements for the proposed project. A total of 48.7
parking spaces are currently required for this project; however, note several potential parking
reductions available from Section 18.50.040 of the Unified Development Ordinance. In addition
to a general “mixed-use” parking reduction, the proposed commercial spaces also qualify for a
20 percent reduction for offices and a 40 percent reduction for retail. With these parking reduc-
tions, a total of 43 parking spaces are required.
23 standard parking spaces are proposed on-site under the structure along with 2 disabled ac-
cessible parking spaces. Note that 2 stacked spaces are also proposed for the two 2-bedroom
units to allow for stacked parking for those 2 units only. Also 2 parking spaces exist on-street.
The remaining 16 parking spaces are proposed to be provided through the cash-in-lieu pro-
gram. The design team is seeking input from the Parking Commission as part of this informal
application.
MAIN STREET
132
SOUTH WALLACE LOFTS
Aerial Image Image Source: City GIS Dept.
Subject
Property
N
East Main
Grocery Store
& retail spaces
Multiple Unit
Residential
Condominiums
Frank’s
Custom
Catering
Empire
Building
Materials
Library
Frank’s
Residence
Residences
Office Office
Tire-Rama
133
SOUTH WALLACE LOFTS
Site Photographs 1
East Babcock Street
541 549
134
SOUTH WALLACE LOFTS
Site Photographs 2
South Wallace Avenue
South Wallace Avenue
549 Garage
135
SOUTH WALLACE LOFTS
Site Photographs 3
South Wallace
Avenue
Shared Driveway
(formally an alley)
Heeb’s
Multi-unit
Residential
541
Garage
Shared Driveway
(formally an alley)
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147