HomeMy WebLinkAbout4-16-07 Packet Item_Jonathan L_ Foote Addition Site Plan_Certificate o_18Commission Memorandum
Memorandum created on April 11th 2007
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor & City Commission
FROM: Allyson C. Bristor, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV #Z-07033
MEETING DATE: Monday, April 16th 2007
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission approve the JLF Addition Site Plan and Certificate of
Appropriateness with Deviations application (#Z-07033) as conditioned by Staff.
BACKGROUND: Property owner and applicant Callender Street LLP submitted a Site Plan and Certificate
of Appropriateness with Deviations application requesting the following alterations to the property located at
140 East Main Street: 1) a three-story rear addition, with a partial 4th story penthouse level, to the existing
building, 2) improvements to the rear alley drive access, 3) remodel of the existing building (as approved in a
previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness application) and 4) related site improvements. The
addition will consist entirely of office use (for the JLF business). The ground floor of the existing building
will be retail/commercial uses and the second floor will be three, one-bedroom residential units. One
deviation is requested for this application, from Section 18.46.020, “Stall, Aisle and Driveway
Design,” to allow the garage parking spaces off the rear alley to supply less than 26 feet of backing
distance.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: The applicant is aware of the schedule change. Planning Staff is not aware of
any unresolved issues at this time.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The development, if carried forward, will require infrastructure and site improvements
to meet City standards that will be the responsibility of the applicant.
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 meeting.
APPROVED BY: Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
196
CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CALLENDER STREET/JLF ADDITION SP/COA/DEV FILE NO. #Z-07033
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV CC Staff Report (#Z-07033)
1
Item: Zoning Application #Z-07033, a Site Plan and Certificate of
Appropriateness with Deviations application requesting the following
alterations to the property located at 140 East Main Street: 1) a three-
story rear addition, with a partial 4th story penthouse level, to the
existing building, 2) improvements to the rear alley drive access, 3)
remodel of the existing building (as approved in a previously approved
Certificate of Appropriateness application) and 4) related site
improvements. Said property zoned as “B-3” (Central Business
District) and is located within the Main Street Historic District and the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
Owner/Applicant: Callender Street LLP
c/o Tamela Hauer & Jake Scott
140 East Main Street
Bozeman, MT 59715
Representative: GSBS Architecture
375 West 200 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Date: City Commission Public Hearing: Monday, April 16th 2007 at
6:00 PM, in the Community Room, Gallatin County Courthouse, 311
West Main Street, Bozeman, MT 59715.
Report By: Allyson C. Bristor AICP, Associate Planner
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
____________________________________________________________________________________
PROJECT LOCATION
The subject property is located at 140 East Main Street and is legally described as east 8 feet of Lot 8, Lots 9
& 10, Block B, Original Townsite, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The property is zoned as
B-3 (Central Business District) and is included within the Main Street Historic District and the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
Please refer to the vicinity map on the following page.
197
PROPOSAL
Property owner and applicant Callender Street LLP submitted a Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness
with Deviations application requesting the following alterations to the property located at 140 East Main
Street: 1) a three-story rear addition, with a partial 4th story penthouse level, to the existing building, 2)
improvements to the rear alley drive access, 3) remodel of the existing building (as approved in a previously
approved Certificate of Appropriateness application) and 4) related site improvements. The addition will
consist entirely of office use (for the JLF business). The ground floor of the existing building will be
retail/commercial uses and the second floor will be three, one-bedroom residential units.
The remodel of the existing building was approved by the City Commission in August 2005 through a
Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations application, and since that time the Planning Director
approved a request for an extension that terminates in June 2007. It is important for the City
Commission to keep in mind that the only portion of the building applicable to review is the
proposed addition. The City Commission may make comments to the applicant about the
proposed remodel of the existing building, but any suggested conditions will not be mandated by
Planning Staff since it received previous approval by the City Commission.
Deviations are available to property owners with the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, upon
Bozeman City Commission review and approval. One deviation is requested for this application, from
Section 18.46.020, “Stall, Aisle and Driveway Design,” to allow the garage parking spaces off the
rear alley to supply less than 26 feet of backing distance.
The Development Review Committee (DRC) conducted their final review of the project proposal on March
21, 2007 and unanimously recommended approval of the project as conditioned by Planning Staff. Though
this application did not meet the thresholds established in Section 18.62.010.A.2.e of the Bozeman Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) to warrant review by the Design Review Board, Administrative Design
Review (ADR) Staff wanted to obtain the Board’s feedback on this significant proposal. On March 28,
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV CC Staff Report (#Z-07033)
2 198
2007, the DRB recommended approval of the project as conditioned by ADR Staff. Please see attached for
the meeting’s minutes.
ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES
The subject property is zoned B-3 (Central Business District). As stated in the Bozeman Unified
Development Ordinance, the intent of B-3 zoning is to provide a central area for the community’s business,
government service and cultural activities. Uses within this district should be appropriate to such a focal
center with inappropriate uses being excluded. Room should be provided in appropriate areas for logical
and planned expansion of the present district.
It is the intent of this district to encourage high volume, pedestrian-oriented uses in ground floor space in
the “core area” of Bozeman’s central business district, i.e., along Main Street from Grand to Rouse and to
the alleys one-half block north and south from Main Street. Lower volume pedestrian uses such as
professional offices may locate on ground floor space in the B-3 area outside the above defined core. The
subject property is located outside of the defined “core area.”
The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property:
North: Retail “Army & Navy,” zoned B-3;
South: Alley & Service Retail “Gallatin Laundry Co.,” zoned B-3;
East: Commercial Bank “First Security,” zoned B-3;
West: Art Gallery “Altitude” and retail “Davis Torres,” zoned B-3.
ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION
The subject property and the surrounding properties are designated as “Community Commercial” in the
2020 Community Plan. This development proposal is in conformance with the Bozeman 2020 Community
Plan including the “Community Commercial” land use designation. 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 functions including retail, education, professional and personal services,
offices, residences, and general service activities typify this designation. In the “center-based” land use
pattern, Community Commercial areas are integrated with significant transportation corridors, including
transit and non-automotive routes, to facilitate efficient travel opportunities. Community Commercial areas
are generally 120 to 140 acres in size and are activity centers for an area of several square miles surrounding
them. The density of development is expected to be higher than currently seen in most commercial areas in
Bozeman and should include multi-story buildings. It is considered desirable to have residences on upper
floors in some circumstances.
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
The City of Bozeman Department of Planning reviewed this application for a Site Plan and Certificate of
Appropriateness with Deviations against Sections 18.28 and 18.34 of the Bozeman Unified Development
Ordinance, and as a result offers the following summary review comments below. The findings outlined in
this report include comments and recommended conditions provided by the DRC, DRB and ADR Staff.
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV CC Staff Report (#Z-07033)
3 199
Section 18.28.050 “Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness”
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).
With the conditions of approval, the proposal is found to be in conformance with the Secretary of
Interior Standards.
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 addition is historically appropriate for the surrounding Main Street Historic
District because it does not exceed the maximum 55-foot building height of the B-3 zoning
district’s core area. The difference in height between the addition and the existing building is
minimized by breaking the addition into appropriate building modules, proposing a variety of
building materials (glass to stone) and providing a slight increase in building setback for the glass
stairwell/elevator shaft.
2. Proportions of doors and windows;
The first floor along Main Street is predominately transparent glass and the entries are slightly
recessed, which invites a pedestrian inside the building. There is a distinction between in floor
heights between street levels and upper levels through appropriate architectural detailing,
materials and fenestration.
3. Relationship of building masses and spaces;
The proposed addition relates to the existing building in mass, scale and form. Though it is
higher in height, it is set back from the primary façade of the existing building.
4. Roof shape;
Flat roof lines are proposed for the addition, which are appropriate for the Main Street Historic
District.
5. Scale;
The proposed addition relates to the existing building in mass, scale and form. Though it is
higher in height, it is set back from the primary façade of the existing building.
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV CC Staff Report (#Z-07033)
4 200
6. Directional expression;
The addition is appropriately proposed to the rear of the existing building, extends the
directional expression along South Bozeman and provides a new façade on the rear alley.
7. Architectural details;
As conditioned, the Final Site Plan materials shall include a materials and color palette for all
new construction, which will be reviewed by ADR Staff.
ADR Staff also had concern with some of the proposed architectural details. The silver
aluminum frames for the window units are too reflective and Staff is conditioning them to be a
darker color. Also, all window frames shall match for both the addition and the existing
building’s remodel and the glazing material shall all be non reflective.
8. Concealment of non-period appurtenances, such as mechanical equipment;
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. As conditioned, all mechanical equipment must be shown on the
Final Site Plan materials.
9. Materials and color scheme.
ADR Staff does have some concern with the proposed masonry/stone units for the addition.
As conditioned, Staff is requiring a greater distinction in color between the two proposed units
(“Rocked Sundance” and “Smooth Wheat”) to help better define the addition’s base, middle and
cap, and to help better relate with the existing building’s proposed redesign.
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.
The proposed addition is a combination of traditional and contemporary design. Its proposed
placement to the rear of the existing building is not destroying any significant features. The
transparent glass used for the stairwell/elevator shaft, and the slight increase in building setback,
adds modular dimension to the addition and distinguishes itself from the front, existing building.
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.
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV CC Staff Report (#Z-07033)
5 201
The Introduction, Chapters 2, 4 and 5, and the Appendix of the Design Guidelines for the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District all apply to this project, as the property is deemed a
“work on a non-contributing property ” in the Main Street Historic District. Chapter 1 is also
relevant, because it was stood a “contributing building” in the downtown area. Said sections were all
considered during ADR Staff’s architectural review, and applicable Staff comments are included
under “Standards for a Certificate of Appropriateness,” as well as below:
Chapter 1: Rehabilitation Guidelines for Historic Properties
D. Rehabilitation of Historic Commercial Properties Mass and Size
Policy: Many storefronts in Bozeman have components seen traditionally on commercial buildings.
The repetition of these standard elements creates a visual unity at the street that should be
preserved.
Guidelines:
2. If a storefront is altered, restoring it to the original design is preferred.
Historic photographs were referenced during the remodel design of the existing building. See
attached for one example.
3. Alternative designs that are contemporary interpretations of traditional storefronts may be
considered where the historic façade is missing and no evidence of it exists.
After preliminary investigation, it was discovered that the original brick was destroyed by
adhesives used in the application of the existing cladding material. Several design elements of
the original building also were removed, including the corner turret, the castellations at the
parapet and the arched storefronts entries and second floor windows. Where the original is
missing and no evidence of its character exists, a new design that uses the traditional elements
may be considered.
The proposed design reflects both the original and traditional elements, including the typical
design of traditional storefronts (kickplates, recessed entries, etc.)
Greater flexibility in treatment of rear facades is appropriate. The remodel includes traditional
elements along South Bozeman.
8. A simplified interpretation is also appropriate for a replacement cornice if evidence of the original
is missing.
Appropriate materials include stone and brick, as proposed.
Additions to Commercial Properties
Policy: A ground-level addition that involves expanding the footprint of a structure may be considered. Such an
addition should be to the rear or side of a building. This will have the least impact on the character of the building.
Guidelines:
11. An addition should be compatible in scale, materials and character with the main building.
The proposed addition relates to the existing building in mass, scale and form. Though it is
higher in height, it is set back from the primary façade of the existing building.
Chapter 2: Design Guidelines for All Properties
I. Architectural Character
Policy: New construction should distinguish itself from historic structures.
The new construction is distinguished from the existing building by proposing different, but
compatible, building materials.
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV CC Staff Report (#Z-07033)
6 202
L. Site Lighting
Policy: Light spill onto adjacent properties and into the night sky should be minimized.
Guidelines:
1. Lighting shall be shielded to prevent any off-site glare.
Light fixtures should incorporate cut-off shields to direct light downward, including the
proposed lightshelves on the rear elevation.
The interior lighting in the glazed portion of the proposed addition shall be shut off at night
hours to be respectful to the night sky.
M. Utilities and Service Areas
Policy: Service areas should be visually unobtrusive and should be integrated with the design of the
site and the building.
The trash area is located behind a garage door off the rear alley, and therefore is visually
unobtrusive.
Chapter 4: Guidelines for the Commercial Character Area
A. Mass and Size
Policy: Patterns are created along the street by the repetition of similarly-sized building elements.
Guidelines:
1. Traditional spacing patterns created by the repetition of uniform building widths along streets
must be maintained.
The change in design and materials of the proposed addition along South Bozeman (glass to
stone) helps suggest the traditional building width of 50 feet. As proposed, the stone portion is
40 feet in width.
The slight building setback for the glass stairwell/elevator shaft also helps portray the traditional
spacing pattern of historic commercial buildings.
B. Building and Roof Form
Policy: Commercial buildings were simple rectangular solids, deeper than they were wide.
Guidelines:
2. Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form in the Main Street Historic District.
Flat roof lines are proposed for the addition.
C. Building Setbacks
Policy: Buildings create a strong edge to the street because they traditionally aligned on the front lot
line.
Guidelines:
1. Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk’s edge.
The majority of the proposed addition sits at the property line along the sidewalk’s edge.
The slight difference in building setback for the glass stairwell/elevator shaft helps portray the
traditional spacing pattern historic commercial buildings.
E. New Storefront Character
Policy: The street level floors of historic Bozeman commercial buildings are clearly distinguishable
from the upper floors. First floors are predominately fixed plate glass. Upper floors are the reverse-
opaque materials with recessed entries.
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV CC Staff Report (#Z-07033)
7 203
Guidelines:
1. Maintain the distinction between the street level and the upper floor.
The first floor along Main Street is predominately transparent glass and the entries are slightly
recessed, which invites a pedestrian inside the building. There is a distinction between in floor
heights between street levels and upper levels through appropriate architectural detailing,
materials and fenestration.
E. Conformance with other applicable development standards of this title.
Based on the requirements outlined in Chapter 18.34 of the Bozeman Unified Development
Ordinance, ADR Staff has provided comments in this report to comply with the “Site Plan Review
Criteria.”
Section 18.28.070 “Deviations from Underlying Zoning Requirements”
Section 18.28.070 specifies the required criteria for granting deviations from the underlying zoning
requirements. As previously mentioned, the project requires one deviation from Section 18.46.020,
“Stall, Aisle and Driveway Design,” to allow the garage parking spaces off the rear alley to supply
less than 26 feet of backing distance. In the discussion below, ADR Staff has evaluated the applicant's
request in light of these criteria.
A. Modifications shall be more historically appropriate for the building and site in question and
the adjacent properties;
The proposed addition is more historically appropriate for the Main Street Historic District because it
extends the existing building façade along the sidewalk edge on South Bozeman, which helps create a
strong edge to the street. Also, it eliminates the unsightly and inappropriate surface parking in the rear.
The building façade length is appropriately broken into two modules by the change in material (glass to
stone) and slight difference in building setback. Both modules also relate to the traditional building
pattern by being less than 50 feet in width.
It is the determination of the Historic Preservation Office and ADR Staff that, with conditions of
approval, the project generally meets Criteria A of Section 18.28.070 “Deviations from Underlying
Zoning Requirements,” of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance.
B. Modifications will have minimal adverse effect on abutting properties or the permitted uses
thereof;
Parking currently exists off the rear alley for the existing building. With the proposed addition, the
parking spaces are closer in distance to the Gallatin Laundry building. It does decrease Gallatin
Laundry’s available backing distance, which will likely help to prevent Gallatin Laundry from blocking
the alley access with their vans/ trucks. Planning Staff is also aware of Gallatin Laundry’s intention to
move from their existing site, which might completely remove the concern of backing distance all
together.
It is the determination of the Historic Preservation Office and ADR Staff that, with conditions of
approval, the project generally meets Criteria B of Section 18.28.070 “Deviations from Underlying
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV CC Staff Report (#Z-07033)
8 204
Zoning Requirements,” of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance.
C. Modifications shall assure the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare.
The parking situation off the rear alley is improved from the existing condition. The number of spaces
is reduced and only residential parking will be permitted (with the assumption that less use of the spaces
will occur throughout the day when used by the residential owners/renters).
It is the determination of the Historic Preservation Office and ADR Staff that, with conditions of
approval, the project generally meets Criteria C of Section 18.28.070 “Deviations from Underlying
Zoning Requirements,” of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance.
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.
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 Staff
Per 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.
Per 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.
Per 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.
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV CC Staff Report (#Z-07033)
9 205
Per Section 18.42.150, “Lighting,” if installed, all lighting shall comply with said Section
requirements.
Per 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.
Per 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, 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.
Per 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.
Per Section 18.52.070, “Comprehensive Sign Plan,” a comprehensive sign plan shall be
submitted for all commercial, office, industrial and civic uses consisting of two or more tenant or
occupant spaces on a lot, or two or more lots, subject to a common development permit or plan.\
Per Section 18.52.080, “Multitenant Complexes with Less Than 100,000 Square Feet of
Ground Floor Area,” any signage associate with the development must meet the requirements of
this section.
Per 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. 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.
Per 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.
Per Section 18.74.030, “Completion of Improvements,” the applicant shall provide
certification by the architect, landscape architect, engineer or other applicable professional that all
improvements, including but not limited to, landscaping, ADA accessibility requirements, private
infrastructure, or other required elements were installed in accordance with the approved site plan,
plans and specifications, or plat as applicable, unless a waiver of certification in whole or part is
explicitly approved by the Development Review Committee.
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV CC Staff Report (#Z-07033)
10 206
Engineering Staff
The Final Site Plan shall be adequately dimensioned with a complete legend of all line types and
symbols used provided.
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, conveyance
piping calculations, and a stormwater maintenance plan.
Sewer, water and fire services shall be shown 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.
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.
An asphalt paving section detail shall be provided to and approved by the City Engineer for the
alley paving.
Alley approach and street intersection vision triangles shall be shown on the Final Site Plan in
accordance with Section 18.44.100 UDO. The vision triangles shall be free of obstructions
greater than 30” in height.
Easements and right-of-way located on and adjacent to the site shall be depicted and labeled
appropriately. Distinction between proposed and existing easements shall be made.
Proposed and existing water/sewer services, mains and hydrants shall be depicted upon the
Landscape Plan and maintain a minimum horizontal separation of 10 feet to landscape trees and
lot lighting improvements. A note shall be added to the landscape plan to this affect.
A City Street Cut Permit shall be obtained prior to cutting of any publicly maintained street.
An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineering Department prior to the
storage of construction related materials or refuse/debris, and the erection of scaffolding or use
of cranes within a City right-of-way.
An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Montana Department of Transportation
prior to the storage of construction related materials or refuse/debris, and the erection of
scaffolding or use of cranes within a City right-of-way.
An Occupancy Permit shall be obtained from the Montana Department of Transportation prior
to installation of any new utilities or larger service lines in a state right-of-way.
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV CC Staff Report (#Z-07033)
11 207
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.
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.
C. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations;
The proposal conforms to all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations. The plans will be
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;
With the recommended conditions of approval, the proposal is found to be generally compatible to
the immediate environment of the Main Street Historic District. Further architectural design
discussion is presented in this report under the “Standards of a Certificate of Appropriateness”
section.
E. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions;
ADR Staff, the Bozeman Parking Commission and the applicant are working together on deciding
whether or not an ADA accessible space will be required along South Bozeman. The parking
situation off the rear alley is improved from the existing condition. The number of spaces is
reduced and only residential parking will be permitted (with the assumption that less use of the
spaces will occur throughout the day when used by the residential owners/renters).
F. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress;
Adequate pedestrian access is provided at street level along Bozeman Avenue, as well as in the rear
off the alley. With Engineering Staff conditions, the alley approach will be reconstructed to City
standards, therefore improving the vehicular access.
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;
No landscaping points are required for buildings within the “core area” of the “B-3” zoning district
(per a current code revision).
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV CC Staff Report (#Z-07033)
12 208
H. Open space;
The building, like most of the historic Main Street corridor sites, sits on approximately 100 percent
of its required property lines. Open space is not provided around the perimeter of the building, but
there is roof access for the office use and adequate public access is provided both in the front and
side for the retail uses.
I. Building location and height;
Please review the “Building Height” comments found under the “Standards for a Certificate of
Appropriateness” section of this report.
J. Setbacks;
Zero lot line conditions are proposed for the majority of the building’s street frontage, which are
appropriate for “B-3” zoning.
K. Lighting;
Staff is requiring the applicant to submit additional details for any and all proposed light fixtures on
the building. The details shall be provided with the Final Site Plan submittal.
L. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities;
Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities will be addressed by
Engineering Staff upon Final Site Plan submittal.
M. Site surface drainage and stormwater control;
Plans and specifications for any water, sewer and/or storm sewer main extensions, and Public or
Private Streets (including curb, gutter & sidewalks) prepared by a Professional Engineer (PE) shall
be provided to and approved by the City Engineer.
N. Loading and unloading areas;
The trash enclosure is located off the rear alley. 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 Department (phone: 586-3258) prior to Final
Site Plan approval.
O. Grading;
All proposed demolition and grading plans will be reviewed by Planning, Engineering and Building
Department Staff upon Final Site Plan submittal, to ensure the construction site is confined to its
property lines.
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV CC Staff Report (#Z-07033)
13 209
P. Signage;
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 site falls within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Based on the requirements
outlined in Chapter 18.28 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance, ADR Staff provided
comments and recommended conditions of approval to comply with the Bozeman Design
Guidelines for Historic Preservation & the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
S. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties;
No public comment was received in regards to this project.
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.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comment was received in regards to this proposal.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Based on the following analysis, Planning Staff, Engineering Staff, the DRC, and the ADR staff find 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:
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV CC Staff Report (#Z-07033)
14 210
Conditions of Approval
Planning Staff
1. With the Final Site Plan submittal, the applicant shall reflect the additional details in the parking
information chart:
a. Definition of “floor area” for parking calculations. When calculating the number of off-street
parking spaces, the applicant may choose to use 85% of the gross floor area, or may individually
subtract the areas described in Section 18.46.010.A of the Bozeman Unified Development
Ordinance.
b. An additional 5% reduction for transit availability shall be applied to the total required parking
spaces, as explained in Section 18.46.040.B.3 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance.
c. For all parking requirements, decimal figures round up to the higher number (i.e., 26.36 spaces >
27 spaces).
2. The applicant shall complete the proposed Phase 2 of the development before the expiration of the
extension granted for COA application #Z-05152. If additional time is required, the applicant shall
request an extension from the Planning Director.
3. The applicant shall enter into an improvements agreement with the City of Bozeman to ensure the
completion of the proposal’s Phase 2. The agreement’s language and required financial security shall
be decided by the Planning Director prior to Final Site Plan approval.
4. The proposed garage parking spaces in the rear of the addition shall be for the sole use of the
residential units. The applicant shall document and/or explain how the spaces will not be used for
the office and/or retail uses.
5. The ADA van accessible space in the proposed rear garage shall be removed, and rather three (3)
standard parking spaces for residential uses shall be provided.
6. One (1) on-street ADA accessible spot shall be added on the property’s street frontage along
Babcock Avenue (further discussion is occurring at the Planning Staff level to determine the
need for this requirement).
7. Lighting details, for all proposed lighting on the building, shall be provided with the Final Site Plan
submittal.
8. All mechanical equipment shall be screened in accordance with Unified Development Ordinance
Section 18.38.050. This shall include, but not limited too, air conditioners and electric panels. All
mechanical equipment and screening shall be depicted on the Final Site Plan submittal.
9. The Final Site Plan submittal shall include a color and materials palette of all new
construction (windows, doors, brick, stucco, metal, lap siding, etc.) for final review and
approval by Administrative Design Review Staff.
10. This project shall be constructed as approved and conditioned in the Certificate of
Appropriateness application. Any modifications to the submitted and approved drawing
shall invalidate the project’s approval unless the applicant submits the proposed
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV CC Staff Report (#Z-07033)
15 211
modifications for review and approval by the Department of Planning prior to undertaking
said modifications, as required by Section 18.62.040 of the Unified Development Ordinance.
Administrative Design Review Staff
11. The Final Site Plan submittal shall include a color palette and material sample board for all new
construction, for final review and approval by Administrative Design Review Staff.
12. Additional architectural modifications shall be incorporated into the final building design in order to
meet the guidelines of the Bozeman Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation, and should be
reflected in the Final Site Plan submittal:
a. The aluminum window frames shall not be silver, but rather a darker clad color.
b. All proposed window frames, in both the addition and the remodeled existing building, shall
match in cladding materials and color.
c. The proposed glazing for all new windows and doors shall be non-reflective.
d. The two proposed masonry/stone units (“Rocked Sundance” and “Smooth Wheat”) for the
addition shall be more distinct in color from each other
Engineering Staff
13. Any cracked, heaving, spalling or otherwise damaged sidewalk panels along the lot frontage shall be
replaced with new sidewalk. A typical sidewalk section detail shall be provided with the Final Site
Plan.
14. A new City Standard alley approach shall be constructed at the alley intersection with S. Bozeman
Ave. A construction detail for the new approach shall be provided with the Final Site Plan.
15. New asphalt paving shall be provided in the alley along the lot frontage.
16. The existing water service to be relocated in the alley shall be provided with a new service tap and
the existing tap shall be abandoned at the main.
Conclusion/Recommendation
The ADR Staff has reviewed this Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations application
to allow the following alterations to the property located at 140 East Main Street: 1) a three-story rear
addition, with a partial 4th story penthouse level, to the existing building, 2) improvements to the rear alley
drive access, 3) remodel of the existing building (as approved in a previously approved Certificate of
Appropriateness application) and 4) related site improvements. The DRC completed their review of the
application on March 21, 2007 and recommended approval of the project as conditioned by Planning Staff.
The DRB will offer their recommendations after the review of this report.
Various code provisions were identified as not being met. 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 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
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV CC Staff Report (#Z-07033)
16 212
Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. The Certificate of Appropriateness will be issued upon Final Site
Plan approval.
Attachments: Applicant’s Submittal Materials
Historic Photograph of Existing Building
Report Sent To: Callender Street LLP, 140 East Main Street, Bozeman, MT 59715
GSBS Architecture, 375 West 200 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV CC Staff Report (#Z-07033)
17 213
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
CALLENDER STREET/JLF ADDITION SP/COA/DEV FILE NO. #Z-07-033
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV DRB Staff Report (#Z-07033)
1
Item: Zoning Application #Z-07033, a Site Plan and Certificate of
Appropriateness with Deviations application requesting the following
alterations to the property located at 140 East Main Street: 1) a three-
story rear addition, with a partial 4th story penthouse level, to the
existing building, 2) improvements to the rear alley drive access, 3)
remodel of the existing building (as approved in a previously approved
Certificate of Appropriateness application) and 4) related site
improvements. Said property zoned as “B-3” (Central Business
District) and is located within the Main Street Historic District and the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
Owner/Applicant: Callender Street LLP
c/o Tamela Hauer & Jake Scott
140 East Main Street
Bozeman, MT 59715
Representative: GSBS Architecture
375 West 200 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Date: Design Review Board Meeting: Wednesday, March 28th 2007 at
5:30 PM, in the Upstairs Conference Room, Alfred M. Stiff Building,
20 East Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715.
Report By: Allyson C. Bristor AICP, Associate Planner
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
____________________________________________________________________________________
PROJECT LOCATION
The subject property is located at 140 East Main Street and is legally described as east 8 feet of Lot 8, Lots 9
& 10, Block B, Original Townsite, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The property is zoned as
B-3 (Central Business District) and is included within the Main Street Historic District and the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
Please refer to the vicinity map on the following page.
214
PROPOSAL
Property owner and applicant Callender Street LLP submitted a Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness
with Deviations application requesting the following alterations to the property located at 140 East Main
Street: 1) a three-story rear addition, with a partial 4th story penthouse level, to the existing building, 2)
improvements to the rear alley drive access, 3) remodel of the existing building (as approved in a previously
approved Certificate of Appropriateness application) and 4) related site improvements. The addition will
consist entirely of office use (for the JLF business). The ground floor of the existing building will be
retail/commercial uses and the second floor will be three, one-bedroom residential units.
The remodel of the existing building was approved by the City Commission in August 2005 through a
Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations application, and since that time the Planning Director
approved a request for an extension that terminates in June 2007. It is important for the Design Review
Board to keep in mind that the only portion of the building applicable to review is the proposed
addition. The DRB may make comments to the applicant about the proposed remodel of the
existing building, but any suggested conditions will not be mandated by Planning Staff since it
received previous approval by the City Commission.
Deviations are available to property owners with the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, upon
Bozeman City Commission review and approval. One deviation is requested for this application, from
Section 18.46.020, “Stall, Aisle and Driveway Design,” to allow the garage parking spaces off the
rear alley to supply less than 26 feet of backing distance.
The Development Review Committee (DRC) conducted their final review of the project proposal on March
21, 2007 and unanimously recommended approval of the project as conditioned by Planning Staff. This
application does not meet the thresholds established in Section 18.62.010.A.2.e of the Bozeman Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) to warrant review by the Design Review Board. However, Administrative
Design Review Staff wanted to obtain the Board’s feedback on this significant proposal.
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV DRB Staff Report (#Z-07033)
2 215
ZONING DESIGNATION & LAND USES
The subject property is zoned B-3 (Central Business District). As stated in the Bozeman Unified
Development Ordinance, the intent of B-3 zoning is to provide a central area for the community’s business,
government service and cultural activities. Uses within this district should be appropriate to such a focal
center with inappropriate uses being excluded. Room should be provided in appropriate areas for logical
and planned expansion of the present district.
It is the intent of this district to encourage high volume, pedestrian-oriented uses in ground floor space in
the “core area” of Bozeman’s central business district, i.e., along Main Street from Grand to Rouse and to
the alleys one-half block north and south from Main Street. Lower volume pedestrian uses such as
professional offices may locate on ground floor space in the B-3 area outside the above defined core. The
subject property is located outside of the defined “core area.”
The following land uses and zoning are adjacent to the subject property:
North: Retail “Army & Navy,” zoned B-3;
South: Alley & Service Retail “Gallatin Laundry Co.,” zoned B-3;
East: Commercial Bank “First Security,” zoned B-3;
West: Art Gallery “Altitude” and retail “Davis Torres,” zoned B-3.
ADOPTED GROWTH POLICY DESIGNATION
The subject property and the surrounding properties are designated as “Community Commercial” in the
2020 Community Plan. This development proposal is in conformance with the Bozeman 2020 Community
Plan including the “Community Commercial” land use designation. 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 functions including retail, education, professional and personal services,
offices, residences, and general service activities typify this designation. In the “center-based” land use
pattern, Community Commercial areas are integrated with significant transportation corridors, including
transit and non-automotive routes, to facilitate efficient travel opportunities. Community Commercial areas
are generally 120 to 140 acres in size and are activity centers for an area of several square miles surrounding
them. The density of development is expected to be higher than currently seen in most commercial areas in
Bozeman and should include multi-story buildings. It is considered desirable to have residences on upper
floors in some circumstances.
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
The City of Bozeman Department of Planning reviewed this application for a Site Plan and Certificate of
Appropriateness with Deviations against Sections 18.28 and 18.34 of the Bozeman Unified Development
Ordinance, and as a result offers the following summary review comments below. The findings outlined in
this report include comments and recommended conditions provided by the DRC and ADR Staff.
Section 18.28.050 “Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness”
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
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV DRB Staff Report (#Z-07033)
3 216
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).
With the conditions of approval, the proposal is found to be in conformance with the Secretary of
Interior Standards.
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 addition is historically appropriate for the surrounding Main Street Historic
District because it does not exceed the maximum 55-foot building height of the B-3 zoning
district’s core area. The difference in height between the addition and the existing building is
minimized by breaking the addition into appropriate building modules, proposing a variety of
building materials (glass to stone) and providing a slight increase in building setback for the glass
stairwell/elevator shaft.
2. Proportions of doors and windows;
The first floor along Main Street is predominately transparent glass and the entries are slightly
recessed, which invites a pedestrian inside the building. There is a distinction between in floor
heights between street levels and upper levels through appropriate architectural detailing,
materials and fenestration.
3. Relationship of building masses and spaces;
The proposed addition relates to the existing building in mass, scale and form. Though it is
higher in height, it is set back from the primary façade of the existing building.
4. Roof shape;
Flat roof lines are proposed for the addition, which are appropriate for the Main Street Historic
District.
5. Scale;
The proposed addition relates to the existing building in mass, scale and form. Though it is
higher in height, it is set back from the primary façade of the existing building.
6. Directional expression;
The addition is appropriately proposed to the rear of the existing building, extends the
directional expression along South Bozeman and provides a new façade on the rear alley.
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV DRB Staff Report (#Z-07033)
4 217
7. Architectural details;
As conditioned, the Final Site Plan materials shall include a materials and color palette for all
new construction, which will be reviewed by ADR Staff.
ADR Staff also had concern with some of the proposed architectural details. The silver
aluminum frames for the window units are too reflective and Staff is conditioning them to be a
darker color. Also, all window frames shall match for both the addition and the existing
building’s remodel and the glazing material shall all be non reflective.
8. Concealment of non-period appurtenances, such as mechanical equipment;
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. As conditioned, all mechanical equipment must be shown on the
Final Site Plan materials.
9. Materials and color scheme.
ADR Staff does have some concern with the proposed masonry/stone units for the addition.
As conditioned, Staff is requiring a greater distinction in color between the two proposed units
(“Rocked Sundance” and “Smooth Wheat”) to help better define the addition’s base, middle and
cap, and to help better relate with the existing building’s proposed redesign.
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.
The proposed addition is a combination of traditional and contemporary design. Its proposed
placement to the rear of the existing building is not destroying any significant features. The
transparent glass used for the stairwell/elevator shaft, and the slight increase in building setback,
adds modular dimension to the addition and distinguishes itself from the front, existing building.
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.
The Introduction, Chapters 2, 4 and 5, and the Appendix of the Design Guidelines for the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District all apply to this project, as the property is deemed a
“work on a non-contributing property ” in the Main Street Historic District. Chapter 1 is also
relevant, because it was stood a “contributing building” in the downtown area. Said sections were all
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV DRB Staff Report (#Z-07033)
5 218
considered during ADR Staff’s architectural review, and applicable Staff comments are included
under “Standards for a Certificate of Appropriateness,” as well as below:
Chapter 1: Rehabilitation Guidelines for Historic Properties
D. Rehabilitation of Historic Commercial Properties Mass and Size
Policy: Many storefronts in Bozeman have components seen traditionally on commercial buildings.
The repetition of these standard elements creates a visual unity at the street that should be
preserved.
Guidelines:
2. If a storefront is altered, restoring it to the original design is preferred.
Historic photographs were referenced during the remodel design of the existing building. See
attached for one example.
3. Alternative designs that are contemporary interpretations of traditional storefronts may be
considered where the historic façade is missing and no evidence of it exists.
After preliminary investigation, it was discovered that the original brick was destroyed by
adhesives used in the application of the existing cladding material. Several design elements of
the original building also were removed, including the corner turret, the castellations at the
parapet and the arched storefronts entries and second floor windows. Where the original is
missing and no evidence of its character exists, a new design that uses the traditional elements
may be considered.
The proposed design reflects both the original and traditional elements, including the typical
design of traditional storefronts (kickplates, recessed entries, etc.)
Greater flexibility in treatment of rear facades is appropriate. The remodel includes traditional
elements along South Bozeman.
8. A simplified interpretation is also appropriate for a replacement cornice if evidence of the original
is missing.
Appropriate materials include stone and brick, as proposed.
Additions to Commercial Properties
Policy: A ground-level addition that involves expanding the footprint of a structure may be considered. Such an
addition should be to the rear or side of a building. This will have the least impact on the character of the building.
Guidelines:
11. An addition should be compatible in scale, materials and character with the main building.
The proposed addition relates to the existing building in mass, scale and form. Though it is
higher in height, it is set back from the primary façade of the existing building.
Chapter 2: Design Guidelines for All Properties
I. Architectural Character
Policy: New construction should distinguish itself from historic structures.
The new construction is distinguished from the existing building by proposing different, but
compatible, building materials.
L. Site Lighting
Policy: Light spill onto adjacent properties and into the night sky should be minimized.
Guidelines:
1. Lighting shall be shielded to prevent any off-site glare.
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV DRB Staff Report (#Z-07033)
6 219
Light fixtures should incorporate cut-off shields to direct light downward, including the
proposed lightshelves on the rear elevation.
The interior lighting in the glazed portion of the proposed addition shall be shut off at night
hours to be respectful to the night sky.
M. Utilities and Service Areas
Policy: Service areas should be visually unobtrusive and should be integrated with the design of the
site and the building.
The trash area is located behind a garage door off the rear alley, and therefore is visually
unobtrusive.
Chapter 4: Guidelines for the Commercial Character Area
A. Mass and Size
Policy: Patterns are created along the street by the repetition of similarly-sized building elements.
Guidelines:
1. Traditional spacing patterns created by the repetition of uniform building widths along streets
must be maintained.
The change in design and materials of the proposed addition along South Bozeman (glass to
stone) helps suggest the traditional building width of 50 feet. As proposed, the stone portion is
40 feet in width.
The slight building setback for the glass stairwell/elevator shaft also helps portray the traditional
spacing pattern of historic commercial buildings.
B. Building and Roof Form
Policy: Commercial buildings were simple rectangular solids, deeper than they were wide.
Guidelines:
2. Use flat roof lines as the dominant roof form in the Main Street Historic District.
Flat roof lines are proposed for the addition.
C. Building Setbacks
Policy: Buildings create a strong edge to the street because they traditionally aligned on the front lot
line.
Guidelines:
1. Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk’s edge.
The majority of the proposed addition sits at the property line along the sidewalk’s edge.
The slight difference in building setback for the glass stairwell/elevator shaft helps portray the
traditional spacing pattern historic commercial buildings.
E. New Storefront Character
Policy: The street level floors of historic Bozeman commercial buildings are clearly distinguishable
from the upper floors. First floors are predominately fixed plate glass. Upper floors are the reverse-
opaque materials with recessed entries.
Guidelines:
1. Maintain the distinction between the street level and the upper floor.
The first floor along Main Street is predominately transparent glass and the entries are slightly
recessed, which invites a pedestrian inside the building. There is a distinction between in floor
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV DRB Staff Report (#Z-07033)
7 220
heights between street levels and upper levels through appropriate architectural detailing,
materials and fenestration.
E. Conformance with other applicable development standards of this title.
Based on the requirements outlined in Chapter 18.34 of the Bozeman Unified Development
Ordinance, ADR Staff has provided comments in this report to comply with the “Site Plan Review
Criteria.”
Section 18.28.070 “Deviations from Underlying Zoning Requirements”
Section 18.28.070 specifies the required criteria for granting deviations from the underlying zoning
requirements. As previously mentioned, the project requires one deviation from Section 18.46.020,
“Stall, Aisle and Driveway Design,” to allow the garage parking spaces off the rear alley to supply
less than 26 feet of backing distance. In the discussion below, ADR Staff has evaluated the applicant's
request in light of these criteria.
A. Modifications shall be more historically appropriate for the building and site in question and
the adjacent properties;
The proposed addition is more historically appropriate for the Main Street Historic District because it
extends the existing building façade along the sidewalk edge on South Bozeman, which helps create a
strong edge to the street. Also, it eliminates the unsightly and inappropriate surface parking in the rear.
The building façade length is appropriately broken into two modules by the change in material (glass to
stone) and slight difference in building setback. Both modules also relate to the traditional building
pattern by being less than 50 feet in width.
It is the determination of the Historic Preservation Office and ADR Staff that, with conditions of
approval, the project generally meets Criteria A of Section 18.28.070 “Deviations from Underlying
Zoning Requirements,” of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance.
B. Modifications will have minimal adverse effect on abutting properties or the permitted uses
thereof;
Parking currently exists off the rear alley for the existing building. With the proposed addition, the
parking spaces are closer in distance to the Gallatin Laundry building. It does decrease Gallatin
Laundry’s available backing distance, which will likely help to prevent Gallatin Laundry from blocking
the alley access with their vans/ trucks. Planning Staff is also aware of Gallatin Laundry’s intention to
move from their existing site, which might completely remove the concern of backing distance all
together.
It is the determination of the Historic Preservation Office and ADR Staff that, with conditions of
approval, the project generally meets Criteria B of Section 18.28.070 “Deviations from Underlying
Zoning Requirements,” of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance.
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV DRB Staff Report (#Z-07033)
8 221
C. Modifications shall assure the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare.
The parking situation off the rear alley is improved from the existing condition. The number of spaces
is reduced and only residential parking will be permitted (with the assumption that less use of the spaces
will occur throughout the day when used by the residential owners/renters).
It is the determination of the Historic Preservation Office and ADR Staff that, with conditions of
approval, the project generally meets Criteria C of Section 18.28.070 “Deviations from Underlying
Zoning Requirements,” of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance.
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.
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 Staff
Per 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.
Per 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.
Per 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.
Per Section 18.42.150, “Lighting,” if installed, all lighting shall comply with said Section
requirements.
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV DRB Staff Report (#Z-07033)
9 222
Per 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.
Per 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, 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.
Per 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.
Per Section 18.52.070, “Comprehensive Sign Plan,” a comprehensive sign plan shall be
submitted for all commercial, office, industrial and civic uses consisting of two or more tenant or
occupant spaces on a lot, or two or more lots, subject to a common development permit or plan.\
Per Section 18.52.080, “Multitenant Complexes with Less Than 100,000 Square Feet of
Ground Floor Area,” any signage associate with the development must meet the requirements of
this section.
Per 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. 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.
Per 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.
Per Section 18.74.030, “Completion of Improvements,” the applicant shall provide
certification by the architect, landscape architect, engineer or other applicable professional that all
improvements, including but not limited to, landscaping, ADA accessibility requirements, private
infrastructure, or other required elements were installed in accordance with the approved site plan,
plans and specifications, or plat as applicable, unless a waiver of certification in whole or part is
explicitly approved by the Development Review Committee.
Engineering Staff
The Final Site Plan shall be adequately dimensioned with a complete legend of all line types and
symbols used provided.
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV DRB Staff Report (#Z-07033)
10 223
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, conveyance
piping calculations, and a stormwater maintenance plan.
Sewer, water and fire services shall be shown 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.
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.
An asphalt paving section detail shall be provided to and approved by the City Engineer for the
alley paving.
Alley approach and street intersection vision triangles shall be shown on the Final Site Plan in
accordance with Section 18.44.100 UDO. The vision triangles shall be free of obstructions
greater than 30” in height.
Easements and right-of-way located on and adjacent to the site shall be depicted and labeled
appropriately. Distinction between proposed and existing easements shall be made.
Proposed and existing water/sewer services, mains and hydrants shall be depicted upon the
Landscape Plan and maintain a minimum horizontal separation of 10 feet to landscape trees and
lot lighting improvements. A note shall be added to the landscape plan to this affect.
A City Street Cut Permit shall be obtained prior to cutting of any publicly maintained street.
An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineering Department prior to the
storage of construction related materials or refuse/debris, and the erection of scaffolding or use
of cranes within a City right-of-way.
An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Montana Department of Transportation
prior to the storage of construction related materials or refuse/debris, and the erection of
scaffolding or use of cranes within a City right-of-way.
An Occupancy Permit shall be obtained from the Montana Department of Transportation prior
to installation of any new utilities or larger service lines in a state right-of-way.
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
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV DRB Staff Report (#Z-07033)
11 224
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.
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.
C. Conformance with all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations;
The proposal conforms to all other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations. The plans will be
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;
With the recommended conditions of approval, the proposal is found to be generally compatible to
the immediate environment of the Main Street Historic District. Further architectural design
discussion is presented in this report under the “Standards of a Certificate of Appropriateness”
section.
E. The impact of the proposal on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions;
ADR Staff, the Bozeman Parking Commission and the applicant are working together on deciding
whether or not an ADA accessible space will be required along South Bozeman. The parking
situation off the rear alley is improved from the existing condition. The number of spaces is
reduced and only residential parking will be permitted (with the assumption that less use of the
spaces will occur throughout the day when used by the residential owners/renters).
The proposal includes two stories of enclosed parking (one below ground level at one at ground
level). Ninety-three standard spaces are provided in said parking areas. Dependant on the final
design submitted at Final Site Plan, the applicant may be required to pay cash-in-lieu for some
parking spaces. Chris Pope, Chair of the Bozeman Parking Commission, informally polled the
group on the City Hotel request for cash-in-lieu parking spaces. Barring any significant changes to
the application, they will expect to approve the request at their February 8th 2007 meeting. By that
time, a better estimate of required parking through cash-in-lieu will be available (please see attached
parking calculations to see the current estimate of required parking).
F. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress;
Staff is conditioning the placement of appropriate signage warning both pedestrians and drivers to
be careful at the parking garage accesses.
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV DRB Staff Report (#Z-07033)
12 225
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;
No landscaping points are required for buildings within the “core area” of the “B-3” zoning district
(per a current code revision). As conditioned, a bike rack shall be provided on the sidewalk or
within the parking garage.
H. Open space;
The building, like most of the historic Main Street corridor sites, sits on approximately 100 percent
of its required property lines. Open space is not provided around the perimeter of the building, but
there is roof access for the office use and adequate public access is provided both in the front and
side for the retail uses.
I. Building location and height;
Please review the “Building Height” comments found under the “Standards for a Certificate of
Appropriateness” section of this report.
J. Setbacks;
Zero lot line conditions are proposed for the majority of the building’s street frontage, which are
appropriate for “B-3” zoning.
K. Lighting;
Staff is requiring the applicant to submit additional details for any and all proposed light fixtures on
the building. The details shall be provided with the Final Site Plan submittal.
L. Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities;
Provisions for utilities, including efficient public services and facilities will be addressed by
Engineering Staff upon Final Site Plan submittal.
M. Site surface drainage and stormwater control;
Plans and specifications for any water, sewer and/or storm sewer main extensions, and Public or
Private Streets (including curb, gutter & sidewalks) prepared by a Professional Engineer (PE) shall
be provided to and approved by the City Engineer.
N. Loading and unloading areas;
The trash enclosure is located off the rear alley. 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 Department (phone: 586-3258) prior to Final
Site Plan approval.
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV DRB Staff Report (#Z-07033)
13 226
O. Grading;
All proposed demolition and grading plans will be reviewed by Planning, Engineering and Building
Department Staff upon Final Site Plan submittal, to ensure the construction site is confined to its
property lines.
P. Signage;
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 site falls within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Based on the requirements
outlined in Chapter 18.28 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance, ADR Staff provided
comments and recommended conditions of approval to comply with the Bozeman Design
Guidelines for Historic Preservation & the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
S. Other related matters, including relevant comment from affected parties;
No public comment was received in regards to this project.
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.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comment was received in regards to this proposal.
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV DRB Staff Report (#Z-07033)
14 227
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Based on the following analysis, Planning Staff, Engineering Staff, the DRC, and the ADR staff find 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:
Conditions of Approval
Planning Staff
1. With the Final Site Plan submittal, the applicant shall reflect the additional details in the parking
information chart:
a. Definition of “floor area” for parking calculations. When calculating the number of off-street
parking spaces, the applicant may choose to use 85% of the gross floor area, or may individually
subtract the areas described in Section 18.46.010.A of the Bozeman Unified Development
Ordinance.
b. An additional 5% reduction for transit availability shall be applied to the total required parking
spaces, as explained in Section 18.46.040.B.3 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance.
c. For all parking requirements, decimal figures round up to the higher number (i.e., 26.36 spaces >
27 spaces).
2. The applicant shall complete the proposed Phase 2 of the development before the expiration of the
extension granted for COA application #Z-05152. If additional time is required, the applicant shall
request an extension from the Planning Director.
3. The applicant shall enter into an improvements agreement with the City of Bozeman to ensure the
completion of the proposal’s Phase 2. The agreement’s language and required financial security shall
be decided by the Planning Director prior to Final Site Plan approval.
4. The proposed garage parking spaces in the rear of the addition shall be for the sole use of the
residential units. The applicant shall document and/or explain how the spaces will not be used for
the office and/or retail uses.
5. The ADA van accessible space in the proposed rear garage shall be removed, and rather three (3)
standard parking spaces for residential uses shall be provided.
6. One (1) on-street ADA accessible spot shall be added on the property’s street frontage along
Babcock Avenue (further discussion is occurring at the Planning Staff level to determine the
need for this requirement).
7. Lighting details, for all proposed lighting on the building, shall be provided with the Final Site Plan
submittal.
8. All mechanical equipment shall be screened in accordance with Unified Development Ordinance
Section 18.38.050. This shall include, but not limited too, air conditioners and electric panels. All
mechanical equipment and screening shall be depicted on the Final Site Plan submittal.
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV DRB Staff Report (#Z-07033)
15 228
9. The Final Site Plan submittal shall include a color and materials palette of all new
construction (windows, doors, brick, stucco, metal, lap siding, etc.) for final review and
approval by Administrative Design Review Staff.
10. This project shall be constructed as approved and conditioned in the Certificate of
Appropriateness application. Any modifications to the submitted and approved drawing
shall invalidate the project’s approval unless the applicant submits the proposed
modifications for review and approval by the Department of Planning prior to undertaking
said modifications, as required by Section 18.62.040 of the Unified Development Ordinance.
Administrative Design Review Staff
11. The Final Site Plan submittal shall include a color palette and material sample board for all new
construction, for final review and approval by Administrative Design Review Staff.
12. Additional architectural modifications shall be incorporated into the final building design in order to
meet the guidelines of the Bozeman Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation, and should be
reflected in the Final Site Plan submittal:
a. The aluminum window frames shall not be silver, but rather a darker clad color.
b. All proposed window frames, in both the addition and the remodeled existing building, shall
match in cladding materials and color.
c. The proposed glazing for all new windows and doors shall be non-reflective.
d. The two proposed masonry/stone units (“Rocked Sundance” and “Smooth Wheat”) for the
addition shall be more distinct in color from each other
Engineering Staff
13. Any cracked, heaving, spalling or otherwise damaged sidewalk panels along the lot frontage shall be
replaced with new sidewalk. A typical sidewalk section detail shall be provided with the Final Site
Plan.
14. A new City Standard alley approach shall be constructed at the alley intersection with S. Bozeman
Ave. A construction detail for the new approach shall be provided with the Final Site Plan.
15. New asphalt paving shall be provided in the alley along the lot frontage.
16. The existing water service to be relocated in the alley shall be provided with a new service tap and
the existing tap shall be abandoned at the main.
Conclusion/Recommendation
The ADR Staff has reviewed this Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness with Deviations application
to allow the following alterations to the property located at 140 East Main Street: 1) a three-story rear
addition, with a partial 4th story penthouse level, to the existing building, 2) improvements to the rear alley
drive access, 3) remodel of the existing building (as approved in a previously approved Certificate of
Appropriateness application) and 4) related site improvements. The DRC completed their review of the
application on March 21, 2007 and recommended approval of the project as conditioned by Planning Staff.
The DRB will offer their recommendations after the review of this report.
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV DRB Staff Report (#Z-07033)
16 229
Various code provisions were identified as not being met. 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 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. The Certificate of Appropriateness will be issued upon Final Site
Plan approval.
Attachments: Applicant’s Submittal Materials
Historic Photograph of Existing Building
Report Sent To: Callender Street LLP, 140 East Main Street, Bozeman, MT 59715
GSBS Architecture, 375 West 200 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Callender Street/JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV DRB Staff Report (#Z-07033)
17 230
Design Review Board Minutes – March 28, 2007 1
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2007
MINUTES
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Livingston called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. and directed the secretary to
record the attendance.
Members Present Staff Present
Christopher Livingston Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Michael Pentecost Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Bill Rea
Walter Banziger
Elissa Zavora
Joe Batcheller
Visitors Present
Jake Scott
Tammy Hauer
Monte Hauer
Shawn O’Connell
Clint Pedrazzi
Katryn Mitchell
Chaucer Silverson
Jamie Morris
Craig Mendenhall
Cory Ravnaas
Katherine Schultz
Joby Sabol
ITEM 2. MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 2007.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Pentecost moved, Mr. Rea seconded, to approve the minutes of
March 14, 2007 as presented. The motion carried 6-0.
ITEM 3. PROJECT REVIEW
1. JLF Addition SP/COA/DEV #Z-07033 (Bristor)
140 East Main Street
* A Site Plan Application with a Certificate of Appropriateness and
Deviations to allow the construction of an addition and remodel of the
existing structure.
Tammy Hauer and Jake Scott joined the DRB. Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders
presented the Staff Report on Associate Planner Allyson Bristor’s behalf noting the second
paragraph on page12 should be stricken as it did not pertain to the proposal.
Mr. Scott stated there were two conditions in the Staff Report that he would like to address; the
aluminum frame was a concern for Staff as it was too reflective and bright so the applicant
231
Design Review Board Minutes – March 28, 2007 2
would be using black or colored metal instead with the glazing itself having a filter that would
make in non-reflective, and the other of Staff’s concerns was the color of the Ariscraft product
which would be the same color material with a different texture.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the applicant would be using real brick and the reason they
would be using it. Mr. Scott responded that they would be using the thin brick and the reason
was due to the setback and seismic requirements from the U.D.O. and the Building Code,
respectively. He added it was the applicant’s intent to build-out the sides of the building to
provide relief, shadowing, and break up the facades of the structure. Vice Chairperson Pentecost
asked the applicant to address condition #4 from the Staff Report. Mr. Scott explained that the
garage doors would only be used by the residents and the required parking would be provided.
Mr. Rea asked if the original building was under the proposal. Mr. Scott responded that it was.
Mr. Rea asked what the DRB was reviewing. Assistant Director Saunders responded the DRB
would be reviewing the building from the glass tower to the back of the structure. Mr. Rea asked
if the framing of the structure would match the storefront. Ms. Hauer explained which frames
would match and which would differ as compared to the glazing. Mr. Rea asked if the mullion
materials would be a different color. Mr. Scott responded they would be using different colors
with the same style to separate the historic structure from the addition. Mr. Rea asked if this
would be an informal review. Assistant Director Saunders responded this would be a formal
review with a formal recommendation to the City Commission for the new addition.
Mr. Batcheller asked why the project had been proposed in two parts. Ms. Hauer responded that
the approved restoration had been too intrusive into the operation of their business and the
addition could be occupied while the remodeling to the existing building occurred.
Mr. Rea asked the applicant to explain what materials would be used in one site on the proposal.
Mr. Scott explained the proposed materials and added that the dimensions were inaccurate in one
location.
Chairperson Livingston asked if the front façade would have Ariscraft material as well. Ms.
Hauer responded that it would and told the DRB what colors they were proposing. Chairperson
Livingston asked if there would be a green roof. Mr. Scott responded there would be.
Mr. Banziger asked if the coloration of the material would be different in one location than in
another. Mr. Scott responded it would have spandrel glass in one location and the rest would be
glazing; adding that the brick in those locations had been depicted incorrectly. Chairperson
Livingston added that in one location there would be an aluminum panel (wall section A5, where
the floor deck entered).
Mr. Rea stated he was relieved that the applicant was not using E.F.I.S., he had no problem with
the emulsion panel changing from one color to another, and he applauded the tower feature in the
middle; adding that he thought it would be controversial. He stated he applauded the applicant
for the sun shading and the green roof, but was disappointed not to see the applicant take those
efforts further. He stated he agreed with Staff conditions and suggested the project was very
clever.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he agreed with previous DRB comments and was only
disappointed that the brick from the original structure would not be kept. He stated he thought
232
Design Review Board Minutes – March 28, 2007 3
they had done a good job and he was in support of the project.
Ms. Zavora stated she was supportive of the proposal with Staff conditions.
Mr. Batcheller stated he supported the proposal and he liked to see more modern buildings
instituted in the downtown area. He added that he thought it might be a controversial building.
Mr. Banziger stated he liked the transition from the north to the south building and added that the
separation of the historic aspects of the building had been very well done. He stated he
supported the proposal with Staff conditions.
Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed with previous DRB comments, but he was concerned
that the proportion of the Ariscraft material was the same proportion as a concrete block; adding
that CMU block was not a good material to be present on Main Street due to its mass. He
suggested the use of something more horizontal than vertical as it would give the proposal a
more modern, horizontal presence and he would hate to have people think the applicant had used
concrete block.
MOTION: Mr. Rea moved, Mr. Batcheller seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval
for to the City Commission with Staff conditions. The motion carried 6-0.
Mr. Rea stated he agreed with Chairperson Livingston’s comment regarding the use of the
Ariscraft material and added that another, more sophisticated material could be used. Mr. Scott
responded that he would look into it and had no problem using another material or modifying the
proposed material to have less mass.
2. Story Mill Neighborhood PUD Concept Plan #Z-07056 (Saunders)
North and south of Griffin Drive, east and west of Story Mill Road
* A Planned Unit Development Concept Plan to allow the development of
~106.651 acres for a combination of B-1 (Neighborhood Business
District) , B-2 (Community Business District) , R-S (Residential Suburban
District), R-2 (Residential Two-Household, Medium Density District), and
R-4 (Residential High Density District) development.
Craig Mendenhall, Cory Ravnaas, and Katherine Schultz joined the DRB. Assistant Planning
Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report noting that the Stockyard had joined the
proposal in response to Chairperson Livingston asking if the proposal had grown from the last
time the DRB had seen it. Assistant Director Saunders stated the project would contain
approximately 106 acres; adding that it would be the single largest development ever to come
through the City of Bozeman review process. He stated there were a lot of relaxations being
requested due to the urban nature of the proposal and site restraints. He stated the biggest visual
impact would be the building heights; adding that they would be nearly doubling. He stated
there would be 20 PUD points required to be met by the proposal and the applicant had been
discussing point requirement options with Staff. He stated there was a lot of mature landscaping
that would be preserved. He stated the signage plan had not been addressed, but would be upon
Final PUD submittal. He stated there would be a lot of opportunities for plaza and open space
areas. He added that there would be stacked reviews for the proposal including; Site Plan,
Certificate of Appropriateness, and Conditional Use Permit.
233
Design Review Board Minutes – March 28, 2007 4
Mr. Mendenhall stated the applicant was excited to present the newly developed plans that would
now include the Stockyard and 1,200 dwelling units. He stated there would be 1.4 million
square feet of housing, 160,000 square feet of commercial space, and ~45 acres of open space.
Ms. Zavora asked the difference between the green colors depicting open space areas. Mr.
Mendenhall responded it was depicting the differences between open space areas and delineated
wetland areas that would be preserved. He stated a linear park would branch from the
watercourse setback and there would be park nodes along the trail. He stated there was a nearly
50/50 split between open space and construction areas. He stated there would be roughly five
miles of trails that would extend to other locations beyond their site with a 1 ½ mile loop around
the site itself. He stated the applicant was attempting to have the proposal a pilot for LEED
certified projects; he defined some of the potential strategies the applicant was considering
including; the institution of wind energy solutions, solar paneling, an on-site treatment plant,
rainwater harvesting, or solar hot water systems. He stated the applicant would be attending a
charette on green buildings the next Monday and invited the DRB to attend. Ms. Schultz added
that LEED was encouraging the applicant more height with more density and less urban sprawl.
Mr. Ravnaas added that the project would not be getting the largest amount of LEED points due
to the lower density of their proposal. Mr. Mendenhall directed the DRB to the overall street
layout of the proposal. Mr. Batcheller asked what the depicted bronze areas would be. Mr.
Mendenhall responded they would be dock-like bridges. Planner Saunders responded that the
County regulated and maintained all bridges and if the proposal contained a true bridge, the
proposal might have difficulties with the County Road Office.
Mr. Mendenhall noted the applicant had broken the proposal into seven areas they referred to as
districts that would be completed in 10 phases, and informed the DRB that the first “district” of
the project would be in the NE corner of the proposal and would be phase 1 of the development.
He stated the applicant’s purpose was to create an “edge” on Story Mill Road and Hillside Lane
with the institution of stoops to promote pedestrian activity. He stated the buffer there would be
more focused on building scale rather than vegetation. He cited an example depicting a possible
town home design that would work well as a transitional element on the site. Ms. Schultz added
that phase one would contain 23 residences.
Mr. Mendenhall stated that district two of the proposal would support the mill style of the
structures in that location. He directed the DRB to a color rendering of the mill structure that
would include office, retail, and residential elements within the mill itself. He stated one part of
the structure would be reinforced internally and reused as an outdoor plaza due to its dilapidated
condition.
Mr. Mendenhall stated that in district three of the proposal the applicant was attempting to create
activity along Volmer Street as it was primarily residential. Mr. Schultz added there would be
180 residential units along Volmer Street.
Mr. Mendenhall stated that in district four of the proposal the applicant was looking to blend the
site with the surrounding neighborhoods and to buffer the storage units to the north. Ms. Schultz
added that this district of the proposal would contain 130 dwelling units, 14,000 square feet of
retail, and 7,000 square feet of office space.
Mr. Mendenhall stated that in district five of the proposal the applicant was trying to organize the
home sites with space in between and a connection to the proposed trails. Ms. Schultz added that
it would contain 140 dwelling units.
234
Design Review Board Minutes – March 28, 2007 5
Mr. Mendenhall stated that district six (near the Boys & Girls Club) would contain a lot of the
proposed open space to provide for the creation of a multifunctional park that could work with
the Boys & Girls Club for scheduling of events. He stated the structures would be a little more
contemporary. Ms. Schultz added that there would be 300 dwelling units.
Mr. Mendenhall stated that district seven of the development would include the Stockyard
property and would be the most eclectic as it would contain the most varied uses. He added that
it would be most accessible to vehicular traffic, potentially reducing the amount of traffic on
Bozeman Avenue. He stated there would be ground level retail with offices on the second floor.
He added that the proposed building would be up to 75 feet high and they had provided a
maximum solar efficiency and a design dialog with the mill. Ms. Schultz added that there would
be 40,000 square feet of retail, 20,000 square feet of office space, and 60 dwelling units. Mr.
Mendenhall stated the Stockyard would need to respond to the mill and the open space areas
proposed in that location. He stated structured parking would be used to provide the maximum
amount of open space available.
Assistant Director Saunders stated that the review process for PUD’s had been discussed by he
and Mr. Ravnaas to determine the best way the proposal should be reviewed. Ms. Zavora asked
if it would be a proposed 10-year build out. Mr. Ravnaas responded it was estimated at a 10 year
build out.
Mr. Batcheller asked if the applicant intended to enhance any of the wetlands. Mr. Mendenhall
responded that was the applicant’s intention; adding that the wetlands would be cleaned out and
water would be filtered through them. Mr. Batcheller stated the proposed buffer for Bridger
Drive seemed out of place and asked the applicant to explain. Mr. Mendenhall responded the
applicant liked the trees and swale along Bridger Drive so they had decided to tuck single-family
lots into the trees to help transition the site to higher structures. Mr. Batcheller asked if the only
large park area would be near the Boys & Girls Club. Mr. Mendenhall responded there would be
other two acre parks that could provide the opportunity for soccer fields or other similar
activities. Mr. Batcheller asked the estimated start date for phase one of the proposal. Mr.
Ravnaas responded they would like to break ground in September if possible.
Mr. Banziger asked for the density, height, and massing of the buildings in blocks 27-29. Mr.
Mendenhall responded the proposed density was a reflection of the traffic in that location and
would provide for commercial and retail functions; adding that the commercial and retail
functions would need supported by the proposed residential structures. Mr. Banziger asked the
applicant to discuss the proposed height of the structures. Mr. Mendenhall responded there
would be six or seven story buildings that would not exceed 75 feet. Mr. Banziger stated the
proposal would have a small city feel. He asked how the proposal fit in with the existing taller
structures in the downtown area. Mr. Mendenhall stated the taller buildings would be designed
to step back on the upper levels to provide for a break in the massing of the structures. Mr.
Banziger asked if the applicant was still considering the 800 – 1,000 square foot size for the
proposed residential sites. Mr. Mendenhall responded they were. Mr. Banziger asked how the
public had responded to the proposal. Mr. Mendenhall responded he did not think the proposal
would have made it this far without great responses from the general public.
Mr. Rea asked if the commercial aspects of the development would contain short-term stay or
hotel facilities. Mr. Mendenhall responded the applicant had investigated those types of uses.
235
Design Review Board Minutes – March 28, 2007 6
Mr. Rea asked which phases would contain something of that nature. Mr. Ravnaas responded
those uses would be in phases 7 or 8 of the development. Mr. Rea asked if geothermal devices
would be instituted on the site. Mr. Mendenhall responded they had investigated cold
geothermal devices, but there might not be enough water available to support those techniques.
Mr. Rea asked if the ditch was still present. Mr. Mendenhall responded there was a ditch in that
location; Mr. Sabol added there were also water rights in that location, but the applicant did not
own them.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the level of the water table. Mr. Ravnaas responded the table
was 8-14 feet below the surface. Mr. Mendenhall added that they had to go below the frost line
for the construction of building foundations anyway, so underground parking would not be
difficult. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if the design guidelines were specific or general.
Ms. Schultz responded that some items had been specifically addressed (such as tree removal)
and structures had been left more general as the applicant was seeking an eclectic design to the
site. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked the applicant to discuss the design and build process for
the residential and then the commercial portions of the development with regard to whether or
not the DRB would be seeing architectural and design dictates. Mr. Mendenhall stated the
applicant was providing the DRB with conceptual ideas for massing and building aesthetics with
the use of hard data to support the proposal. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if GBD
Architects would be the designer architects for the proposal. Mr. Mendenhall responded they
would be the governing architects and other architects would also design specific sites to provide
for the eclectic nature of the proposal. Ms. Schultz added that GBD Architects would be part of
the design guideline process, but the final say would fall to the owner. Vice Chairperson
Pentecost asked the name of the street that connected to Rouse Avenue. Planner Saunders
responded it was Bryant Street. Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked if there would be a condition
in the design guidelines with language that all commercial and residential structures be LEED
certified. Ms. Schultz responded there would be language in the design guidelines, but it would
not be a requirement as there was currently no LEED standard specifically geared for residential
use.
Chairperson Livingston asked the amount to be reduced on the request for 150 square feet per
unit reduction to the required open space. Mr. Ravnaas responded the requested reduction would
be to almost zero in some cases as there was so much open space proposed within the project.
Mr. Saunders added that there were three open space requirements that must be met in the
proposal and green roofs would support a possible relaxation to those requirements. He added
that configured space of the open space was already required to be usable, private open space.
Chairperson Livingston asked if the proposal was subject to the park open space requirements
and what those requirements were. Planner Saunders responded they were subject to those
requirements and explained what they would be in relation to this proposal. Chairperson
Livingston asked for an example of the requested relaxation to allow no required yard setbacks.
Mr. Mendenhall responded there would be two areas; where retail would be on all four sides of
the building, and where open space would be located on all sides of the building. Chairperson
Livingston asked if there would be a maximum impervious coverage on some of those lots. Mr.
Mendenhall responded there would be a maximum allowable impervious coverage. Chairperson
Livingston asked if there had been a solar study done with regard to the heights of buildings and
their proximity to each other. Mr. Mendenhall responded that solar studies had been done and
some of the home sites could have more separation. Chairperson Livingston stated that adding
up height had indicated two different heights based on roof pitch. Mr. Mendenhall responded
that the preferred height would be the proposed 75 feet. Chairperson Livingston asked if the
236
Design Review Board Minutes – March 28, 2007 7
applicant thought people would see a stockade fence along the entire length of southern portion
of the site. Mr. Mendenhall responded that the design guidelines would need to be adhered to
and would dictate the design and height of fences. Ms. Schultz added that the fence design
would be a combination of low vegetation and fencing. Chairperson Livingston asked that if in
five years of no one purchasing any lots, what would happen to the existing approved PUD. Mr.
Ravnaas responded that a new PUD would have to reviewed and approved. Planner Saunders
concurred that there was language in the UDO that required the review of the PUD again if there
were any significant modifications to the approved plan.
Chairperson Livingston asked what would happen if the LEED strategy was completely
abolished. Planner Saunders responded that the PUD would need to be reviewed again and
added that if the conditions of approval were not met, the city would be able to enforce those
conditions. Mr. Sabol concurred with Planner Saunders and added that a good example of that
would be the River Rock Subdivision in Belgrade. He stated he thought that the owner of the
property could not shift a predominantly residential development to a commercial or industrial
development as it would be contrary to the conditions of approval. Chairperson Livingston
stated that his point had been what would the risk be that the development did not work and
would there be a method by which to ensure that the development was constructed as approved.
Mr. Mendenhall responded that, relatively, the proposal would only take a small amount of time
even being estimated at build-out in ten years.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost asked for verification of the zoning. Planner Saunders reiterated
which zoning classifications were being requested and reviewed by the City Commission. Vice
Chairperson Pentecost asked if the proposal should be classified as a Mixed-Use zoning district.
Planner Saunders responded that the proposed mixed-use zoning designation had not been
approved by the City Commission as of yet and many aspects of the development would not fit
in well with the proposal.
Ms. Zavora asked the progression of the proposal’s phasing. Mr. Ravnaas responded the first
couple phases would be done from north to south along the east side of the proposal as the
infrastructure was completed. Ms. Zavora asked what it would take to get the density points up
to the LEED certification they were attempting. Mr. Mendenhall responded it would take three
times as much density and it would need to be instituted in height. Planner Saunders stated the
density downtown could be 200 units per acre as there was no minimum square footage required
per lot; there could not be such high densities in residential zoning districts as there was a
minimum square footage required per lot.
Mr. Batcheller asked if there had been any traffic projections done, with regard to internal trip
capture, within the 20 some odd blocks affected by this proposal. Mr. Ravnaas stated the
applicant had an idea about how much vehicular traffic would be generated and they had been
conservative in their traffic estimates. Planner Saunders added there had been traffic lights
approved and funded for Griffin Drive & Rouse Avenue and Oak Street & Rouse Avenue that
would assist in calming some of the traffic generated by this proposal. Mr. Batcheller stated he
was curious how much gridlocked traffic attempting to get out would be framed within the
proposal. Mr. Ravnaas responded that, hopefully, it would be traffic using their services instead
of crossing town.
Ms. Zavora asked if Story Mill Road would remain a dirt road. Mr. Ravnaas responded that it
would be paved. Planner Saunders added that options were being explored for some sort of
237
Design Review Board Minutes – March 28, 2007 8
bridge structure across the railroad tracks and creek. Chairperson Livingston suggested a method
that would cause the abandonment of L Street and asked if parking on the street would be
counted toward the parking calculations. Mr. Mendenhall stated only 25% of the parking on the
street would be counted.
Mr. Rea stated he was wildly in favor of the project and was very hopeful that it would happen.
He stated the Mill Spur Trail seemed like a strong connection as a bicycle path and it had not
been thoroughly discussed. Mr. Mendenhall responded they would provide an additional
easement for the trail to pass the bike lanes. Mr. Rea stated the clarity of the phases was very
important so that the development would be built out as planned. He stated he was more and
more bothered by the sustainable community discussion as everything in the proposal was
undecided. He stated there were easy and difficult LEED points to acquire and they should be
more focused on their LEED elements. He suggested he would like to see all the buildings Net
Zero certified instead of LEED certified as it would be one step higher in classification. Mr.
Mendenhall responded the highlighted areas were the LEED requirements that the owner had
wanted to see. Mr. Rea responded he wanted to hold the applicant to the LEED requirements.
He stated he thought the applicant had made progress in the area of road design and suggested
that everything north of the East Gallatin River was an obvious place to locate a Jeffersonian
Grid street design. He stated that he was concerned with the economic gutting of downtown as
there were many commercial spaces downtown that were available for lease and an economic
vacuum might be created. He stated he was fine with the proposal being seen once if all aspects
of the proposal were clearly depicted (i.e. landscaping, elevations, etc.) and added that the
applicant probably could not comply with every site being completely planned; he suggested the
DRB review the proposal in phases.
Vice Chairperson Pentecost stated he supported previous DRB statements. He stated he would
be supportive of the requested heights of the taller buildings within the proposal as the grade
from Main Street was an 80 foot difference. He stated he was supportive of reviewing the
project in phases as that provided evidence of the proposed architecture as opposed to site plan
review. He suggested the current design guidelines did not seem extensive enough. He stated
the applicant had presented design forms on the renderings brought to the meeting, he
appreciated the diversity of those renderings, and it was something he really expected to see, but
GBD Architects would not be designing the whole development. He stated the presentation
tonight would not be the same from another architect. He stated he was in support of the
proposal as it could be made to work. He noted that some of the sites within the proposal were
in the Entryway Corridor and would be reviewed on a site plan basis under the requirements of
the U.D.O.
Ms. Zavora stated she agreed with previous DRB comments, but liked the proposed layout of the
streets. She stated she was concerned that the development would not be completed as designed
and approved; adding that she would prefer to review the proposal in phases.
Mr. Batcheller stated he did not have any problem with the proposal and he agreed with previous
DRB comments, but he was concerned with the generation of traffic. He suggested the applicant
look into an interchange at L Street. Planner Saunders responded there would be a 20 year lead
time and a $30,000,000.00 price tag on an interchange in that location. Mr. Batcheller stated that
he thought the development would encourage downtown to be more competitive.
Mr. Banziger stated he was supportive of the proposal and agreed with previous DRB comments.
238
Design Review Board Minutes – March 28, 2007 9
He stated he thought the DRB would need to see the development in phases due to the market
and other aspects of the development changing. He stated he was not concerned with the
proposed layout of the streets, but thought Jeffersonian Grid would work nicely as well. He
stated he would like to see a lot of the infrastructure installed in the first phases. He stated he
was surprised that the affordable rental LEED requirement had not been met. Mr. Mendenhall
responded that there would be affordable rentals instituted in the proposal. He suggested the
feeling of the development would create another city center and he did not know how that would
impact the community. Planner Saunders responded that the expectation is that Bozeman would
be a multi-core community.
Chairperson Livingston stated he agreed with previous DRB comments. He stated he thought
the proposal illustrated a good vision for the city as another version of what something away
from the center of town could be and the height request did not bother him. He stated that he
was concerned that the regulatory structure of the U.D.O. did not provide the opportunity for the
DRB to review the proposal as intimately as necessary. He stated some of the larger buildings
were things that the DRB typically got involved in and suggested the applicant bring the largest
structures (those meeting the criteria for DRB in Entryway Corridors) and those of historical
significance back to the DRB for review. Mr. Ravnaas stated he was not concerned with coming
back to the DRB for review, but was concerned that the future reviews would alter the overall
layout of the proposal. Chairperson Livingston responded it would be more of a guiding
document that would become a part of the competitive market. Mr. Rea stated that he did not
want to see the infrastructure of the proposal with the review of the phasing. Mr. Saunders stated
the DRB would want to see the successive iteration of detail that would be reviewed at Site Plan
submittal.
ITEM 4. 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.}
The owner of Gallatin Laundry, Shawn O’Connell, stated he was concerned with preserving the
historical presence of his building in downtown Bozeman and with JLF’s proposed alley access
from Bozeman Avenue as it would reduce entrance to the alley for his delivery vehicles (semi
trucks); adding that he was interested in improving the access for the future development and
growth of Gallatin Laundry. He stated they had entertained the removal of a wall on their
structure or the increase of the width of the alley to increase the accessibility to his business for
his employees. Chairperson Livingston suggested that Mr. O’Connell submit those comments in
writing so that review boards and commissions would receive the comments in their packets and
could examine them with the proposal. Assistant Director Saunders added that public comment
submitted by Wednesday would be included in packets, but Staff would appreciate receiving the
comments sooner to allow for time for any other City departmental review.
ITEM 5. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further comments from the DRB, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
________________________________
Christopher Livingston, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Design Review Board
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
WALL TYPES SCHEDULETYPE STC DESCRIPTION-C4--C4- CONCRETE WALL SEE STRUCTURAL.TYPE STC DESCRIPTION-M1-M1- NEW MASONRY VENEER OVER EXISTING FAÇADE-M2-M2- NEW MASONRY OVER MTL. STUD, EXTERIOR SHEATHING, AND WEATHER BARRIER.TYPE STC DESCRIPTION-D1--D1- 3-5/8" METAL STUDS (U.N.O.) @ 16" O.C. w/ 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD EACH SIDE. EXTEND GYP. BD. TO 6" ABOVE FINISHED CEILING.-D2--D2- 35 SAME AS TYPE "D1" EXCEPT EXTEND GYP. BD. TO DECK ABOVE.-D3--D3- 45 3-5/8 METAL STUDS (24 GA.) @ 16" O.C. w/ 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD EACH SIDE. EXTEND GYP. BD. TO DECK ABOVE. FILL CAVITY w/ 3" FIBERGLASS SOUND ATTENUATION BLANKET.-D6--D6- 7/8" METAL FURRING CHANNELS@ 16" O.C. w/ 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD ONE SIDE. EXTEND GYP. BD. TO 6" ABOVE FINISHED CEILING.TYPE STC DESCRIPTION-E1--E1- 40 3-5/8" METAL STUDS @ 16" O.C. w/ 5/8" 'TYPE X' GYPSUM BOARD EACH SIDE. EXTEND GYP. BD. TO DECK ABOVE. JOINTS FINISHED and PERIMETER CAULKED. ONE HOUR RATING.TYPE STC DESCRIPTION-J2--J2- 4" METAL C/T STUDS @ 24" O.C. w/ 5/8" 'TYPE X' GYPSUM BOARD (INSTALLED VERTICALLY) ONE SIDE and 1" SHAFT LINER PANELS ONE SIDE. ONE HOUR RATING.-J3--J3- 6" METAL C/T STUDS @ 24" O.C. w/ 5/8" 'TYPE X' GYPSUM BOARD (INSTALLED VERTICALLY) ONE SIDE and 1" SHAFT LINER PANELS ONE SIDE. ONE HOUR RATING.1. WALL TYPE TO CONTINUE AT DOOR AND WINDOW OPENINGS (TOP AND BOTTOM) U.N.O.2. THE INTENT OF ACOUSTICAL PARTITIONS IS TO ACHIEVE AS HIGH AN STC RATING AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT USING ACOUSTICAL SEALANT. RUN GYPSUM BOARD AS TIGHT AS POSSIBLE AT FLOORS, CEILINGS AND PENETRATIONS, U.N.O.3. USE WATER RESISTANT GYPSUM BOARD AT ALL WET WALL LOCATIONS, TYPICAL.CONCRETE WALLSNOTES:METAL STUD SHAFT WALLSNON RATED METAL STUD WALLSRATED METAL STUD WALLSMASONRY WALLS246
WALL TYPES SCHEDULETYPE STC DESCRIPTION-C4--C4- CONCRETE WALL SEE STRUCTURAL.TYPE STC DESCRIPTION-M1-M1- NEW MASONRY VENEER OVER EXISTING FAÇADE-M2-M2- NEW MASONRY OVER MTL. STUD, EXTERIOR SHEATHING, AND WEATHER BARRIER.TYPE STC DESCRIPTION-D1--D1- 3-5/8" METAL STUDS (U.N.O.) @ 16" O.C. w/ 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD EACH SIDE. EXTEND GYP. BD. TO 6" ABOVE FINISHED CEILING.-D2--D2- 35 SAME AS TYPE "D1" EXCEPT EXTEND GYP. BD. TO DECK ABOVE.-D3--D3- 45 3-5/8 METAL STUDS (24 GA.) @ 16" O.C. w/ 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD EACH SIDE. EXTEND GYP. BD. TO DECK ABOVE. FILL CAVITY w/ 3" FIBERGLASS SOUND ATTENUATION BLANKET.-D6--D6- 7/8" METAL FURRING CHANNELS@ 16" O.C. w/ 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD ONE SIDE. EXTEND GYP. BD. TO 6" ABOVE FINISHED CEILING.TYPE STC DESCRIPTION-E1--E1- 40 3-5/8" METAL STUDS @ 16" O.C. w/ 5/8" 'TYPE X' GYPSUM BOARD EACH SIDE. EXTEND GYP. BD. TO DECK ABOVE. JOINTS FINISHED and PERIMETER CAULKED. ONE HOUR RATING.TYPE STC DESCRIPTION-J2--J2- 4" METAL C/T STUDS @ 24" O.C. w/ 5/8" 'TYPE X' GYPSUM BOARD (INSTALLED VERTICALLY) ONE SIDE and 1" SHAFT LINER PANELS ONE SIDE. ONE HOUR RATING.-J3--J3- 6" METAL C/T STUDS @ 24" O.C. w/ 5/8" 'TYPE X' GYPSUM BOARD (INSTALLED VERTICALLY) ONE SIDE and 1" SHAFT LINER PANELS ONE SIDE. ONE HOUR RATING.1. WALL TYPE TO CONTINUE AT DOOR AND WINDOW OPENINGS (TOP AND BOTTOM) U.N.O.2. THE INTENT OF ACOUSTICAL PARTITIONS IS TO ACHIEVE AS HIGH AN STC RATING AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT USING ACOUSTICAL SEALANT. RUN GYPSUM BOARD AS TIGHT AS POSSIBLE AT FLOORS, CEILINGS AND PENETRATIONS, U.N.O.3. USE WATER RESISTANT GYPSUM BOARD AT ALL WET WALL LOCATIONS, TYPICAL.CONCRETE WALLSNOTES:METAL STUD SHAFT WALLSNON RATED METAL STUD WALLSRATED METAL STUD WALLSMASONRY WALLS247
WALL TYPES SCHEDULETYPE STC DESCRIPTION-C4--C4- CONCRETE WALL SEE STRUCTURAL.TYPE STC DESCRIPTION-M1-M1- NEW MASONRY VENEER OVER EXISTING FAÇADE-M2-M2- NEW MASONRY OVER MTL. STUD, EXTERIOR SHEATHING, AND WEATHER BARRIER.TYPE STC DESCRIPTION-D1--D1- 3-5/8" METAL STUDS (U.N.O.) @ 16" O.C. w/ 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD EACH SIDE. EXTEND GYP. BD. TO 6" ABOVE FINISHED CEILING.-D2--D2- 35 SAME AS TYPE "D1" EXCEPT EXTEND GYP. BD. TO DECK ABOVE.-D3--D3- 45 3-5/8 METAL STUDS (24 GA.) @ 16" O.C. w/ 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD EACH SIDE. EXTEND GYP. BD. TO DECK ABOVE. FILL CAVITY w/ 3" FIBERGLASS SOUND ATTENUATION BLANKET.-D6--D6- 7/8" METAL FURRING CHANNELS@ 16" O.C. w/ 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD ONE SIDE. EXTEND GYP. BD. TO 6" ABOVE FINISHED CEILING.TYPE STC DESCRIPTION-E1--E1- 40 3-5/8" METAL STUDS @ 16" O.C. w/ 5/8" 'TYPE X' GYPSUM BOARD EACH SIDE. EXTEND GYP. BD. TO DECK ABOVE. JOINTS FINISHED and PERIMETER CAULKED. ONE HOUR RATING.TYPE STC DESCRIPTION-J2--J2- 4" METAL C/T STUDS @ 24" O.C. w/ 5/8" 'TYPE X' GYPSUM BOARD (INSTALLED VERTICALLY) ONE SIDE and 1" SHAFT LINER PANELS ONE SIDE. ONE HOUR RATING.-J3--J3- 6" METAL C/T STUDS @ 24" O.C. w/ 5/8" 'TYPE X' GYPSUM BOARD (INSTALLED VERTICALLY) ONE SIDE and 1" SHAFT LINER PANELS ONE SIDE. ONE HOUR RATING.1. WALL TYPE TO CONTINUE AT DOOR AND WINDOW OPENINGS (TOP AND BOTTOM) U.N.O.2. THE INTENT OF ACOUSTICAL PARTITIONS IS TO ACHIEVE AS HIGH AN STC RATING AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT USING ACOUSTICAL SEALANT. RUN GYPSUM BOARD AS TIGHT AS POSSIBLE AT FLOORS, CEILINGS AND PENETRATIONS, U.N.O.3. USE WATER RESISTANT GYPSUM BOARD AT ALL WET WALL LOCATIONS, TYPICAL.CONCRETE WALLSNOTES:METAL STUD SHAFT WALLSNON RATED METAL STUD WALLSRATED METAL STUD WALLSMASONRY WALLS248
WALL TYPES SCHEDULETYPE STC DESCRIPTION-C4--C4- CONCRETE WALL SEE STRUCTURAL.TYPE STC DESCRIPTION-M1-M1- NEW MASONRY VENEER OVER EXISTING FAÇADE-M2-M2- NEW MASONRY OVER MTL. STUD, EXTERIOR SHEATHING, AND WEATHER BARRIER.TYPE STC DESCRIPTION-D1--D1- 3-5/8" METAL STUDS (U.N.O.) @ 16" O.C. w/ 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD EACH SIDE. EXTEND GYP. BD. TO 6" ABOVE FINISHED CEILING.-D2--D2- 35 SAME AS TYPE "D1" EXCEPT EXTEND GYP. BD. TO DECK ABOVE.-D3--D3- 45 3-5/8 METAL STUDS (24 GA.) @ 16" O.C. w/ 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD EACH SIDE. EXTEND GYP. BD. TO DECK ABOVE. FILL CAVITY w/ 3" FIBERGLASS SOUND ATTENUATION BLANKET.-D6--D6- 7/8" METAL FURRING CHANNELS@ 16" O.C. w/ 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD ONE SIDE. EXTEND GYP. BD. TO 6" ABOVE FINISHED CEILING.TYPE STC DESCRIPTION-E1--E1- 40 3-5/8" METAL STUDS @ 16" O.C. w/ 5/8" 'TYPE X' GYPSUM BOARD EACH SIDE. EXTEND GYP. BD. TO DECK ABOVE. JOINTS FINISHED and PERIMETER CAULKED. ONE HOUR RATING.TYPE STC DESCRIPTION-J2--J2- 4" METAL C/T STUDS @ 24" O.C. w/ 5/8" 'TYPE X' GYPSUM BOARD (INSTALLED VERTICALLY) ONE SIDE and 1" SHAFT LINER PANELS ONE SIDE. ONE HOUR RATING.-J3--J3- 6" METAL C/T STUDS @ 24" O.C. w/ 5/8" 'TYPE X' GYPSUM BOARD (INSTALLED VERTICALLY) ONE SIDE and 1" SHAFT LINER PANELS ONE SIDE. ONE HOUR RATING.1. WALL TYPE TO CONTINUE AT DOOR AND WINDOW OPENINGS (TOP AND BOTTOM) U.N.O.2. THE INTENT OF ACOUSTICAL PARTITIONS IS TO ACHIEVE AS HIGH AN STC RATING AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT USING ACOUSTICAL SEALANT. RUN GYPSUM BOARD AS TIGHT AS POSSIBLE AT FLOORS, CEILINGS AND PENETRATIONS, U.N.O.3. USE WATER RESISTANT GYPSUM BOARD AT ALL WET WALL LOCATIONS, TYPICAL.CONCRETE WALLSNOTES:METAL STUD SHAFT WALLSNON RATED METAL STUD WALLSRATED METAL STUD WALLSMASONRY WALLS249
WALL TYPES SCHEDULETYPE STC DESCRIPTION-C4--C4- CONCRETE WALL SEE STRUCTURAL.TYPE STC DESCRIPTION-M1-M1- NEW MASONRY VENEER OVER EXISTING FAÇADE-M2-M2- NEW MASONRY OVER MTL. STUD, EXTERIOR SHEATHING, AND WEATHER BARRIER.TYPE STC DESCRIPTION-D1--D1- 3-5/8" METAL STUDS (U.N.O.) @ 16" O.C. w/ 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD EACH SIDE. EXTEND GYP. BD. TO 6" ABOVE FINISHED CEILING.-D2--D2- 35 SAME AS TYPE "D1" EXCEPT EXTEND GYP. BD. TO DECK ABOVE.-D3--D3- 45 3-5/8 METAL STUDS (24 GA.) @ 16" O.C. w/ 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD EACH SIDE. EXTEND GYP. BD. TO DECK ABOVE. FILL CAVITY w/ 3" FIBERGLASS SOUND ATTENUATION BLANKET.-D6--D6- 7/8" METAL FURRING CHANNELS@ 16" O.C. w/ 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD ONE SIDE. EXTEND GYP. BD. TO 6" ABOVE FINISHED CEILING.TYPE STC DESCRIPTION-E1--E1- 40 3-5/8" METAL STUDS @ 16" O.C. w/ 5/8" 'TYPE X' GYPSUM BOARD EACH SIDE. EXTEND GYP. BD. TO DECK ABOVE. JOINTS FINISHED and PERIMETER CAULKED. ONE HOUR RATING.TYPE STC DESCRIPTION-J2--J2- 4" METAL C/T STUDS @ 24" O.C. w/ 5/8" 'TYPE X' GYPSUM BOARD (INSTALLED VERTICALLY) ONE SIDE and 1" SHAFT LINER PANELS ONE SIDE. ONE HOUR RATING.-J3--J3- 6" METAL C/T STUDS @ 24" O.C. w/ 5/8" 'TYPE X' GYPSUM BOARD (INSTALLED VERTICALLY) ONE SIDE and 1" SHAFT LINER PANELS ONE SIDE. ONE HOUR RATING.1. WALL TYPE TO CONTINUE AT DOOR AND WINDOW OPENINGS (TOP AND BOTTOM) U.N.O.2. THE INTENT OF ACOUSTICAL PARTITIONS IS TO ACHIEVE AS HIGH AN STC RATING AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT USING ACOUSTICAL SEALANT. RUN GYPSUM BOARD AS TIGHT AS POSSIBLE AT FLOORS, CEILINGS AND PENETRATIONS, U.N.O.3. USE WATER RESISTANT GYPSUM BOARD AT ALL WET WALL LOCATIONS, TYPICAL.CONCRETE WALLSNOTES:METAL STUD SHAFT WALLSNON RATED METAL STUD WALLSRATED METAL STUD WALLSMASONRY WALLS250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284